Thai ex-PM Thaksin: Thailand like Myanmar before reforms

[ttthailand]

There is enough wrong to go around for all sides. The problem here is everyone wants power and no one can be trusted to be fair and just. I just wonder if Thailand will ever be free of corruption and greed.

[gerry1011]

The comments in this thread demonstrate that - apart from separating the two camps - the coup and the present political situation (or the absence of political situation) is just useless.

Pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin still think exactly the same... which is what is worrying for some if there is an election.

And it seems to me that the anti-Thaksin are as virulent and adverse as ever to any compromise aiming to make the country move forward.

But, after all... should we care?

As foreigners it does not change much either way.

Edited February 22, 2016 by gerry1011

[cumgranosalum]

Thaksin's a joke!!

He states, in part "...There would be a prime minister, but the real power would be in some politburo above him ...." Umm, who was pulling Yingluck's strings when she was in power???? The Puppeteer from Dubai!!

A self centred autocrat with no morals.

you realise that isn't an argument - just because democracy was "dodgy" under Thaksin, it doesn't make the prospect of a politburo any less real. Your confusing the argument and the messanger

[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.

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?

Yes and no.I agree the Shins don't differ very much in essentials from other Sino Thai tycoons in terms of attitudes and values.But I think it muddies the waters to suggest that Thaksin is just another member of the ruling elite.To do so is I think inaccurate and sometimes - though I am not accusing you of this - just an attempt to deny the crisis of social and political equality that Thaksin did actually address.This doesn't mean he was a good or noble person - just that he was a clever politician who took advantage of the failure of the Democrats to compete.

A comparison could be made to Benjamin Disraeli - the nineteenth century British conservative leader who saw a gap in the market and gave the franchise to the working class and thereby stole a march on the Liberals.He didn't do that because he loved the proles but rather because he wanted to "dish the Whigs".Politics is mostly about getting power and the motives involved are of lesser importance.

[Bluespunk]

"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.

No. He's a fugitive criminal evading justice.

He's a scumbag, who cared not at all for those murdered in his war on drugs PR campaign as well, but that's beside the point.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Bluespunk

[Alwyn]

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.

Yeah it would have happened. It was just part of the excuse for the coup.

[eggers]

Thaksin's a joke!!

He states, in part "...There would be a prime minister, but the real power would be in some politburo above him ...." Umm, who was pulling Yingluck's strings when she was in power???? The Puppeteer from Dubai!!

A self centred autocrat with no morals.

you realise that isn't an argument - just because democracy was "dodgy" under Thaksin, it doesn't make the prospect of a politburo any less real. Your confusing the argument and the messanger

Of course, it's valid to compare. The "messenger" as you put it, was running the country as Pseudo PM to his sister. What's the difference between that & a politburo seemingly in control?

[Lannig]

Please use discretion in your references to the government. Phrases which can be considered as anti-coup will be removed. Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed. Any posts which can be construed as rumor mongering are not allowed.

Err.. pardon me Mr. Bot, but isn't this exactly what the quote in the original post does?

“It is a charade to show the world that Thailand is returning to democracy,” he told the Asian Wall Street Journal. “But in reality, it would be like Myanmar before its political reforms. There would be a prime minister, but the real power would be in some politburo above him and the economy would suffer,” he said. “No other government would want to touch Thailand.”

Edited February 22, 2016 by Lannig

[Britannia]

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.

My God, we have a man that knows what he is talking about. Agree JFK. Next load of trouble coming our way. NEW WORLD ORDER

[aussieinthailand]

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...

Unfortunately yet another FAULY claiming Thaksin took Thailand into a "downward spiral", and there will be the usual here mushrooms that will lap it up regardless of the truth and facts...........

You might want to do your homework on the economy under Thaksin and this current one before you comment on things you so obviously have NO knowledge about or you just be happy with the drivel and claim it fact, you people make me laugh,,, get your facts right first then state your case with proof.

You do know it's ok not to like Thaksin but employing facts rather than b_____t will get you more credibility.

[halloween]

If you lived in Thailand before Thaksin, you wouldn't be just throwing statements like this out there. He's a business man first & foremost. brought the country out of the poor house, and profited from it as well, what business man wouldn't?? He was still better than all before him, or would you like Thailand to go back to men & women wearing Sarongs and going barefoot??

"men & women wearing Sarongs and going barefoot" was considerably before Thaksin's time as PM. What I remember is Thais, quite well dressed, being ripped off mightily with over-priced mobile phone charges, and no alternative suppliers.

[halloween]

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...

Unfortunately yet another FAULY claiming Thaksin took Thailand into a "downward spiral", and there will be the usual here mushrooms that will lap it up regardless of the truth and facts...........

You might want to do your homework on the economy under Thaksin and this current one before you comment on things you so obviously have NO knowledge about or you just be happy with the drivel and claim it fact, you people make me laugh,,, get your facts right first then state your case with proof.

You do know it's ok not to like Thaksin but employing facts rather than b_____t will get you more credibility.

It seems that since Thaksin was deposed, not only Thailand's economy, but the whole planet has suffered. Of course, that's merely co-incidental. Had he been allowed to stay, he would have cornered the world market for rice, the price would have risen to $1000/ton, and every Thai would be richer than Croesus (within the allowed 6 months).

[eggers]

This is rich. An ILLEGAL JUNTA saying they can't hold talk with a convicted criminal. It doesn't get any more insane than that.

Why do you say "An Illegal Junta", was approved by Head of State, Commander in Chief, otherwise would have been a failed coup!

[yellowboat]

"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..........

You mean article 44. Laws are what we say they are and they apply to everyone bot us.

[blu]

jayboy..you were reading US textbooks for your definition of democracy.. Commonwealth countries follow Parlimentary democracy with no such leg/exec/judicial separations. Democracy is simply the balance of majority tile with minrity rights

[Eric Loh]

Myanmar before reforms was all about the 1960 coup that overthrown the elected government and stayed in power by re-writing the constitution that ensured military dominance. Strikingly similar? When they allowed election in 1992 and the NLD won a landslide 80% election,the military refused to relinquish power. A forewarning by Thaksin? If there is a sign to beware, then it may be the Mynmar saffron revolution in 2007.

[JAG]

Thaksin's a joke!!

He states, in part "...There would be a prime minister, but the real power would be in some politburo above him ...." Umm, who was pulling Yingluck's strings when she was in power???? The Puppeteer from Dubai!!

A self centred autocrat with no morals.

you realise that isn't an argument - just because democracy was "dodgy" under Thaksin, it doesn't make the prospect of a politburo any less real. Your confusing the argument and the messanger

Of course, it's valid to compare. The "messenger" as you put it, was running the country as Pseudo PM to his sister. What's the difference between that & a politburo seemingly in control?

The difference is that his sisters government came to power by winning an election - an election in which those who voted for her party were certainly aware, and often enthusiastic about, Thaksins presence in the background.

The "Politburo" have appointed themselves. Let's not proceed to consider " self centred autocrats with no morals."

[gregk0543]

When Donald Trump becomes President of the United states the army there may have to do the same thing and take over to clean up the senate and congress.

Imagine that.

I have lived in Myanmar for most of the past 35 years so it comes as a shock how little Thaksin seems to know about Myanmar and how it was run prior to the reforms.

Thailand is becoming like Thailand and it is a long way from Myanmar except in the most superficial likenesses politically.

Having read the article I see he is being concerned about the new charter. Is he concerned about the country or just concerned about his own interests? That seems to be the question.

Trump won't win the presidency in the US. He may get the nomination from the republican right wing christian fundamentalist lunatic fringe (though as they dominate a lot of the primaries, maybe not so much a fringe as a trump like coiffure) but he won't win over the country.

That said if he did win (he won't but...) I think he'd turn out to be a lot more pragmatic and small c conservative than the tea party fundamentalists backing trump at present would like. Cruz would be a lot worse.

Your point is taken but before we get off the topic. I was using it as an extreme hypothetical example of how sometimes the army does need to step in and is part of checks and balances in politics

So the idea that the army does on occasion have a political function to fix a stagnant political system seems correct. And there have been more coups like this in Thailand than any other country I know of.

But sure this is the longest one I have ever seen in Thailand so there is room for concern that the longer that anyone stays in power without an election and reference to the people then the more opportunity for the rulers to become corrupt and not want to hand over power.

This seems to be a flaw in human nature and not in a system. It seems the opportunity to change a govt. every 3, 4 or 5 years seems to keep those in govt. more honest. The real question is not the theoretical ideal that a return to Democracy is a good thing, but that who are the people vying for the democratic power and can they be trusted. That seems the saddest thing in Thailand.

Sometimes you feel like Diogenes walking round with a lamp in the day. Who when asked what he was doing, replied "I am looking for an honest man."

[eggers]

Thaksin's a joke!!

He states, in part "...There would be a prime minister, but the real power would be in some politburo above him ...." Umm, who was pulling Yingluck's strings when she was in power???? The Puppeteer from Dubai!!

A self centred autocrat with no morals.

you realise that isn't an argument - just because democracy was "dodgy" under Thaksin, it doesn't make the prospect of a politburo any less real. Your confusing the argument and the messanger

Of course, it's valid to compare. The "messenger" as you put it, was running the country as Pseudo PM to his sister. What's the difference between that & a politburo seemingly in control?

The difference is that his sisters government came to power by winning an election - an election in which those who voted for her party were certainly aware, and often enthusiastic about, Thaksins presence in the background.

The "Politburo" have appointed themselves. Let's not proceed to consider " self centred autocrats with no morals."

Yingluck may well have been elected, but Thaksin was not!! He's self appointed ex officio leader in exile...not even in the country; still no real difference,much the same as politburo...

[jayboy]

Thaksin's a joke!!

He states, in part "...There would be a prime minister, but the real power would be in some politburo above him ...." Umm, who was pulling Yingluck's strings when she was in power???? The Puppeteer from Dubai!!

A self centred autocrat with no morals.

you realise that isn't an argument - just because democracy was "dodgy" under Thaksin, it doesn't make the prospect of a politburo any less real. Your confusing the argument and the messanger

Of course, it's valid to compare. The "messenger" as you put it, was running the country as Pseudo PM to his sister. What's the difference between that & a politburo seemingly in control?

The difference is that his sisters government came to power by winning an election - an election in which those who voted for her party were certainly aware, and often enthusiastic about, Thaksins presence in the background.

The "Politburo" have appointed themselves. Let's not proceed to consider " self centred autocrats with no morals."

Yingluck may well have been elected, but Thaksin was not!! He's self appointed ex officio leader in exile...not even in the country; still no real difference,much the same as politburo...

Except as has been explained countless times enough of the Thai electorate knew, understood and approved the position.Thus it's completely different from a politburo which is self imposed and without any legitimacy at all.

Nobody suggests the Thaksin influence from exile arrangement was ideal but to suggest it had as little legitimacy as the present set up is absurd.

[Yann55]

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.

LOL, he's something else, isn't he ? The guy can't disagree with someone without calling him names, and is now simply suggesting that the Forum should be divided between the idiots (those who disagree with him) and the serious (him). Entertaining indeed

Jayboy, you have just made a complete fool of yourself, and it's not the first time. Keep the good work and make us giggle !

[eggers]

Thaksin's a joke!!

He states, in part "...There would be a prime minister, but the real power would be in some politburo above him ...." Umm, who was pulling Yingluck's strings when she was in power???? The Puppeteer from Dubai!!

A self centred autocrat with no morals.

you realise that isn't an argument - just because democracy was "dodgy" under Thaksin, it doesn't make the prospect of a politburo any less real. Your confusing the argument and the messanger

Of course, it's valid to compare. The "messenger" as you put it, was running the country as Pseudo PM to his sister. What's the difference between that & a politburo seemingly in control?

The difference is that his sisters government came to power by winning an election - an election in which those who voted for her party were certainly aware, and often enthusiastic about, Thaksins presence in the background.

The "Politburo" have appointed themselves. Let's not proceed to consider " self centred autocrats with no morals."

Yingluck may well have been elected, but Thaksin was not!! He's self appointed ex officio leader in exile...not even in the country; still no real difference,much the same as politburo...

Except as has been explained countless times enough of the Thai electorate knew, understood and approved the position.Thus it's completely different from a politburo which is self imposed and without any legitimacy at all.

Nobody suggests the Thaksin influence from exile arrangement was ideal but to suggest it had as little legitimacy as the present set up is absurd.

The people may have known of the set up, but there was no "approval" given as Thaksin was not elected; was self imposed! Simple.

So Thaksin had no legitimacy or responsibly for any action of the Gov't of the day, that's the test of a democratic Gov't; legitimacy & responsibility.

Whereas, if the Charter as currently presented, is put to the people & accepted by the people's vote, then it has complete legitimacy, whether you or I agree or not.

[The Deerhunter]

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...

If you lived in Thailand before Thaksin, you wouldn't be just throwing statements like this out there. He's a business man first & foremost. brought the country out of the poor house, and profited from it as well, what business man wouldn't?? He was still better than all before him, or would you like Thailand to go back to men & women wearing Sarongs and going barefoot??

Are you seriously suggesting that without him "Thai men & women would still be wearing Sarongs and going barefoot??" I would counter that by suggesting that king numbers 4, 5 & 9 deserve many times more credit for the modernisation and westernisation of Thailand. TS was only looking after himself and his clan. No-one else. He used social bribes to put himself in the driving seat solely for for the benefit of his ego and self-enrichment. He had his chance to be Thailand's Lee Kwan Yew but could not control his greed and blood lust. When his personal dream became impossible on account of being exposed for his crimes (literally) he serially appointed two more close family to run the show under his direct control by admitted weekly skype calls from Dubai. Thaksin, the man that single-handedly brought Thailand out of the dark ages? What a laughable suggestion. Go back to your cups of tea!

[sweatalot]

'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.

agreed in many ways

[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..........

You mean article 44. Laws are what we say they are and they apply to everyone bot us.

Actually I was referring to the illegal overthrow of a lawfully elected government by force of arms.

The "Article 44" nonsense is nothing but an attempt to, retrospectively, legitimise that illegal act, and a future administration might, rightly in my view, decide that everything flowing from an illegal act must also therefore be illegal and hold certain individuals accountable for that...................

Edited February 22, 2016 by Always18

[MockingJay]

Thaksin, your time is over - no one gives a toss about what you think or want to talk about!

[RWA]

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.

[Ricardo]

" 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. "

Who on Earth does the man think he is, why does he think he still has anything to offer, apart from his long-promised withdrawl from Thai politics ?

" But in reality, it would be like Myanmar before its political reforms. There would be a prime minister, but the real power would be in some politburo above him and the economy would suffer,” he said. “No other government would want to touch Thailand. "

That's the same 'untouchable' Burmese government, with which he when PM was reported to have done a number of business-deals, Dawei & the EXIM bank-loan to purchase time on ShinSat for example ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

Or the hydro-power and gas deals, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HK14Ae02.html

" In October 2005, Thaksin reportedly signed an agreement with the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) regime for joint investment in the construction of the hydropower plants. "

" In August, Thaksin took a delegation that included top energy officials to Myanmar's new capital at Naypyidaw to negotiate exclusive exploration rights for the two blocks for Thailand's PTT Exploration and Production Plc, or PTTEP, a 66%-owned subsidiary of the state-controlled Petroleum Authority of Thailand, or PTT Plc. "

Those were fine examples of how untouchable he regarded the old Burmese regime, to which he's now reported to be comparing the current Thai government.

And when he now says " It is a charade to show the world that Thailand is returning to democracy, ", is that the same democracy about which he as PM in 2003 was quoted as saying "Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," he said. "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal." ?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/4293-thaksin-democracy-is-not-my-goal/

Now many might agree, that the new Charter may not be all that wonderful, but given the former-PM's record, he might not be the best person to get that message across.

[steven100]

don't feed the troll ....................

[steven100]

does this guy ever learn ...... ?? IT'S OVER BUDDY !!!!!!!