Thai ex-PM Thaksin: Thailand like Myanmar before reforms

[Baerboxer]

Blah blah blah, come home face the court , regain respect , at the end of the day casting dispersions from afar just belittles you more,

Is that all you can say? How about his quote, which is by the way spot on. You don't have to like Thaksin to agree with these sentences.

And Thaksin would have turned Thailand into a one party state headed by the Shin clan who would use the country's assets as their own, given half a chance.

He's entitled to his opinion and free to express it which is ironic given he's a criminal fugitive with copious other criminal charges waiting in the courts.

His sister was removed by a court, everyone knows he was running "her" government and as all their family governments, it was marred with corruption, lies and deceit.

When will some truly abrasive journalist challenge his repeated denials of ever having done anything wrong, never ever, and trying to dismiss everything as "politically motivated". But of course, he would never agree to such an interview.

Pity the poor Thai people. A choice of this crook or the military.

[Baerboxer]

Blah blah blah, come home face the court , regain respect , at the end of the day casting dispersions from afar just belittles you more,

Is that all you can say? How about his quote, which is by the way spot on. You don't have to like Thaksin to agree with these sentences.

And Thaksin would have turned Thailand into a one party state headed by the Shin clan who would use the country's assets as their own, given half a chance.

He's entitled to his opinion and free to express it which is ironic given he's a criminal fugitive with copious other criminal charges waiting in the courts.

His sister was removed by a court, everyone knows he was running "her" government and as all their family governments, it was marred with corruption, lies and deceit.

When will some truly abrasive journalist challenge his repeated denials of ever having done anything wrong, never ever, and trying to dismiss everything as "politically motivated". But of course, he would never agree to such an interview.

Pity the poor Thai people. A choice of this crook or the military.

[Always18]

"The Thai govt. (said) Thaksin Shinawatra has to follow the rules of law"...............oh, but WE don't, of course, because we have the firepower to over-ride that pesky requirement..........

[Baerboxer]

'Returning' to democracy would imply that democracy was there.

Well, unfortunately, it was not, thanks to this pontificating buffoon who used democratic tools to abuse democracy in every possible manner, all for the benefit of his own clan.

Elections are not what define democracy, elections are just one of its mechanisms.

What does defines democracy is :

- the separation of powers into three distinct entities : legislative, executive, judiciary,

- the careful and thorough creation of entities whose role it is to monitor the three powers, put them back on track when required, and sometimes oppose them.

There was none of the above under Thaksin. In that respect there is no difference between the before and after coup regimes. If anything, the present regime is simply less hypocritical.

You are talking nonsense.The development of democracy in Thailand has been precarious and fragile not least because of the tendency of the establishment to destroy governments that though properly elected do not meet with their approval.The army has usually been their instrument but more recently they have also used the courts.

Nobody suggested Thaksin was a good representative of democracy so dont divert with that stale strawman approach.

Without elections there can be no democracy.Checks and balances are important but most will recall that the last civilian government was checked and balanced at every turn - but still the army grabbed power illegally.

Lastly if you use language like "pontificating buffoon" you give up the right to be taken as anything other than a pub bore.

I don't agree with you Jayboy, the previous government was not checked and balanced. It did a rice program that they called self financing, the World bank and many other institutes told them it could not be done. They were warned, did it anyway.. dit not take it up in the countries budget and blew on a yearly base (divided the loss by years to be fair) an amount equal to the health budget of Thailand in a year. I no country with goods checks and balances would a project of that magnitude stay off books and unchecked.

I would not have any problems with the rice program if they had put it in the books, they did not as then they could not go for other popular policies. They hid the losses and would have done so with the Chinese loan.

When they an official came out with that it was not going good the government threatened that official, when the democrats showed rotten rice they were sued. Nothing was done at all about this. Fake G2G deals were taking place, YL was informed.. did nothing.

Now also an amnesty that was pushed through and was the catalyst for the coup (or good excuse) was not done lawful and would have excused 25.000 corruption cases. Now if you call that being checked and balanced then I wonder what your definition of checks and balances are.

He probably thinks the old Eastern Bloc People's Democratic Republics were democracies too Rob. They had elections, they had checks and balances, they even had secret police and no trial labor camps for dissenters to protect their democracy. And the "leaders" - did just as they pleased once elected as they put themselves above the law.

Thaksin thinks, and sadly he's often right, that as long as their is a masquerade of democracy through elections only, that he can do as he pleases. Any problems simply lie, cheat, bribe, intimidate or worse if necessary. It seems to have worked well for a number of despots over the years, and a few at present. So why not for him.

[jayboy]

'Returning' to democracy would imply that democracy was there.

Well, unfortunately, it was not, thanks to this pontificating buffoon who used democratic tools to abuse democracy in every possible manner, all for the benefit of his own clan.

Elections are not what define democracy, elections are just one of its mechanisms.

What does defines democracy is :

- the separation of powers into three distinct entities : legislative, executive, judiciary,

- the careful and thorough creation of entities whose role it is to monitor the three powers, put them back on track when required, and sometimes oppose them.

There was none of the above under Thaksin. In that respect there is no difference between the before and after coup regimes. If anything, the present regime is simply less hypocritical.

You are talking nonsense.The development of democracy in Thailand has been precarious and fragile not least because of the tendency of the establishment to destroy governments that though properly elected do not meet with their approval.The army has usually been their instrument but more recently they have also used the courts.

Nobody suggested Thaksin was a good representative of democracy so dont divert with that stale strawman approach.

Without elections there can be no democracy.Checks and balances are important but most will recall that the last civilian government was checked and balanced at every turn - but still the army grabbed power illegally.

Lastly if you use language like "pontificating buffoon" you give up the right to be taken as anything other than a pub bore.

I don't agree with you Jayboy, the previous government was not checked and balanced. It did a rice program that they called self financing, the World bank and many other institutes told them it could not be done. They were warned, did it anyway.. dit not take it up in the countries budget and blew on a yearly base (divided the loss by years to be fair) an amount equal to the health budget of Thailand in a year. I no country with goods checks and balances would a project of that magnitude stay off books and unchecked.

I would not have any problems with the rice program if they had put it in the books, they did not as then they could not go for other popular policies. They hid the losses and would have done so with the Chinese loan.

When they an official came out with that it was not going good the government threatened that official, when the democrats showed rotten rice they were sued. Nothing was done at all about this. Fake G2G deals were taking place, YL was informed.. did nothing.

Now also an amnesty that was pushed through and was the catalyst for the coup (or good excuse) was not done lawful and would have excused 25.000 corruption cases. Now if you call that being checked and balanced then I wonder what your definition of checks and balances are.

I'm not a fan of the rice price support policy but there was an electoral mandate for it.If there were abuses or corruption then these charges should be investigated and punished if appropriate.But the policy to improve the livelihoods of farmers was not in itself wrong even if misguided.There are similar programmes in other countries.

I think the Yingluck Government was constrained throughout its existence by the notion that it could be toppled at any time.I can give plenty of examples and they were in fact discussed in detail on this forum at the time.

The amnesty initiative was certainly a self inflicted wound.Ultimately some kind of amnesty will be needed but I think as an afterword to a political settlement not as part of one.You will not mind me pointing out that people like Abhisit, Suthep or Prayuth won't actually need an amnesty because the courts will always absolve them of crimes - and in the latter case they arrange it themselves.

[Baerboxer]

Thaksin's talk offer rejected

BANGKOK: -- The Thai government today rejected an offer for talks with the fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra saying he has to follow the rules of law.

Deputy Prime Minister Gen Tanasak Patimapragorn said it was impossible to hold talks with the former premier as he is a convicted criminal.

Therefore it was unlikely that a talk could be held with the person who has been convicted in a crime and everything must follow the rules of law, he said.

Gen Tanasak was commenting on proposed talks offered by Thaksin who gave interview to the Financial Times in Singapore recently.

Thaksin told the Financial Times that he was ready to offer any kind of discussion or talk and he would not set any conditions for the proposed talk.

He called the election roadmap of the Thai military junta a “charade” or wise plan to show the world that Thailand us returning to democracy.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/content/151797

-- Thai PBS 2016-02-22

No doubt any discussion would include a full whitewash amnesty for himself (sod those poor red shirt pawns his sister's government did nothing about who still languish in jail).

His conviction, his absconding breaking his promise, all those 15 or so serious cases already waiting in the courts, including the Krungthai Bank fraud scandal where other defendants have been convicted and jailed, and any more that might come to light - just wipe the slate clean, start again, all a misunderstanding.

Why on earth would any government want to hold talks with a proven liar, who breaks promises whenever convenient, a convicted criminal fugitive who has been captured on previous videos stirring up violent insurgency?

He can come home anytime he wants to - and face his responsibilities like a man. But he's too much of a coward and will only do so if he's assured a full whitewash - just like the one he tried to engineer via his puppet sister's regime.

[elgordo38]

Blah blah blah, come home face the court , regain respect , at the end of the day casting dispersions from afar just belittles you more,

Is that all you can say? How about his quote, which is by the way spot on. You don't have to like Thaksin to agree with these sentences.

Coming home would be like committing hari kari.

[jayboy]

'Returning' to democracy would imply that democracy was there.

Well, unfortunately, it was not, thanks to this pontificating buffoon who used democratic tools to abuse democracy in every possible manner, all for the benefit of his own clan.

Elections are not what define democracy, elections are just one of its mechanisms.

What does defines democracy is :

- the separation of powers into three distinct entities : legislative, executive, judiciary,

- the careful and thorough creation of entities whose role it is to monitor the three powers, put them back on track when required, and sometimes oppose them.

There was none of the above under Thaksin. In that respect there is no difference between the before and after coup regimes. If anything, the present regime is simply less hypocritical.

You are talking nonsense.The development of democracy in Thailand has been precarious and fragile not least because of the tendency of the establishment to destroy governments that though properly elected do not meet with their approval.The army has usually been their instrument but more recently they have also used the courts.

Nobody suggested Thaksin was a good representative of democracy so dont divert with that stale strawman approach.

Without elections there can be no democracy.Checks and balances are important but most will recall that the last civilian government was checked and balanced at every turn - but still the army grabbed power illegally.

Lastly if you use language like "pontificating buffoon" you give up the right to be taken as anything other than a pub bore.

I don't agree with you Jayboy, the previous government was not checked and balanced. It did a rice program that they called self financing, the World bank and many other institutes told them it could not be done. They were warned, did it anyway.. dit not take it up in the countries budget and blew on a yearly base (divided the loss by years to be fair) an amount equal to the health budget of Thailand in a year. I no country with goods checks and balances would a project of that magnitude stay off books and unchecked.

I would not have any problems with the rice program if they had put it in the books, they did not as then they could not go for other popular policies. They hid the losses and would have done so with the Chinese loan.

When they an official came out with that it was not going good the government threatened that official, when the democrats showed rotten rice they were sued. Nothing was done at all about this. Fake G2G deals were taking place, YL was informed.. did nothing.

Now also an amnesty that was pushed through and was the catalyst for the coup (or good excuse) was not done lawful and would have excused 25.000 corruption cases. Now if you call that being checked and balanced then I wonder what your definition of checks and balances are.

He probably thinks the old Eastern Bloc People's Democratic Republics were democracies too Rob. They had elections, they had checks and balances, they even had secret police and no trial labor camps for dissenters to protect their democracy. And the "leaders" - did just as they pleased once elected as they put themselves above the law.

Thaksin thinks, and sadly he's often right, that as long as their is a masquerade of democracy through elections only, that he can do as he pleases. Any problems simply lie, cheat, bribe, intimidate or worse if necessary. It seems to have worked well for a number of despots over the years, and a few at present. So why not for him.

So you demonstrate your political sophistication once again by comparing Eastern Bloc dictatorships with pre coup Thailand.

[elgordo38]

Blah blah blah, come home face the court , regain respect , at the end of the day casting dispersions from afar just belittles you more,

Is that all you can say? How about his quote, which is by the way spot on. You don't have to like Thaksin to agree with these sentences.

This statement makes one wonder who we share the planet with? Truely the year of the Monkey.

[elgordo38]

Who is right and who is wrong here,

I do not support Thaksin, however the talk of his attempt at an amnesty being an evil or corrupt thing as it was, needs to be balanced with the acknowledgement of the NCPO and their self applied amnesty on taking power.

Why are some posters so hung up about Thaksin seems to me his way is the Thai way and little different from the actions of those in power at present.

Good politics died with JFK now one must sort through the chaff given off by all politicians to see what grains of rice are left. Thaksin just happened to leave a little more behind for the people for which they were grateful. If your looking for the perfect politician your on the wrong planet.

[Baerboxer]

'Returning' to democracy would imply that democracy was there.

Well, unfortunately, it was not, thanks to this pontificating buffoon who used democratic tools to abuse democracy in every possible manner, all for the benefit of his own clan.

Elections are not what define democracy, elections are just one of its mechanisms.

What does defines democracy is :

- the separation of powers into three distinct entities : legislative, executive, judiciary,

- the careful and thorough creation of entities whose role it is to monitor the three powers, put them back on track when required, and sometimes oppose them.

There was none of the above under Thaksin. In that respect there is no difference between the before and after coup regimes. If anything, the present regime is simply less hypocritical.

You are talking nonsense.The development of democracy in Thailand has been precarious and fragile not least because of the tendency of the establishment to destroy governments that though properly elected do not meet with their approval.The army has usually been their instrument but more recently they have also used the courts.

Nobody suggested Thaksin was a good representative of democracy so dont divert with that stale strawman approach.

Without elections there can be no democracy.Checks and balances are important but most will recall that the last civilian government was checked and balanced at every turn - but still the army grabbed power illegally.

Lastly if you use language like "pontificating buffoon" you give up the right to be taken as anything other than a pub bore.

I don't agree with you Jayboy, the previous government was not checked and balanced. It did a rice program that they called self financing, the World bank and many other institutes told them it could not be done. They were warned, did it anyway.. dit not take it up in the countries budget and blew on a yearly base (divided the loss by years to be fair) an amount equal to the health budget of Thailand in a year. I no country with goods checks and balances would a project of that magnitude stay off books and unchecked.

I would not have any problems with the rice program if they had put it in the books, they did not as then they could not go for other popular policies. They hid the losses and would have done so with the Chinese loan.

When they an official came out with that it was not going good the government threatened that official, when the democrats showed rotten rice they were sued. Nothing was done at all about this. Fake G2G deals were taking place, YL was informed.. did nothing.

Now also an amnesty that was pushed through and was the catalyst for the coup (or good excuse) was not done lawful and would have excused 25.000 corruption cases. Now if you call that being checked and balanced then I wonder what your definition of checks and balances are.

I'm not a fan of the rice price support policy but there was an electoral mandate for it.If there were abuses or corruption then these charges should be investigated and punished if appropriate.But the policy to improve the livelihoods of farmers was not in itself wrong even if misguided.There are similar programmes in other countries.

I think the Yingluck Government was constrained throughout its existence by the notion that it could be toppled at any time.I can give plenty of examples and they were in fact discussed in detail on this forum at the time.

The amnesty initiative was certainly a self inflicted wound.Ultimately some kind of amnesty will be needed but I think as an afterword to a political settlement not as part of one.You will not mind me pointing out that people like Abhisit, Suthep or Prayuth won't actually need an amnesty because the courts will always absolve them of crimes - and in the latter case they arrange it themselves.

I think the Yingluck government's main purpose was to get Thaksin back. Hence the numerous efforts, energy and time they spent in trying to do so. If he could get an amnesty and get back in full control here, with all is old TRT buddies as their bans expired it would have been business as usual.

If the rice scheme had been budgeted, accounts subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and benefited poor farmers, (the poorest were actually excluded by PTP) then I doubt anyone would have a problem and see it as a useful subsidy. But it wasn't. It was deliberately taken off budget and touted as self financing to avoid any scrutiny. That provided for a nice slush fund for certain people to benefit the most. And they weren't poor nor farmers.

The disappointment, as often the case here, is that real investigations and actions to identify and punish those responsible don't really happen - too many people have little black books perhaps?

As for constrained, the "Yingluck" regime wanted a 2.2 trillion baht loan, which they also wanted "off budget and away from parliamentary scrutiny". Ms Yingluck was reported to have said "just trust us". She was a comic actress if nothing else!

[elgordo38]

For or against Thaksin is not an issue. The man is right on this one.

Way to go Newbie you got it right.

[elgordo38]

A rare interview. Is that a joke. Ohh Thai people have not heard any garbage from me for a while.

Lets create a bit now, maybe draw attention away from my sisters court case.

Thaksin is just a self opionated dipstick.

Does that put him above or below the average dipstick politician just asking.

[Baerboxer]

And if Thaksin had stayed in power, Thailand would have been like Zimbabwe!!!

Right, as opposed to the current position where FDI in Thailand is reported to have dropped by 80%.

Couldnt we split this forum up into one where there can be more or less serious debate and one where trolls, bigots and dullards could indulge in whatever kind of talk they like.

Well, you wouldn't be in the serious part and we'd miss your entertaining rhetoric.

[Brer Fox]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/headlines/I-definitely-stay-out-of-politics-Thaksin-30066726.html

"I definitely stay out of politics" : Thaksin

2:19 pm: Thaksin starts speaking at his press conference.

During the conference, he vows to stay out of politics and apologised to the people for their hardship caused by his involvement in the political conflict.

https://hicomrade.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/thaksin-says-he-doesnt-plan-return-to-thai-politics-update4/

“I quit politics, I have other roles to play,” Thaksin told reporters at Hong Kong airport today before leaving for Bangkok. “Enough is enough.” On the plane ride, he said he would “never ever” return to politics.

Making a comment about the political situation is not returning to politics...

I think Thailand is going to be a long time recovering, doesn't matter who is in power !

Too premature to talk about recovery. My guess is there is a long way to go before hitting the bottom rung.

[jayboy]

'Returning' to democracy would imply that democracy was there.

Well, unfortunately, it was not, thanks to this pontificating buffoon who used democratic tools to abuse democracy in every possible manner, all for the benefit of his own clan.

Elections are not what define democracy, elections are just one of its mechanisms.

What does defines democracy is :

- the separation of powers into three distinct entities : legislative, executive, judiciary,

- the careful and thorough creation of entities whose role it is to monitor the three powers, put them back on track when required, and sometimes oppose them.

There was none of the above under Thaksin. In that respect there is no difference between the before and after coup regimes. If anything, the present regime is simply less hypocritical.

You are talking nonsense.The development of democracy in Thailand has been precarious and fragile not least because of the tendency of the establishment to destroy governments that though properly elected do not meet with their approval.The army has usually been their instrument but more recently they have also used the courts.

Nobody suggested Thaksin was a good representative of democracy so dont divert with that stale strawman approach.

Without elections there can be no democracy.Checks and balances are important but most will recall that the last civilian government was checked and balanced at every turn - but still the army grabbed power illegally.

Lastly if you use language like "pontificating buffoon" you give up the right to be taken as anything other than a pub bore.

I don't agree with you Jayboy, the previous government was not checked and balanced. It did a rice program that they called self financing, the World bank and many other institutes told them it could not be done. They were warned, did it anyway.. dit not take it up in the countries budget and blew on a yearly base (divided the loss by years to be fair) an amount equal to the health budget of Thailand in a year. I no country with goods checks and balances would a project of that magnitude stay off books and unchecked.

I would not have any problems with the rice program if they had put it in the books, they did not as then they could not go for other popular policies. They hid the losses and would have done so with the Chinese loan.

When they an official came out with that it was not going good the government threatened that official, when the democrats showed rotten rice they were sued. Nothing was done at all about this. Fake G2G deals were taking place, YL was informed.. did nothing.

Now also an amnesty that was pushed through and was the catalyst for the coup (or good excuse) was not done lawful and would have excused 25.000 corruption cases. Now if you call that being checked and balanced then I wonder what your definition of checks and balances are.

I'm not a fan of the rice price support policy but there was an electoral mandate for it.If there were abuses or corruption then these charges should be investigated and punished if appropriate.But the policy to improve the livelihoods of farmers was not in itself wrong even if misguided.There are similar programmes in other countries.

I think the Yingluck Government was constrained throughout its existence by the notion that it could be toppled at any time.I can give plenty of examples and they were in fact discussed in detail on this forum at the time.

The amnesty initiative was certainly a self inflicted wound.Ultimately some kind of amnesty will be needed but I think as an afterword to a political settlement not as part of one.You will not mind me pointing out that people like Abhisit, Suthep or Prayuth won't actually need an amnesty because the courts will always absolve them of crimes - and in the latter case they arrange it themselves.

I think the Yingluck government's main purpose was to get Thaksin back. Hence the numerous efforts, energy and time they spent in trying to do so. If he could get an amnesty and get back in full control here, with all is old TRT buddies as their bans expired it would have been business as usual.

If the rice scheme had been budgeted, accounts subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and benefited poor farmers, (the poorest were actually excluded by PTP) then I doubt anyone would have a problem and see it as a useful subsidy. But it wasn't. It was deliberately taken off budget and touted as self financing to avoid any scrutiny. That provided for a nice slush fund for certain people to benefit the most. And they weren't poor nor farmers.

The disappointment, as often the case here, is that real investigations and actions to identify and punish those responsible don't really happen - too many people have little black books perhaps?

As for constrained, the "Yingluck" regime wanted a 2.2 trillion baht loan, which they also wanted "off budget and away from parliamentary scrutiny". Ms Yingluck was reported to have said "just trust us". She was a comic actress if nothing else!

I'm sure the return of Thaksin was one of her government's objectives.Whether it was the main purpose is another question.

My view is that the rice scheme was flawed therefore even if implemented competently would not have been in the country's interests.I would say the same about similar subsidies operating in the EC, Japan and the US.Off budget financing is nothing new and in fact was pioneered by the Democrats.

I disagree that the establishment elites would have regarded it as a "useful subsidy".They don't feel comfortable with populist policies aimed at raising living standards of the "great unwashed".Those people in their view should be ignorant about politics and practise self sufficiency.They are however quite comfortable with the massive skew of government expenditure to the urban middle class.

[Hardy99]

Thaksin is out of his mind..... He is what took Thailand in a downward spiral, and his sister did the same... Thailand does Not need his false statement in comparing Thailand to the way Burma was.... BS.... He should come back and do his time in the monkey house... He is the criminal...

I know some people will not agree with my thoughts... So what.... I Love Thailand and only want the best for it...

Hahaha.. I am shure you come from Northern Korea!

[jesimps]

Who is right and who is wrong here,

I do not support Thaksin, however the talk of his attempt at an amnesty being an evil or corrupt thing as it was, needs to be balanced with the acknowledgement of the NCPO and their self applied amnesty on taking power.

Why are some posters so hung up about Thaksin seems to me his way is the Thai way and little different from the actions of those in power at present.

The NCPO only took power AFTER Thaksin wanted his amnesty and messed the country up. There are so many trials waiting for him that are far more serous as the one he was convicted in the guy needs one else he just can't come back. Without his constant causing of problems we would never have been here.

Without the amnesty he would have only messed the country up with the rice deal, the street protests would not have happened and the coup if it had happened would not have been supported by many (in the begin) and would not have gone as far as it has now.

This is like the guy who sets fire to something complains about the damages the firetruck does when putting out the fire.

What he said is 100% correct. You junta fanboys know this but support the NCPO because they're keeping the PTP out of power. It's like me wanting a London team to win the premiership rather than Man U. You probably hate military govts but can't bring yourselves to support an election because you know your old enemy will walk it.

What I don't understand is that you're also supporting the fact that your beloved PAD never gets a shout in governing either.

[elgordo38]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/headlines/I-definitely-stay-out-of-politics-Thaksin-30066726.html

"I definitely stay out of politics" : Thaksin

2:19 pm: Thaksin starts speaking at his press conference.

During the conference, he vows to stay out of politics and apologised to the people for their hardship caused by his involvement in the political conflict.

https://hicomrade.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/thaksin-says-he-doesnt-plan-return-to-thai-politics-update4/

“I quit politics, I have other roles to play,” Thaksin told reporters at Hong Kong airport today before leaving for Bangkok. “Enough is enough.” On the plane ride, he said he would “never ever” return to politics.

And the date on that quote is 28th February 2008 , before his brother-in-law became PM, before the riots of 2009 & 2010, and before his sister/clone's time as PM, leading the latest-reincarnation of the party he inspires and which implements his wonderful policies, so we can see he's a man of his word !

For all the mans faults and his sisters and there were many which seems to be an inherited gene in most politicians he did not rush out and buy subs, tanks, beef up the military in peace time, sign deals with China for which Thailand will be the gift that never stops paying to China that is. He did not try and tamper with the internet. He instead dealt in populous policies which the present government has expressed its fear of. As stated in a Bangkok newspaper the general has told the rich to come out and vote in numbers or the government would again end up in the hands of a government that would help the populous. Is that not what government is all about to help the MAJORITY of the people not the chosen few?

[elgordo38]

If not for him pushing his amnesty through the whole coup would not have happened. His arrogance set this in motion (or at least gave it the perfect excuse) and now the guy is commenting on a situation he is the main responsible reason for. Priceless.

Some say there is an other reason for the coup (could be well true) but without Thaksin and his amnesty it would have looked totally different and all the changes would not have happened.

If he had not pushed as much and released his red terrorists we would not have been in this mess.

And our old buddy Suthep was just an innocent bystander in all of this priceless. How many laws did he and his street gang break? How about the military not protecting the ballot boxes during the election that went nowhere. The blame game is not a one way street.

Edited February 22, 2016 by elgordo38

[Baerboxer]

You presumably westerners who genuinely think that Thaksin is more corrupt or more evil than a host of other Thai politicians are lost.

Thailand is bursting at the seams with people just like Thaksin. They all share the same values but not all are equally competent at being corrupt.

Corruption is a fundamental part of Thai culture. Who would deny it?

Do we have any reasons to believe that the Junta, for example, is clean, or do we have reason to believe exactly the opposite?

What about any other political parties?

Westerners of reasonable intelligence should be better able to notice these patterns. There is no good group vs bad group in Thailand just as there is no good gang vs bad gang. They are all variations of the same lawless, unprincipled lot.

Here Here, Well said, someone with their brains in gear

Posters use the political constructs of their own countries political and social culture to contextualize Thai politics. My Chinese friends in HK, Taiwan, and China laugh when I talk about this. Thaksin isn't a left wing socialist anymore than the opposition to him are fascists. Those terms and their meanings are our constructs to understand our political spectrum.

My Chinese friends explain Asian politics as being like feudal patronages base on clans, families, connections and alliances. All greased by position, opportunity and of course the flow of money. Elections are categorized by organized bloc votes, where peer pressure, local control and towing the clan line are important; not the performance of the politicians, the civil servants they appoint or anything else. You vote for who your family, area, traditionally votes for and that person and his family are supposed to act in your interests as well as their own.

Corruption is an accepted practice in all walks of life and ensures the "right" people get to increase their family's wealth.

Occasionally one family or one person comes along and tries to rock the boat. Thaksin did, He wanted his family to be higher in the pecking order, to be the dominant clan with relations, extended family, friends, cronies and lackeys. The others obviously reacted and pushed back.

You are correct, there is no good vs bad, All are essentially the same, and act similarly, There are a number of posters on here, probably Westerners, who insist Thaksin and his family are some form of benevolent socialists who want to restore democracy and improve conditions for the masses, They aren't. They are just another clan out for their own interests, who saw opportunity and are still trying to grab it from those who've had it for a long time.

An analogy of the struggles of the various American organized crime gangs, or European noble families in the Middle Ages, or power struggles in ancient Rome would be nearer the mark.

[jesimps]

"Thaksin Shinawatra -- who has been living in exile since 2008"

No hes hasn't.

He's a fugitive criminal evading justice.

No he isn't.

He's a wise fellow who knows that if he sets foot in this country again his life expectancy is very short.

[Baerboxer]

If not for him pushing his amnesty through the whole coup would not have happened. His arrogance set this in motion (or at least gave it the perfect excuse) and now the guy is commenting on a situation he is the main responsible reason for. Priceless.

Some say there is an other reason for the coup (could be well true) but without Thaksin and his amnesty it would have looked totally different and all the changes would not have happened.

If he had not pushed as much and released his red terrorists we would not have been in this mess.

And our old buddy Suthep was just an innocent bystander in all of this priceless. How many laws did he and his street gang break? How about the military not protecting the ballot boxes during the election that went nowhere. The blame game is not a one way street.

But but but ............. Suthep.

This thread is about Thaksin. What others have or haven't done isn't relevant. Suthep, AFAIK, isn't a convicted criminal fugitive.

[scorecard]

Personally I think T.S. must know he hasn't a chance in hell of being heard by the present PM and even if he did come back to face the charges he would probably not be allowed into politics again. I just wonder if by saying he can't be silent it is a message to others in Thailand to do just that. If I was the PM I wouldn't want T.S. back here because it would only stir things up again and possibly more bloodshed. I am a supporter of Democracy but definitely not a supporter of T.S.

Mostly agree.

Perhaps there's another point - deliberately trying to strongly influence a no vote at the upcoming constitution referendum, all aimed at causing discord across society, and derailment / delay of reforms etc.

[EyesWideOpen]

Well hes correct about the place being well and truly stuffed for a long time to come.

No the real stuffing is waiting ahead...........

[elgordo38]

I read an interesting article in a well known Bangkok newspaper. It seems the Burmese military has had discussions with Aung San Suu Kyi.. with the possibility of her becoming president. They would ALLOW IT under the following conditions that she would not interfere with their private business enterprises in the country and in the future would not bring any human abuse charges against them. Interesting form of "democracy?".

Edited February 22, 2016 by elgordo38

[Baerboxer]

'Returning' to democracy would imply that democracy was there.

Well, unfortunately, it was not, thanks to this pontificating buffoon who used democratic tools to abuse democracy in every possible manner, all for the benefit of his own clan.

Elections are not what define democracy, elections are just one of its mechanisms.

What does defines democracy is :

- the separation of powers into three distinct entities : legislative, executive, judiciary,

- the careful and thorough creation of entities whose role it is to monitor the three powers, put them back on track when required, and sometimes oppose them.

There was none of the above under Thaksin. In that respect there is no difference between the before and after coup regimes. If anything, the present regime is simply less hypocritical.

You are talking nonsense.The development of democracy in Thailand has been precarious and fragile not least because of the tendency of the establishment to destroy governments that though properly elected do not meet with their approval.The army has usually been their instrument but more recently they have also used the courts.

Nobody suggested Thaksin was a good representative of democracy so dont divert with that stale strawman approach.

Without elections there can be no democracy.Checks and balances are important but most will recall that the last civilian government was checked and balanced at every turn - but still the army grabbed power illegally.

Lastly if you use language like "pontificating buffoon" you give up the right to be taken as anything other than a pub bore.

I don't agree with you Jayboy, the previous government was not checked and balanced. It did a rice program that they called self financing, the World bank and many other institutes told them it could not be done. They were warned, did it anyway.. dit not take it up in the countries budget and blew on a yearly base (divided the loss by years to be fair) an amount equal to the health budget of Thailand in a year. I no country with goods checks and balances would a project of that magnitude stay off books and unchecked.

I would not have any problems with the rice program if they had put it in the books, they did not as then they could not go for other popular policies. They hid the losses and would have done so with the Chinese loan.

When they an official came out with that it was not going good the government threatened that official, when the democrats showed rotten rice they were sued. Nothing was done at all about this. Fake G2G deals were taking place, YL was informed.. did nothing.

Now also an amnesty that was pushed through and was the catalyst for the coup (or good excuse) was not done lawful and would have excused 25.000 corruption cases. Now if you call that being checked and balanced then I wonder what your definition of checks and balances are.

I'm not a fan of the rice price support policy but there was an electoral mandate for it.If there were abuses or corruption then these charges should be investigated and punished if appropriate.But the policy to improve the livelihoods of farmers was not in itself wrong even if misguided.There are similar programmes in other countries.

I think the Yingluck Government was constrained throughout its existence by the notion that it could be toppled at any time.I can give plenty of examples and they were in fact discussed in detail on this forum at the time.

The amnesty initiative was certainly a self inflicted wound.Ultimately some kind of amnesty will be needed but I think as an afterword to a political settlement not as part of one.You will not mind me pointing out that people like Abhisit, Suthep or Prayuth won't actually need an amnesty because the courts will always absolve them of crimes - and in the latter case they arrange it themselves.

I think the Yingluck government's main purpose was to get Thaksin back. Hence the numerous efforts, energy and time they spent in trying to do so. If he could get an amnesty and get back in full control here, with all is old TRT buddies as their bans expired it would have been business as usual.

If the rice scheme had been budgeted, accounts subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and benefited poor farmers, (the poorest were actually excluded by PTP) then I doubt anyone would have a problem and see it as a useful subsidy. But it wasn't. It was deliberately taken off budget and touted as self financing to avoid any scrutiny. That provided for a nice slush fund for certain people to benefit the most. And they weren't poor nor farmers.

The disappointment, as often the case here, is that real investigations and actions to identify and punish those responsible don't really happen - too many people have little black books perhaps?

As for constrained, the "Yingluck" regime wanted a 2.2 trillion baht loan, which they also wanted "off budget and away from parliamentary scrutiny". Ms Yingluck was reported to have said "just trust us". She was a comic actress if nothing else!

I'm sure the return of Thaksin was one of her government's objectives.Whether it was the main purpose is another question.

My view is that the rice scheme was flawed therefore even if implemented competently would not have been in the country's interests.I would say the same about similar subsidies operating in the EC, Japan and the US.Off budget financing is nothing new and in fact was pioneered by the Democrats.

I disagree that the establishment elites would have regarded it as a "useful subsidy".They don't feel comfortable with populist policies aimed at raising living standards of the "great unwashed".Those people in their view should be ignorant about politics and practise self sufficiency.They are however quite comfortable with the massive skew of government expenditure to the urban middle class.

I agree - but don't think the Shiniwattras and their allies are really any different to the establishment. Neither group are really interested in seeing the masses educated and able to hold politicians accountable, They wan't to perpetuate the patronage system where the wealthy families increase their already vast wealth and continue to live incredibly privileged lives for generations to come. And that can only be achieved through the domination and exploitation of the masses. Whilst those masses, and that includes many more than the rural poor, think that real change can't ever happen, their elite positions are safe.

Thaksin was clever enough to throw some crumbs to and to try and indoctrinate a portion of the electorate that had previously been treated as sheep. This may have sparked more that intended and social media can fuel those sparks, as it did in the Arab spring. But, unless their is significant culture change within nothing will change the status quo. It will still be what, 300 - 500 families, in control?

[Cuchulainn]

Lights..............camera....................action...................Me .......me......... me........ look at me....... me......... me............ don't forget me.

Yawn.

[robblok]

'Returning' to democracy would imply that democracy was there.

Well, unfortunately, it was not, thanks to this pontificating buffoon who used democratic tools to abuse democracy in every possible manner, all for the benefit of his own clan.

Elections are not what define democracy, elections are just one of its mechanisms.

What does defines democracy is :

- the separation of powers into three distinct entities : legislative, executive, judiciary,

- the careful and thorough creation of entities whose role it is to monitor the three powers, put them back on track when required, and sometimes oppose them.

There was none of the above under Thaksin. In that respect there is no difference between the before and after coup regimes. If anything, the present regime is simply less hypocritical.

You are talking nonsense.The development of democracy in Thailand has been precarious and fragile not least because of the tendency of the establishment to destroy governments that though properly elected do not meet with their approval.The army has usually been their instrument but more recently they have also used the courts.

Nobody suggested Thaksin was a good representative of democracy so dont divert with that stale strawman approach.

Without elections there can be no democracy.Checks and balances are important but most will recall that the last civilian government was checked and balanced at every turn - but still the army grabbed power illegally.

Lastly if you use language like "pontificating buffoon" you give up the right to be taken as anything other than a pub bore.

I don't agree with you Jayboy, the previous government was not checked and balanced. It did a rice program that they called self financing, the World bank and many other institutes told them it could not be done. They were warned, did it anyway.. dit not take it up in the countries budget and blew on a yearly base (divided the loss by years to be fair) an amount equal to the health budget of Thailand in a year. I no country with goods checks and balances would a project of that magnitude stay off books and unchecked.

I would not have any problems with the rice program if they had put it in the books, they did not as then they could not go for other popular policies. They hid the losses and would have done so with the Chinese loan.

When they an official came out with that it was not going good the government threatened that official, when the democrats showed rotten rice they were sued. Nothing was done at all about this. Fake G2G deals were taking place, YL was informed.. did nothing.

Now also an amnesty that was pushed through and was the catalyst for the coup (or good excuse) was not done lawful and would have excused 25.000 corruption cases. Now if you call that being checked and balanced then I wonder what your definition of checks and balances are.

I'm not a fan of the rice price support policy but there was an electoral mandate for it.If there were abuses or corruption then these charges should be investigated and punished if appropriate.But the policy to improve the livelihoods of farmers was not in itself wrong even if misguided.There are similar programmes in other countries.

I think the Yingluck Government was constrained throughout its existence by the notion that it could be toppled at any time.I can give plenty of examples and they were in fact discussed in detail on this forum at the time.

The amnesty initiative was certainly a self inflicted wound.Ultimately some kind of amnesty will be needed but I think as an afterword to a political settlement not as part of one.You will not mind me pointing out that people like Abhisit, Suthep or Prayuth won't actually need an amnesty because the courts will always absolve them of crimes - and in the latter case they arrange it themselves.

Your missing the point, or don't want to see it. By keeping it off books they broke all rules, by going after those who said it was not self financing they took away checks and balances. You can't call it a subsidy and compare it to what other countries have if its off books and called self financing when the people in power know it was not. That is the problem with the program, they took away the checks and balances that way. By not accepting how wrong it is you show that you know nothing of a real democracy and accounting and budgeting.

The moment you know something is costing money you have to take it into a countries budget by hiding it deception/fraud is committed. This is something that would not fly in a functioning democracy. Just imagine the US having an off budget cost the size of their annual health budget without oversight and denying it exists. Now imagine that this is how the election was bought with this promise.

In my country the Netherlands all parties have to give their election programs to a calculating agency. They then calculate if their promises can be done and check that no false promises are made. (so you cant buy votes with false promises). So in my view that is what happened here.. votes bought with an off budget black fund not calculated because otherwise there would be a too big a deficit. By doing this they put all other parties at an advantage as they put in plans that could be financed with the normal budget.. and did not have an off budget the size of the health budget. Its cheating.. and would not have been possible in real democracies.

[ramrod711]

In a rare interview with two international newspapers Sunday, Thaksin Shinawatra -- who has been living in exile since 2008

I love it! Any time the slime ball makes a comment we are reminded that he has been gone for 8 years. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, it really does. I say let's have a quote of the week from him, every week, then we can celebrate his absence on a weekly basis.