Academics recruited to NLA share anti-Thaksin outlook

[kriswillems]

Robbok,

 

2010 is four years ago. Are you sure that anyone will go to jail for killing the red-shirts in 2010?

And who shot the bullets that killed them? It's still not known - probably because those in charge don't want us to know.

As for who ordered to burn down the malls - those should be put in jail to. But in my opinion 1 life is more valuable than 100 malls.

 

The 2014 uprising is a few months ago - and many of the red-shirt side that were responsible for the killings are already in jail.

 

I see an unbalance here.

 

What I want to say is that if you want to reform a country in a stable way you need have support from all sides and be fair to all sides.

 

Of course, you can use the rule of brute force to do a single handed reform, but in the end you'll have a big mass of people that feels suppressed, which will eventually lead to new conflicts and new coups.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2014 by kriswillems

[sweatalot]

[/quote]
The people that are selected are not just Thaksin haters - they are part of the Suthep camp.
People choosen for the NLA should be neutral, or if that's not possible, they should choose people from each side.
[/quote]

What is wrong with having been part of the Suthep camp?
What Suthep wanted was democracy - which clearly could not exist with taksin, the ptp and the "udd"

you might disagree with his strategy but not with his goal

[sweatalot]

Thaksin is just a symbol used in a fight.
 
The real fight is a fight between the old powers and the poor masses.
Basically the old powers don't want to give full democratic rights to the poor masses, because they would loose power.
Thaksin is used as an excuse for not giving democratic rights to the poor masses.
 
Even if there would be no Thaksin, the conflict would still be there, but the old powers would have to choose a different symbol to fight.

"not giving democratic rights to the poor masses."

do not the actions and the goals of the present military government try to do exactly that?

[kriswillems]

 

Thaksin is just a symbol used in a fight.
 
The real fight is a fight between the old powers and the poor masses.
Basically the old powers don't want to give full democratic rights to the poor masses, because they would loose power.
Thaksin is used as an excuse for not giving democratic rights to the poor masses.
 
Even if there would be no Thaksin, the conflict would still be there, but the old powers would have to choose a different symbol to fight.

"not giving democratic rights to the poor masses."

do not the actions and the goals of the present military government try to do exactly that?

 

I honestly hope so.

Do you have any indication that they try to do that - giving equal democratic rights to the poor masses?

 

The past governments either never helped to poor (yellow shirt side) or have helped the poor the wrong way (red shirt side).

 

Thailand needs to stop seeing itself as a self supporting island of agriculture.

The poor have to be empowered, educated and put to work in other sectors.

Emphasis has to be put on growth rather than self-support.

 

What happens today, is that the poor are taught be be happy with their situation - kinda accept it. 

 

Edited August 2, 2014 by kriswillems

[jaidam]

[/quote]
The people that are selected are not just Thaksin haters - they are part of the Suthep camp.
People choosen for the NLA should be neutral, or if that's not possible, they should choose people from each side.
[/quote]

What is wrong with having been part of the Suthep camp?
What Suthep wanted was democracy - which clearly could not exist with taksin, the ptp and the "udd"

you might disagree with his strategy but not with his goal

 

 Suthep's goal was the removal of the Thaksin regime. Suthep is not/did not/will not pay for a propaganda campaign aimed at placing Suthep and his family as hereditary dictators of Thailand. It was only the Shinawats with that goal. There is no "Suthep camp", he already achieved his goals, he is now irrelevant.

 

 The Shinawatras stand for everything that is not democratic. They stand for nepotism, corruption, extra judicial violence and murders on a grand scale, double standards, keeping the NE locals poor and uneducated(gullible) and self enrichment. You can see the problem is that Shinawatra and democracy are polar opposites. Which of course is why none of the NLA support a hereditary Shinawatra dictatorship. I would have thought this would be obvious to all TVF readers.

[h90]

Sharing the anti-Thaksin outlook is of utmost importance. Paramount. Instead of sharing an outlook for law and order, equal justice for all, due process, freedom of speech, individual and equal opportunity for all, they are most concerned with "selecting" those holding anti-Thaksin views.

 

Well as Thaksin was exactly the opposite to law and order, equal justice for all, freedom of speech, etc, etc.....it is a good chance that his opponents stand for it.

[sweatalot]

And how about the red shirts that were shot in the 2010 uprising?
I don't see anyone going to jail for that.
 
[/quote]

they were part of a terrorist group that committed crimes and threatened to burn down Bangkok.

They did not cease their wrong doing, and did not surrender when force was threatened - so what other way was there to finish there terrorist insurgency?

[SOTIRIOS]

..........with just cause.........

[robblok]

Robbok,

 

2010 is four years ago. Are you sure that anyone will go to jail for killing the red-shirts in 2010?

And who shot the bullets that killed them? It's still not known - probably because those in charge don't want us to know.

As for who ordered to burn down the malls - those should be put in jail to. But in my opinion 1 life is more valuable than 100 malls.

 

The 2014 uprising is a few months ago - and many of the red-shirt side that were responsible for the killings are already in jail.

 

I see an unbalance here.

 

What I want to say is that if you want to reform a country in a stable way you need have support from all sides and be fair to all sides.

 

Of course, you can use the rule of brute force to do a single handed reform, but in the end you'll have a big mass of people that feels suppressed, which will eventually lead to new conflicts and new coups.

 

 

 

 

Who were in power after 2010... yes  your beloved Shins.. they had enough power for this but did not handle it. They wanted Taksin free and used this to have the amnesty cover Abisith and Suthep. They declined wanting their day in court unlike Taksin. The reason YL did not experdite this all was that they wanted to use this case against Abisith and Suthep to help them get them to cooperate with Taksin his amnesty. It did not work.. who is to blame.. your leaders. Abisith and Suthep had no power at that point. The power all came when Taksin wanted his amnesty. That is when it all went bad for the reds before that they had absolute power.

 

In my opinion advocating to burn Bangkok down is terrorism, far worse then burning a mall down

 

I also see you ignore my part about YL and Charlem who used the police to clear a yellow protest ground and deaths occurred. Seems quite similar to 2010. So by the same measure they should be in jail for this too. Nice to ignore that.

 

Fact is sometimes governments need to use force.. and it can lead to deaths.. question is was force justified. Id say yes in 2010 with the men in black the grenades thrown at the army and such. Do you really think they said go out and kill red shirts. Of course not they had shown restraint all the time. Its a shame so many died and some of those like the nurse were innocent. However everyone knew about the crackdown and stayed in the war zone. 

Edited August 2, 2014 by robblok

[h90]

 

 

I hope that Thaksin doesn't come back, but the fact that the new leaders are mostly part of the Suthep camp and that mainly red-shirt leaders are the ones blamed for all the deaths and injuries, clearly shows that the army is not a neutral player (and never was).

 

They are clearly preparing a "democracy???" in which one side (the red shirt side) can never win again.

Kris,

 

But the red shirts were responsible for 90% of the deaths during this violence. You can't deny that anymore before you could, by saying it was self inflicted (ridiculous of course with violent animals like those red shirt militants nobody has to inflict anything on themselves). Now guns are matched fingerprints and bulets are matched. It is clear its the reds that killed the children in Trad and BKK. Itc clear that they shot grenades at the anti government protesters. How can you call getting the people responsible for violence bias. 

 

The anti government criminal elements have been arrested too and are waiting for their day in court. When the guards did thing that could not be tolerated they were handed over for prosecution. Now if anyone shown bias it was the previous government who protected the murdered of children in their ranks. (protecting terrorists is an act of terrorism). 

 

They can't create a democracy where "red shirts" cant win unless they take away the votes. They can however create a democracy where the government has to live by the rules and take into account the minority too. (kinda like a real democracy not a winner takes it all Taksin style one). 

 

With luck the anti corruption stance of the army will go on they even go after their own when they go out of line (recent news patpong). I have not seen the reds do that one time. All they seem to do is go for populist policies full of corruption that cant be sustained (rice scam). Every organisation warned them about this but they still did it.... they did not budget money for it it was cost neutral according to them but they lost 800 billion baht. (had they budgeted for it it was not a loss but just part of spending but they did not). They did not budget it because then they could not go for all the other vote buying stuff they did because by law they can't have a huge deficit in a budget. 

 

My point is they are creating a democracy where people have to play by the rules.. and that these Academics have an anti-Taksin outlook is a good thing, because if there is one thing that Taksin hated were rules that came between him and the absolute power to rape the country. 

 

Ok, fair enough.

And how about the red shirts that were shot in the 2010 uprising?

I don't see anyone going to jail for that.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I hate all extremist sides (red and yellow, Thaksin and Suthep) and I also agree there was a lot as mismanagement during the Yingluck government.  but it's very clear to me the army is choosing sides (which should not be the case in a democracy). Big parts of the population (the majority) have voted for the red shirt politicians. They can't just be ignored if you want to create a stable democracy.

 

The academics that were selected are not just anti-Thaksin (which is a good thing), but they are Pro-Suthep (which is a bad thing, taking into account the history of Suthep).

 

 

who got in jail for the violence against the protesters 2008?
 

[HerbalEd]

 If you were to ask the average Joe/Somchai on the street what he thought about common-or-garden cults such as Jonestown,Manson family,Joe Carroll etc he would answer that he feels a mix of revulsion and ghoulish intrigue. Why then do some posters expect that neutral bystanders would have positive thoughts about the cult of Shinawat? Indeed, if any of the NLA thought it appropriate that a family of billionaire criminals are the only suitable leaders for a sovereign nation for ever, that would be the real surprise.

 

 To put it succinctly there is no place in government for a billionaire criminal cabal no matter how much they spend on global PR. End of.

You don't really think that historically it was only the Taksin-ites that were corrupt, do you? Given that the elite/royalists were in power for several centuries, seems like they were the most corrupt of all ... or at least for a much much longer time. 

[sweatalot]

Thaksin is just a symbol used in a fight.
 
The real fight is a fight between the old powers and the poor masses.
Basically the old powers don't want to give full democratic rights to the poor masses, because they would loose power.
Thaksin is used as an excuse for not giving democratic rights to the poor masses.
 
Even if there would be no Thaksin, the conflict would still be there, but the old powers would have to choose a different symbol to fight.

 
I absolutely agree.
I listened to the general's speech last night.
It was full of soothing words about ensuring an inclusive reconcilliation between the opposing political camps.
Now this.
This coup and the previous coup were all about pulling power away from the masses who supported Thaksin and a more modern Thailand and giving it back to the people who have run Thailand from the start.
Who are they?
It's the old Bangkok families. The "old guard" born into privilege, with obscene wealth obtained from hundreds of years of titled land ownership, warrants granted to them to run the first industrialised businesses, (remember Thailand supported Japan during the second world war).
This aristocracy have their tentacles into every facet of the Thai economy.
Thaksin came from the North, he started his own business outside of the establishment, made billions in satelite communications before he entered politics, didn't owe the old guard any favours.
When he was elected he began freeing up the economy, allowing the poor to borrow for business, allowing children from poor rural families to get a university education.
And worst of all, began to tell the army what to do (as we do in the West). Too much change too fast.
He threatened the status quo and they had to act.
The problem for the general is that he doesn't understand, you cant put the genie back into the bottle.
They might turn back the clock for 20-30 years, but in the end Bangkok isn't Thailand and the people there who suck up to this regime (read educated government employees) don't have the slightest clue what the rest of the Thai population think or want.
They are living in a fantasy bubble with money supplied by the establishment.
The people will wait patiently at first then if there's not real change and real opportunities for the rural poor, there could be a violent revolution here.
At the moment, I'm not optimistic.

 
Just to show how wrong this post is, one example:
 
Thaksin came from the North, he started his own business outside of the establishment, made billions in satelite communications before he entered politics, didn't owe the old guard any favours.
 
Sunthorn Kongsompong, the general that ousted democratically elected PM Chatchai Chunhawan in the 1991 coup handed Thaksin not just a concession, but a monopoly on satellite communications. He made his billions by using his wife's family patronage network to  gain a monopoly in providing computer services to the police (while he was still a policeman), then by getting a cell phone monopoy from a military junta, and then the satellite monopoly.
Old fashioned cronysm, not by some fabled business genious and very much by seeking and paying back favours. Sunthon had 150 million dollars to his name when he died, not bad for someone on a general's salary.

I would have given you a like if you had given sources or references.

For me it is absolutely in the dark how a policeman could turn billionaire.
I always suspected something wrong but have no proof.
It would be of great advantage if reliable facts on this subject were available. (I know it is OT, sorry, but I consider it important)

[sweatalot]

If you were to ask the average Joe/Somchai on the street what he thought about common-or-garden cults such as Jonestown,Manson family,Joe Carroll etc he would answer that he feels a mix of revulsion and ghoulish intrigue. Why then do some posters expect that neutral bystanders would have positive thoughts about the cult of Shinawat? Indeed, if any of the NLA thought it appropriate that a family of billionaire criminals are the only suitable leaders for a sovereign nation for ever, that would be the real surprise.
 
 To put it succinctly there is no place in government for a billionaire criminal cabal no matter how much they spend on global PR. End of.

You don't really think that historically it was only the Taksin-ites that were corrupt, do you? Given that the elite/royalists were in power for several centuries, seems like they were the most corrupt of all ... or at least for a much much longer time.

So you think this is an excuse for T. being corrupt?
We better keep to the actual facts then to history

[Robby nz]

Seems to me that the anti or pro "who" shouldn't matter at this point.

 

Far more important is anti or pro "what".

 

Consider what we are all looking for in ideal improvements in this country.

 

A clean electoral system where good people with the interests of the people and country at heart are elected by a fair and equal system.

 

A clean up of corruption at all levels.

 

A fair and equal justice system.

 

Revamp of education, transport, police, the civil service and of course much more.

 

The questions should be:

 

Are the people chosen willing to work towards these ideals ?

 

Have they shown in the past that they are against the things that should be eliminated, corruption for instance ?

 

Do they have the knowledge and abilities to do the jobs they will be charged to do ?

 

Unfortunately these real questions are being obscured by color.

[Thai at Heart]

Sharing the anti-Thaksin outlook is of utmost importance. Paramount. Instead of sharing an outlook for law and order, equal justice for all, due process, freedom of speech, individual and equal opportunity for all, they are most concerned with "selecting" those holding anti-Thaksin views.

These groups can't be apolotical because they owe their positions to patronage.

Sham-academics is what they really are on all sides.

[kriswillems]

Robbok,

 

Just want to say I am not red or yellow, I am orange.

Thaksin and Yingluck are not my beloved leaders, neither are Suthep and Prayuth.

Put me somewhere in the middle. I think all sides have made huge mistakes.

And all sides have used/sacrificed the people in a fight for personal power or for protecting or expanding their wealth.

[HerbalEd]

Thaksin is just a symbol used in a fight.

 

The real fight is a fight between the old powers and the poor masses.

Basically the old powers don't want to give full democratic rights to the poor masses, because they would loose power.

Thaksin is used as an excuse for not giving democratic rights to the poor masses.

 

Even if there would be no Thaksin, the conflict would still be there, but the old powers would have to choose a different symbol to fight.

 

I'm not at all a Taksin fan ... I think he was a corrupt criminal and good riddance. However, he and little sis did do one thing right, and that was to finally, after hundreds of years, give the poor masses a chance to experience a government ... a democratically elected one ... that was on their side. But that could not be tolerated by the power elite and so they took it away and have regained  their lost power.

 

Personally I've been plesantly surprised by the house cleaning of corruption the junta has done so far and I remain cautiously optimistic. However, I think they are making a big mistake by purging the so-called red shirts and it well may come back to bite them. I think most of them have been frightened into silence, and yet they have now experienced the sweet taste of having a government (albeit a corrupt one) that was on their side, and there's no putting that genie back in the bottle.

Edited August 2, 2014 by HerbalEd

[Thai at Heart]

I hope that Thaksin doesn't come back, but the fact that the new leaders are mostly part of the Suthep camp and that mainly red-shirt leaders are the ones blamed for all the deaths and injuries, clearly shows that the army is not a neutral player (and never was).
 
They are clearly preparing a "democracy???" in which one side (the red shirt side) can never win again.

 
 Brilliant news!!!
 
 Eliminate Thaksin/Yingluck and their cronies with all the damage that they have caused, from Thai life for the betterment of Thailand and it's people.
 
 I have to say that what General Prayuth has done to date exceeds all of my expectations and statues of him shouldn't be too far off as he has radically changed the whole substance of Thai life in a few short months. I even agree with what he has done with the press and media.

You think this is going to put the genie back in the bottle. Banning Thaksin and insisting that Thailand go back to some rose tinted era isn't going to be enough.


There are some murmurs of reform, pensions for farmers and even a land tax. But really there are still at least 10mn farmers living not much more than hand to mouth.

So let's see how far this reform goes because trying to eradicate Thaksin without replacing him with something or someone else isn't going to work.

[bobmac10]

[/quote]
The people that are selected are not just Thaksin haters - they are part of the Suthep camp.
People choosen for the NLA should be neutral, or if that's not possible, they should choose people from each side.
[/quote]

What is wrong with having been part of the Suthep camp?
What Suthep wanted was democracy - which clearly could not exist with taksin, the ptp and the "udd"

you might disagree with his strategy but not with his goal

Actally, Suthep did not want democracy..... he was against elections.

What he wanted was a council of nominated citizens (he got to choose) to run the country.

Now he got what he wanted, only the army got to choose, (just as bad)

[robblok]

Robbok,

 

Just want to say I am not red or yellow, I am orange.

Thaksin and Yingluck are not my beloved leaders, neither are Suthep and Prayuth.

Put me somewhere in the middle. I think all sides have made huge mistakes.

And all sides have used/sacrificed the people in a fight for personal power or for protecting or expanding their wealth.

My two examples are Abisith and Korn. Never Sutthep he was a means to an end but you kept bringing up stuff That i had to counter. 

 

Right now i am like most optimistic with the junta.. but not about everything. 

 

I like how the junta cleans house things that were impossible to do are being done now.

[robblok]

 

Thaksin is just a symbol used in a fight.

 

The real fight is a fight between the old powers and the poor masses.

Basically the old powers don't want to give full democratic rights to the poor masses, because they would loose power.

Thaksin is used as an excuse for not giving democratic rights to the poor masses.

 

Even if there would be no Thaksin, the conflict would still be there, but the old powers would have to choose a different symbol to fight.

 

I'm not at all a Taksin fan ... I think he was a corrupt criminal and good riddance. However, he and little sis did do one thing right, and that was to finally, after hundreds of years, give the poor masses a chance to experience a government ... a democratically elected one ... that was on their side. But that could not be tolerated by the power elite and so they took it away and have regained  their lost power.

 

Personally I've been plesantly surprised by the house cleaning of corruption the junta has done so far and I remain cautiously optimistic. However, I think they are making a big mistake by purging the so-called red shirts and it well may come back to bite them. I think most of them have been frightened into silence, and yet they have now experienced the sweet taste of having a government (albeit a corrupt one) that was on their side, and there's no putting that genie back in the bottle.

 

I have no problem with the poor winning the next election. I had problems with the corruption and breaking of rules by the government (and their incompetence). Seriously if there are good checks and balances I would not mind it if an other party is in power as the one that I like. However once they start breaking the rules and trying to get a criminal back home then things change.

 

Now that the anti corruption measures are being strengthened whoever is in charge next will have to be clean or cleaner as before. Or so I hope.

[bobmac10]

 

 

 

Thaksin is just a symbol used in a fight.
 
The real fight is a fight between the old powers and the poor masses.
Basically the old powers don't want to give full democratic rights to the poor masses, because they would loose power.
Thaksin is used as an excuse for not giving democratic rights to the poor masses.
 
Even if there would be no Thaksin, the conflict would still be there, but the old powers would have to choose a different symbol to fight.

 
I absolutely agree.
I listened to the general's speech last night.
It was full of soothing words about ensuring an inclusive reconcilliation between the opposing political camps.
Now this.
This coup and the previous coup were all about pulling power away from the masses who supported Thaksin and a more modern Thailand and giving it back to the people who have run Thailand from the start.
Who are they?
It's the old Bangkok families. The "old guard" born into privilege, with obscene wealth obtained from hundreds of years of titled land ownership, warrants granted to them to run the first industrialised businesses, (remember Thailand supported Japan during the second world war).
This aristocracy have their tentacles into every facet of the Thai economy.
Thaksin came from the North, he started his own business outside of the establishment, made billions in satelite communications before he entered politics, didn't owe the old guard any favours.
When he was elected he began freeing up the economy, allowing the poor to borrow for business, allowing children from poor rural families to get a university education.
And worst of all, began to tell the army what to do (as we do in the West). Too much change too fast.
He threatened the status quo and they had to act.
The problem for the general is that he doesn't understand, you cant put the genie back into the bottle.
They might turn back the clock for 20-30 years, but in the end Bangkok isn't Thailand and the people there who suck up to this regime (read educated government employees) don't have the slightest clue what the rest of the Thai population think or want.
They are living in a fantasy bubble with money supplied by the establishment.
The people will wait patiently at first then if there's not real change and real opportunities for the rural poor, there could be a violent revolution here.
At the moment, I'm not optimistic.

 

 
Just to show how wrong this post is, one example:
 
Thaksin came from the North, he started his own business outside of the establishment, made billions in satelite communications before he entered politics, didn't owe the old guard any favours.
 
Sunthorn Kongsompong, the general that ousted democratically elected PM Chatchai Chunhawan in the 1991 coup handed Thaksin not just a concession, but a monopoly on satellite communications. He made his billions by using his wife's family patronage network to  gain a monopoly in providing computer services to the police (while he was still a policeman), then by getting a cell phone monopoy from a military junta, and then the satellite monopoly.
Old fashioned cronysm, not by some fabled business genious and very much by seeking and paying back favours. Sunthon had 150 million dollars to his name when he died, not bad for someone on a general's salary.

 

I would have given you a like if you had given sources or references.

For me it is absolutely in the dark how a policeman could turn billionaire.
I always suspected something wrong but have no proof.
It would be of great advantage if reliable facts on this subject were available. (I know it is OT, sorry, but I consider it important)

 

Sweatalot, you got it wrong again!

In 1982 he established ICSI; using his police contacts, he leased computers to government agencies with modest success. However, later ventures in security systems (SOS) and public bus radio services (Bus Sound) all failed.^[11][12] In April 1986, he founded Advanced Info Service (AIS), which started off as a computer rental business.^[13]

In 1987 Thaksin resigned from the police. He then marketed a romance drama called "Baan Sai Thong", which became a popular success in theatres.^[14][15] In 1988 he joined Pacific Telesis to operate and market the PacLink pager service, a modest success, though Thaksin later sold his shares to establish his own paging company.^[11][16] In 1989 he launched IBC, a cable television company. At that time, Thaksin had a very good relationship with Chalerm Yoobumrung, the Minister of the Prime Minister's Office, who was in charge of Thai press and media. It is a question that remains unanswered whether Chalerm granted the right to Thaksin to establish IBC just to benefit his close friend, seeing that this project had been denied by the previous administration but instantly accepted a very short period after Chalerm came to office.^[17] However, it turned out to lose money and he eventually merged this company with the CP Group's UTV.^[11][18] In 1989, Thaksin established a data networking service, Shinawatra DataCom,^[11] today known as Advanced Data Network and owned by AIS and the TOT.^[19] Many of Thaksin's businesses were later consolidated as Shin Corp.

 

OK?

Now how about the other points I made, or do you choose to ignore them?

Come on, how much Thai history do you know.

The old families, who own just about all of Thailand, couldn't give tuppence for the rural poor.

They are greedy psycopaths who have trampled on the heads of the Thai people for hundreds of years and here they are with their military puppets doing it again.

This was setup the day Thaksin gained office.

He let them know he wasn't going to play in their game.

Big mistake for him, but too bad for the majority of Thais who supported him.

Now we're back to watching Thais grovelling to their "betters" every night on TV.

I suppose you enjoy that?

 

 

 

[djjamie]

Sharing the anti-Thaksin outlook is of utmost importance. Paramount. Instead of sharing an outlook for law and order, equal justice for all, due process, freedom of speech, individual and equal opportunity for all, they are most concerned with "selecting" those holding anti-Thaksin views.

 

Doesn't your memory go back as far as pre 22nd of May, 2014? 

 

Respect for law and order? What, the PTP? Seriously? Never any intimidation of the courts by the PTP? Burning effigies? Throwing cr#p at the courthouse? Nothing?

Equal Justice? What, the PTP? Seriously? Red shirt arrests pre 22nd of May?

Freedom of Speech? What, the PTP? Seriously? Akeyuth? Yingluck suing cartoonists?

Individual and equal opportunity for all? What, the PTP? Seriously? Who ever pays the biggest bribe gets the contract?

 

These people are selected to ensure the above does not happen again. That is why reform is needed, to ensure these principles you describe are restored.

 

Your statement should read;

 

Sharing the anti-Thaksin outlook is of utmost importance because by sharing that outlook it also ensures respect for law and order, equal justice for all, due process, freedom of speech, individual and equal opportunity for all, they are most concerned with "selecting" those holding anti-Thaksin views.

Edited August 2, 2014 by djjamie

[smedly]

I hope that Thaksin doesn't come back, but the fact that the new leaders are mostly part of the Suthep camp and that mainly red-shirt leaders are the ones blamed for all the deaths and injuries, clearly shows that the army is not a neutral player (and never was).

 

They are clearly preparing a "democracy???" in which one side (the red shirt side) can never win again.

 

completely disagree

 

 

You are confusing a legitimate democratic law biding group of people with a government that was bought and paid for by a billionaire criminal on the run crackpot using his stolen billions to fund what amounts to a mafia/terrorist organisation which in turn embarked on a clever terror/propaganda brainwashing program to dominate the Thai people - The PDRC were a group of ordinary peaceful people who saw it for what it was and decided to do something about it 

 

If Thaksin couldn't see his plan through to the end he was on a path to destroy this country and it's people both economically and socially all in the name of reconciliation which turned out to be a rouge and a lie on mammoth scale - remember the buzz words  reconciliation and democracy  almost 3 years ago - just look at were it ended up - take the blinkers off and see it for what it was

 

Thailand is in a good place right now lets hope it continues and the reforms finally see this country emerge as true democracy with a mindset and political landscape that will eventually put an end to corruption lies and blind theft from the Thai people - they have come of age and it will no longer be tolerated

 

 

I once said on this very forum that Thailand needs a good man in power to move this country forward and out of it's 3rd world status - it seems that one has emerged called Prayuth

 

The red terrorist machine is done - it's funding has been removed - it's mafia (I am red) organisation is being dismantled - it's arms are being disposed of - those that committed murder on Thaksins direction are being arrested, hopefully those that gave the orders will also be brought to justice including red leaders and senior members of PTP government - do you really want to see some of these people back in any form of government - I think not

[jaidam]

 

Sweatalot, you got it wrong again!

In 1982 he established ICSI; using his police contacts, he leased computers to government agencies with modest success. However, later ventures in security systems (SOS) and public bus radio services (Bus Sound) all failed.^[11][12] In April 1986, he founded Advanced Info Service (AIS), which started off as a computer rental business.^[13]

In 1987 Thaksin resigned from the police. He then marketed a romance drama called "Baan Sai Thong", which became a popular success in theatres.^[14][15] In 1988 he joined Pacific Telesis to operate and market the PacLink pager service, a modest success, though Thaksin later sold his shares to establish his own paging company.^[11][16] In 1989 he launched IBC, a cable television company. At that time, Thaksin had a very good relationship with Chalerm Yoobumrung, the Minister of the Prime Minister's Office, who was in charge of Thai press and media. It is a question that remains unanswered whether Chalerm granted the right to Thaksin to establish IBC just to benefit his close friend, seeing that this project had been denied by the previous administration but instantly accepted a very short period after Chalerm came to office.^[17] However, it turned out to lose money and he eventually merged this company with the CP Group's UTV.^[11][18] In 1989, Thaksin established a data networking service, Shinawatra DataCom,^[11] today known as Advanced Data Network and owned by AIS and the TOT.^[19] Many of Thaksin's businesses were later consolidated as Shin Corp.

 

OK?

Now how about the other points I made, or do you choose to ignore them?

Come on, how much Thai history do you know.

The old families, who own just about all of Thailand, couldn't give tuppence for the rural poor.

They are greedy psycopaths who have trampled on the heads of the Thai people for hundreds of years and here they are with their military puppets doing it again.

This was setup the day Thaksin gained office.

He let them know he wasn't going to play in their game.

Big mistake for him, but too bad for the majority of Thais who supported him.

Now we're back to watching Thais grovelling to their "betters" every night on TV.

I suppose you enjoy that?

 

 

 

 

 

 I had a quick read through your hagiography but did not notice the name William Monson. Did I miss it, or did you decide that the brains behind Thaksin's high-tec endeavors wasn't worth a mention?

 

 FWIW he got completely ripped off, and booted out of the country, which although unfortunate is a better outcome than most people with a grievance against the Shin clan who simply disappear.

 
 

[david555]

 

Thaksin is just a symbol used in a fight.

 

The real fight is a fight between the old powers and the poor masses.

Basically the old powers don't want to give full democratic rights to the poor masses, because they would loose power.

Thaksin is used as an excuse for not giving democratic rights to the poor masses.

 

Even if there would be no Thaksin, the conflict would still be there, but the old powers would have to choose a different symbol to fight.

 

 

I absolutely agree.

I listened to the general's speech last night.

It was full of soothing words about ensuring an inclusive reconcilliation between the opposing political camps.

Now this.

This coup and the previous coup were all about pulling power away from the masses who supported Thaksin and a more modern Thailand and giving it back to the people who have run Thailand from the start.

Who are they?

It's the old Bangkok families. The "old guard" born into privilege, with obscene wealth obtained from hundreds of years of titled land ownership, warrants granted to them to run the first industrialised businesses, (remember Thailand supported Japan during the second world war).

This aristocracy have their tentacles into every facet of the Thai economy.

Thaksin came from the North, he started his own business outside of the establishment, made billions in satelite communications before he entered politics, didn't owe the old guard any favours.

When he was elected he began freeing up the economy, allowing the poor to borrow for business, allowing children from poor rural families to get a university education.

And worst of all, began to tell the army what to do (as we do in the West). Too much change too fast.

He threatened the status quo and they had to act.

The problem for the general is that he doesn't understand, you cant put the genie back into the bottle.

They might turn back the clock for 20-30 years, but in the end Bangkok isn't Thailand and the people there who suck up to this regime (read educated government employees) don't have the slightest clue what the rest of the Thai population think or want.

They are living in a fantasy bubble with money supplied by the establishment.

The people will wait patiently at first then if there's not real change and real opportunities for the rural poor, there could be a violent revolution here.

At the moment, I'm not optimistic.

 

 

 

 

You can't blame the "elite", ....as seems they never read or heared about the French Revolution ..(.1789)...! where the common people also was fed up with their rulers ...

Edited August 2, 2014 by david555

[smedly]

I hope that Thaksin doesn't come back, but the fact that the new leaders are mostly part of the Suthep camp and that mainly red-shirt leaders are the ones blamed for all the deaths and injuries, clearly shows that the army is not a neutral player (and never was).

 

They are clearly preparing a "democracy???" in which one side (the red shirt side) can never win again.

 

what exactly is the "Suthep Camp" ????  Is there a Prayuth Camp....nope

The error in your statement is the attempt to polarise the situation into camps - exactly why Thaksin almost destroyed this country, the majority of ordinary Thai people camp rose up because they had had enough of corruption lies intimidation theft and murder who used money to by their power

 

It seems to me that the vast majority of Thai people (upwards of 80%) are more than happy with the outcome - what would you call this camp ?

[smedly]

Thaksin is just a symbol used in a fight.

 

The real fight is a fight between the old powers and the poor masses.

Basically the old powers don't want to give full democratic rights to the poor masses, because they would loose power.

Thaksin is used as an excuse for not giving democratic rights to the poor masses.

 

Even if there would be no Thaksin, the conflict would still be there, but the old powers would have to choose a different symbol to fight.

 

 

rubbish

[kriswillems]

 

Thaksin is just a symbol used in a fight.

 

The real fight is a fight between the old powers and the poor masses.

Basically the old powers don't want to give full democratic rights to the poor masses, because they would loose power.

Thaksin is used as an excuse for not giving democratic rights to the poor masses.

 

Even if there would be no Thaksin, the conflict would still be there, but the old powers would have to choose a different symbol to fight.

 

 

rubbish

 

 

Well, remember Samak? He was sent out because he cooked on TV.

It wouldn't matter which leader the red shirt camp chooses, eventually he/she would be linked to Thaksin and the government would be overthrown for this (fake) reason.

The real reason for the coup is not Thanksin and not even corruption - it are the old powers clinging on to their wealth and power.

 

Personally I think it would be a very good thing for Thailand if the whole Thaksin family would redraw from politics.

But even in this case the red shirt movement would choose new leaders.... and there would be another coup.

It's a never ending story....

Edited August 2, 2014 by kriswillems

[smedly]

 

 

I hope that Thaksin doesn't come back, but the fact that the new leaders are mostly part of the Suthep camp and that mainly red-shirt leaders are the ones blamed for all the deaths and injuries, clearly shows that the army is not a neutral player (and never was).

 

They are clearly preparing a "democracy???" in which one side (the red shirt side) can never win again.

Kris,

 

But the red shirts were responsible for 90% of the deaths during this violence. You can't deny that anymore before you could, by saying it was self inflicted (ridiculous of course with violent animals like those red shirt militants nobody has to inflict anything on themselves). Now guns are matched fingerprints and bulets are matched. It is clear its the reds that killed the children in Trad and BKK. Itc clear that they shot grenades at the anti government protesters. How can you call getting the people responsible for violence bias. 

 

The anti government criminal elements have been arrested too and are waiting for their day in court. When the guards did thing that could not be tolerated they were handed over for prosecution. Now if anyone shown bias it was the previous government who protected the murdered of children in their ranks. (protecting terrorists is an act of terrorism). 

 

They can't create a democracy where "red shirts" cant win unless they take away the votes. They can however create a democracy where the government has to live by the rules and take into account the minority too. (kinda like a real democracy not a winner takes it all Taksin style one). 

 

With luck the anti corruption stance of the army will go on they even go after their own when they go out of line (recent news patpong). I have not seen the reds do that one time. All they seem to do is go for populist policies full of corruption that cant be sustained (rice scam). Every organisation warned them about this but they still did it.... they did not budget money for it it was cost neutral according to them but they lost 800 billion baht. (had they budgeted for it it was not a loss but just part of spending but they did not). They did not budget it because then they could not go for all the other vote buying stuff they did because by law they can't have a huge deficit in a budget. 

 

My point is they are creating a democracy where people have to play by the rules.. and that these Academics have an anti-Taksin outlook is a good thing, because if there is one thing that Taksin hated were rules that came between him and the absolute power to rape the country. 

 

Ok, fair enough.

And how about the red shirts that were shot in the 2010 uprising?

I don't see anyone going to jail for that.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I hate all extremist sides (red and yellow, Thaksin and Suthep) and I also agree there was a lot as mismanagement during the Yingluck government.  but it's very clear to me the army is choosing sides (which should not be the case in a democracy). Big parts of the population (the majority) have voted for the red shirt politicians. They can't just be ignored if you want to create a stable democracy.

 

The academics that were selected are not just anti-Thaksin (which is a good thing), but they are Pro-Suthep (which is a bad thing, taking into account the history of Suthep).

 

 

KW - the truth of the matter (and I've been there done that) is - if you have a violent civil disturbance on the scale of 2010 and I am a soldier sent to help restore order and you have people with grenades M16's etc shooting at me trying to kill me - I am going to shoot back with extreme prejudice - simple as that 

 

If I am an innocent bystander and want to avoid being caught in the crossfire then I get out of dodge as far away as possible - simple as that