Thaksin and Yingluck fighting lonely battle

[Ricardo]

It is one thing to tell everyone to surf on your highest career wave, it is quite different when your career becomes a stagnant pond with no waves and many dark slimy things lurking in it.

Lovely simile !

Might one extend it, that the handle appears now to have been pressed, and the effluent is slowly being flushed down the gurgler !

[rubl]

Well something seems to hurt, reading all the "... but, but, the others are worse"

[Robby nz]

As far as the red leaders are concerned they must be getting seriously worried about their own hides.

Most if not all of them have serious charges to answer regarding their part in the 2010 riots and they have left behind them screeds of evidence in the way of speeches from their stages, all faithfully recorded on video.

They must be wondering what support they can expect from Thaksin when their day before the judge arrives. Is he bound to support them because they can implement him in things like source of funding and orders received if he does not.

However if any were to turn against him they would have to keep in mind the disappearance or untimely end of others who have previously had the temerity to forward evidence against him.

Had he been an honest man he could have done great things for this country and would very likely still be PM to this day and receiving the kudos and respect he craves.

But unfortunately for the country and himself that was not to be, his greed got the better of him and even though, as he said when first standing, he had enough money so didn't need to cheat and increase his wealth, he did cheat and lie at the expense of the country and the people.

Now he finds himself in the invidious position of being to cowardly to return and face his accusers and having to pay others to do his dirty work, how long can he rely on those "Others" before they decide the cost is to high ?

Wonder how much money he does actually have and how much of his so called wealth is borrowed or in non preforming enterprises, after all he was never a good businessman having several failed attempts and only succeeding when he was able to get a monopoly, then paying others to do the work for him, (and cheating a partner https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BANGKOK5229_a.html)

The final indignity would be for someone to call in his debts and declare him bankrupt.

I read your post and what sprang to mind was, "Why is this poster so fixated on the man?" We all get you don't like him, (quite understandably) but mate, you know...?

You may or may not have noticed but the topic is about Thaksin and his clone (his word) Yingluck, that, it would seem to me to be a fair reason to comment on the man.

As usual when you read the truth and have no answer you attempt to attack the poster.

[baboon]

As far as the red leaders are concerned they must be getting seriously worried about their own hides.

Most if not all of them have serious charges to answer regarding their part in the 2010 riots and they have left behind them screeds of evidence in the way of speeches from their stages, all faithfully recorded on video.

They must be wondering what support they can expect from Thaksin when their day before the judge arrives. Is he bound to support them because they can implement him in things like source of funding and orders received if he does not.

However if any were to turn against him they would have to keep in mind the disappearance or untimely end of others who have previously had the temerity to forward evidence against him.

Had he been an honest man he could have done great things for this country and would very likely still be PM to this day and receiving the kudos and respect he craves.

But unfortunately for the country and himself that was not to be, his greed got the better of him and even though, as he said when first standing, he had enough money so didn't need to cheat and increase his wealth, he did cheat and lie at the expense of the country and the people.

Now he finds himself in the invidious position of being to cowardly to return and face his accusers and having to pay others to do his dirty work, how long can he rely on those "Others" before they decide the cost is to high ?

Wonder how much money he does actually have and how much of his so called wealth is borrowed or in non preforming enterprises, after all he was never a good businessman having several failed attempts and only succeeding when he was able to get a monopoly, then paying others to do the work for him, (and cheating a partner https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BANGKOK5229_a.html)

The final indignity would be for someone to call in his debts and declare him bankrupt.

I read your post and what sprang to mind was, "Why is this poster so fixated on the man?" We all get you don't like him, (quite understandably) but mate, you know...?

You may or may not have noticed but the topic is about Thaksin and his clone (his word) Yingluck, that, it would seem to me to be a fair reason to comment on the man.

As usual when you read the truth and have no answer you attempt to attack the poster.

I assure you my post was not meant to be an attack on you, merely questioning the intensity of your loathing for the man which strikes me as somewhat OTT, like he has slighted you personally.

[scorecard]

Perhaps now the "Reds" can see that there is life after Thaksin/Yingluk and actually it's not all that bad >>>

Maybe they got wise at last, instead of being used as "foot soldiers" and being given scraps from the masters table.

Living in relative peace & being able to turn a few baht over themselves in the new climate of steady growth domestically & internationally.

Thaksin could only reign when the country was in turmoil, making himself out to be some sort of Saviour of the poor... maybe now they can see that it was in fact him ripping them off & keeping them poor!!

Well said.

Hopefully, also the red leaders who genuinely want to champion the poor (and I'm sure there are a few, and yes a very good aim) are starting to see that in all the paymasters years neither the paymaster, yingluck, nor any of the radical (burn it down / hate spewing) red leaders have ever (not even once, not even one word in some 12 years) spoken of any policies that would generate a situation whereby vast numbers of Thais gained a better quality of life through their own productivity.

Last week I was talking to an old work colleague who has changed tune.

In the yingluck period and before my old colleague proudly and loudly told the world how good the reds are, how clever the paymaster, jatuporn and nattawut are and how they help the poor and more.

Also proclaimed loudly and openly how her upcountry family had benefitted, her father a local senior police officer had become quite wealthy. Also proclaimed loudly to beware what one says, daddy will take care. Daddy was one of the first senior upcountry police officers moved to an active post after the coup and has now quietly retired early, but forbidden to associate with any current or past police officers or any radical red people.

My old colleague has sold the BM given by daddy in the glory days and downsized to a much smaller car.

And has changed jobs because work colleagues who earlier were intimated now brave enough to scoff at previous loud red hatred messages etc etc., from colleague, and had started to openly challenge this person about 'where's the benefits, where's the plan, please answer our questions, you can't because there is no plan!'

Edited June 8, 2015 by scorecard

[mikemac]

I live in a small town south of Bangkok and have been asking Thai friends, relatives and associates their views on some of the big issues facing the country a year after the military coup.

While many were understandably reluctant to venture their opinions, others were more forthcoming. Here are some of the conclusions.

1 Most people are not concerned about what happens to the Thaksins and don't want them back in power.

2 They are far less worried about concepts such as democracy and personal freedom than are many of the regime's critics in the West, whom they say simply don't understand Thai mentality.

3 A majority feel the coup was necessary and are prepared to allow the military-led junta to run the show for however long it takes to bring lasting peace, security and stability to the Kingdom.

4 Voters, particularly those living in Bangkok where the army's intervention ended six months of destructive violence and bloodshed, are in no particular hurry for a general election.

5 Most would rather spend years ruled by an" iron fist in a velvet glove" administration rather than return to a political democracy characterised by systemic corruption and political and social unrest.

6 A relatively small number will bother to wade through the fine print of the draft new Constitution, if and when one arrives in the mail box.

7 Many less concerned about the restoration of human rights than the return of the Friday TV soap opera displaced by the PM's weekly paternal chats.

I am not suggesting this small, random sample represents the attitudes of most Thai people. However, it may go some way to explain the apparent ease with which the military-led administration has entrenched itself in the public psyche as a power for good - or at the very worst, a necessary evil.

You need go no further than "I live in a small town south of Bangkok....." to know that there's going to be a load of pro-junta drivel to follow.

.................."You need go no further than "I live in a small town south of Bangkok....." to know that there's going to be a load of pro-junta drivel to follow.".............

Three words for you, pot-kettle-black...................every one of your posts that I have had the misfortune of reading has been 100% drivel, dipped in drool and coated in bs, so don't have a go at Godders for his comment. At least his comment made a valuable contribution to the topic at hand.

[Robby nz]

As far as the red leaders are concerned they must be getting seriously worried about their own hides.

Most if not all of them have serious charges to answer regarding their part in the 2010 riots and they have left behind them screeds of evidence in the way of speeches from their stages, all faithfully recorded on video.

They must be wondering what support they can expect from Thaksin when their day before the judge arrives. Is he bound to support them because they can implement him in things like source of funding and orders received if he does not.

However if any were to turn against him they would have to keep in mind the disappearance or untimely end of others who have previously had the temerity to forward evidence against him.

Had he been an honest man he could have done great things for this country and would very likely still be PM to this day and receiving the kudos and respect he craves.

But unfortunately for the country and himself that was not to be, his greed got the better of him and even though, as he said when first standing, he had enough money so didn't need to cheat and increase his wealth, he did cheat and lie at the expense of the country and the people.

Now he finds himself in the invidious position of being to cowardly to return and face his accusers and having to pay others to do his dirty work, how long can he rely on those "Others" before they decide the cost is to high ?

Wonder how much money he does actually have and how much of his so called wealth is borrowed or in non preforming enterprises, after all he was never a good businessman having several failed attempts and only succeeding when he was able to get a monopoly, then paying others to do the work for him, (and cheating a partner https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BANGKOK5229_a.html)

The final indignity would be for someone to call in his debts and declare him bankrupt.

I read your post and what sprang to mind was, "Why is this poster so fixated on the man?" We all get you don't like him, (quite understandably) but mate, you know...?

You may or may not have noticed but the topic is about Thaksin and his clone (his word) Yingluck, that, it would seem to me to be a fair reason to comment on the man.

As usual when you read the truth and have no answer you attempt to attack the poster.

I assure you my post was not meant to be an attack on you, merely questioning the intensity of your loathing for the man which strikes me as somewhat OTT, like he has slighted you personally.

I don't have to hate him to see the truth, as for you it must be terrible when the love of your life is exposed for the crook that he is.

[mikemac]

I live in a small town south of Bangkok and have been asking Thai friends, relatives and associates their views on some of the big issues facing the country a year after the military coup.

While many were understandably reluctant to venture their opinions, others were more forthcoming. Here are some of the conclusions.

1 Most people are not concerned about what happens to the Thaksins and don't want them back in power.

2 They are far less worried about concepts such as democracy and personal freedom than are many of the regime's critics in the West, whom they say simply don't understand Thai mentality.

3 A majority feel the coup was necessary and are prepared to allow the military-led junta to run the show for however long it takes to bring lasting peace, security and stability to the Kingdom.

4 Voters, particularly those living in Bangkok where the army's intervention ended six months of destructive violence and bloodshed, are in no particular hurry for a general election.

5 Most would rather spend years ruled by an" iron fist in a velvet glove" administration rather than return to a political democracy characterised by systemic corruption and political and social unrest.

6 A relatively small number will bother to wade through the fine print of the draft new Constitution, if and when one arrives in the mail box.

7 Many less concerned about the restoration of human rights than the return of the Friday TV soap opera displaced by the PM's weekly paternal chats.

I am not suggesting this small, random sample represents the attitudes of most Thai people. However, it may go some way to explain the apparent ease with which the military-led administration has entrenched itself in the public psyche as a power for good - or at the very worst, a necessary evil.

You use the terms majority, most and many with much ease.

If you were anywhere near right then your majority (most, many) people should be clamouring for an election, instead as they are the minority, they are doing all they can to deny an election.

The "explanation" for why Thais seem to have accepted the coup with "apparent ease" is most likely explained by the following: section 44 empowers the military to lock up (and torture) any dissidents, the military is not shy about committing the odd massacre every decade or so to suppress opposition, the courts are biased and partial and indict and convict citizens at the Juntas behest and of course the fact that they've seen it all before as this is the 20th or so coup trampling democracy in this nation.

The "explanation" is most certainly not love or support for the junta by the majority (most, many) Thais.

.............."section 44 empowers the military to lock up (and torture) any dissidents".....................

Get your hand off it ! I was going to say you would have more chance of being shot or blown up by red shirt terrorists than to be locked up and tortured by the military but then I realized the reds have been muzzled since the military took over.

Your blatant spreading of red propaganda, lies and bs is not getting you anywhere, as your beloved Shin regime has crumbled, the PTP is on the verge of being banned, and the red terrorist are back in their holes where they belong.

[Solomon]

"but there is no evidence that the current junta has been or intends to be violent towards ti public at large."

And just who were the military leadership during the 2010 massacre??

The current PM and Deputy PM have form.

Ahhhh,, another new twister, that wasn't the subject of the thread. It was about coups.

Try harder.

No twisting required here.

The post was in direct response to your incorrect statement "but there is no evidence that the current junta has been or intends to be violent towards ti public at large"

There is indisputable evidence that those in very senior roles in the current regime have been violent towards Thai citizens - the evidence is in the form of over 90 dead bodies, over 1,500 serious casualties and over 2,000 rounds of spent sniper ammunition from the 2010 massacre (led by who??).

The relevance of these facts to this thread is in its refutation of the earlier claim that the majority (most, many) Thais have accepted the current coup with "apparent ease" when the facts are a good proportion of the public oppose the coup but are afraid to speak openly because those in power have not only the courts in their pocket but they also have a great many guns and have a proven track record of being willing, when challenged, to use them to murder anyone who disagrees with them.

[Orac]

Nov 2, 2005

BANGKOK - Once upon a time, Thailand was known to have a free and open press. Not anymore. In the 2005 Worldwide Press Freedom Index, released last month by Paris-based Reporters Without Borders and ranking 167 countries, Thailand shows up at a far from flattering 107th place, behind post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia and post-Suharto Indonesia.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GK02Ae01.html

It's ridiculous to compare current press freedom to press freedom under Thaksin as Thaksin made every effort to stifle the press and it was never able to keep Thaksin honest; history has proven that. Let me know when you have some data that the current government is behaving in a corrupt way as Thaksin constantly did.

.

If 107th on the Press Freedom Index in 2005 was not exactly a stellar performance but since they have dropped to 134th this year is probably not all that bad.

It wasn't much of a drop from just the year before, under Yingluck, it was 130th.

Maybe so but the point was the comment

"It's ridiculous to compare current press freedom to press freedom under Thaksin as Thaksin made every effort to stifle the press"

Is not backed up by the Worldwide Press Freedom Index rankings being used to make the argument.