After all these years, Thaksin should have known better

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
After all these years, Thaksin should have known better
Tulsathit Taptim

BANGKOK: -- It's up to democracy to prove itself. Having to do that is probably what differentiates the system from, say, dictatorship. The latter relies on perhaps one or two men, whereas a whole lot more need to function properly for democracy to really work. Which is why the latest whining from afar by Thaksin Shinawatra about anti-democracy plots in Thailand continues to ring hollow.

In his latest interview from self-imposed exile, Thaksin once again blamed everyone and everything but himself. What he left out was the stark truth that his own supposed democratic rule was badly flawed, with top-level corruption threatening to run out of control, checks and balances virtually non-existent and Parliament only used to rubber-stamp irregularities and worse.

The interview prompted the military-installed Thai government to revoke his diplomatic passport, a move that triggered a swift show of defiance from pro-Thaksin ex-foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul. But whether or not Thaksin deserves the travel document is not the point here.

After all these years, Thaksin still doesn't seem to get it. He can lambaste "undemocratic elements" all he wants, but the truth remains that, when it comes to whether democracy is the way to go for Thailand, the onus is not on his rivals. It's people like him, his sisters, his relatives and other recruits to their political party - as well as those to whom they assign top bureaucratic jobs - who need to show that democracy is the best there is and irreplaceable.

It's not enough to point at the flaws of other systems and proclaim democracy as the lesser demon, not least because the other systems couldn't care less. This "Look who's worse" attitude has also contributed to a vicious cycle in Thailand, with an increasingly lower benchmark for political responsibility and accountability. Democracy needs to prove itself as solidly good, not "less bad" than the others, and Thaksin & Co have failed in this regard. It's such a pity, considering that their enormous wealth should have provided them immunity from fresh political temptations. If they had adhered to the right principles, they could have helped Thai democracy to flourish.

If what we saw was their best, it was far from good enough. Graft, nepotism, and the frequency with which the phrases "Parliamentary majority" and "election mandate" were used to justify what was otherwise wrong, meant their "democracy" never had a chance to take root. Yes, there were policies that seemed to please a lot of people. But dictators can and do implement similar policies.

What dictatorship can't do is allow genuine checks and balances that can lead to the ousting of corrupt rulers, no matter how powerful or popular they are. Dictators can't afford a free press. They thrive on propaganda. And when push comes to shove, they simply force their policies on the people.

In other words, dictators don't need to prove their worth. Democracy, meanwhile, needs to constantly prove itself. That comes with the territory if you are an "ideal". You can't say it's unfair, because it's the only way democracy can stand head and shoulders above others.

It's a huge misconception to brand every anti-Thaksin element "undemocratic". Judging from his interview in Seoul, the man is still actively propagating this mistaken idea. This is part of the reason why he is often accused of continuing to smear his own motherland. It should have occurred to him that at least some of those who abhor the "Thaksin system" are also in favour of democracy, only a different type of democracy from that which he espouses.

What is happening in Thailand presents everyone with a challenge. But that challenge is biggest for those who advocate democracy, because it doesn't stop at exposing rival systems as flawed, or worse. If dictatorship fails, it doesn't necessarily mean they are proven right. The chances of a dictatorship failing are always high. The measure of democracy's worth is, therefore, not the failures of its enemies, but its ability to stand nobly on its own.

Nobility or integrity is what is supposed to distinguish democracy. Without it, democracy is just another system that can be easily exploited, that can be used to advance or protect vested interests, and that presents numerous loopholes for corruption.

Thaksin, of all people, should be aware of this. Nobody said democracy was easy, as democratic governance engages a lot more people than do other doctrines. However, the "Champion of Democracy", as he likes to be called, doesn't have another choice. If he keeps lambasting his "undemocratic" enemies, he's badly mistaken.

The blame game is a cheap way out and can only go so far. Thaksin must accommodate democracy, and not try to make it accommodate him. What he claims to advocate doesn't require attacking the enemy in order to thrive. Thaksin may find this hard to believe, but democracy can only be destroyed when its own flaws are left unaddressed. Having practised meditation (a pursuit he has been eager to publicise), he should know the ultimate truth that democracy's abiding virtue lies in the capacity to stand tall despite all the complexities presented by its own nature.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/After-all-these-years-Thaksin-should-have-known-be-30261433.html


-- The Nation 2015-06-03

[ezzra]

When you have a man, a mere mortal, who was elevated to the status of a god like person, intoxicated

with power, greed and great ambitions that money can buy, egged on by millions of followers who's

only can see what's in it for them, what do you expect? Thaksin is no dummy, he knew better, but

the unbridled power he was given by the ass kissers around him made him forget that what born in sin

will not last...

[trogers]

When you have a man, a mere mortal, who was elevated to the status of a god like person, intoxicated

with power, greed and great ambitions that money can buy, egged on by millions of followers who's

only can see what's in it for them, what do you expect? Thaksin is no dummy, he knew better, but

the unbridled power he was given by the ass kissers around him made him forget that what born in sin

will not last...

The Chinese calls such a personality 'square face'.

[NongKhaiKid]

Thaksin should have known better ?

Has it not always been the case that Thaksin Knows Best ?

[canuckamuck]

Pointless argument. Thaksin was just one in a continuous line of corrupt leaders. He just happens to be the common enemy the elite have rallied against to justify increased exploitation of the populace.

He was also the first to explore the power of the majority and the results had the old guard shaking in their boots.

Democracy cannot prove itself when the conditions for democracy do not exist. (rule of law, media freedom, freedom to tell the truth). And it really cannot prove itself in a country that allows the army to routinely dissolve the government and rewrite the constitution.

These failings are not the fault of Thaksin.

Yes he was corrupt, but we have no evidence or reason to believe that any of the others political contenders would have been less corrupt.

Edited June 3, 2015 by canuckamuck

[smedly]

another surprisingly well written article from the Nation, well done Tulsathit Taptim, now get that message out to all of the Thai people and we are halfway there

[Lammbock]

Just throw him in Jail and a bunch of his followers. I am tired of this <deleted>.

Thailand has to start look forward and leave the bad history behind.

[smedly]

Pointless argument. Thaksin was just one in a continuous line of corrupt leaders. He just happens to be the common enemy the elite have rallied against to justify increased exploitation of the populace.

He was also the first to explore the power of the majority and the results had the old guard shaking in their boots.

Democracy cannot prove itself when the conditions for democracy do not exist. (rule of law, media freedom, freedom to tell the truth). And it really cannot prove itself in a country that allows the army to routinely dissolve the government and rewrite the constitution.

These failings are not the fault of Thaksin.

Yes he was corrupt, but we have no evidence or reason to believe that any of the others political contenders would have been less corrupt.

agree with most of what you said especially the bold above, so how does it get fixed - up to now after countless coups and endless failed governments who don't seem to want to do anything constructive except implode on themselves having raped the people clean and filled their own pockets more recently Thaksin - what is the answer ?

Take a look at Singapore - all Thailand needs is one brave and committed man/woman to step up to the plate and take them on, it won't be achieved in 24 months not even 5 years to route out the rot and force Thailand to adopt a different way of thinking that some day will embrace all the principles of Democracy and not just use the word as a deflection while they rape and pillage the people

[WitawatWatawit]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

[JAG]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out.

Which is rather more than you can say for the present bunch!

[Manbing]

Democracy as is referenced by Thaksin is not what we expect from a democratic model. Democracy is not an oligarchy.

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical (relying on public obedience and/or oppression to exist). Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,^[4] for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

This term should be common to Thais seeking to understand the political landscape in Thailand.

[scorecard]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out.

Which is rather more than you can say for the present bunch!

"But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out."

Here we go again...

[JAG]

Just throw him in Jail and a bunch of his followers. I am tired of this <deleted>.

Thailand has to start look forward and leave the bad history behind.

Which will have the effect of cementing him in position as the martyred deposed elected leader, and will re-energise his support base.

It will also confirm International opinion as to the nature of the current regime.

All in all perhaps not such a good idea.

Thaksin's present political strength and popularity is a result of repeated refusal to accept the will of the electorate, and a series of imposed governments. The problem will not begin to be resolved until the will of the electorate is accepted and respected. No amount of coups, charter re-writes or judicial interventions will change that.

Edited June 3, 2015 by JAG

[djjamie]

A hammer is a tool can be used in a positive way to build a house or in a negative way to kill a human. Democracy is a tool as well that can be used for good or bad depending on who wields it. Unfortunately in the hands of thaksin it is a tool of destruction.

And when that tool of democracy does not suit his agenda or his ability to make money he completely ignores it.

• Free trade agreements with US = Bypassing parliament (checks and balances).
• Creating opportunities for Shin Corp to grow into a billion baht company = Pandering and supporting Thai military coups (not denouncing them)
• Media narrative of shin regimes is not favourable = Starve pertinent media sources from adverting revenue

So this is a guy supports coups, starves media of revenue unless they follow the regime narrative and completely ignores democracy and the will of the people to push international agendas that serve his companies interests. One may think I was talking about Prayut. NO. Pray wants to restore democracy and keep peace in Thailand. thaksin wanted to abuse democracy and use it as a tool of destruction while forcing death and violence on anyone that does not support him.

So where is the democratic bit he does follow? The carrot on the donkey. Elections. The rice schemes that never seem to make the rice farmers richer. The schemes aimed at the desperate poor people who do not care or understand the ramifications of thaksins actions above. Whose only thought is feeding their family and wondering where their next baht will come from. So desperate they have no choice but to vote for this man or his party that ignores them or as we have seen threatens them when they try to protest.

I thank god I am not so desperate that I feel the only viable choice is an accused terrorist, accused mass murderer and convicted criminal fugitive because he can offer promises of wealth that never seem to eventuate.

Thank god for reform.

[JAG]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out.

Which is rather more than you can say for the present bunch!

"But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out."

Here we go again...

Yes, and it will go on, because it's true!

[Thailand]

There is democracy and there is not. What we have got now is not!

Mr Thaksin, for an exiled pariah he is continually getting as much press if not more than the guys in charge.

They and their media mouthpieces really should zip it if they want to succeed in any way of getting rid of his influence, which like it or not is still huge.

[Fat Haggis]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out.

Which is rather more than you can say for the present bunch!

"But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out."

Here we go again...

What's wrong with the statement then ? Wasn't there millions of claims that the PTP were in the minority and the protestors in the majority, surely by allowing the votes last February and the spoilt brat dems to have run, the PTP would have been voted out? And the coup would never have needed to have happened?

Or ..... All that was said about majorities was a load of shit, and the PTP and its satellite parties would have trounced the democrats as they are weak, and have no manifest that appeals to electorate?

IF vote buying is an excuse, NOTHING will stop it happening again and again and again.

Excellent article as well.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Fat Haggis

[ExPratt]

"Thaksin, of all people, should be aware of this. Nobody said democracy was easy,"

Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result , Thats Totalitarianism , Look up Franco , Hitler , Pol Pot , Mussolini, look how well there countries did and how the people love those old leaders. Don't back a Junta, a controller and oppressor of the people and their rights just because you had a government you didn't agree with or couldn't beat.

[Yunla]

As I see it, the priority blame should be attached to the unregulated machinery of state which allows macro-scale fraudsters like Thaksin (and many others) to engage in nepotism and misspending of state funds for personal gain. While we should obviously blame the criminals plural, we should be far, far more keen to address the loopholes and weak regulation in the system, that allow these criminal activities to occur and even remain undetected. In any nation with a paperwork-filing culture, it is fairly easy to install watchdog agencies to count all spending and to isolate fraudulent activities. Nepotism should also never occur, and it is of course easier to spot than most other undemocratic behaviour.

I agree with the "nobility and integrity" being core democratic concerns, as stated in the OP. However there is no way to really regulate this idealism, until it manifests in material actions. So for that reason I choose to view democracy on a purely mechanical level as a machine. A well-built democratic machine has millions of cogs employed to check numbers and laws constantly, and independent watchcogs (har) that wield enough power to offer protection to anyone reporting crimes in state. The priority in the perfect democratic model is always zero-tolerance to crimes in state, and the whole system needs to be built on strict regulations that are cross-checked constantly. This is the ideal model, no nation has this model, it is a pure abstract. But for democracy to ever function at all anywhere, this is the regulatory sliding-scale that needs to be pushed up as far as possible.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Yunla

[FangFerang]

After all these years, Thaksin still doesn't seem to get it.

The military elite are not sharing power with anyone, much less a self-made wealthy commoner.

[Crash999]

"Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result"

I don't think anyone is arguing that the military junta is democratic at all.

But there's such thing as tyranny of the majority. And when elected Thaksin used his popular mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted.

That is exactly why checks and balances are normally built into governmental systems to prevent one person from accumulating that much power.

[GeckosDiving]

"Thaksin, of all people, should be aware of this. Nobody said democracy was easy,"

Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result , Thats Totalitarianism , Look up Franco , Hitler , Pol Pot , Mussolini, look how well there countries did and how the people love those old leaders. Don't back a Junta, a controller and oppressor of the people and their rights just because you had a government you didn't agree with or couldn't beat.

[Crash999]

After all these years, Thaksin still doesn't seem to get it.

The military elite are not sharing power with anyone, much less a self-made wealthy commoner.

The Shinawatra family was already very wealthy. They're one of the most famous old silk families of the North.

The guy is definitely smart and had ambition. But as for self-made, he used his family's money to establish a large number of business and most failed or broke even. Wasn't until he founded AIS and was able to get a monopoly contract to supply the military that his personal fortune grew. He founded the company in 1986 and got his exclusive contract in 1986. No points for guessing how he got it.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Crash999

[geriatrickid]

A balanced and sound argument from Tulsathit - didn't expect to be saying that, given his track record. The bottom line is that Thaksin genuinely believes in democracy. His democracy. You are not permitted to argue with him.

But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out.

Which is rather more than you can say for the present bunch!

"But you could vote him and his various proxy governments out."

Here we go again...

Well, he's right. The fact is that when there was an opportunity to have an election and throw Yingluck and the PTP out of office, the Democrats didn't want to participate and the Suthep mob blocked voters from voting and there was a conspiracy to stop the election.

True or False?

[ExPratt]

"Yeah it is ,you count peoples votes and whoever gets the most wins, A very difficult concept to take in, democracy isn't removing the winner because you don't like the result"

I don't think anyone is arguing that the military junta is democratic at all.

But there's such thing as tyranny of the majority. And when elected Thaksin used his popular mandate to do whatever the hell he wanted.

That is exactly why checks and balances are normally built into governmental systems to prevent one person from accumulating that much power.

This Populist policy criticism, not yourself, the Junta is ridiculous. Why are they obsessed with Opinion polls if populism is not allowed ?.Politics is Populist policies , ft there were not policies that were popular with some sections of the electorate no one would vote. If those policies turn out our not beneficial to the Majority that party will be voted out in the next election, It should be argued in Parliament by the opposition to show the Governments incompetence , not go on the streets waving flags and stopping the function of Government and the worst action stopping people from voting. Off the top of my head I believe the level of Poverty have fallen over the last 14 or 15 year s, so those populist policy must be working for many, but they may be bankrupting the country. Its is up to what was then the opposition to convince the majority of the public how bad the policies are

Edited June 3, 2015 by ExPratt

[Halion]

Much said is true but overall it misses the point. Democracy has never existed in Thailand in any substantive form. Thai democracy of the past was staged democracy for consumption only with little real impact.

It is highly unlikely that this country can achieve any form of true democratic process as the population and culture have been systematically corrupted for generations.

Democracy requires accountability from everyone. Democracy requires the tireless enforcement of law to one and all regardless of position.

Democracy requires a fair and just judicial system free from bias and manipulation.

I think a bridge too far in a country which is to a great extent lawless and where the moral and social culture states that you can do what you want.

Look at the rampant and cancerous corruption within the Police force. Few people here have faith in the judicial system.

Several million traffic regulations are transgressed on a daily basis with total impunity.

For a democracy to flourish all the above needs to be redressed and it simply can not be done in a lifetime.

The cancer which has gone unabated for generations has come home to roost.

[does]

It seems to me you did not read the article carefully. Read the following paragraph again:

In his latest interview from self-imposed exile, Thaksin once again blamed everyone and everything but himself. What he left out was the stark truth that his own supposed democratic rule was badly flawed, with top-level corruption threatening to run out of control, checks and balances virtually non-existent and Parliament only used to rubber-stamp irregularities and worse.

What is pointless (or untrue) about that?

Pointless argument. Thaksin was just one in a continuous line of corrupt leaders. He just happens to be the common enemy the elite have rallied against to justify increased exploitation of the populace.

He was also the first to explore the power of the majority and the results had the old guard shaking in their boots.

Democracy cannot prove itself when the conditions for democracy do not exist. (rule of law, media freedom, freedom to tell the truth). And it really cannot prove itself in a country that allows the army to routinely dissolve the government and rewrite the constitution.

These failings are not the fault of Thaksin.

Yes he was corrupt, but we have no evidence or reason to believe that any of the others political contenders would have been less corrupt.

[JAG]

After all these years, Thaksin still doesn't seem to get it.

The military elite are not sharing power with anyone, much less a self-made wealthy commoner.

Actually you know I think Thaksin does get it, as do the majority of the Thai people, and the International community.

You're right about the Thai Military Elite not sharing power, with anybody.

Either they (the military elite) will cling doggedly to power, whilst the economy and society crumble around them ( a la Burma over the last 20 years) or they will be forced to give up power, or forcibly removed from power. Either way Thaksin is positioning himself to be there when it happens.

[Artisi]

Pointless argument. Thaksin was just one in a continuous line of corrupt leaders. He just happens to be the common enemy the elite have rallied against to justify increased exploitation of the populace.

He was also the first to explore the power of the majority and the results had the old guard shaking in their boots.

Democracy cannot prove itself when the conditions for democracy do not exist. (rule of law, media freedom, freedom to tell the truth). And it really cannot prove itself in a country that allows the army to routinely dissolve the government and rewrite the constitution.

These failings are not the fault of Thaksin.

Yes he was corrupt, but we have no evidence or reason to believe that any of the others political contenders would have been less corrupt.

I liked you analysis of the situation - BUT - Thaksin was corrupt to the nth degree and he made sure that the rule of law, media freedom etc. was further supressed to serve his interests and his interests only; therefore the failings at his point in time were his fault - his fault alone by being one of the lead players, if not the lead player in the corrupt regime that ran the country.

[Emster23]

"top-level corruption threatening to run out of control, checks and balances virtually non-existent and Parliament only used to rubber-stamp irregularities and worse."

Things are soooo much better now with present government. See how all those problems have been eliminated!

Thailand's politics make Game of Thrones look like a kindergarten election for bathroom monitors.