Reforms to be unbiased, except against 'people like Thaksin': NRC member

[SICHONSTEVE]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I'm afraid that Thaksin, the PTP and UDD cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

Let me agree with you that many of them are a bunch of self serving corrupt politicians.

Now, let's take another well known Thai politician. Chuan Leekpai - elected in September of 1,992, as the 20th Prime Minister and the first to come to power without aristocratic or military backing. Stop for a second and ponder on that statement. A democratic country that not until 1992 elected a Prime Minister that was not directly hand picked by the elite.

He served two terms, the first ended in May of 1995, which consisted of a 5 party coalition that got defeated by Chavalit Yongchaiyut. However that government was short lived as it was held responsible for the economic crisis that beset Thailand and much of Asia in 1997. This allowed Leekpai to return for a second term. Criticized as a slow actor, he allowed numerous corruption scandals to take place during his time in office.

The following is reprinted for Wikipedia

Raluek Leekpai Scandal[edit]

In 1987, when Chuan was Parliament Speaker, his younger brother Raluek Leekpai (ระลึก หลีกภัย) was charged with embezzling 231.8 million THB (approx. 9 million USD in 1987) from Thai Farmers Bank.^[4] Raluek had been an executive at TFB. Responding to accusations in Parliament, Chuan publicly defended the innocence of his brother. Raluek fled the country, and only returned to Thailand in 2004 after the statute of limitations expired on his crime and he couldn't be prosecuted. He had been on the run as a fugitive in Taiwan. Raluek has said he might enter politics in order to restore his reputation, although he said he wanted to live a quiet life in his Trang hometown.^[5]

First Term (1992-1995)[edit]

In the aftermath of Bloody May, the Democrat Party won the majority of seats in the September 1992 elections, with 79 seats, compared to the Chart Thai Party with 77 seats. Chuan formed a coalition government with the Phalang Dharma and Ekkaparb parties.

Key policies of Chuan's first administration included:

• Engagement with Burma. As with all previous administrations, the Chuan government employed a policy of constructive engagement with the military government of Burma, provoking much criticism.^[6]
• Reforestation. A huge 5 million rai reforestation programme in honour of King Bhumibol's 50th anniversary of accession to the throne (1996) was initiated in 1994. The reforestation programme was officially declared a failure, with less than 40% of the target realized. The Director General of the RFD was suspended from his post for alleged corruption within the programme.^[7]
• Emphasis on national economic stability, decentralization of the administrative powers to the rural provinces, fostering income, opportunity and economic development distribution to the regions.

The first Chuan administration fell when members of the cabinet were implicated in profiting from Sor Phor Kor 4-01 land project documents distributed in Phuket province. Fierce public and press criticism and dissolution of Parliament were the reasons for his administration's downfall.^[8]

Second Term (1997-2001)[edit]

With United States President Bill Clinton in Wellington, New Zealand at the APEC summit, 1999

Chuan became prime minister for the second time on November 9, 1997, replacing Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, with a shaky line-up of a six-party coalition and 12 independent defectors from a seventh party, Prachakorn Thai. The ruling coalition increased its 20-seat majority in October 1998, by including the Chart Pattana party.

Economic Reforms[edit]

Chuan's second government enacted several economic reforms for which it was severely criticised. Chuan's "bitter medicine" policies brought little economic relief in the years following the 1997 economic crisis, particularly at the grassroots level. Opinions emerged that the Democrats were only helping big financial institutions and making the country more dependent of foreign investors. Nevertheless, many of the reforms recommended by the IMF were in line with the policies of market economies such as Australia and New Zealand. Interestingly, the subsequent government's economic growth was based even more strongly on selling national assets and private organisations abroad such as the Shin corporation, while most of their economic gains were built on the frugality of the Democrat policy platform. Thai Rak Thai painted the Democrats as having "open contempt" for the plight of the common Thai which set off a revenge vote against the party during the 2001 election, which gave a landslide victory to Thaksin Shinawatra.^[9]

Human Rights[edit]

Chuan's second government came under fire for the violent arrest of 223 villagers protesting the Pak Mun dam. Respected historian Nidhi Iawsriwong noted that "the present situation is as worse as that of the May event (the bloody crackdown of anti-government protesters in 1992). We have a tyrannical government that is arrogant and not accountable to the public. This is dangerous because the government still sees itself as legitimate and claims that it is democratic. In fact, it is as brutal as the military government".^[10]

In March 1999, Chuan nominated Thanom Kittikachorn to the post of honorary royal guard to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, provoking widespread criticism. Thanom turned down his appointment^[11] Thanom was one of the "Three Tyrants" who ruled Thailand from 1963 to 1973 and ordered the massacre of pro-democracy students on 14 October 1973, after which he was ordered to step down and be exiled by HM Bhumibol Adulyadej.

In April 2000, the Editor in Chief of the Chiang Mai daily newspaper Pak Nua was shot and seriously wounded in an attempted murder, but recovered. The editor believed that his repeated critical reporting on the government led to the assault.^[12]

Corruption[edit]

Although generally regarded as relatively clean and honest when compared to other Thai administrations, Chuan's government found itself plagued with corruption scandals and rumors. Key cases of corruption included:

• Rakkiat Sukhthana, Health Minister, was charged with taking a five million THB (125,000 USD) bribe from a drug firm and forcing state hospitals to buy medicine at exorbitant prices. After being found guilty, he jumped bail and went into hiding.
• Suthep Thaugsuban, Minister of Transport and Communications, whose brokering of illegal land deals caused the fall of the Chuan 1 government, was linked to abuse of funds in setting up a co-operative in his southern province of Surat Thani.^[13]
• The "edible fence" seed scandal, in which massive overpricing of seeds distributed to rural areas happened. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture was forced to resign.^[14]
• The Salween logging scandal, where up to 20,000 logs were felled illegally in the Salween forest in Mae Hong Son. Some of them turned up in the compound of the Democrat party’s office in Phichit province.^[14]
• Sanan Kajornprasart, Interior Minister, as well as 8 other cabinet ministers were found to have understated their declared assets. Sanan was later barred by the Constitution Court from politics for 5 years.^[15]
• Chuan himself was found by the National Counter-Corruption Commission to have undeclared shareholdings in a rural cooperative.^[15]

Chuan stepped down as the head of the Democrat Party in 2003.

Criticisms[edit]

• Chuan also got the nickname 'Chang Tha Si' (painter in Thai). When party members were accused of corruption, he was always known to protect them by telling the press they were clean although the court had not delivered its decision yet.

Quotes[edit]

• "I haven't received any reports yet."– (in Thai "ผมยังไม่ได้รับรายงาน") Chuan Leekpai's classic phrase when he faced many Thai reporters about some important issues or urgent issues.

• "The committee is still evaluating it."– (in Thai "ทางคณะกำลังพิจารณาอยู่ครับ") One of his most famous quotes.

Now, we can pick another profile if you like and let's see if it fares much better. Fact is that Thailand is besieged by a lack of sincere politicians. The reasons a re simple - the apple pie is not big enough to allow wealth to grow organically and through the fruits of labor, instead it is build through corruption and shortcuts that are only possible by wielding the accrued power.

By the way, the profile I chose is not even close to the most corrupt of Thaksin's predecessors. There is one I will not name who is believed to have embezzled the equivalent of 2% of Thailand GDP. Look up, I am sure you will find it and along with it you will find the world "military" all over the place as well.

That is in the distant past - all I am really saying is that Thaksinites in their varying forms and guises have shown themselves 'not to be trusted' and should not have any say in shaping the future of Thailand bearing in mind they nearly brought this proud nation to its knees until the good General stepped in to rescue matters.

Thaksin brought this proud country to it's knees?

Was that in 2003 when the stock market went up 103% and he had a budget surplus over 200 billion?

Or the landslide election in 2004. Is that when he brought it to it's knees?

No, I don't remember Thaksin bringing the country to it's knees. Sorry.

The trouble started in 2006 when someone with a grudge ordered the Army takeover.

First, a mob with that crooked Sonthi leading the chaos. "A manufactured crisis that only the army could solve........"

Remember that PM the Army installed? Caught with a house in a national preserve!.

"Oooops. Sorry. Somehow I didn't know my house got built on the land was in a national reserve. I'll haul it away now and we can all just forget about it.OK?...". The Nation newspaper gave him a pass.

Can you imagine the outrage in The Nation if Thaksin did that?

I'm talking about the last 'Thaksin controlled' government before Prayuth came to rescue us all!!!

[SICHONSTEVE]

like Pakistan, where there was a military coup and the forces took over the country, but they did it largely for the good of the country and they are not maintaining control in order to personally enrich themselves, but in order to stabilize the country.

benign means not harmful. dictatorship means control.

Found this on a Yahoo forum and also heard it mentioned on a debate on the BBC discussing the merit and pitfalls of democracy by some professor.

I'd like to know what forum that was, and who stated that in the BBC debate. A great many people think the Pakistan military is primarily interested in protecting the Pakistan military.

It was the intelligence squared debate on the 14th May 2014 and 'benign democracy was mentioned as a good system for developing nations by professor Rosemary Hollis who is professor of Middle East policy studies at City University and author of No friend of Democratisation: Europe’s role in the genesis of the ‘Arab Spring’.

Thank you for the prompt reply. Do you know which coup she was referring to? Pakistan, like Thailand, has had many.

I don't watch the Intelligence Squared Debate but I get a lot of my news from the Economist. From the book review article "Nosebags" in the September 2014 issue of the Economist:

"MOST countries have armies, but in Pakistan the army has a country. Historians repeat that aphorism because Pakistan’s military men have always enjoyed disproportionate political clout. The men in khaki have ruled directly for 33 of the country’s 67 years and have meddled heavily in politics the rest of the time, right up to the present day.

The warriors in charge take the lion’s share of public spending. Figures are opaque, but Ayesha Jalal in a new history, “The Struggle for Pakistan”, offers some shocking ones. In 1973, she says, almost 90% of the federal budget went to military ends. By the late 1980s, around 80% of current spending either paid off debt or funded the army. Little has improved. Christine Fair, whose “Fighting to the End” is similarly sharp, suggests that the $30 billion of direct and indirect aid which America has given Pakistan in the past 11 years has done little but enrich the military men."

and:

"The army’s record is not one to be proud of. Wars launched against India in 1947, 1965 and 1999, won little or nothing beyond international opprobrium. Genocidal repression of Bengalis in East Pakistan led to the loss of that half of the country, after a humiliating defeat by India’s army in 1971. Pakistan’s army became a nuclear proliferator, supplying technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. It also pushed Islamist extremist groups to export terror and instability, which now worries China, as well as India and Afghanistan."

From the November 30, 2013 issue in the article "Out of the Driver's Seat":

"The army sees itself as both embodiment and guarantor of the nation. Yet it has long been at the root of Pakistan’s deepest problems. By meddling in elections and mounting coups, it has weakened the political classes, whose consequent ineptitude and corruption gives it cause to meddle again. It has a history of disastrous military adventures. And it has made common cause with militant Islamists who it hoped would further its interests abroad—keeping India on edge to the south and sowing confusion in Afghanistan to the north in hopes of preventing anti-Pakistan forces growing there."

All this is somewhat off-topic, but I don't think Pakistan provides an example of a good coup or coups and a benign military. It has ruled the country directly for half of the last 67 years, and stayed in the shadows intimidating civilian governments the rest of time. In spite of all these interventions the country is still a mess.

I didn't say it (Pakistan) was - I simply quoted what someone had written on a YAHOO forum sighting the words benign dictatorship, as someone had ridiculed me as if I was making it up when I knew full well that I wasn't.

If you want a good example of a successful benign dictatorship (other than Thailand's current one of course) then look no further than China!!!

I agree with professor Hollis that democracy does not always work in developing countries. Especially corrupt ones such as Thaksins.

[khunjamesjohnson]

Ahhhhh!!

But lessons have been learned and steps taken so that the past misdemeanours perpetrated by Thaksin and his hangers on have been addressed and they have been unceremoniously banished from the scene. This is why anything/anyone related to Thaksin has been removed and they have been put out to pasture.

Prayuth knew exactly what had to be done and he has achieved that goal.

All Thaksin affiliated/sympathetic civil servants and political figures have been vanquished and the law makers and policy makers that make up these newly formed (and powerful) bodies are Thaksin critics and fair minded people that are intelligent and knowledgeable.

This is exactly why there will be no repeats of the cycle of corruption and self serving crooks that have pervaded Thai life over the last century or so ever making it back to rob and abuse the people again!!!

The General takes sides in politics? He is there to banish the Shinawatras? The ones that win all the elections?

I thought the General was a benevolent neutral party that respects the rule of law.

Who ever heard of a General taking sides in the countrys politics? Maybe in some third world banana republic in Africa, not in Thailand, no no no.

He 'came to the rescue' after the democrats sabotaged elections and shut down Bangkok with a paid mob that threatened to kidnap Prime Minister Yingluk. He had no power over the Democrats and was forced into the coup.

The General would not tarnish his position with a grudge against Thaksin? He is 100% fair. Only thinking about the average Thai citizen. The average voter. He wont monkey around with the constitution and will make sure everybody gets to vote, even if they elect Thaksins people again.

This time the vote will be respected.

Edited October 10, 2014 by khunjamesjohnson

[SICHONSTEVE]

Ahhhhh!!

But lessons have been learned and steps taken so that the past misdemeanours perpetrated by Thaksin and his hangers on have been addressed and they have been unceremoniously banished from the scene. This is why anything/anyone related to Thaksin has been removed and they have been put out to pasture.

Prayuth knew exactly what had to be done and he has achieved that goal.

All Thaksin affiliated/sympathetic civil servants and political figures have been vanquished and the law makers and policy makers that make up these newly formed (and powerful) bodies are Thaksin critics and fair minded people that are intelligent and knowledgeable.

This is exactly why there will be no repeats of the cycle of corruption and self serving crooks that have pervaded Thai life over the last century or so ever making it back to rob and abuse the people again!!!

Wrong wrong wrong. The General takes sides in politics? He is there to banish the Shinawatras? The ones that win all the elections?

I thought the General was a benevolent neutral party.

He 'came to the rescue' after the democrats sabotaged elections and shut down Bangkok with a paid mob that threatened to kidnap Prime Minister Yingluk.

The General would not tarnish his position with a grudge against Thaksin? He is 100% fair. Only thinking about the average Thai citizen. The average voter.

Do you honestly believe that??

Prayuth has sent everyone associated with the Shinawatras packing, noticeably so in the armed forces and police reshuffles!!

There are precisely NONE left now with any influence and they are shut out for eternity.

As to any of them being appointed to these various bodies shaping Thailand's future I'm afraid that they conspicuous by their absence.

Prayuth hand picked clever intelligent people that had no affiliation and held no sympathies to Thaksin to give him a straight run in fixing Thailand's woes without any obstacles being put in the way. It was stealthily done, as it had to be and the rewards of this will be seen in the future as Thailand and it's people realise what Thaksin really was all about!!

[Local Drunk]

Steve... one exclamation point is sufficient.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Local Drunk

[dukebowling]

The idea that a politician can be honest, trustworthy and non self serving is a dream never to be achieved in any democracy.

Politician decisions are always the lesser of two evils.

Once everyone accepts this, you can finally have a democracy.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The idea that a politician can be honest, trustworthy and non self serving is a dream never to be achieved in any democracy.

Politician decisions are always the lesser of two evils.

Once everyone accepts this, you can finally have a democracy.

This is precisely why a democracy doesn't work in Thailand.

[Baerboxer]

So Basically anyone who supports THAKSIN which is the majority of thai people who voted him and his family in MULTIPLE TIMES lol

Yep sounds unbiased to me LOL

Its a Joke just like the Koh Tao Fiasco

Majority - do you mean the large minority that voted for PTP?

How are you qualifying the word majority?

PTP made several appeals for the people to rise up and show support for the Thaksin approved Yingluck government. T

[Baerboxer]

So Basically anyone who supports THAKSIN which is the majority of thai people who voted him and his family in MULTIPLE TIMES lol

Yep sounds unbiased to me LOL

Its a Joke just like the Koh Tao Fiasco

Majority - do you mean the large minority that voted for PTP?

How are you qualifying the word majority?

PTP made several appeals for the people to rise up and show support for the Thaksin approved Yingluck government. The numbers that showed up at the war drum rallies didn't look like a majority of Thai people, in fact far from it.

[visionchaser45]

When you seize power, you can make a `criminal` out of whomever you please. It`s a good way to clear the field and ensure `success` in an election. The `Roadmap to Democracy` is just a transition to a one-party system.

[heybruce]

I'd like to know what forum that was, and who stated that in the BBC debate. A great many people think the Pakistan military is primarily interested in protecting the Pakistan military.

It was the intelligence squared debate on the 14th May 2014 and 'benign democracy was mentioned as a good system for developing nations by professor Rosemary Hollis who is professor of Middle East policy studies at City University and author of No friend of Democratisation: Europe’s role in the genesis of the ‘Arab Spring’.

Thank you for the prompt reply. Do you know which coup she was referring to? Pakistan, like Thailand, has had many.

I don't watch the Intelligence Squared Debate but I get a lot of my news from the Economist. From the book review article "Nosebags" in the September 2014 issue of the Economist:

"MOST countries have armies, but in Pakistan the army has a country. Historians repeat that aphorism because Pakistan’s military men have always enjoyed disproportionate political clout. The men in khaki have ruled directly for 33 of the country’s 67 years and have meddled heavily in politics the rest of the time, right up to the present day.

The warriors in charge take the lion’s share of public spending. Figures are opaque, but Ayesha Jalal in a new history, “The Struggle for Pakistan”, offers some shocking ones. In 1973, she says, almost 90% of the federal budget went to military ends. By the late 1980s, around 80% of current spending either paid off debt or funded the army. Little has improved. Christine Fair, whose “Fighting to the End” is similarly sharp, suggests that the $30 billion of direct and indirect aid which America has given Pakistan in the past 11 years has done little but enrich the military men."

and:

"The army’s record is not one to be proud of. Wars launched against India in 1947, 1965 and 1999, won little or nothing beyond international opprobrium. Genocidal repression of Bengalis in East Pakistan led to the loss of that half of the country, after a humiliating defeat by India’s army in 1971. Pakistan’s army became a nuclear proliferator, supplying technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. It also pushed Islamist extremist groups to export terror and instability, which now worries China, as well as India and Afghanistan."

From the November 30, 2013 issue in the article "Out of the Driver's Seat":

"The army sees itself as both embodiment and guarantor of the nation. Yet it has long been at the root of Pakistan’s deepest problems. By meddling in elections and mounting coups, it has weakened the political classes, whose consequent ineptitude and corruption gives it cause to meddle again. It has a history of disastrous military adventures. And it has made common cause with militant Islamists who it hoped would further its interests abroad—keeping India on edge to the south and sowing confusion in Afghanistan to the north in hopes of preventing anti-Pakistan forces growing there."

All this is somewhat off-topic, but I don't think Pakistan provides an example of a good coup or coups and a benign military. It has ruled the country directly for half of the last 67 years, and stayed in the shadows intimidating civilian governments the rest of time. In spite of all these interventions the country is still a mess.

I didn't say it (Pakistan) was - I simply quoted what someone had written on a YAHOO forum sighting the words benign dictatorship, as someone had ridiculed me as if I was making it up when I knew full well that I wasn't.

If you want a good example of a successful benign dictatorship (other than Thailand's current one of course) then look no further than China!!!

I agree with professor Hollis that democracy does not always work in developing countries. Especially corrupt ones such as Thaksins.

The benign dictatorship in China that takes land from farmers, uses violence, intimidation and prison to silence dissent, that has leaders that are extremely and mysteriously wealthy, that is shortening life expectancy in the cities with polluted air, that has polluted rivers to the point they can't be used for irrigation, much less bathing and drinking, that monitors and censors all forms of communication, etc. That benign dictatorship?

Democracies sometimes solve corruption problems. I don't know of any military dictatorships that have done so.

[longway]

^ All those happen in corrupt democracies. Please show me an example of a corrupt democracy that has solved corruption problems. I would genuinely be interested to know who you have in mind.

And btw have a look at the history of south korea post world war 2, the military stepped in and was heavily involved in politics, after it staged a coup to get rid of 'corrupt politicians'. It was involved before of course, but the transition to a so called modern democracy occurred despite (or because of?) lengthy military involvement.

Edited October 10, 2014 by longway

[Lex Talionis]

... you can't bar "certain people" from power.

Actually the very first democracy found it essential. They called it ostracism. Unfortunately a democracy will draw a demagogue like whiskey does a priest.

[naboo]

I'm afraid that Thaksin, the PTP and UDD cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

I'm afraid that politicians cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

Surely that would have been better?

[heybruce]

^ All those happen in corrupt democracies. Please show me an example of a corrupt democracy that has solved corruption problems. I would genuinely be interested to know who you have in mind.

And btw have a look at the history of south korea post world war 2, the military stepped in and was heavily involved in politics, after it staged a coup to get rid of 'corrupt politicians'. It was involved before of course, but the transition to a so called modern democracy occurred despite (or because of?) lengthy military involvement.

The US comes to mind. William Tweed of Tammany Hall in in 19th century New York, Huey "Kingfish" Long in early 20th century Louisiana, widespread police corruption during prohibition, etc. Corruption has not been completely eliminated in the US, and probably never will be, but it is much less than it used to be. A combination of a free press and public outrage eventually resulted in elected leaders who cleaned things up. I think there are other established democracies that have similar stories.

Military dictatorships don't worry about a free press and public outrage, for obvious reasons. They usually secure their positions by rewarding important allies with public wealth of some kind, often in a patronage relationship. Was the military dictatorship in South Korea known for being squeaky clean? Did any of those military dictators retire to a humble home and live on a modest pension?

Edited October 10, 2014 by heybruce

[visionchaser45]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I'm afraid that Thaksin, the PTP and UDD cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

Let me agree with you that many of them are a bunch of self serving corrupt politicians.

Now, let's take another well known Thai politician. Chuan Leekpai - elected in September of 1,992, as the 20th Prime Minister and the first to come to power without aristocratic or military backing. Stop for a second and ponder on that statement. A democratic country that not until 1992 elected a Prime Minister that was not directly hand picked by the elite.

He served two terms, the first ended in May of 1995, which consisted of a 5 party coalition that got defeated by Chavalit Yongchaiyut. However that government was short lived as it was held responsible for the economic crisis that beset Thailand and much of Asia in 1997. This allowed Leekpai to return for a second term. Criticized as a slow actor, he allowed numerous corruption scandals to take place during his time in office.

The following is reprinted for Wikipedia

Raluek Leekpai Scandal[edit]

In 1987, when Chuan was Parliament Speaker, his younger brother Raluek Leekpai (ระลึก หลีกภัย) was charged with embezzling 231.8 million THB (approx. 9 million USD in 1987) from Thai Farmers Bank.^[4] Raluek had been an executive at TFB. Responding to accusations in Parliament, Chuan publicly defended the innocence of his brother. Raluek fled the country, and only returned to Thailand in 2004 after the statute of limitations expired on his crime and he couldn't be prosecuted. He had been on the run as a fugitive in Taiwan. Raluek has said he might enter politics in order to restore his reputation, although he said he wanted to live a quiet life in his Trang hometown.^[5]

First Term (1992-1995)[edit]

In the aftermath of Bloody May, the Democrat Party won the majority of seats in the September 1992 elections, with 79 seats, compared to the Chart Thai Party with 77 seats. Chuan formed a coalition government with the Phalang Dharma and Ekkaparb parties.

Key policies of Chuan's first administration included:

• Engagement with Burma. As with all previous administrations, the Chuan government employed a policy of constructive engagement with the military government of Burma, provoking much criticism.^[6]
• Reforestation. A huge 5 million rai reforestation programme in honour of King Bhumibol's 50th anniversary of accession to the throne (1996) was initiated in 1994. The reforestation programme was officially declared a failure, with less than 40% of the target realized. The Director General of the RFD was suspended from his post for alleged corruption within the programme.^[7]
• Emphasis on national economic stability, decentralization of the administrative powers to the rural provinces, fostering income, opportunity and economic development distribution to the regions.

The first Chuan administration fell when members of the cabinet were implicated in profiting from Sor Phor Kor 4-01 land project documents distributed in Phuket province. Fierce public and press criticism and dissolution of Parliament were the reasons for his administration's downfall.^[8]

Second Term (1997-2001)[edit]

Chuan became prime minister for the second time on November 9, 1997, replacing Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, with a shaky line-up of a six-party coalition and 12 independent defectors from a seventh party, Prachakorn Thai. The ruling coalition increased its 20-seat majority in October 1998, by including the Chart Pattana party.

Economic Reforms[edit]

Chuan's second government enacted several economic reforms for which it was severely criticised. Chuan's "bitter medicine" policies brought little economic relief in the years following the 1997 economic crisis, particularly at the grassroots level. Opinions emerged that the Democrats were only helping big financial institutions and making the country more dependent of foreign investors. Nevertheless, many of the reforms recommended by the IMF were in line with the policies of market economies such as Australia and New Zealand. Interestingly, the subsequent government's economic growth was based even more strongly on selling national assets and private organisations abroad such as the Shin corporation, while most of their economic gains were built on the frugality of the Democrat policy platform. Thai Rak Thai painted the Democrats as having "open contempt" for the plight of the common Thai which set off a revenge vote against the party during the 2001 election, which gave a landslide victory to Thaksin Shinawatra.^[9]

Human Rights[edit]

Chuan's second government came under fire for the violent arrest of 223 villagers protesting the Pak Mun dam. Respected historian Nidhi Iawsriwong noted that "the present situation is as worse as that of the May event (the bloody crackdown of anti-government protesters in 1992). We have a tyrannical government that is arrogant and not accountable to the public. This is dangerous because the government still sees itself as legitimate and claims that it is democratic. In fact, it is as brutal as the military government".^[10]

In March 1999, Chuan nominated Thanom Kittikachorn to the post of honorary royal guard to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, provoking widespread criticism. Thanom turned down his appointment^[11] Thanom was one of the "Three Tyrants" who ruled Thailand from 1963 to 1973 and ordered the massacre of pro-democracy students on 14 October 1973, after which he was ordered to step down and be exiled by HM Bhumibol Adulyadej.

In April 2000, the Editor in Chief of the Chiang Mai daily newspaper Pak Nua was shot and seriously wounded in an attempted murder, but recovered. The editor believed that his repeated critical reporting on the government led to the assault.^[12]

Corruption[edit]

Although generally regarded as relatively clean and honest when compared to other Thai administrations, Chuan's government found itself plagued with corruption scandals and rumors. Key cases of corruption included:

• Rakkiat Sukhthana, Health Minister, was charged with taking a five million THB (125,000 USD) bribe from a drug firm and forcing state hospitals to buy medicine at exorbitant prices. After being found guilty, he jumped bail and went into hiding.
• Suthep Thaugsuban, Minister of Transport and Communications, whose brokering of illegal land deals caused the fall of the Chuan 1 government, was linked to abuse of funds in setting up a co-operative in his southern province of Surat Thani.^[13]
• The "edible fence" seed scandal, in which massive overpricing of seeds distributed to rural areas happened. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture was forced to resign.^[14]
• The Salween logging scandal, where up to 20,000 logs were felled illegally in the Salween forest in Mae Hong Son. Some of them turned up in the compound of the Democrat party’s office in Phichit province.^[14]
• Sanan Kajornprasart, Interior Minister, as well as 8 other cabinet ministers were found to have understated their declared assets. Sanan was later barred by the Constitution Court from politics for 5 years.^[15]
• Chuan himself was found by the National Counter-Corruption Commission to have undeclared shareholdings in a rural cooperative.^[15]

Chuan stepped down as the head of the Democrat Party in 2003.

Criticisms[edit]

• Chuan also got the nickname 'Chang Tha Si' (painter in Thai). When party members were accused of corruption, he was always known to protect them by telling the press they were clean although the court had not delivered its decision yet.

Quotes[edit]

• "I haven't received any reports yet."– (in Thai "ผมยังไม่ได้รับรายงาน") Chuan Leekpai's classic phrase when he faced many Thai reporters about some important issues or urgent issues.

• "The committee is still evaluating it."– (in Thai "ทางคณะกำลังพิจารณาอยู่ครับ") One of his most famous quotes.

--- END ---

Now, we can pick another profile if you like and let's see if it fares much better. Fact is that Thailand is besieged by a lack of sincere politicians. The reasons a re simple - the apple pie is not big enough to allow wealth to grow organically and through the fruits of labor, instead it is build through corruption and shortcuts that are only possible by wielding the accrued power.

By the way, the profile I chose is not even close to the most corrupt of Thaksin's predecessors. There is one I will not name who is believed to have embezzled the equivalent of 2% of Thailand GDP. Look up, I am sure you will find it and along with it you will find the world "military" all over the place as well.

Now, do yourself a favor and read just the first page of a book written by James Ockey at Cornell University - you can find it here. Once you are done you will find very eerie similarities to today's political climate, except that the government being talked about is none other than Khun Leekpai's first term. Funny how history just repeats itself and fools are those that thing they are witness to something unique and exclusive of one other politicians.

Thank-you for shedding real light on the situation. I doubt you will convince those on TV who believe that the 'good people' are now in power and everything will be lovely from now on. In my opinion, the events of this summer and the direction being taken will lead to the kind of bloodshed that will make 2010 look like a love-in.

[norstatin]

played no role, you've just failed that test.

It was Thaksin who ordered it and who also was proud of it. And it was the POLICE not the army who did it. The current power is not the police.

And his numerous cases of corruption were solely his responsibility.

Which means neither that the current government is good or bad. It means that Thaksin did many bad things.

His Royal Highness has always been explicit in his support on this war on drugs -

In his 2003 birthday speech he praised Thaksin and criticized those "who counted only dead drug dealers while ignoring deaths caused by drugs." He continued "Victory in the War on Drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drug trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll."

With the Lese Majeste laws that currently exist in Thailand I think it would be prudent of admin to remove these slanderous comments, at odds with his majesties wishes.

You mean remove your slanderous, incomplete, out-of-context, un-sourced, un-linked alleged quotes that you cavalierly presume to be speaking his opinion and stating his position, right?

.

Edited October 10, 2014 by norstatin

[metisdead]

Posts containing comments referencing HM the King have been removed.

[LuckyLew]

How can it be unbiased when it is not all inclusive?

[SICHONSTEVE]

I'm afraid that Thaksin, the PTP and UDD cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

I'm afraid that politicians cannot be trusted as they cheat, lie, are corrupt and care only for themselves - whilst bankrupting the country in the process. As far as I'm concerned they don't deserve to have a say in anything as they are criminals/fugitives.

Far better off without them don't you agree!!!!

Surely that would have been better?

I suppose that both versions qualify - but my version is still better!

[marcusd]

Stopping thaksin seems ok to me. But they need to add about 500,000 others too

[longway]

^ All those happen in corrupt democracies. Please show me an example of a corrupt democracy that has solved corruption problems. I would genuinely be interested to know who you have in mind.

And btw have a look at the history of south korea post world war 2, the military stepped in and was heavily involved in politics, after it staged a coup to get rid of 'corrupt politicians'. It was involved before of course, but the transition to a so called modern democracy occurred despite (or because of?) lengthy military involvement.

The US comes to mind. William Tweed of Tammany Hall in in 19th century New York, Huey "Kingfish" Long in early 20th century Louisiana, widespread police corruption during prohibition, etc. Corruption has not been completely eliminated in the US, and probably never will be, but it is much less than it used to be. A combination of a free press and public outrage eventually resulted in elected leaders who cleaned things up. I think there are other established democracies that have similar stories.

Military dictatorships don't worry about a free press and public outrage, for obvious reasons. They usually secure their positions by rewarding important allies with public wealth of some kind, often in a patronage relationship. Was the military dictatorship in South Korea known for being squeaky clean? Did any of those military dictators retire to a humble home and live on a modest pension?

Where did i ever claim they were squeaky clean?

[JAG]

Preventing nepotistic kleptocrats from gaining power seems to be anathema to Democracy to some people. "Shows bias" they say, good grief.

Thaksin supporters are like political snake oil sellers, they'll cry you are against medicine and the well being of people as they try to sell their poison and pass it as a miracle cure to all ailments.

The next thing you know people will be defending a military coup as the only alternative to democracy.

Are there other alternatives to democracy?

Of course there is. What we have now is precisely what I wanted before the coup rescued Thailand and that is benign dictatorship!!

Seems to be working perfectly to me, just as I predicted and hoped for.

I can laugh at those posters who called me crazy and stupid now that I have been completely vindicated!!

Belief in Benign Dictatorship is not crazy or stupid, but it is naive. Benign Dictatorships are only benign as long as any opposition is silent. The opposition is currently silent because, amongst other reasons, the army's actions in 2010 still resonate. If/when the opposition becomes more active and vocal then the dictatorship will cease to be benign.

[SICHONSTEVE]

It is not ideal that the opposition has to be silenced I accept. Unfortunately, this was necessary in order for the general to implement the reforms in order to repair the damage done by the PTP previously with their abject government (this is a massive ask and he is doing an admiral job of it).

Don't forget, the Dems have been silenced as well so it is a ban on ALL politicians and not just some.

The benign dictatorship will give up it's power once its job is done and then cease to be after free and fair elections can be held

[heybruce]

It is not ideal that the opposition has to be silenced I accept. Unfortunately, this was necessary in order for the general to implement the reforms in order to repair the damage done by the PTP previously with their abject government (this is a massive ask and he is doing an admiral job of it).

Don't forget, the Dems have been silenced as well so it is a ban on ALL politicians and not just some.

The benign dictatorship will give up it's power once its job is done and then cease to be after free and fair elections can be held

I love it! Yes, the benign dictatorship! The one that can do no wrong and will do nothing but good things! A benign dictatorship like, um...., well like those other benign dictatorships I can't think of but that did so many good things. Help me out SICHONSTEVE, what benign dictatorships are we referring to?

[MAJIC]

Anyone who believes reforms will be unbiased, has certainly not lived in Thailand very long! especially the Elite/Hi So preferential treatment!

[heybruce]

^ All those happen in corrupt democracies. Please show me an example of a corrupt democracy that has solved corruption problems. I would genuinely be interested to know who you have in mind.

And btw have a look at the history of south korea post world war 2, the military stepped in and was heavily involved in politics, after it staged a coup to get rid of 'corrupt politicians'. It was involved before of course, but the transition to a so called modern democracy occurred despite (or because of?) lengthy military involvement.

The US comes to mind. William Tweed of Tammany Hall in in 19th century New York, Huey "Kingfish" Long in early 20th century Louisiana, widespread police corruption during prohibition, etc. Corruption has not been completely eliminated in the US, and probably never will be, but it is much less than it used to be. A combination of a free press and public outrage eventually resulted in elected leaders who cleaned things up. I think there are other established democracies that have similar stories.

Military dictatorships don't worry about a free press and public outrage, for obvious reasons. They usually secure their positions by rewarding important allies with public wealth of some kind, often in a patronage relationship. Was the military dictatorship in South Korea known for being squeaky clean? Did any of those military dictators retire to a humble home and live on a modest pension?

Where did i ever claim they were squeaky clean?

No you didn't, but I did, as requested, give you an example of a corrupt democracy that solved, or reduced to manageable levels, corruption problems. Can you give me an example of a military dictatorship that did the same?

[Robespiere]

The reforms are either going to be unbiased or biased, there is no middle ground much the same as there is no being half pregnant.

Clearly, under this regime, reforms are going to be biased.

End of story.

[ATF]

I wonder what the legal definition of "People Like Thaksin" will be?

Very difficult to nail it down because if the word Corrupt is used half of Thailand will be attending Court Hearings.

[longway]

^ All those happen in corrupt democracies. Please show me an example of a corrupt democracy that has solved corruption problems. I would genuinely be interested to know who you have in mind.

And btw have a look at the history of south korea post world war 2, the military stepped in and was heavily involved in politics, after it staged a coup to get rid of 'corrupt politicians'. It was involved before of course, but the transition to a so called modern democracy occurred despite (or because of?) lengthy military involvement.

The US comes to mind. William Tweed of Tammany Hall in in 19th century New York, Huey "Kingfish" Long in early 20th century Louisiana, widespread police corruption during prohibition, etc. Corruption has not been completely eliminated in the US, and probably never will be, but it is much less than it used to be. A combination of a free press and public outrage eventually resulted in elected leaders who cleaned things up. I think there are other established democracies that have similar stories.

Military dictatorships don't worry about a free press and public outrage, for obvious reasons. They usually secure their positions by rewarding important allies with public wealth of some kind, often in a patronage relationship. Was the military dictatorship in South Korea known for being squeaky clean? Did any of those military dictators retire to a humble home and live on a modest pension?

Where did i ever claim they were squeaky clean?

No you didn't, but I did, as requested, give you an example of a corrupt democracy that solved, or reduced to manageable levels, corruption problems. Can you give me an example of a military dictatorship that did the same?

Actually you did not, you gave an example of a corrupt police force. And my example is in the first post - South korea. Edited October 12, 2014 by longway