Yingluck: 2006 Military Coup Makes Country Lose Opportunities; Thus Amendment Needed

[backtonormal]

Unbelievable! Is she really so naive and actually believes what she's blabbering or have these words perhaps been spoon-fed to her by "someone"?

Ma'am, how many times have you insisted publicly in the past few months that foreigners had tremendous confidence in Thailand? Wasn't all your extensive traveling abroad over the past year primarily intended to further shore up that confidence and didn't you claim each and every time what a smashing success your respective trip was? And now this revelation? The mind boggles.

Ma'am, a coup that took place almost 7 years ago has little bearing on the confidence of foreign investors in Thailand. If you want to search for reasons that might actually shake that confidence, I believe you must be looking closer to home: institutionalised corruption with everyone getting their turn at the feeding trough, red-shirted thugs running rampage and even being offered cabinet posts, a government that is directed/played by a fugitive convicted felon from abroad, incompetent ministers who earned their posts due to dubious "loyalties" instead of capabilities; and the list goes on.

Most people on the streets (those who you claim you represent) are perfectly aware why your government is pushing so vehemently to amend the current constitution: because the current checks and balances must be done away with to enable more feeding at the trough, because the judiciary is deemed too powerful and curbs those feeding frenzies all too often, and of course as a first step to enable the glorious return of the messiah.

I think she forgets that Abhist went a long way towards reassuring foreigners that there will be no more coups when they kicked ass on her brothers attempt in 2010.

I believe she forgets (conveniently) that if it had not been for the last coup Thailand would now be a dictatorship.

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

See my post above if you think he's the most popular Thai. That honor is reserved for a very special person, as you well know.

However his sister has been judged more popular than her divisive brother.

Apologies for not stating more clearly. Most popular Thai ever outside of the person you mentioned. But you did not deny his popularity and yes if there was an election tomorrow he would win by more than 100 seats again

[rubl]

Apologies for not stating more clearly. Most popular Thai ever outside of the person you mentioned. But you did not deny his popularity and yes if there was an election tomorrow he would win by more than 100 seats again

Most popular criminal fugitive outside Thailand?

If there was an election tomorrow k. Thaksin would still not participate (officially) as he is 1) a fugitive, 2) needs to spent his two years in gaol, 3) needs five more years after getting out, 4) etc., etc.

Now back to the topic which has PM Yingluck saying foreigners don't like some things and that hold's Thailand back. Might she already be referring to the ICJ or perchance maybe the ICC?

Edited January 9, 2013 by rubl

[Buchholz]

Agreeably it is difficult to find another country run by a declared clone.

.

And the one to which you are referring is?

I thought most posters were knowledgeable of the infamous declaration, but it was graciously provided again earlier in the thread for those apparently unaware.

Thaksin described Yingluck as not my nominee but my clone, in an interview published May 20 in the Bangkok-based Matichon newspaper.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-15/thaksin-looms-in-thai-vote-as-yingluck-lead-unsettles-investors.html

[muttley]

I thought most posters were knowledgeable of the infamous declaration, but it was graciously provided again earlier in the thread for those apparently unaware.

Thaksin described Yingluck as not my nominee but my clone, in an interview published May 20 in the Bangkok-based Matichon newspaper.

http://www.bloomberg...-investors.html

Infamous declaration? What is infamous about it? Some peoples imagination.........

No, I am quite aware of the quote, it's how it is interpreted by most posters on here that I have a problem with. A clone generally is regarded as being cells that are identical. OK take the cell bit with a pinch of salt as Thaksin clearly didn't mean that, but he did mean (and said) that he and his sister were very close and that he was responsible for her upbringing, from your link;

Yingluck: “We are a very close family.”

Thaksin described Yingluck as “not my nominee but my clone"

Thaksin: “I raised her like my eldest daughter because mom passed away when she was young,”

The quote has been distorted on numerous occasions on here as implying that Thaksin is using Yingluck as a proxy. There a world of difference between someone describing someone else as their clone (being the same as) and proxy (acting on behalf of) but I guess you and all the other posters knew that already.

[Thai at Heart]

Unbelievable! Is she really so naive and actually believes what she's blabbering or have these words perhaps been spoon-fed to her by "someone"?

Ma'am, how many times have you insisted publicly in the past few months that foreigners had tremendous confidence in Thailand? Wasn't all your extensive traveling abroad over the past year primarily intended to further shore up that confidence and didn't you claim each and every time what a smashing success your respective trip was? And now this revelation? The mind boggles.

Ma'am, a coup that took place almost 7 years ago has little bearing on the confidence of foreign investors in Thailand. If you want to search for reasons that might actually shake that confidence, I believe you must be looking closer to home: institutionalised corruption with everyone getting their turn at the feeding trough, red-shirted thugs running rampage and even being offered cabinet posts, a government that is directed/played by a fugitive convicted felon from abroad, incompetent ministers who earned their posts due to dubious "loyalties" instead of capabilities; and the list goes on.

Most people on the streets (those who you claim you represent) are perfectly aware why your government is pushing so vehemently to amend the current constitution: because the current checks and balances must be done away with to enable more feeding at the trough, because the judiciary is deemed too powerful and curbs those feeding frenzies all too often, and of course as a first step to enable the glorious return of the messiah.

I think she forgets that Abhist went a long way towards reassuring foreigners that there will be no more coups when they kicked ass on her brothers attempt in 2010.

I believe she forgets (conveniently) that if it had not been for the last coup Thailand would now be a dictatorship.

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

Well, if there is one worthwhile change in the 2007 version, it is that there are limited terms for PM's. Who the hell thought it would be good to give any prime minister the opportunity to have unlimited terms of office?

[rixalex]

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

Feeling untouchable was precisely what led to Thaksin's downfall. He thought he could get away with doing absolutely anything. He thought that being popular, and being democratically elected, as he undoubtedly was, gave him that sort of power whereby he was answerable to nobody. This is however not the way democracy is supposed to work.

And yes, i agree, the idea to call an election, amidst all the controversy concerning the way in which he sold his business to people in Singapore, avoided paying tax, and with all the murky share dealing that went on with his family members, was because in Thaksin's mind, winning an election, would put a halt to any investigations into any of that and allow him the authority to crack down on the yellow shirts who were protesting about it. In Thaksin's mind, winning an election gives the winner carte blanche to do as they please, and to set themselves above the law. His hiden assets case in 2001 was an example of this being quite possible. Again, this is not the way democracy is supposed to work. If you are alleged to have done something wrong, something possibly illegal, calling an election is not the answer. Elections are not for deciding guilt or innocence. Stand down. Allow authorities to investigate you. Clear your name - or not. And stand back up for re-election. That's what he should of done. Instead he tried to use the electorate to absolve himself.

[Thai at Heart]

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

Feeling untouchable was precisely what led to Thaksin's downfall. He thought he could get away with doing absolutely anything. He thought that being popular, and being democratically elected, as he undoubtedly was, gave him that sort of power whereby he was answerable to nobody. This is however not the way democracy is supposed to work.

And yes, i agree, the idea to call an election, amidst all the controversy concerning the way in which he sold his business to people in Singapore, avoided paying tax, and with all the murky share dealing that went on with his family members, was because in Thaksin's mind, winning an election, would put a halt to any investigations into any of that and allow him the authority to crack down on the yellow shirts who were protesting about it. In Thaksin's mind, winning an election gives the winner carte blanche to do as they please, and to set themselves above the law. His hiden assets case in 2001 was an example of this being quite possible. Again, this is not the way democracy is supposed to work. If you are alleged to have done something wrong, something possibly illegal, calling an election is not the answer. Elections are not for deciding guilt or innocence. Stand down. Allow authorities to investigate you. Clear your name - or not. And stand back up for re-election. That's what he should of done. Instead he tried to use the electorate to absolve himself.

The ridiculous thing, is it was actually the sale of a company and how he jigged the laws to do so, that started the end of the whole mess. Why did selling a phone company get quite so many people's back up?

When you look who consulted and put the deals together you would think that it was all put together in a completely legal manner according to Thai law. The problem is, he set a very dangerous precedent for all those other business owners who have played by the rules for a very long time.

Take the benefit of protection, but don't under any circumstance sell out and allow foreigners in.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[muttley]

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

Feeling untouchable was precisely what led to Thaksin's downfall. He thought he could get away with doing absolutely anything. He thought that being popular, and being democratically elected, as he undoubtedly was, gave him that sort of power whereby he was answerable to nobody. This is however not the way democracy is supposed to work.

And yes, i agree, the idea to call an election, amidst all the controversy concerning the way in which he sold his business to people in Singapore, avoided paying tax, and with all the murky share dealing that went on with his family members, was because in Thaksin's mind, winning an election, would put a halt to any investigations into any of that and allow him the authority to crack down on the yellow shirts who were protesting about it. In Thaksin's mind, winning an election gives the winner carte blanche to do as they please, and to set themselves above the law. His hiden assets case in 2001 was an example of this being quite possible. Again, this is not the way democracy is supposed to work. If you are alleged to have done something wrong, something possibly illegal, calling an election is not the answer. Elections are not for deciding guilt or innocence. Stand down. Allow authorities to investigate you. Clear your name - or not. And stand back up for re-election. That's what he should of done. Instead he tried to use the electorate to absolve himself.

The ridiculous thing, is it was actually the sale of a company and how he jigged the laws to do so, that started the end of the whole mess. Why did selling a phone company get quite so many people's back up?

When you look who consulted and put the deals together you would think that it was all put together in a completely legal manner according to Thai law. The problem is, he set a very dangerous precedent for all those other business owners who have played by the rules for a very long time.

Take the benefit of protection, but don't under any circumstance sell out and allow foreigners in.

And it wasn't just Thaksin who benefitted from the sale - one or two other companies and banks did so as well.

[Siripon]

Popularity has nothing to do with being fit enough to run a country. It's not difficult in a developing country with a small middle class to propose populist policies such as the debt laden rice mortgage scheme and 100,00 baht tax rebate scheme for first time cars, currently clogging up the roads.

It's about being held accountable under laws, something Thaksin has always shown contempt for.

He's a despot,masquerading as a democrat, 'democracy is not my goal'.

[Time Traveller]

Foreign loss of confidence in Thailand could possibly be based upon the coup system of government. Greedy pigs take over the feeding trough, then the military has to step in , and throw them out. Then new greedy pigs take over the trough again . What a sad cycle. Think we are at coup number 19.

For Yingluck to propose a charter amendment ( pardon Thaksin) to increase investor confidence 7 years AFTER the coup is so absurd it defies belief.

Emoticon on : shake head in amazement

No the military does not have step in. Politicians in every country are greedy pigs, but only in the sub standard countries do the military forcibly remove governments who would - if they really are terrible governments - be removed by popular ballot at the next election.

[Thai at Heart]

Popularity has nothing to do with being fit enough to run a country. It's not difficult in a developing country with a small middle class to propose populist policies such as the debt laden rice mortgage scheme and 100,00 baht tax rebate scheme for first time cars, currently clogging up the roads.

It's about being held accountable under laws, something Thaksin has always shown contempt for.

He's a despot,masquerading as a democrat, 'democracy is not my goal'.

Well that does beg the question, who the hell is "fit" to run the country? You think that the collection that the Dems have got together is as a group any better. A couple of decent individuals, surrounded by complete and utter clowns with their own skeletons of corruption, hardly better than the PTP.

Has anyone at his level of society ever really been held to account for their wrongdoing?

The system created Thaksin, and at a point loved him, then the system turned on him and spat him out, and now it is payback. He isn't blameless in any of this, he is a man of very great ambition, but the system was around long before he came along.

[muttley]

Popularity has nothing to do with being fit enough to run a country. It's not difficult in a developing country with a small middle class to propose populist policies such as the debt laden rice mortgage scheme and 100,00 baht tax rebate scheme for first time cars, currently clogging up the roads.

It's about being held accountable under laws, something Thaksin has always shown contempt for.

He's a despot,masquerading as a democrat, 'democracy is not my goal'.

Actually the full quote is

Democracy is not the goal, the nation’s development is more important. Development could happen with any form of government, democracy is not the only form through which progress occurs. The goal here is sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income.”

which doesn't quite fit in with the way you would like to use it.

The above sounds pretty democratic to me . How many despots do you know were pushing for "sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income” ?

[Siripon]

Popularity has nothing to do with being fit enough to run a country. It's not difficult in a developing country with a small middle class to propose populist policies such as the debt laden rice mortgage scheme and 100,00 baht tax rebate scheme for first time cars, currently clogging up the roads.

It's about being held accountable under laws, something Thaksin has always shown contempt for.

He's a despot,masquerading as a democrat, 'democracy is not my goal'.

Actually the full quote is

Democracy is not the goal, the nation’s development is more important. Development could happen with any form of government, democracy is not the only form through which progress occurs. The goal here is sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income.”

which doesn't quite fit in with the way you would like to use it.

The above sounds pretty democratic to me . How many despots do you know were pushing for "sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income” ?

Thaksin doesn't believe in sufficiency economics, he has always encouraged Thais to get into debt.

In response to the previous poster, the system, ie the Constitution of 1997 was a valiant attempt to create a more stable political system but the writers didn't forsee someone of Thaksin's wealth and greed coming along. The 2001 assets concealment trial was a watershed. Thaksin should have been banned for 5 years at that point but the judges buckled and claimed there could be mobs baying at the court's door as he had just won an election. They failed the Thai people.

[MunterHunter]

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

If he's that popular and with his sister in the PM seat right now and other family members and allies in high positions in the police and military... why hasn't he come back to Thailand already?

[AleG]

Actually the full quote is

Democracy is not the goal, the nation’s development is more important. Development could happen with any form of government, democracy is not the only form through which progress occurs. The goal here is sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income.”

which doesn't quite fit in with the way you would like to use it.

The above sounds pretty democratic to me . How many despots do you know were pushing for "sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income” ?

Hmmm, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung the elder, etc, etc...

Anyway, if "Democracy is not the goal" sounds democratic to you you are beyond help.

[Thai at Heart]

Popularity has nothing to do with being fit enough to run a country. It's not difficult in a developing country with a small middle class to propose populist policies such as the debt laden rice mortgage scheme and 100,00 baht tax rebate scheme for first time cars, currently clogging up the roads.

It's about being held accountable under laws, something Thaksin has always shown contempt for.

He's a despot,masquerading as a democrat, 'democracy is not my goal'.

Actually the full quote is

Democracy is not the goal, the nation’s development is more important. Development could happen with any form of government, democracy is not the only form through which progress occurs. The goal here is sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income.”

which doesn't quite fit in with the way you would like to use it.

The above sounds pretty democratic to me . How many despots do you know were pushing for "sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income” ?

It is a worthwhile discussion, because the view that was held, was the single party command state, couldn't bring economic growth, (Russia/China), so spread the seeds of democracy around the world and da da, economic growth will go hand in hand with the growth of capitalism. But, but, but, look at China, look at Singapore. We the West brought democarcy and capitalism into Communist Europe, and what did it create? Enormous corruption, schlerotic growth and oligarchs.

But in the East, they kept their single party models, embraced some parts of capitalism, and whammo, startling sustainable growth. So in and of itself, if the aim is economic growth, it isn't necessary to slavishly pursue democracy, and democracy in and of itself, doesn't inevitable produce free market successful capitalism.

This comes from the free market fundamentalists, pro-democracy fundamentalists who populated the US and Europe's think tanks 30 years ago, when their economic foe was behind the iron curtain. The best result is always to have the least amount of regulation, and a strong functioning democracy, minimal central government interference, and you have the ideal to create wealth.

Hmmm, how many agree completely with that mantra these days? Anyone heard of subprime mortgages, and the corruption of the electoral system in the West?

[whybother]

No the military does not have step in. Politicians in every country are greedy pigs, but only in the sub standard countries do the military forcibly remove governments who would - if they really are terrible governments - be removed by popular ballot at the next election.

That has worked really well in Zimbabwe, hasn't it.

[Tatsujin]

I thought most posters were knowledgeable of the infamous declaration, but it was graciously provided again earlier in the thread for those apparently unaware.

Thaksin described Yingluck as not my nominee but my clone, in an interview published May 20 in the Bangkok-based Matichon newspaper.

http://www.bloomberg...-investors.html

Infamous declaration? What is infamous about it? Some peoples imagination.........

No, I am quite aware of the quote, it's how it is interpreted by most posters on here that I have a problem with. A clone generally is regarded as being cells that are identical. OK take the cell bit with a pinch of salt as Thaksin clearly didn't mean that, but he did mean (and said) that he and his sister were very close and that he was responsible for her upbringing, from your link;

Yingluck: “We are a very close family.”

Thaksin described Yingluck as “not my nominee but my clone"

Thaksin: “I raised her like my eldest daughter because mom passed away when she was young,”

The quote has been distorted on numerous occasions on here as implying that Thaksin is using Yingluck as a proxy. There a world of difference between someone describing someone else as their clone (being the same as) and proxy (acting on behalf of) but I guess you and all the other posters knew that already.

And I'll be another one that obviously interprets things incorrectly according to you.

I believe a "clone" is an "exact" copy . . . therefore, to me, when he talks about his sister being a "clone", I interpret that as his sister (perhaps not looking exactly like him) but doing and thinking exactly as he does, i.e. she is doing exactly what big brother himself would do.

If you interpret it slightly differently (by assuming perhaps that his English language skills are not 100%) then I also think he did mean as a "proxy" . . . she is doing what she is told to do, no independent thoughts or actions on her part, just what big brother tells her to do.

[Tatsujin]

Popularity has nothing to do with being fit enough to run a country. It's not difficult in a developing country with a small middle class to propose populist policies such as the debt laden rice mortgage scheme and 100,00 baht tax rebate scheme for first time cars, currently clogging up the roads.

It's about being held accountable under laws, something Thaksin has always shown contempt for.

He's a despot,masquerading as a democrat, 'democracy is not my goal'.

Actually the full quote is

Democracy is not the goal, the nation’s development is more important. Development could happen with any form of government, democracy is not the only form through which progress occurs. The goal here is sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income.”

which doesn't quite fit in with the way you would like to use it.

The above sounds pretty democratic to me . How many despots do you know were pushing for "sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income” ?

Interesting quote and someone else made an even more interesting comment about this in 2006 (http://pcij.org/blog/2006/09/21/media-free-expression-under-threat-in-wake-of-coup-%E2%80%94-seapa), I quote from their posting:

Thaksin was saying some years ago, and which the copycat in Malacañang has probably adopted as her own mission statement, “Democracy is not the goal, the nation’s development is more important. Development could happen with any form of government, democracy is not the only form through which progress occurs. The goal here is sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income.”

That’s Thaksin, so after he implements high-impact programs that he made sure were visible to the poor, and that these benefitted them. He was riding on his popular mandate when the greedy side of Thaksin began to show. His mishandling of the insurgency got him in a direct collision course with the Generals. He tried to weaken them by replacing the hardliners who had the potential of throwing him out. He gave the impression that he was staying on to power and wanted that power to be absolute even after he has been demoted to a transition PM. His arrogance was probably the proverbial last straw. (Dito sa atin yung Arroyo-gance di lang isang straw, isang tonelada na yata) He publicly lambasted the monarchy in the weeks leading to the coup.

This is the view coming from my Thai friends and some Pinoys who are doing business in Bangkok. There seems to be some agreement as to the need to remove Thaksin, they couldn’t allow the election to happen because it might legitimize Thaksin more than it would be replacing him.

They say he has divided Thailand right through the middle (sounds familiar?) and counted on the popular support of the masses to bail him out. They also say that we have not seen the end of Thaksin. Another Pinoy from Bangkok says knowing Thaksin, he would not give up the fight that easily that they expect him to be planning his next moves by now.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Tatsujin

[Moruya]

Popularity has nothing to do with being fit enough to run a country. It's not difficult in a developing country with a small middle class to propose populist policies such as the debt laden rice mortgage scheme and 100,00 baht tax rebate scheme for first time cars, currently clogging up the roads.

It's about being held accountable under laws, something Thaksin has always shown contempt for.

He's a despot,masquerading as a democrat, 'democracy is not my goal'.

Actually the full quote is

Democracy is not the goal, the nation’s development is more important. Development could happen with any form of government, democracy is not the only form through which progress occurs. The goal here is sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income.”

which doesn't quite fit in with the way you would like to use it.

The above sounds pretty democratic to me . How many despots do you know were pushing for "sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income” ?

I think you know far more despots than I

[maidu]

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

What do the following men have in common? If you asked their respective fellow honchos, at the time they were in power, ALL would be described as being 'MOST POPULAR and untouchable.' They would also be described, as some describe Thaksin, as having been wise and caring for the people under their control:

F.Marcos, Stalin, Sukarno, Hitler, Mombasa, Papa Doc, Idi Amin, Hirohito, Mao

[ratcatcher]

Popularity has nothing to do with being fit enough to run a country. It's not difficult in a developing country with a small middle class to propose populist policies such as the debt laden rice mortgage scheme and 100,00 baht tax rebate scheme for first time cars, currently clogging up the roads.

It's about being held accountable under laws, something Thaksin has always shown contempt for.

He's a despot,masquerading as a democrat, 'democracy is not my goal'.

Well that does beg the question, who the hell is "fit" to run the country? You think that the collection that the Dems have got together is as a group any better. A couple of decent individuals, surrounded by complete and utter clowns with their own skeletons of corruption, hardly better than the PTP.

Has anyone at his level of society ever really been held to account for their wrongdoing?

The system created Thaksin, and at a point loved him, then the system turned on him and spat him out, and now it is payback. He isn't blameless in any of this, he is a man of very great ambition, but the system was around long before he came along.

"He is a man of very great ambition.............."

“He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition burns a picture to obtain the ashes”

Chinese proverb.

[bigbamboo]

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

Feeling untouchable was precisely what led to Thaksin's downfall. He thought he could get away with doing absolutely anything. He thought that being popular, and being democratically elected, as he undoubtedly was, gave him that sort of power whereby he was answerable to nobody. This is however not the way democracy is supposed to work.

And yes, i agree, the idea to call an election, amidst all the controversy concerning the way in which he sold his business to people in Singapore, avoided paying tax, and with all the murky share dealing that went on with his family members, was because in Thaksin's mind, winning an election, would put a halt to any investigations into any of that and allow him the authority to crack down on the yellow shirts who were protesting about it. In Thaksin's mind, winning an election gives the winner carte blanche to do as they please, and to set themselves above the law. His hiden assets case in 2001 was an example of this being quite possible. Again, this is not the way democracy is supposed to work. If you are alleged to have done something wrong, something possibly illegal, calling an election is not the answer. Elections are not for deciding guilt or innocence. Stand down. Allow authorities to investigate you. Clear your name - or not. And stand back up for re-election. That's what he should of done. Instead he tried to use the electorate to absolve himself.

The ridiculous thing, is it was actually the sale of a company and how he jigged the laws to do so, that started the end of the whole mess. Why did selling a phone company get quite so many people's back up?

When you look who consulted and put the deals together you would think that it was all put together in a completely legal manner according to Thai law. The problem is, he set a very dangerous precedent for all those other business owners who have played by the rules for a very long time.

Take the benefit of protection, but don't under any circumstance sell out and allow foreigners in.

And it wasn't just Thaksin who benefitted from the sale - one or two other companies and banks did so as well.

So he had some help! That hardly absolves him from what he did.

His tax dodging lost him a lot of popular support (even here in CM) and was one reason why the coup passed off with so little protest at the time.

Ironically, if he had been honest and his wife hadn't been greedy even with all the mouths he had to feed he still had more money than he'd ever need, he would still be Thailand's PM and a respected senior politician in Asia.

Edited January 11, 2013 by bigbamboo

[daboyz1]

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

If he's that popular and with his sister in the PM seat right now and other family members and allies in high positions in the police and military... why hasn't he come back to Thailand already?

Bingo! Good question.

[OzMick]

Popularity has nothing to do with being fit enough to run a country. It's not difficult in a developing country with a small middle class to propose populist policies such as the debt laden rice mortgage scheme and 100,00 baht tax rebate scheme for first time cars, currently clogging up the roads.

It's about being held accountable under laws, something Thaksin has always shown contempt for.

He's a despot,masquerading as a democrat, 'democracy is not my goal'.

Actually the full quote is

Democracy is not the goal, the nation’s development is more important. Development could happen with any form of government, democracy is not the only form through which progress occurs. The goal here is sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income.”

which doesn't quite fit in with the way you would like to use it.

The above sounds pretty democratic to me . How many despots do you know were pushing for "sufficient economics and the ability to take care of each other instead of widening degrees of income” ?

If he had added make the trains run on time, would he have had even more legitimacy?

[maidu]

Sorry beg to differ. There was a coup in Thailand because if Thaksin had called another election , as was reported, and won with a larger majority it would have cemented his place as the most popular Thai and he would have been untouchable. Not to worry hes slowly but surely regaining all that popularity

If he's that popular and with his sister in the PM seat right now and other family members and allies in high positions in the police and military... why hasn't he come back to Thailand already?

Bingo! Good question.

He could come back next week, and he would be met by cheers at the airport, and he would avoid taking responsibility for his criminal convictions. But he wants an easier entrance. He not only wants all his prior convictions nullified, he wants all pending and future legal charges dropped (inciting/funding riots, sedition, lottery manipulation, etc). He won't mind street protests if they're small. However, if protests are big, then it could cause problems for his sister and all his other protectors/apologists. So, that's the biggest connundrum for Thaksin now: how can he return without sparking large effective peaceful protests, which the Yellows are known for? ......and without sparking counter-protests by the Reds, which we all know are violent and lead to much harm and deaths. Thaksin doesn't much care about harm and deaths (on either side), he just doesn't want such things to adversely impact him and his inner circle.

[alanferdi]

Foreigners lack acceptance of a country ruled by incompetence which allow there supporters to behave like thugs to threaten people who don't agree with them and the judiciary. This amendment is needed because your brother says so, nothing more nothing less. Only the reds would believe your BS or rather they don't care. Everyone else knows otherwise.

Dear Prime Minister get real..... Thaksin and winning back the confidence of foreigners in Thailands politics under his rule or those who are puppets to his leading.... This will never happen. Weave into international affairs and relate to foreign investors and their security first. "Once bitten twice shy"

[metisdead]

Some off topic post have been removed.

[muttley]

Infamous declaration? What is infamous about it? Some peoples imagination.........

No, I am quite aware of the quote, it's how it is interpreted by most posters on here that I have a problem with. A clone generally is regarded as being cells that are identical. OK take the cell bit with a pinch of salt as Thaksin clearly didn't mean that, but he did mean (and said) that he and his sister were very close and that he was responsible for her upbringing, from your link;

Yingluck: “We are a very close family.”

Thaksin described Yingluck as “not my nominee but my clone"

Thaksin: “I raised her like my eldest daughter because mom passed away when she was young,”

The quote has been distorted on numerous occasions on here as implying that Thaksin is using Yingluck as a proxy. There a world of difference between someone describing someone else as their clone (being the same as) and proxy (acting on behalf of) but I guess you and all the other posters knew that already.

And I'll be another one that obviously interprets things incorrectly according to you.

I believe a "clone" is an "exact" copy . . . therefore, to me, when he talks about his sister being a "clone", I interpret that as his sister (perhaps not looking exactly like him) but doing and thinking exactly as he does, i.e. she is doing exactly what big brother himself would do.

If you interpret it slightly differently (by assuming perhaps that his English language skills are not 100%) then I also think he did mean as a "proxy" . . . she is doing what she is told to do, no independent thoughts or actions on her part, just what big brother tells her to do.

Will you accept that words in english can have a different intepretation depending upon how they are used in a sentence and the sentences that precede and come after the statement of those words can change the meaning as well - it's called context. It's no good just quoting a definition from a dictionary, and then say that is what was meant.

That is why context is important - look at the group of sentences around which the statement is made - CONTEXT.

[OzMick]

Infamous declaration? What is infamous about it? Some peoples imagination.........

No, I am quite aware of the quote, it's how it is interpreted by most posters on here that I have a problem with. A clone generally is regarded as being cells that are identical. OK take the cell bit with a pinch of salt as Thaksin clearly didn't mean that, but he did mean (and said) that he and his sister were very close and that he was responsible for her upbringing, from your link;

Yingluck: “We are a very close family.”

Thaksin described Yingluck as “not my nominee but my clone"

Thaksin: “I raised her like my eldest daughter because mom passed away when she was young,”

The quote has been distorted on numerous occasions on here as implying that Thaksin is using Yingluck as a proxy. There a world of difference between someone describing someone else as their clone (being the same as) and proxy (acting on behalf of) but I guess you and all the other posters knew that already.

And I'll be another one that obviously interprets things incorrectly according to you.

I believe a "clone" is an "exact" copy . . . therefore, to me, when he talks about his sister being a "clone", I interpret that as his sister (perhaps not looking exactly like him) but doing and thinking exactly as he does, i.e. she is doing exactly what big brother himself would do.

If you interpret it slightly differently (by assuming perhaps that his English language skills are not 100%) then I also think he did mean as a "proxy" . . . she is doing what she is told to do, no independent thoughts or actions on her part, just what big brother tells her to do.

Will you accept that words in english can have a different intepretation depending upon how they are used in a sentence and the sentences that precede and come after the statement of those words can change the meaning as well - it's called context. It's no good just quoting a definition from a dictionary, and then say that is what was meant.

That is why context is important - look at the group of sentences around which the statement is made - CONTEXT.

Right - just because he has a upper degree from a US uni doesn't mean that he can express himself clearly in English. The CONTEXT message was "vote for her, you get me".