If Not Thaksin Then Who?

[h90]

no the democrates repaired that. This was someone else 1997.

Yeah, what's the drawbacks of the democratic party?

Also, given politicians are generally self-serving and corrupt to whatever extent do you begin to weigh that against the benefits they've brought, such as a healthy ecomomy?

Let me remember who was in power in the late ninties, when the baht fell so badly, the banks were failing under the weight of defaulted loans, the country had a large national debt, and the folks in power were buddies with George Sourus (sp) and oh yes corruption was as bad if not worse. Could it have been the DEMOCRATS, why yes I do believe thats true.

Today more people have jobs, the World Banks been paid off, there are 30 baht doctor visits, more people have a greater hope for the future, and I don't believe the Democrats helped much.

[bendix]

but forget the democrat party ... faggot !!

bambi you surprise me! you of all people should be tolerant of different sexual identities.

Shhhhhhhh girlx. Don't give the game away.

[Youbloodybeauty]

Here is a definition: http://members.fortunecity.com/bonzamate/slang-ftoj.htm

Faggot - a homosexual man

BambinA are you an Aussie? Haven't heared "faggot" used for ages.

Cheers YBB

No, she is pure Thai! Unless she has changed it her avatar is her.

Hi thaibebop,

OK!

I'm not a guitar player either but I do like my avatar!

My Aussie/Thai wife is one of many "looks" of Australia! She has been here over 10 years and I bet she doesn't know what faggot means. Yep, just asked her and she's learnt a new word.

Cheers YBB

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Here is a definition: http://members.fortunecity.com/bonzamate/slang-ftoj.htm

Faggot - a homosexual man

BambinA are you an Aussie? Haven't heared "faggot" used for ages.

Cheers YBB

No, she is pure Thai! Unless she has changed it her avatar is her.

Hi thaibebop,

OK!

I'm not a guitar player either but I do like my avatar!

My Aussie/Thai wife is one of many "looks" of Australia! She has been here over 10 years and I bet she doesn't know what faggot means. Yep, just asked her and she's learnt a new word.

Cheers YBB

Does she know what a ' Horses Hoof " is ... or even a ' Woolly Woofter " ?

[thaibebop]

Here is a definition: http://members.fortunecity.com/bonzamate/slang-ftoj.htm

Faggot - a homosexual man

BambinA are you an Aussie? Haven't heared "faggot" used for ages.

Cheers YBB

No, she is pure Thai! Unless she has changed it her avatar is her.

Hi thaibebop,Hello

OK!

I'm not a guitar player either but I do like my avatar!

My Aussie/Thai wife is one of many "looks" of Australia! She has been here over 10 years and I bet she doesn't know what faggot means. Yep, just asked her and she's learnt a new word.

Cheers YBB

[Youbloodybeauty]

Does she know what a ' Horses Hoof " is ... or even a ' Woolly Woofter " ?

Hi Doc,

LOL - Nah she doesn't! Although, before she could pronounce the shorter version of "Woolly Woofter" she said with a Thai accent - boopster!

I didn't corrected her for ages as it sounded soooo cute!

Cheers YBB

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Where in Ozland have you settled Beauty ?

[Youbloodybeauty]

Where in Ozland have you settled Beauty ?

Jeez Doc, the Capital of course - Sydney!

YBB

[Heng]

My family has been in Thailand since the 1930's, and according to grandma and grandpa Heng (and to a lesser extent grandman and grandpa Lin... my wife's set of grandparental units), if you want to live comfortably: work hard and save, and don't waste too much time listening to the radio (watching tv) or following politics, because it's the same show over and over again.

[steveromagnino]

Let me remember who was in power in the late ninties, when the baht fell so badly, the banks were failing under the weight of defaulted loans, the country had a large national debt, and the folks in power were buddies with George Sourus (sp) and oh yes corruption was as bad if not worse. Could it have been the DEMOCRATS, why yes I do believe thats true.

Today more people have jobs, the World Banks been paid off, there are 30 baht doctor visits, more people have a greater hope for the future, and I don't believe the Democrats helped much.

OK, just to correct a few things....

The main ruler during the period leading up to the collaspse was Gen Chavilit, who was with the NAP party, which is now part of TRT. Thaksin was one of the few business people who did not get taken down with the collapse of the baht, as he and some others had got rid of dollar denominated debt; which crippled his competitors such as TAC (which has since become DTAC) and other organisations like TT&T. The issue of his concession is only one part of his success story, not getting cleaned out by the change in exchange rate was another (let's bear in mind that at the same time guys like the owner of TPI were being promised that the Govt would defend the baht forever if necessary).

George Soros has no connection to Thailand, and there is no evidence he was ever attacking the baht; for the most part speculation is that much of the attack was coming from within Thailand.

Chuan's govt followed the IMF rules to some degree, which included things like changing restrictions on foreign ownership in some industries, more fiscal prudence and all the other unpopular things that often lead to successful economies; problem was more than anything else, some of these things took time to work themselves out, and also Chuan was perhaps one of the worst communicators. Debt pay off was almost entirely due to frugality and concessions made during Chuan 2 era.

I will certainly agree that there was major corruption in the Chuan administration, not by him,but by many of the associated politicians within his administration; the elelevated express way was one good example of this. He was himself clean, but he seemed unable, sadly, to control the dirty ones, some of whom are also in the current TRT administration. (Thailand is a country of factions).

One of the main issues coming up was deregulation; and conversion of the concessions in telcos. This was a huge threat to the AIS/Shin organisation, and so not surprisingly Thaksin, like almost every other major business family here in Thailand, is into politics to protect his empire. This is somewhat different to say Chuan, who had no business empire, and was made fun of several times by Thaksin for this reason.

30 baht healthcare is a disaster in many respects, and whereas the previous Chuan administration had a similar scheme (not nearly as well marketed) by Dr Athit which was about 70-80 baht for many things, the 30 baht scheme has more mass appeal; it also has massive funding problems, it has restrictions on the drugs available (alledgeldy many of which must now be sourced via a company which one of the family members of the current administration owns); almost anyone is eligible for it thus meaning rich people can get one too, it requires sometimes under the table payoffs to keep the doctors willing to work by the patients and most of all it is a vote grabber - that's why he does it.

The Thaksin empire rests of a few things:

- pleasing the rural by spoiling them with money, such as 30 baht healthcare, debt forgiveness, taxi rallies and car giveaways, appeals to nationalism (while selling bits of the country off to their mates)

- pleasing the urban with 'new blood' promises, the restructuring of NPLs (much of the appeal of which is disappearing)

- incredibly astute marketing and market research - they know who will vote and how to best appeal to them

- control of the media via AIS and related business ad budgets, direct ownership and also govt ownership (which means they can control to some degree) - this is a little uncertain these days in the post Shin age, but let;s assume he can maintain control

- Being the first leader in a while to actually talk somewhat coherently - compared to Chavalit and Chuan, this guy is actually quite easy to listen to

- Good partnerships with factions; because TRT has no real policy stance other than delivering things that will get votes, they can form colitions with the various groups in Chonburi, Wang Num yen faction etc - all these groups and their leaders like Sanoh know it is either be with TRT or be in the oppposition. Better to get some of the money than none at all

- stacking all monitoring organisations with people on his side, so he always gets the favourable side for rulings, and there aren't too many surprises

- Deep pockets of money for payoffs as required (incentives to do things)

Regarding Clinton vs. Bush...hmmmmm......

Before we get into all the many reasons why Bush is a terrible president, regarding the economy you can hardly hold the guy responsible for the US economy tanking after all of the lack of management of it during Clinton's watch. The tech bubble that burst in 2000 was years in the making, Bush happened to just step in at the wrong time for that one...the cause of the joy of Clinton was mostly not a policy one, but rather the whole growth of tech following the gulf war is that right? Clinton raised the rich person's tax rate from Reagan's previous 28% to 40%, but then since the democrats didn't do so well in the mid term elections, he then got rid of capital gains tax; so it was a net not much effect. He also was in power when other economies were also roaring along; no real wars to speak of, and so I'd say he oversaw a period of growth following a recession led mostly by the growth and impact of tech. He also didn't have to cover off the fallout from companies like Enron.

Incidentally, for all the charges of the current Bush administration being all corrupt and business minded and all that, let's remember that most of the Enron style companies were doing their thing under the Bush Sen, CLinton and Bush Jnr administrations... Enron for instance got their work in India thanks to Clinton's adminstration support.

I know it is nice to say how bad the guy is at running things, but even Michael Moore in his stupid men book points out how lousy Clinton was at doing many of the things that Democrats are supposed to care about (environment, blah blah blah).

We cannot look at the performance under one leader's stewardship in isolation; much of what they reap is the result of what the previous administration sew.

The same is certainly the case in TRT; most of their success has been from a resurgent economy, and that has been powered by many of the things Democrats did under Chuan and despite the meddlings for personal gain of the current TRT administration.

Edited February 27, 2006 by steveromagnino

[ColPyat]

OK, just to correct a few things....

Why do you have to disturb a thread dealing with such universally important issues as the regionally different derogatory terms for homosexuality with such a correct, factual and topical post?

Edited February 27, 2006 by ColPyat

[steveromagnino]

OK, just to correct a few things....

Why do you have to disturb a thread dealing with such universally important issues as the regionally different derogatory terms for homosexuality with such a correct, factual and topical post?

I OBJECT!!!

The correct terms to which you are alluding to are NOT yet included in this thread:

NZ

'Check out the fufas bro, dem fufas standin over there with the palis'

England

'Er bowls from the pavilion end don't you know, doesn't one'

Australia

'bunch a woofters aye mate, pass us another VB'

Sorry, won't make the same mistake again...woolly woofters, haven't heard that for a while ROTFLOL

[slackula]

Thanks Steveromagnino, that was very interesting.

[Tippaporn]

Seconded. Let's get back on topic. I don't mind a little digression here and there but not when it turns into a whole page. Are we done with off topic comments regarding BambinA's "faggot" reference? If not, please start a new topic dedicated to that discussion.

Thanks, Heng, for that valuable input. It confirms some of my thoughts. Thailand wouldn't be the first country where it's citizens feel that politics is a never-ending game by some to advance their own interests, maintain the status quo and leave the public to adopt apathy as a means to deal with the government. How many other foreigners feel similiarly about their home governments? Extreme dissatisfaction and a powerlessness to bring about change?

I probably have a poor attitude towards politics in general but at election time I always feel that voting becomes nothing more than picking the lesser of the two evils. The choice too often seems to boil down to going with the candidate who you feel would create the least amount of damage.

As much as most foreigners here would like to see the downfall of Thaksin there's always the likelihood that the replacement would be worse. How many Americans disliked Clinton only to now prefer him to Bush?

[Tippaporn]

Let me remember who was in power in the late ninties, when the baht fell so badly, the banks were failing under the weight of defaulted loans, the country had a large national debt, and the folks in power were buddies with George Sourus (sp) and oh yes corruption was as bad if not worse. Could it have been the DEMOCRATS, why yes I do believe thats true.

Today more people have jobs, the World Banks been paid off, there are 30 baht doctor visits, more people have a greater hope for the future, and I don't believe the Democrats helped much.

OK, just to correct a few things....

The main ruler during the period leading up to the collaspse was Gen Chavilit, who was with the NAP party, which is now part of TRT. Thaksin was one of the few business people who did not get taken down with the collapse of the baht, as he and some others had got rid of dollar denominated debt; which crippled his competitors such as TAC (which has since become DTAC) and other organisations like TT&T. The issue of his concession is only one part of his success story, not getting cleaned out by the change in exchange rate was another (let's bear in mind that at the same time guys like the owner of TPI were being promised that the Govt would defend the baht forever if necessary).

George Soros has no connection to Thailand, and there is no evidence he was ever attacking the baht; for the most part speculation is that much of the attack was coming from within Thailand.

Chuan's govt followed the IMF rules to some degree, which included things like changing restrictions on foreign ownership in some industries, more fiscal prudence and all the other unpopular things that often lead to successful economies; problem was more than anything else, some of these things took time to work themselves out, and also Chuan was perhaps one of the worst communicators. Debt pay off was almost entirely due to frugality and concessions made during Chuan 2 era.

I will certainly agree that there was major corruption in the Chuan administration, not by him,but by many of the associated politicians within his administration; the elelevated express way was one good example of this. He was himself clean, but he seemed unable, sadly, to control the dirty ones, some of whom are also in the current TRT administration. (Thailand is a country of factions).

One of the main issues coming up was deregulation; and conversion of the concessions in telcos. This was a huge threat to the AIS/Shin organisation, and so not surprisingly Thaksin, like almost every other major business family here in Thailand, is into politics to protect his empire. This is somewhat different to say Chuan, who had no business empire, and was made fun of several times by Thaksin for this reason.

30 baht healthcare is a disaster in many respects, and whereas the previous Chuan administration had a similar scheme (not nearly as well marketed) by Dr Athit which was about 70-80 baht for many things, the 30 baht scheme has more mass appeal; it also has massive funding problems, it has restrictions on the drugs available (alledgeldy many of which must now be sourced via a company which one of the family members of the current administration owns); almost anyone is eligible for it thus meaning rich people can get one too, it requires sometimes under the table payoffs to keep the doctors willing to work by the patients and most of all it is a vote grabber - that's why he does it.

The Thaksin empire rests of a few things:

- pleasing the rural by spoiling them with money, such as 30 baht healthcare, debt forgiveness, taxi rallies and car giveaways, appeals to nationalism (while selling bits of the country off to their mates)

- pleasing the urban with 'new blood' promises, the restructuring of NPLs (much of the appeal of which is disappearing)

- incredibly astute marketing and market research - they know who will vote and how to best appeal to them

- control of the media via AIS and related business ad budgets, direct ownership and also govt ownership (which means they can control to some degree) - this is a little uncertain these days in the post Shin age, but let;s assume he can maintain control

- Being the first leader in a while to actually talk somewhat coherently - compared to Chavalit and Chuan, this guy is actually quite easy to listen to

- Good partnerships with factions; because TRT has no real policy stance other than delivering things that will get votes, they can form colitions with the various groups in Chonburi, Wang Num yen faction etc - all these groups and their leaders like Sanoh know it is either be with TRT or be in the oppposition. Better to get some of the money than none at all

- stacking all monitoring organisations with people on his side, so he always gets the favourable side for rulings, and there aren't too many surprises

- Deep pockets of money for payoffs as required (incentives to do things)

Regarding Clinton vs. Bush...hmmmmm......

Before we get into all the many reasons why Bush is a terrible president, regarding the economy you can hardly hold the guy responsible for the US economy tanking after all of the lack of management of it during Clinton's watch. The tech bubble that burst in 2000 was years in the making, Bush happened to just step in at the wrong time for that one...the cause of the joy of Clinton was mostly not a policy one, but rather the whole growth of tech following the gulf war is that right? Clinton raised the rich person's tax rate from Reagan's previous 28% to 40%, but then since the democrats didn't do so well in the mid term elections, he then got rid of capital gains tax; so it was a net not much effect. He also was in power when other economies were also roaring along; no real wars to speak of, and so I'd say he oversaw a period of growth following a recession led mostly by the growth and impact of tech. He also didn't have to cover off the fallout from companies like Enron.

Incidentally, for all the charges of the current Bush administration being all corrupt and business minded and all that, let's remember that most of the Enron style companies were doing their thing under the Bush Sen, CLinton and Bush Jnr administrations... Enron for instance got their work in India thanks to Clinton's adminstration support.

I know it is nice to say how bad the guy is at running things, but even Michael Moore in his stupid men book points out how lousy Clinton was at doing many of the things that Democrats are supposed to care about (environment, blah blah blah).

We cannot look at the performance under one leader's stewardship in isolation; much of what they reap is the result of what the previous administration sew.

The same is certainly the case in TRT; most of their success has been from a resurgent economy, and that has been powered by many of the things Democrats did under Chuan and despite the meddlings for personal gain of the current TRT administration.

Quite excellent, Steve.