Push for anti-coup law: Thailand

[deecee10]

Anti-coup law.

"If it is placed before Parliament for deliberation and sails through, the government will no longer have to worry about the possibility of a sudden military-led power seizure."

That's a relief.

It's not as if there are any law-breakers in Thailand.

[Bof]

Coups are unlawful by definition, except in the land of the delusional sycophants .

[Baerboxer]

It is amazing that people coming from democratic countries keep defending military coups! Maybe they don't understand democracy either?

Of course we all know that generals are honest in comparison to politicians, right? If they rule the country there would be no more corruption, right? Knowing that is enough to justify a military coup!

And I mean in every real democratic country the government never get's involved in military affaris, right? No civilian governmet ever approves the nomination of a general, right? So why should Thailand do?

Wake up guys, you've been in Thailand for too long to believe that soldiers are bettter than civilians!

And how would you suggest dealing with a corrupt government whose robbing the country blind, ignoring laws, attempting to remove balances and checks, wants to whitewash criminals and seems to be movings towards the behaviours of a dictatorship?

Ask them nicely to behave, give the money they've theived back and respect the law?

Wake up to reality - you've been reading too much propoganda.

[Baerboxer]

Well, if all appointees have to be approved by the defence minister in future, that would mean, a coup wouldn't be particularly good for your future career.

Quite a subtle and clever move.

And we know who suddenly was made Defense Minister, regardless of absolutely no qualifications..

This would tie the bow around things nicely.

Handpicked - for knowledge, ability and potential. Multitasking too!

[h90]

Thai coups do no good anyway. Like another poster pointed out. It just replaces one inept and corrupt government with another. Which gets voted out at the next election only to put the party back in power at the hands of the uneducated masses who vote back the terrible populists only to reign till the next coup and so it goes on and on and on with no improvement to the country.

Thailand seems proud of its style of bloodless coup. However, in my opinion it is the 'bloodless' part that is the main problem. Bent politicians will never mend their ways so long as the worst thing that could happen was to have to live in luxury in Dubai or Hong Kong... Dragged into the street and put in front of a firing squad then hung upside down from lamp posts.... now that is how they do a coup in other parts of the world.

That should act as an incentive to future politicians to behave themselves and start looking after the interests of the country and its people rather than themselves.

I am not the sort of person that normally condones violence. But if you are going to have a coup, do it properly or don't do it at all.

The best example is the new constitution

good idea. and than they started to write a NEW constitution....Why not modify a previous one? Why not copy/paste a well proved constitution from Switzerland, Germany USA?? There are a lot well proved constitutions around. They simply forgot to make it difficult to change it, so government and opposition must do it together.

When you make a constitution because you think that the previous government was very corrupt than why not take all their money and properties?

Telling Thaksin does vote buying but don't take his funds and properties isn't very logic. Even in the time of the "military" government they rent buildings from Shinawatra.

Either stage a coup and change everything or don't stage a coup. But make half a coup isn't logic...

[hellodolly]

when you have a government that won't step down failure after failure then there is only one solution

any other civilised country in the world the government would have stepped down long ago with performance like PTP - they are obviously not fit for purpose and make a mockery of democracy and the law

not to mention having a leader that fled the country to avoid prison and is running things from another country, if it wasn't so serious it would be funny

Did GW step down?

Did Tony Blair step down?

No, but many people believe they should have stepped down!

I don't think Bush should have stepped down. I think he should never have been given the job.

Notice the similarities in Bush and Yingluck they both got the job with the majority of the people against them.

They are both incompetent twits.

Bush had Chaney pulling his strings and Yingluck has Thaksin pulling her strings.

[hellodolly]

Thai coups do no good anyway. Like another poster pointed out. It just replaces one inept and corrupt government with another. Which gets voted out at the next election only to put the party back in power at the hands of the uneducated masses who vote back the terrible populists only to reign till the next coup and so it goes on and on and on with no improvement to the country.

Thailand seems proud of its style of bloodless coup. However, in my opinion it is the 'bloodless' part that is the main problem. Bent politicians will never mend their ways so long as the worst thing that could happen was to have to live in luxury in Dubai or Hong Kong... Dragged into the street and put in front of a firing squad then hung upside down from lamp posts.... now that is how they do a coup in other parts of the world.

That should act as an incentive to future politicians to behave themselves and start looking after the interests of the country and its people rather than themselves.

I am not the sort of person that normally condones violence. But if you are going to have a coup, do it properly or don't do it at all.

The best example is the new constitution

good idea. and than they started to write a NEW constitution....Why not modify a previous one? Why not copy/paste a well proved constitution from Switzerland, Germany USA?? There are a lot well proved constitutions around. They simply forgot to make it difficult to change it, so government and opposition must do it together.

When you make a constitution because you think that the previous government was very corrupt than why not take all their money and properties?

Telling Thaksin does vote buying but don't take his funds and properties isn't very logic. Even in the time of the "military" government they rent buildings from Shinawatra.

Either stage a coup and change everything or don't stage a coup. But make half a coup isn't logic...

I think the Thai's should ignore other countries constitutions and amend the one they have where it is needed. To do this they would need a committee made op of equal numbers of members from both sides of the aisle. Also (this hurts to say it) they should have members of academia there also. Equal number of liberals and conservative ones.

I don't know what other countries have for their constitution but I do know a little about the states. It is a document written to fulfill all the needs of 237 years ago with no thought to the needs of the future. Kind of like the Bible.

Times change and conditions change you can not keep up with them if you insist on living with laws which no longer are needed. In fact hinder progress.

[hawker9000]

when you have a government that won't step down failure after failure then there is only one solution

any other civilised country in the world the government would have stepped down long ago with performance like PTP - they are obviously not fit for purpose and make a mockery of democracy and the law

not to mention having a leader that fled the country to avoid prison and is running things from another country, if it wasn't so serious it would be funny

Did GW step down?

Did Tony Blair step down?

No, but many people believe they should have stepped down!

I don't think Bush should have stepped down. I think he should never have been given the job.

Notice the similarities in Bush and Yingluck they both got the job with the majority of the people against them.

They are both incompetent twits.

Bush had Chaney pulling his strings and Yingluck has Thaksin pulling her strings.

Oh here we go again... Bush did step down. At the end of his completely lawful (unless we're going to start in on conspiracy theories....please, no, oh please!) second term. There was no coup. The military did not intervene. The turnover was peaceful and in accordance with the Constitution. Do you know what the word "coup" means? THIS thread is about a proposed law against coups in Thailand, and isn't an excuse (though for some people any excuse will do...) to dredge up tired and threadbare gripes & whines about Bush or Blair.

[EyesWideOpen]

This is quite subversive. Yingluck becomes DM and now enjoys "good relations" with the top brass. Now they try to bring in a law that she (with big brother's approval) must endorse future promotions to the rank of general. Guess what, only their relatives, friends, cronies and paid sympathisers will ever get promoted. Once the military are under control the pesky Red Stormtroopers will be surplus to requirements and can be dumped. Emergency decree brings big brother home and he becomes leader. The police and military are under control, and the democratically elected governement can now pass any laws they want, borrow trillions off budget and really get super amply rich. Sweet.

Look to history. Hitler did the same - used the SA brown shirts as private army, until he got control of the military and police. Then bye bye SA and anyone else who wasn't wanted or disagreed. Stalin purged the military to keep control and through is meglania paranoia, so did all the other dictators.

This strategy is hardly subtle yet no one seems to worry about the consequences.

It is not always the Generals who initiate the coups.

To many Thaksinite generals can demoralize the rest of the army.

The Wikileaks cables from the US Ambassador back to Washington and a few other sources explain who ordered the Thaksin coup.

Wonder why The Nation didn't cover it?

Shhssssshhhhh....

[ableguy]

Anybody that can stay calm and suggest another anti-coup law, while everybody else is panicking about the coming coup, simply fails to understand the situation.

Correct we need a crack down on these idiots,

[FarangTalk]

When you have been through the Thaksin direct-rule years and seen the rape of the country's finances with a few Baht handed out to poor people - before and after elections - in order to get them to vote for you, It's hardly surprising that any alternative looks good.

The choice facing Thailand now is one-man dictatorship or a coup. Given that lousy choice, I'd take the coup because at least it's not one person running the show.

Coups will become a rarity here when a proper democratic system is in place. Political parties with some sort of foundation - left or right of centre, centrist, agrarian, green or whatever - are needed to give people a real choice. The current 'choice' is which party will give the most handouts, subsidies or bribes - a woeful choice.

I have written a fair amount about democracy here on various TV threads and strongly disagree with those shallow-thinking Farangs who think that the democracy of their home country can be applied or imposed on a developing country like Thailand.

Thaksin's first administration was the most stable the country had been for decades. The problem with the majority of the Thaksin obsessives, is that they weren't here during the really bad Democrat governments of the 90's and the bloody coups of 1976 and 1991 and haven't experienced anything else. They just don't have the experience to comment constructively.

Coups will only become a rarity when the generals and more importantly the people that control them are brought to justice.

The mere fact that it's forbidden to have any discussion of that subject, should tell you where the problems really lie.

The 2006 coup was engineered by those very same people who want to prevent democracy, not establish it!

[DiNiro]

When you have been through the Thaksin direct-rule years and seen the rape of the country's finances with a few Baht handed out to poor people - before and after elections - in order to get them to vote for you, It's hardly surprising that any alternative looks good.

The choice facing Thailand now is one-man dictatorship or a coup. Given that lousy choice, I'd take the coup because at least it's not one person running the show.

Coups will become a rarity here when a proper democratic system is in place. Political parties with some sort of foundation - left or right of centre, centrist, agrarian, green or whatever - are needed to give people a real choice. The current 'choice' is which party will give the most handouts, subsidies or bribes - a woeful choice.

I have written a fair amount about democracy here on various TV threads and strongly disagree with those shallow-thinking Farangs who think that the democracy of their home country can be applied or imposed on a developing country like Thailand.

Thaksin's first administration was the most stable the country had been for decades. The problem with the majority of the Thaksin obsessives, is that they weren't here during the really bad Democrat governments of the 90's and the bloody coups of 1976 and 1991 and haven't experienced anything else. They just don't have the experience to comment constructively.

Coups will only become a rarity when the generals and more importantly the people that control them are brought to justice.

The mere fact that it's forbidden to have any discussion of that subject, should tell you where the problems really lie.

The 2006 coup was engineered by those very same people who want to prevent democracy, not establish it!

Exactly right.

If you read The Nation, you would have no idea he was a billionaire before politics.

It is actually illegal in Thailand to discuss the truth.

Giles Ungpakorn, a political science professor at Chula wrote a book about the last coup but had to flee the country.

[Songhua]

an anti-coup law is an oxymoron

General A: Let's have a coup.

General B: No, sssshhh, there's a law.

[DiNiro]

an anti-coup law is an oxymoron

General A: Let's have a coup.

General B: No, sssshhh, there's a law.

General C; No problem, we can give ourselves amnesty, rewrite the constitution, stack a political court with the PMs enemies, force him into exile, then confiscate the billions he made as a telecommunications tycoon.

O yea, how about an 80 billion baht raise for us too while were are at it. Ha ha ha ha ha.

[whybother]

When you have been through the Thaksin direct-rule years and seen the rape of the country's finances with a few Baht handed out to poor people - before and after elections - in order to get them to vote for you, It's hardly surprising that any alternative looks good.

 

The choice facing Thailand now is one-man dictatorship or a coup. Given that lousy choice, I'd take the coup because at least it's not one person running the show.

 

Coups will become a rarity here when a proper democratic system is in place. Political parties with some sort of foundation - left or right of centre, centrist, agrarian, green or whatever - are needed to give people a real choice. The current 'choice' is which party will give the most handouts, subsidies or bribes - a woeful choice.

 

I have written a fair amount about democracy here on various TV threads and strongly disagree with those shallow-thinking Farangs who think that the democracy of their home country can be applied or imposed on a developing country like Thailand.

 

 

 

Thaksin's first administration was the most stable the country had been for decades. The problem with the majority of the Thaksin obsessives, is that they weren't here during the really bad Democrat governments of the 90's and the bloody coups of 1976 and 1991 and haven't experienced anything else. They just don't have the experience to comment constructively.

 

Coups will only become a rarity when the generals and more importantly the people that control them are brought to justice.

 

The mere fact that it's forbidden to have any discussion of that subject, should tell you where the problems really lie. 

 

The 2006 coup was engineered by those very same people who want to prevent democracy, not establish it!

Exactly right.

If you read The Nation, you would have no idea he was a billionaire before politics.

It is actually illegal in Thailand to discuss the truth.

Giles Ungpakorn, a political science professor at Chula wrote a book about the last coup but had to flee the country.

Everyone is quite aware that he was corrupt before he entered politics.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[jayboy]

I don't see the case for a new law when the existing laws are already sufficient.Really in the instance of a proposed anti coup law the same case as with the lese majeste laws.The objectives are reasonable enough but do not require separate legislation since there are already statutes on the book dealing with these offences..

Perhaps in the case of coups there should be a requirement that those involved should not be able to award themselves post facto pardons.The practical position in Thailand is that coups favoured by the amart are not punished while coup attempts unapproved are punished severely,with for example in the 1970's the unapproved coup leader General Chalard being executed.

[DiNiro]

When you have been through the Thaksin direct-rule years and seen the rape of the country's finances with a few Baht handed out to poor people - before and after elections - in order to get them to vote for you, It's hardly surprising that any alternative looks good.

The choice facing Thailand now is one-man dictatorship or a coup. Given that lousy choice, I'd take the coup because at least it's not one person running the show.

Coups will become a rarity here when a proper democratic system is in place. Political parties with some sort of foundation - left or right of centre, centrist, agrarian, green or whatever - are needed to give people a real choice. The current 'choice' is which party will give the most handouts, subsidies or bribes - a woeful choice.

I have written a fair amount about democracy here on various TV threads and strongly disagree with those shallow-thinking Farangs who think that the democracy of their home country can be applied or imposed on a developing country like Thailand.

Thaksin's first administration was the most stable the country had been for decades. The problem with the majority of the Thaksin obsessives, is that they weren't here during the really bad Democrat governments of the 90's and the bloody coups of 1976 and 1991 and haven't experienced anything else. They just don't have the experience to comment constructively.

Coups will only become a rarity when the generals and more importantly the people that control them are brought to justice.

The mere fact that it's forbidden to have any discussion of that subject, should tell you where the problems really lie.

The 2006 coup was engineered by those very same people who want to prevent democracy, not establish it!

Exactly right.

If you read The Nation, you would have no idea he was a billionaire before politics.

It is actually illegal in Thailand to discuss the truth.

Giles Ungpakorn, a political science professor at Chula wrote a book about the last coup but had to flee the country.

Everyone is quite aware that he was corrupt before he entered politics.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

According to the banned reading material, corruption was not the reason for the coup.

Have you read the facts?

Sad, but the ones that have written the story had to flee Thailand and their work is banned here.

In fact, the coup was run by the super corrupt in Thailand protecting their interests.

Scoundrels that can't win an election, pay off the army & would have you jailed for even mentioning the facts.

Why would anybody support this group?

Edited July 29, 2013 by DiNiro

[waza]

When you have been through the Thaksin direct-rule years and seen the rape of the country's finances with a few Baht handed out to poor people - before and after elections - in order to get them to vote for you, It's hardly surprising that any alternative looks good.

The choice facing Thailand now is one-man dictatorship or a coup. Given that lousy choice, I'd take the coup because at least it's not one person running the show.

Coups will become a rarity here when a proper democratic system is in place. Political parties with some sort of foundation - left or right of centre, centrist, agrarian, green or whatever - are needed to give people a real choice. The current 'choice' is which party will give the most handouts, subsidies or bribes - a woeful choice.

I have written a fair amount about democracy here on various TV threads and strongly disagree with those shallow-thinking Farangs who think that the democracy of their home country can be applied or imposed on a developing country like Thailand.

Thaksin's first administration was the most stable the country had been for decades. The problem with the majority of the Thaksin obsessives, is that they weren't here during the really bad Democrat governments of the 90's and the bloody coups of 1976 and 1991 and haven't experienced anything else. They just don't have the experience to comment constructively.

Coups will only become a rarity when the generals and more importantly the people that control them are brought to justice.

The mere fact that it's forbidden to have any discussion of that subject, should tell you where the problems really lie.

The 2006 coup was engineered by those very same people who want to prevent democracy, not establish it!

Exactly right.

If you read The Nation, you would have no idea he was a billionaire before politics.

It is actually illegal in Thailand to discuss the truth.

Giles Ungpakorn, a political science professor at Chula wrote a book about the last coup but had to flee the country.

Actually I believe his declared asset in 2001 were around 500 million baht. On your second point its obviously not illegal to lie, because you just did. On you third point most academics agree that Giles Ungpakorn book propaganda was wildly inaccurate to the point of being bias in regard's to the events of 2006.

Edited July 29, 2013 by waza

[DiNiro]

He was on the Forbes billionaire list earlier. No. 2 or 3 in Thailand in 1999?

He owned 60 companies. He was building skyscrapers & launching satellites around 1993. The Bill Gates of Thailand.

Since he was in telecommunications his stocks got crushed in 2000 tech crash so his 2001 declaration might be close.

(I think he wisely hid some of his money since the army had a history of coups and stealing it all....)

Now you would be right in quoting The Nation saying he doubled his money in 2003 while in office!

Robbing the country blind!! Right?

The facts are the stock market went up 103% that year.....

How did his stocks perform while in office? If you read The Nation you would think he outperformed the market SET.

Fact is, his companies listed on the market mirrored the SET while he was PM.

He stepped on a few toes and they just threw him out is what happened.

Day in and day out, for the last ten years, The Nation trashes the guy on their front page yet he is more popular than ever.

Funny.

Edited July 29, 2013 by DiNiro

[whybother]

 

Everyone is quite aware that he was corrupt before he entered politics.

 

 

According to the banned reading material, corruption was not the reason for the coup. 

Have you read the facts?

Sad, but the ones that have written the story had to flee Thailand and their work is banned here.

 

In fact, the coup was run by the super corrupt in Thailand protecting their interests.

Scoundrels that can't win an election, pay off the army & would have you jailed for even mentioning the facts.

Why would anybody support this group?

 

 

I didn't say anything about the coup. I was just pointing out how he became a billionaire before he became PM.

He continued that corruption while he was PM.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[jayboy]

On you third point most academics agree that Giles Ungpakorn book propaganda was wildly inaccurate to the point of being bias in regard's to the events of 2006.

On this point alone I have a query.Can you advise which academics agreed Giles's book on the coup was wildly inaccurate?

If you are unable to do so, one must simply conclude that you disagree with his conclusions and have invented the academic support you refer to.

I had some reservations too relating to Giles's somewhat predictable assumptions on a class based interpretation of political events in Thailand.He is a Marxist and I am not.Yet there was a great deal of excellent and perceptive material in his book.

But that's my opinion and I would not make up support from "most academics" as you appear to have done.Actually as I recall Giles book was very favourably reviewed by the academic community.

Disappointingly for the champions of reaction on this forum and elsewhere, there is in fact no discernible academic support for the amart in Thailand, slightly odd even taking into account that academics almost everywhere tend to be left of centre.

[DiNiro]

Everyone is quite aware that he was corrupt before he entered politics.

According to the banned reading material, corruption was not the reason for the coup.

Have you read the facts?

Sad, but the ones that have written the story had to flee Thailand and their work is banned here.

In fact, the coup was run by the super corrupt in Thailand protecting their interests.

Scoundrels that can't win an election, pay off the army & would have you jailed for even mentioning the facts.

Why would anybody support this group?

I didn't say anything about the coup. I was just pointing out how he became a billionaire before he became PM.

He continued that corruption while he was PM.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I believe their were some shady deals in his business past. Sure. This is Thailand.

He did come across as more competent than most. I think that was his downfall.

He scared the wrong crowd. Stepped on some toes and even rubbed their nose in it.

Bad boy. Had to go.

Isn't it insulting that people more corrupt than him threw him out? Especially after winning the elections so decisively.

There isn't a clean candidate. Not one.

Democracy is supposed to solve that.

[whybother]

I believe their were some shady deals in his business past. Sure. This is Thailand.

He did come across as more competent than most. I think that was his downfall.

He scared the wrong crowd. Stepped on some toes and even rubbed their nose in it.

Bad boy. Had to go.

Isn't it insulting that people more corrupt than him threw him out? Especially after winning the elections so decisively.

There isn't a clean candidate. Not one.

Democracy is supposed to solve that.

Most of his businesses were failures before he got his big break with a police computer deal and then a monopoly telecom deal.

He was certainly competent in corruption. Not really so in business.

[jayboy]

Everyone is quite aware that he was corrupt before he entered politics.

According to the banned reading material, corruption was not the reason for the coup.

Have you read the facts?

Sad, but the ones that have written the story had to flee Thailand and their work is banned here.

In fact, the coup was run by the super corrupt in Thailand protecting their interests.

Scoundrels that can't win an election, pay off the army & would have you jailed for even mentioning the facts.

Why would anybody support this group?

I didn't say anything about the coup. I was just pointing out how he became a billionaire before he became PM.

He continued that corruption while he was PM.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As usual on this forum opinion expressed on Thaksin's pre- politician wealth completely ill informed and downright wrong.By Thai standards it was legitimate and certainly not illegally earned.Monopolistic certainly and tied to political links, certainly - but not corrupt.

I have summarised the explanation given by Pasuk/Baker in their "Thaksin".

His success arose from ability to synergise politics and business.He was persistent and had a flare for risk taking.He understood that political regulation of business is the source of abnormal rates of profit.His great fortune built up over 5 years from 1990 was the result of the booming economy and the state's abysmal failure to expand landline or mobile networks.The monopoloistic concession allowed new mobile suppliers to charge high prices with enormous profit margins.TOT constructed a built in market advantage for Thaksin because it suited them in their competition with CAT.Finally the stock market pumped up by financial liberalization and world wide entusiasm for emerging markets transl;ated high profits to higher net worth.

My own view was that Thaksin's corruption related more to changing the rules of the game to suit his interestrs.This was really more apparent after he made his first fortune.

[DiNiro]

Everyone is quite aware that he was corrupt before he entered politics.

According to the banned reading material, corruption was not the reason for the coup.

Have you read the facts?

Sad, but the ones that have written the story had to flee Thailand and their work is banned here.

In fact, the coup was run by the super corrupt in Thailand protecting their interests.

Scoundrels that can't win an election, pay off the army & would have you jailed for even mentioning the facts.

Why would anybody support this group?

I didn't say anything about the coup. I was just pointing out how he became a billionaire before he became PM.

He continued that corruption while he was PM.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

As usual on this forum opinion expressed on Thaksin's pre- politician wealth completely ill informed and downright wrong.By Thai standards it was legitimate and certainly not illegally earned.Monopolistic certainly and tied to political links, certainly - but not corrupt.

I have summarised the explanation given by Pasuk/Baker in their "Thaksin".

His success arose from ability to synergise politics and business.He was persistent and had a flare for risk taking.He understood that political regulation of business is the source of abnormal rates of profit.His great fortune built up over 5 years from 1990 was the result of the booming economy and the state's abysmal failure to expand landline or mobile networks.The monopoloistic concession allowed new mobile suppliers to charge high prices with enormous profit margins.TOT constructed a built in market advantage for Thaksin because it suited them in their competition with CAT.Finally the stock market pumped up by financial liberalization and world wide entusiasm for emerging markets transl;ated high profits to higher net worth.

My own view was that Thaksin's corruption related more to changing the rules of the game to suit his interestrs.This was really more apparent after he made his first fortune.

You are right about him taking advantage of the dismal telephone company service in Thailand around 1990.

Had to pay a fortune or wait years for a phone line. Scoundrels.

Them bam. Thaksin was there with the pagers, then cell phones, satellites, info services, etc.

But I will argue if he changed the rules to favor his businesses as PM, then why did his companies returns only mirror the SET?

The reason for the coup is in the banned reading.

Edited July 29, 2013 by DiNiro

[waza]

On you third point most academics agree that Giles Ungpakorn book propaganda was wildly inaccurate to the point of being bias in regard's to the events of 2006.

On this point alone I have a query.Can you advise which academics agreed Giles's book on the coup was wildly inaccurate?

If you are unable to do so, one must simply conclude that you disagree with his conclusions and have invented the academic support you refer to.

I had some reservations too relating to Giles's somewhat predictable assumptions on a class based interpretation of political events in Thailand.He is a Marxist and I am not.Yet there was a great deal of excellent and perceptive material in his book.

But that's my opinion and I would not make up support from "most academics" as you appear to have done.Actually as I recall Giles book was very favourably reviewed by the academic community.

Disappointingly for the champions of reaction on this forum and elsewhere, there is in fact no discernible academic support for the amart in Thailand, slightly odd even taking into account that academics almost everywhere tend to be left of centre.

Considering that Giles is on the run to avoid Les Majesty charges resulting from this book it is not worth my TVF membership to discuss this matter

[DiNiro]

I believe their were some shady deals in his business past. Sure. This is Thailand.

He did come across as more competent than most. I think that was his downfall.

He scared the wrong crowd. Stepped on some toes and even rubbed their nose in it.

Bad boy. Had to go.

Isn't it insulting that people more corrupt than him threw him out? Especially after winning the elections so decisively.

There isn't a clean candidate. Not one.

Democracy is supposed to solve that.

Most of his businesses were failures before he got his big break with a police computer deal and then a monopoly telecom deal.

He was certainly competent in corruption. Not really so in business.

20 years ago, the guy was launching satellites, had companies listed on the stock exchange & you are saying he was incompetent in business.

Funny.

[whybother]

I believe their were some shady deals in his business past. Sure. This is Thailand.

He did come across as more competent than most. I think that was his downfall.

He scared the wrong crowd. Stepped on some toes and even rubbed their nose in it.

Bad boy. Had to go.

Isn't it insulting that people more corrupt than him threw him out? Especially after winning the elections so decisively.

There isn't a clean candidate. Not one.

Democracy is supposed to solve that.

Most of his businesses were failures before he got his big break with a police computer deal and then a monopoly telecom deal.

He was certainly competent in corruption. Not really so in business.

20 years ago, the guy was launching satellites, had companies listed on the stock exchange & you are saying he was incompetent in business.

Funny.

It's not that hard to do business when you're handed a monopoly.