CNN, BBC all English news really love Thaksin and hate Abhisit

[bangarang]

If Thaksin actually cared about the country wouldn't it be best to let the red shirt movement go on without him and his family at the helm?

I doubt he cares about anyone but himself and family. He already has enough money to support himself and generations of thaksins for centuries but its all about being power hungry building his empire.

[rwhoov]

Like the folks that watch Fox News, it's only fair and balanced if it's slanted their way. I think CNN and BBC are pretty fair. They shouldn't let politicians use them as a means to spread their brand of propaganda. .

[Halion]

Probably a follow on from Obama's trip to Thailand where he was seen to be all over Yingluck like white on rice. CNN is a highly manipulated media source.

[FiftyTwo]

Thaksin is a Hitler. He hasn't killed millions yet because it is 2013 and a lot harder to kill millions (of course his buddy Hun Sen of the Khmer Rouge would disagree). He has shown a complete disregard for human life over and over again. Go back and look at what Thaksin created in the South, the drug killings and look at the sniper executions he ordered in the 2010 protests. he is a criminal on the run from the law running a puppet government... and apparently that is all fine with you enlightened farang because he got 48% of the vote and formed a government. Awesome! To answer your question: no the opposition is nowhere near as corrupt or amoral as old square face. The red shirts need to get rid of Squareface and all of his kin and maybe then the rest of the country can take them and their problems seriously.

I am sympathetic to the poor farmers and inequality but as long as their leader is a psychopathic criminal there will be no real reforms or meaningful long lasting changes.

As far as I know, governments always believe they have the right to kill their own citizens.

That is the primary difference between government and corporation, government can kill legally.

[tilac2]

Abhisit is a real disappointment to international observers. A man brought up in a democracy, trained in politics at Oxford, friend of that arch Tory election-winner Boris Johnson... And yet here he is defending the abandonment of democracy in Thailand. 'Returning power to the people' he calls it in Orwellian double-speak. No wonder the TV interviewers ask some tough questions.

Abhisit should get on the phone to Boris and ask him how he, a conservative, manages to win elections in formerly lefty London. Then get back into the election process in Thailand, instead of skulking on the sidelines.

Here's quite a good summary of the current situation in Thailand, though I think they should have mentioned two of Yingluck's worst policies (the first car and the rice pledging schemes - she should be voted out just for those, some people would say):

http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/bdalpha/2013/12/29/a-silent-coup-on-the-streets-of-thailand

(in case the link doesn't show, it's from Business Day: "A silent coup on the streets of Thailand")

Edited December 30, 2013 by tilac2

[thailiketoo]

Probably a follow on from Obama's trip to Thailand where he was seen to be all over Yingluck like white on rice. CNN is a highly manipulated media source.

By whom?

[FiftyTwo]

Modern democracy in the West is actually declining in its effectiveness, as people presume too much of their politicians,

which is why there was a recent spate of hung parliaments and narrowly won elections.

You get to "vote" and that's presumed to be enough.

We clap ourselves on the back and say, "We live in a democracy."

It is most certainly not enough. Choosing the party or leader that has the better marketing campaign, does not make for healthy

competition.

Unless societies make their governments and their employees accountable, it will never be enough.

Thailand is, in its ignorance. racing toward political turmoil which could easily end in much more violence than there is now.

I would argue that modern democracy has become ineffective precisely because of it's accountability to everyone.

When criminals had undesirables had no rights, the governments had a much easier time governing.

[climbertrev1]

Thaksin is a Hitler. He hasn't killed millions yet because it is 2013 and a lot harder to kill millions (of course his buddy Hun Sen of the Khmer Rouge would disagree). He has shown a complete disregard for human life over and over again. Go back and look at what Thaksin created in the South, the drug killings and look at the sniper executions he ordered in the 2010 protests. he is a criminal on the run from the law running a puppet government... and apparently that is all fine with you enlightened farang because he got 48% of the vote and formed a government. Awesome! To answer your question: no the opposition is nowhere near as corrupt or amoral as old square face. The red shirts need to get rid of Squareface and all of his kin and maybe then the rest of the country can take them and their problems seriously.

I am sympathetic to the poor farmers and inequality but as long as their leader is a psychopathic criminal there will be no real reforms or meaningful long lasting changes.

You are merely continuing to spread misinformation about a politician you don't care for, for political reasons.

Provide evidence that so called sniper executions were ordered in 2010 by Thaksin.

Thailand is on the verge of catastrophe and people like you are helping to push it over the edge. This totally undemocratic protest is playing with fire and many innocent people risk getting hurt.

The democratic reallity is that the government won an election by a landslide. The allegations of vote buying have been investigated thoroughly and found to be ineffective for the simple reason that you can take the money and vote for who you want.

[ESCAPIS]

If you are an auto blogger, you would definitely not understand someone trying to prove carburetor system is better than injection system in 2013

Very true !

The question is 'better for who?'

[RichBKK]

Not that hard really

Generally western media are pro democracy. And unfortunately this rabble gained the requisite number of votes to form a government

Beyond that they tend not to delve too deeply bar a scratch the surface summation of events and of the grievances. That and while Yingluck doesn't appear too bright, she's hardly a Thatcher type harridan in her demeanor being quite soft spoken at interviews which gains her a bit of 'that poor well meaning woman' type sympathy. The likes of Suthep are pretty unsubtle by comparison, lets be honest, ranting in to microphones etc

The trouble is because the coverage is superficial they tend not to look too deeply in to the reasons why people are unhappy like the staggering scale of corruption and bully boy type behaviour and the disregard for the rule of law used by a government flagrantly abusing its majority. That and having the thai equivalent of Robert maxwells sister nominally in charge. Even by standards of here it's hard to take this government seriously as not the arm of a feudal overlord. Combined by a electoral system a bit reminiscent of 17th century England (rotten boroughs appear to be the norm here) and we have what we have. That and the alternative perhaps is not much better

Bit in the end it's not really their problem, so they won't bother their <deleted> looking any deeper. Not as though they have a lot of control over events as Thailand is by its nature quite insular in terms of perception of foreign relations etc and wouldn't pay much attention anyway unless trade and tourism revenues are seriously affected. And can't say I have noticed much of a change there

Oh, and while I can't speak for CNN, ever since Greg Dyke was in charge and perhaps even before then the BBC have tended to lean left of centre and as a result are generally pro working class anyway. May also play a part

Edited December 30, 2013 by RichBKK

[ppmacready]

Thaksin is a Hitler. He hasn't killed millions yet because it is 2013 and a lot harder to kill millions (of course his buddy Hun Sen of the Khmer Rouge would disagree). He has shown a complete disregard for human life over and over again. Go back and look at what Thaksin created in the South, the drug killings and look at the sniper executions he ordered in the 2010 protests. he is a criminal on the run from the law running a puppet government... and apparently that is all fine with you enlightened farang because he got 48% of the vote and formed a government. Awesome! To answer your question: no the opposition is nowhere near as corrupt or amoral as old square face. The red shirts need to get rid of Squareface and all of his kin and maybe then the rest of the country can take them and their problems seriously.

I am sympathetic to the poor farmers and inequality but as long as their leader is a psychopathic criminal there will be no real reforms or meaningful long lasting changes.

The red shirts are democratically elected each time because of the elite yellow shirts perpetuating a backward education system all these years.

In any case the road to democracy is not painless.

Its a shame when the elite yellow shirts were sent abroad to study, they either didn't study world history or more likely ignored it!

“When the old refuses to die, and the new is struggling to be born, monsters appear.”

One way or another, elite yellow shirts and the poorer uneducated red shirts have been fighting for or against democracy for decades around the world.

There aren't many country's around the world where the elitists in the end win.

But subtly ( not a word the Thais are YET familiar with ) they remain in control.

Education is the ONLY way forward.So I think we have decades of problems to follow.

Edited January 1, 2014 by metisdead
Font color reset to black.

[Hardy99]

You guys know that he was a policeman turned billionaire because of his government monopoly contracts and that his second in charge Chalerm is a gangster whose son executed a guy in a nightclub right? ...

.. and Mr. Abhisit did order the Military to kill dozens of innocent UNARMED People in Bangkok together with the for the same crime act (illegal land deal) sentenced Mr. Suthep...

Some say that all are corrupt - who knows the real truth? But then in the end it counts what is left for the Country. Do you have any points speak for Abhisit? Do you know anything

he did in his time being Prime Minister of Thailand what lasts, just something he did someone can remember is done under his power or he initialized it, like pay back

a multibillion debt to the worldbank in 2 years, or build Suvarnabhum, or make health care affordable, or come up with OTOP, or let some money flow back to the poor...

or ..?? You can say about Mr. Thaksin what ever you want, but he is a top worldclass Manager - and thats far better for the development of a Country then a spoiled boy

with the only trackrecord to have visited a US University for rich guys..

[thailiketoo]

You guys know that he was a policeman turned billionaire because of his government monopoly contracts and that his second in charge Chalerm is a gangster whose son executed a guy in a nightclub right? ...

.. and Mr. Abhisit did order the Military to kill dozens of innocent UNARMED People in Bangkok together with the for the same crime act (illegal land deal) sentenced Mr. Suthep...

Some say that all are corrupt - who knows the real truth? But then in the end it counts what is left for the Country. Do you have any points speak for Abhisit? Do you know anything

he did in his time being Prime Minister of Thailand what lasts, just something he did someone can remember is done under his power or he initialized it, like pay back

a multibillion debt to the worldbank in 2 years, or build Suvarnabhum, or make health care affordable, or come up with OTOP, or let some money flow back to the poor...

or ..?? You can say about Mr. Thaksin what ever you want, but he is a top worldclass Manager - and thats far better for the development of a Country then a spoiled boy

with the only trackrecord to have visited a US University for rich guys..

What does, "visited a US University for rich guys." mean?

[hansnl]

They're not on the side of Thaksin or Abhisit

They're on the side of democracy.

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

So what if it was on the back of populist policies? Populist policies aren't illegal, are they?

What government hasn't promised the earth to win a freakin' election?

Democracy= Government in name of the people.

Which means exactly what it says: the people.

Democracy is governing in name of the people for ALL the people.

If you want to compare western democracy with Asian democracy with western ideas, you will see, eventually, that does not fit.

For example, Indonesia and the Phillipines are democracies, right?

So you condone that Indonesia is more or less the playground for the Suharto family, and the Phillipines the playground for the Marcos family?

Becasue they are voted in?

Democracy?

What about Thailand?

In short, no way you can let loose western ideas about democracy on Asian countries.

You can not compare apples and pears.

Edited December 30, 2013 by hansnl

[penwithcris]

In Britain one of the most economically successful periods was under a right wing Tory government. During the 'never had it so good' era of the 1950's ALL social classes benefitted from the healthy state of the economy

Hopefully, when the effects of the banking crisis are lessened Britain can again be economically successful. It appears that it will happen under another largely right wing government, and I have no doubt that,again, ALL social classes will benefit

My leanings have always been to the socialist left, but I have to concede that Britain and it's citizens generally do better under the policies of the right rather than the high taxation, profligate spending of the socialist left.

Unfortunately in Thailand there doesn't seem to be a clear strategy by either of the main parties to improve the lot of ALL of the people.

Rather it's a question of which political party can successfully rape the country of most of it's economic assets

[thailiketoo]

They're not on the side of Thaksin or Abhisit

They're on the side of democracy.

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

So what if it was on the back of populist policies? Populist policies aren't illegal, are they?

What government hasn't promised the earth to win a freakin' election?

Democracy= Government in name of the people.

Which means exactly what it says: the people.

Democracy is governing in name of the people for ALL the people.

If you want to compare western democracy with Asian democracy with western ideas, you will see, eventually, that does not fit.

For example, Indonesia and the Phillipines are democracies, right?

So you condone that Indonesia is more or less the playground for the Suharto family, and the Phillipines the playground for the Marcos family?

Becasue they are voted in?

Democracy?

What about Thailand?

In short, no way you can let loose western ideas about democracy on Asian countries.

You can not compare apples and pears.

Democracy is determined by definition not location. Sorry bout that.

As much as you don't like the elected government it is the government and you are not God.

I think Obama should be impeached. When enough other people feel that way they will impeach him. Until then he has a job. I can't kick him out. Nor can you kick out a government because you think they are corrupt. They may be corrupt. Should we take your word for it? Who are you.

[nong38]

What do you expect from a bunch of independent lefties?

[blabth]

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

Hitler was democratically elected and immensely popular. Is getting 51% of the vote really a blank slate for corruption?

No, Hitler wasn't democratically elected.

You are very wrong Hitler was democratically elected and only used later his power to eliminate the opposition, therefore it is so important to have a strong opposition in the parliament. If the election in Thailand will take place (which I doubt), and if the results are excepted by the Majesty the King than it would be a parliament without any strong opposition. Therefore it was extremely irresponsible not to take part in the election but to gamble that the election will not take place.

[shiok]

What a load of rubbish

you said it ... what a load of rubbish.. they shld do their homework first... they just do it for ratings!! so typical of CNN they like dramatizing their coverage!

[shiok]

They're not on the side of Thaksin or Abhisit

They're on the side of democracy.

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

So what if it was on the back of populist policies? Populist policies aren't illegal, are they?

What government hasn't promised the earth to win a freakin' election?

Democracy= Government in name of the people.

Which means exactly what it says: the people.

Democracy is governing in name of the people for ALL the people.

If you want to compare western democracy with Asian democracy with western ideas, you will see, eventually, that does not fit.

For example, Indonesia and the Phillipines are democracies, right?

So you condone that Indonesia is more or less the playground for the Suharto family, and the Phillipines the playground for the Marcos family?

Becasue they are voted in?

Democracy?

What about Thailand?

In short, no way you can let loose western ideas about democracy on Asian countries.

You can not compare apples and pears.

Democracy is determined by definition not location. Sorry bout that.

As much as you don't like the elected government it is the government and you are not God.

I think Obama should be impeached. When enough other people feel that way they will impeach him. Until then he has a job. I can't kick him out. Nor can you kick out a government because you think they are corrupt. They may be corrupt. Should we take your word for it? Who are you.

You are so so wrong.. they bought their votes in the rural areas and even threatened them.. you should not believe him because you know nothing

[bunuel]

This is the heart of the matter. There is nothing to prevent Mr. Abhisit from following in the fine tradition of British conservatives like Sir. Winston Churchill, Maggie Thatcher and David Cameron, and using his ample financial resources to run a campaign and actually win an election !

The fact that he is incapable of doing so does not give him the right to seize power by undemocratic means - quite to the contrary, he should step aside and let someone else with more charisma run for the conservative Thais! As it is , he is behaving in a completely irresponsible fashion and leading his followers and the country. If he has any integrity, he will negotiate with the sitting government and seek a peaceful solution.

They're not on the side of Thaksin or Abhisit

They're on the side of democracy.

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

So what if it was on the back of populist policies? Populist policies aren't illegal, are they?

What government hasn't promised the earth to win a freakin' election?

[connda]

Thaksin is a billionaire and Abhisit isn't. Murdock is a billionaire and Abhisit isn't. Ted Turner is a billionaire and Abhisit isn't.

Birds of a feather flock together!

[thailiketoo]

Thaksin is a billionaire and Abhisit isn't. Murdock is a billionaire and Abhisit isn't. Ted Turner is a billionaire and Abhisit isn't.

Birds of a feather flock together!

Do you think Ted Turner owns CNN? About as savvy as the rest of the post.

[thailiketoo]

Democracy is determined by definition not location. Sorry bout that.

As much as you don't like the elected government it is the government and you are not God.

I think Obama should be impeached. When enough other people feel that way they will impeach him. Until then he has a job. I can't kick him out. Nor can you kick out a government because you think they are corrupt. They may be corrupt. Should we take your word for it? Who are you.

You are so so wrong.. they bought their votes in the rural areas and even threatened them.. you should not believe him because you know nothing

Where did I say they didn't buy votes? I said democracy is determined by definition not location.

Who should I not believe? I believe the dictionary. Democracy = a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

[mogandave]

I cannot fathom out why the richest country in the world lets it's citizens suffer and die if they don't have health insurance and why so many of it's citizens condemn a president who is trying to change that.

You lefties crack me up. Where all these suffering people?

The emergency rooms, where a law passed by Ronald Reagan assures them that they must be treated for free.

And after the initial emergency treatment?

Or if their condition is long term and not yet an emergency?

But this is not a topic about American healthcare; apols for causing it to be side tracked.

Again, where are all those suffering people?

I did not have heath care until I was 45 years old, and received well over $500,000.00 worth of "free" health care in the US.

In the US, if you have no money, heath care is "free".

Lefty is just seeking to further subsidize unions, big business and insurance companies under the guise of helping the "poor". Apparently the same poor that lefty wants to tax (punish) because they can only afford to get fat eating junk food, and because they can only afford to drive older cars that burn a lot of gas.

[shiok]

CNN, BBC all English news really love Thaksin and hate Abhisit

what a complete misrepresentation of the actual interviews in which Abhisit was given full reign to make his points and clarify his objectives. The OP heading should be changed as many people will simply read the title and make a totally wrong judgement.

yes bit the interviewer was asking stupid questions because he did not do his homework!

[hellodolly]

You're either grossly misreading this, or not hep with interviewing methods in the Western media...

Well I watched both of the interviews all of them. I have come to the conclusion that neither interviewer was aware of the whole situation. (they would fit in nice with some of the TV posters)

Abhist did a good job. I think he should have shut CNN up by asking the interviewer if he thought it was democratic with less than half the population behind them for the PTP to spend 2 and 1/2 years trying to white wash the Prime Ministers brother. Allowing him to call into the cabinet meetings and siphoning disaster relief money into their own pockets while they turned down help from the US Navy who could have delivered supplies to those in need with out the government making a single baht of off of their for free efforts there by prolonging the suffering of the victims of mother nature aided by the government lack of concern.

If he could have asked that question and got a yes or no answer out of him it would have been a whole different interview..

As for the BBC the interviewer was absolutely completely clueless as to 2010. She started off by saying the army killed every one the protestors didn't kill any one. To cover the lack of knowledge she just talked louder and asked the same questions over and over making it hard for Abhist to answer her.

She had no reply for when Abhist said it was natural to have an inquest after a police man or army had killed some one and he was willing to face the court even if it meant his death. Where as Thaksin refused to even come back to the country where he would be welcome. It is his choice to stay away. She was just completely lost at sea.

She came into the interview clueless and left clueless.

[hellodolly]

If Thaksin actually cared about the country wouldn't it be best to let the red shirt movement go on without him and his family at the helm?

Can't happen. The red shirts were starting to split with in their own ranks even with Thaksin. It wasn't until Yingluck asked them to back her that they came together again.

It makes no difference how the election goes they will eventually kill them selves. the broken promises from the PTP are going to hasten the train wreck.

Look at what happened in Yasothon. They managed to disrupt a Democrat rally but not all of them would join in the yelling and missiles of one type or another throwing.

I will admit I am just as guilty as any one else in calling them uneducated, Maybe more so than most but that does not mean they are with out morals and slowly they are taking over the rowdy inane side of the protestors.

Notice not many of them stayed around after their failed fatal attempt at the university. I think a lot of them are starting to ask questions rather than just believe every thing their leaders tell them.

Does any one know if the field hands received 300 baht a day? I really don't know but I would not be a bit surprised if they didn't.

[hellodolly]

I like Mark, but he can't seem to win an election. More Thai people want Thaksin.

Not sure about that. I think some of the ones who voted for PTP wanted Yingluck not Thaksin.

It would have been interesting if they each ran on their own forcing the people to make a choice.

Technically it is a minority government brought together buy the supporters of Yingluck and the supporters of Thaksin and the ones who don't care as long as it is a Shinawatra.

[monkfish]

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

Hitler was democratically elected and immensely popular. Is getting 51% of the vote really a blank slate for corruption?

Hitler was not democratically elected into power he inherited it being second in power at the time the Chancellor died.

Once in position he didn't let go.