Thaksin Shinawatra warns govt about Thailand’s economy

[grumpyoldman]

Sure, the economy runs a lot better when you are throwing bags of cash into a plane and running off like a dog with it's tail between it's legs.

THAKSIN=CROOK

[neverdie]

Thaksin should do the honourable thing and launch himself off the highest Dubai building available.

As we already know he's not a man of honour, perhaps he should. Just shut up.

[neverdie]

Sure, the economy runs a lot better when you are throwing bags of cash into a plane and running off like a dog with it's tail between it's legs.

THAKSIN=CROOK

You are being too polite.

[jayboy]

"But it's a fact that the elected govt under Thaksin ran that country perfectly."

There's an interesting attempt at humor.

Murdering 2,500+ citizens of his own country, nobody every brought to justice, families who lost their loved ones never any access to the justice system - ahha 'perfect'.

The drugs war is always invoked irrelevantly by those who hate Thaksin and as in this case lack the wit to make their case on economic grounds.

It's a foolish as well as irrelevant strategy because terrible as the drugs war was it was supported by the most influential people in Thailand including the forces that put the Junta into power.The fact that no charge has ever been made against Thaksin for his role in the drugs war is no coincidence.

I am not suggesting Thaksin should not be held to account.He should be.But only the incorrigibly naive, ignorant or dishonest would pretend any reckoning would be very unwelcome to the reactionary forces the poster so slavishly supports.

[Ricardo]

The drugs war is always invoked irrelevantly by those who hate Thaksin and as in this case lack the wit to make their case on economic grounds.

It's a foolish as well as irrelevant strategy because terrible as the drugs war was it was supported by the most influential people in Thailand including the forces that put the Junta into power.The fact that no charge has ever been made against Thaksin for his role in the drugs war is no coincidence.

I am not suggesting Thaksin should not be held to account.He should be.But only the incorrigibly naive, ignorant or dishonest would pretend any reckoning would be very unwelcome to the reactionary forces the poster so slavishly supports.

Not quite sure, due to the quotes having become a bit disconbobulated, which poster you're referring to ?

But just to say, that I would agree with you, at the time the War on Drugs was widely-supported !

An argument can be made, that the Thai economic-boom of the 90s was partly-based on yabba, and that the other social-costs of this were not recognised immediately, indeed I recall sitting reading while visiting family one week, and asking innocently what it was that was being sold from the side-window of the shop-house across the road ? It really was that open & public !

Desperate measures were necessary and, while the War wasn't actually Won (as Thaksin did claim), it certainly didn't see much opposition initially. At least many addicts were sent to camps, in an attempt at getting them off the drug, the murders might have been even worse !

But (and I'd love to be corrected) I don't recall any large dealers being caught ?

[jayboy]

The drugs war is always invoked irrelevantly by those who hate Thaksin and as in this case lack the wit to make their case on economic grounds.

It's a foolish as well as irrelevant strategy because terrible as the drugs war was it was supported by the most influential people in Thailand including the forces that put the Junta into power.The fact that no charge has ever been made against Thaksin for his role in the drugs war is no coincidence.

I am not suggesting Thaksin should not be held to account.He should be.But only the incorrigibly naive, ignorant or dishonest would pretend any reckoning would be very unwelcome to the reactionary forces the poster so slavishly supports.

Not quite sure, due to the quotes having become a bit disconbobulated, which poster you're referring to ?

But just to say, that I would agree with you, at the time the War on Drugs was widely-supported !

An argument can be made, that the Thai economic-boom of the 90s was partly-based on yabba, and that the other social-costs of this were not recognised immediately, indeed I recall sitting reading while visiting family one week, and asking innocently what it was that was being sold from the side-window of the shop-house across the road ? It really was that open & public !

Desperate measures were necessary and, while the War wasn't actually Won (as Thaksin did claim), it certainly didn't see much opposition initially. At least many addicts were sent to camps, in an attempt at getting them off the drug, the murders might have been even worse !

But (and I'd love to be corrected) I don't recall any large dealers being caught ?

Very interesting insights on drug aspects of the economic boom.Thank you.

As you note the drugs war was very widely supported and critically - at very influential levels.I am conflicted.On one hand I loathe the arbitrary nature and illegality of the so called war.Equally I have contempt for those who only use it as a stick with which to beat Thaksin, who ignore the support from the old elites and who are indifferent to the terrible suffering the drugs trade inflicts on the country.

[candide]

Pity that GDP-per-capita is so much higher now, than when under Thaksin, perhaps his good influence lasted long after he himself was gone ?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/gdp-per-capita

Inconvenient things, facts & statistics like that !

And they tell you nothing about the drugs-war, or the rebellion down South, or corruption, or denial of freedom-of-speech, under the former 'CEO'.

No, you're not convincing, I'll stick with "none of the above" thanks !

Obviously you are not as skilled in economics as your namesake! It's ridiculous to compare raw figures from different years without taking into account inflation and currency exchange rate.

For example if you take the gdp growth you get a different picture of the current economic performance.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/gdp-growth

"Obviously you are not as skilled in economics as your namesake!"

No need to flame, old chap ! You can make your point without that, can't you ?

Of course there are other factors, for example the growth in population over the decade, which is why I linked to per-capita numbers.

And the GDP-growth figures you link to are for January-2013 to date, so don't show how things were doing back in Thaksin's era, would you agree ?

Sorry for flaming but as I mentionned it is unfair to compare raw figures without taking into account inflation. It's the same for any country. You cannot buy with 1$ now what you could buy with 1$ 10 years ago. As for the figures it seems the website comes back to initial settings when clicking on the link, so I directly put the chart from the same source. You are quite right about the better relevance of per capita figures so I put another chart which is GDP per purchasing parity (taking into account the price of goods). It can be observed that between 2001 and 2007, it increased from USD 9000 to USD 12000+. (unfortunately the time serie stops after 2014)

[rixalex]

The drugs war is always invoked irrelevantly by those who hate Thaksin and as in this case lack the wit to make their case on economic grounds.

It's a foolish as well as irrelevant strategy because terrible as the drugs war was it was supported by the most influential people in Thailand including the forces that put the Junta into power.The fact that no charge has ever been made against Thaksin for his role in the drugs war is no coincidence.

I am not suggesting Thaksin should not be held to account.He should be.But only the incorrigibly naive, ignorant or dishonest would pretend any reckoning would be very unwelcome to the reactionary forces the poster so slavishly supports.

What is foolish as well as irrelevant, is pointing to the fact that a policy was widely supported, as making that policy somehow alright or acceptable. It makes no difference whatsoever how much of the public support a policy, because it is not the public whose job it is to sit on committees for weeks and weeks working out exactly how a policy is going to work and to be implemented, and think about some of the possible flaws or complications.

Had the public done so, maybe they would have had the chance to think, "hold on a second, can we really trust that all the people who are going to be shot on sight, are actually guilty, or could this policy possibly be used to settle some private scores and result in hundreds of innocent people being killed".

The policy had widespread support because people were naive enough to believe the government propaganda at that time that portrayed a government that was making a stand against the bad elements in society. And who wouldn't support something like that? The public isn't at blame for that. They aren't to blame for trusting in the politicians. The politicians are the ones who make the decisions on behalf of the people and it is they who have to take responsibility when things like innocent people get killed.

Incidentally the crack down in 2010 against the red shirts had i recall pretty broad public support - in fact the public mood seemed to be generally of frustration that protesters hadn't been forcibly removed earlier. I don't however ever recall you pointing to this fact as somehow making the government actions more acceptable. Funny that.

Public support is a complete irrelevance - whether we be talking about the war on drugs or the 2010 crack-down - and bringing into the debate, as you always do whenever the war on drugs topic comes up, only serves to expose an agenda at play here.

[jayboy]

The drugs war is always invoked irrelevantly by those who hate Thaksin and as in this case lack the wit to make their case on economic grounds.

It's a foolish as well as irrelevant strategy because terrible as the drugs war was it was supported by the most influential people in Thailand including the forces that put the Junta into power.The fact that no charge has ever been made against Thaksin for his role in the drugs war is no coincidence.

I am not suggesting Thaksin should not be held to account.He should be.But only the incorrigibly naive, ignorant or dishonest would pretend any reckoning would be very unwelcome to the reactionary forces the poster so slavishly supports.

What is foolish as well as irrelevant, is pointing to the fact that a policy was widely supported, as making that policy somehow alright or acceptable. It makes no difference whatsoever how much of the public support a policy, because it is not the public whose job it is to sit on committees for weeks and weeks working out exactly how a policy is going to work and to be implemented, and think about some of the possible flaws or complications.

Had the public done so, maybe they would have had the chance to think, "hold on a second, can we really trust that all the people who are going to be shot on sight, are actually guilty, or could this policy possibly be used to settle some private scores and result in hundreds of innocent people being killed".

The policy had widespread support because people were naive enough to believe the government propaganda at that time that portrayed a government that was making a stand against the bad elements in society. And who wouldn't support something like that? The public isn't at blame for that. They aren't to blame for trusting in the politicians. The politicians are the ones who make the decisions on behalf of the people and it is they who have to take responsibility when things like innocent people get killed.

Incidentally the crack down in 2010 against the red shirts had i recall pretty broad public support - in fact the public mood seemed to be generally of frustration that protesters hadn't been forcibly removed earlier. I don't however ever recall you pointing to this fact as somehow making the government actions more acceptable. Funny that.

Public support is a complete irrelevance - whether we be talking about the war on drugs or the 2010 crack-down - and bringing into the debate, as you always do whenever the war on drugs topic comes up, only serves to expose an agenda at play here.

Your inability to think carefully is demonstrated by your painfully inept post.

Firstly to dispose of the major one of your inaccuracies.I never said and never implied that the popularity of the drugs war made it acceptable.In fact only the doziest kind of dullard would have failed to notice I explicitly made clear my abhorrence.

My point was that if one is going to attack Thaksin for his role in the drugs war - and there is of course no objection to that - then you are also attacking the most influential figures in the country: the very people who stand behind the current catastrophic government.The strong support of the elite is more significant than that of the masses in this matter.One cannot isolate Thaksin n the drugs war and I repeat again since you seem slow on the uptake you should reflect why he has never been charged.

I'm not sure why you think there was strong public support for the redshirt crackdown.I am sure there was support for clearing the streets but I doubt whether there was much for the way it was done.

Finally you airily dismiss public concern over the misery and pain almost every Thai community has experienced as a result of the drugs trade.Far less important to you apparently than the chance to rant on about Thaksin.

By the way public support is never a complete irrelevance.I agree politicians have to lead and sometimes take unpopular decisions.But unless there is a strong link to the public by means of regular and fair elections

all their efforts are ultimately fruitless.

[sawadee1947]

things that weren't running "perfectly" back then

you are right. 10 years ago I was still working and only for holidays here. It was my impression that Thaksin's govt. "moved Thailand forward". Police was catching drug dealers here in CM and hill tribes were controlled many times. At that time as a result of control hill tribes were poor indeed. (today good income again?). And many projects were very successful (sky train in BKK, airport). And freedom of speech e.g. Thaksin got a "bigger picture" of Thailand whereas today I see only provincial outlook. Maybe it was my feeling only?

FWIW I too found my view of Thailand changed, once I stopped visiting annually, and moved to live here, I think that must be a common experience ?

Life in Thailand did undoubtedly improve in the early-2000s, there was a global economic-boom on, and Thailand benefited, I doubt we'll ever see growth at those levels again, the question is whether this was all down to Thaksin, as is sometimes claimed by his supporters ? It couldn't possibly have been, is my own view.

The drugs-problem was massive, allegedly over a million yabba-addicts, in fact the ability of Thai workers to work hard for long shifts may have been partly due to supposedly being handed a tablet when they started-work. It might have worked, but is still an unpleasant thought, to us farangs. Thaksin's War-on-Drugs was drastic, some 2,500 murdered, but many of the dead weren't dealers & I doubt whether any of the real big-bosses were caught by it. Death without trial, and nobody 'knows' who carried it out, not quite a perfect solution ?

Many hill-tribe people remain non-citizens to this day, even though they were born within Thailand, another wrong which still remains to be righted. Their living-conditions improved, as did many of the poor's lives, but they are still preyed-upon by the BiBs IME.

Some major projects were completed, Suvarnabhumi being one, but a decade on the cracks are showing, sometimes literally. Along with the progress there was also corruption, there always has been, so one more reason for seeing the government of that era as less-than-perfect. Not irrelevant, not totally ineffectual, just less-than-perfect.

Freedom-of-speech has also been a long-term problem in Thailand, the billion-baht suing of people who disagreed with Dear Leader became a bit of a running-joke, were it not so serious. Given a society still emerging from feudalism, and with a long way still to go, this is to be expected, and to be applauded when progress is made, which isn't often enough.

But the idea of an era when any government here was running things perfectly is IMO mistaken, hence my choice (partly in-jest) of "none of the above", because unless one recognises the failings & problems of all those options then there's no hope of ever doing better.

thank you for your quote. I kiked the way you described the former situation under Thaksin.

You mentioned the 2500 murdered people during his anti-drug war. If those have not died how many more might have died of those addicts or overdose's?

This man was like a "Janus" with 2 faces. It was not all bad. And many plans could not be carried out because of boycotting by his opponents.

The other things you mentioned are still going on and the hill tribe people did not get their citizenship. And nobody is interested. Thailand to the Thais.

Again, there is a lot to complain but it was not all in his hands. Too many clans, to much greediness.

[rixalex]

Your inability to think carefully is demonstrated by your painfully inept post.

Firstly to dispose of the major one of your inaccuracies.I never said and never implied that the popularity of the drugs war made it acceptable.In fact only the doziest kind of dullard would have failed to notice I explicitly made clear my abhorrence.

My point was that if one is going to attack Thaksin for his role in the drugs war - and there is of course no objection to that - then you are also attacking the most influential figures in the country: the very people who stand behind the current catastrophic government.The strong support of the elite is more significant than that of the masses in this matter.One cannot isolate Thaksin n the drugs war and I repeat again since you seem slow on the uptake you should reflect why he has never been charged.

I'm not sure why you think there was strong public support for the redshirt crackdown.I am sure there was support for clearing the streets but I doubt whether there was much for the way it was done.

Finally you airily dismiss public concern over the misery and pain almost every Thai community has experienced as a result of the drugs trade.Far less important to you apparently than the chance to rant on about Thaksin.

By the way public support is never a complete irrelevance.I agree politicians have to lead and sometimes take unpopular decisions.But unless there is a strong link to the public by means of regular and fair elections

all their efforts are ultimately fruitless.

Sometimes i can't help wondering with your posts whether you are actually parodying a pompous ass for comic affect?

Firstly to dispose of the major one of your inaccuracies.I never said and never implied that the popularity of the drugs war made it acceptable.In fact only the doziest kind of dullard would have failed to notice I explicitly made clear my abhorrence.

The great significance you clearly place on the popularity of the policy, made evident by your continual eagerness to bring it into the debate on every occasion, implies you do think it makes a difference, at least of some sort. Perhaps for the sake of clarity you could explain exactly what that difference popularity makes to the potential human rights crime committed?

My point was that if one is going to attack Thaksin for his role in the drugs war - and there is of course no objection to that - then you are also attacking the most influential figures in the country: the very people who stand behind the current catastrophic government.The strong support of the elite is more significant than that of the masses in this matter.One cannot isolate Thaksin n the drugs war and I repeat again since you seem slow on the uptake you should reflect why he has never been charged.

I'm attacking everyone who was involved in this policy. Where did i state otherwise? Where did i state that i believe that Thaksin is solely responsible? I didn't. I do however believe that Thaksin bears as much, if not more responsibility, for what happened, purely because the whole thing was his brainchild and without his authorization and support, as Prime Minister of the country, the policy could never have been implemented.

Finally you airily dismiss public concern over the misery and pain almost every Thai community has experienced as a result of the drugs trade.Far less important to you apparently than the chance to rant on about Thaksin.

Where exactly did i do that? I simply don't happen to think that executing style killings of supposed drug dealers is the solution to the problem.

I'm not sure why you think there was strong public support for the redshirt crackdown.I am sure there was support for clearing the streets but I doubt whether there was much for the way it was done.

Irrelevant either way, because, as i already made clear, in spite of you seemingly missing it, public support or otherwise makes no difference to the rights and wrongs of a government action.

Edited February 25, 2016 by rixalex

[jayboy]

Your inability to think carefully is demonstrated by your painfully inept post.

Firstly to dispose of the major one of your inaccuracies.I never said and never implied that the popularity of the drugs war made it acceptable.In fact only the doziest kind of dullard would have failed to notice I explicitly made clear my abhorrence.

My point was that if one is going to attack Thaksin for his role in the drugs war - and there is of course no objection to that - then you are also attacking the most influential figures in the country: the very people who stand behind the current catastrophic government.The strong support of the elite is more significant than that of the masses in this matter.One cannot isolate Thaksin n the drugs war and I repeat again since you seem slow on the uptake you should reflect why he has never been charged.

I'm not sure why you think there was strong public support for the redshirt crackdown.I am sure there was support for clearing the streets but I doubt whether there was much for the way it was done.

Finally you airily dismiss public concern over the misery and pain almost every Thai community has experienced as a result of the drugs trade.Far less important to you apparently than the chance to rant on about Thaksin.

By the way public support is never a complete irrelevance.I agree politicians have to lead and sometimes take unpopular decisions.But unless there is a strong link to the public by means of regular and fair elections

all their efforts are ultimately fruitless.

Sometimes i can't help wondering with your posts whether you are actually parodying a pompous ass for comic affect?

Firstly to dispose of the major one of your inaccuracies.I never said and never implied that the popularity of the drugs war made it acceptable.In fact only the doziest kind of dullard would have failed to notice I explicitly made clear my abhorrence.

The great significance you clearly place on the popularity of the policy, made evident by your continual eagerness to bring it into the debate on every occasion, implies you do think it makes a difference, at least of some sort. Perhaps for the sake of clarity you could explain exactly what that difference popularity makes to the potential human rights crime committed?

My point was that if one is going to attack Thaksin for his role in the drugs war - and there is of course no objection to that - then you are also attacking the most influential figures in the country: the very people who stand behind the current catastrophic government.The strong support of the elite is more significant than that of the masses in this matter.One cannot isolate Thaksin n the drugs war and I repeat again since you seem slow on the uptake you should reflect why he has never been charged.

I'm attacking everyone who was involved in this policy. Where did i state otherwise? Where did i state that i believe that Thaksin is solely responsible? I didn't. I do however believe that Thaksin bears as much, if not more responsibility, for what happened, purely because the whole thing was his brainchild and without his authorization and support, as Prime Minister of the country, the policy could never have been implemented.

Finally you airily dismiss public concern over the misery and pain almost every Thai community has experienced as a result of the drugs trade.Far less important to you apparently than the chance to rant on about Thaksin.

Where exactly did i do that? I simply don't happen to think that executing style killings of supposed drug dealers is the solution to the problem.

I'm not sure why you think there was strong public support for the redshirt crackdown.I am sure there was support for clearing the streets but I doubt whether there was much for the way it was done.

Irrelevant either way, because, as i already made clear, in spite of you seemingly missing it, public support or otherwise makes no difference to the rights and wrongs of a government action.

I am slightly warming to you since you are the first person to click I am indeed aiming for a slightly comic and yes pompous persona - just a brand to distinguish a (usually) serious message, to amuse myself and perhaps a few others.

Look I don't really disagree with your views on the drugs war including Thaksin's responsibility.But I have a deep dislike of hypocrisy hence the need to make the points of my earlier post.Incidentally the opprobrium is not confined to those "involved" in the drugs war but also includes those of high position who gave moral support or who were in a position to oppose - but did nothing.

[Ricardo]

thank you for your quote. I kiked the way you described the former situation under Thaksin.

You mentioned the 2500 murdered people during his anti-drug war. If those have not died how many more might have died of those addicts or overdose's?

This man was like a "Janus" with 2 faces. It was not all bad. And many plans could not be carried out because of boycotting by his opponents.

The other things you mentioned are still going on and the hill tribe people did not get their citizenship. And nobody is interested. Thailand to the Thais.

Again, there is a lot to complain but it was not all in his hands. Too many clans, to much greediness.

"If those have not died how many more might have died of those addicts or overdose's?"

Fair point, but only if the dead were dealers, HRW later said that at-least half were not at all connected with drugs ! One notable example, which sticks in my mind, was the innocent elderly couple who only escaped death, by sheltering from the spray of bullets behind their fridge !

"And many plans could not be carried out because of boycotting by his opponents."

More true of the later Thaksin-influenced/directed PPP/PTP governments, led by Samak & Somchai & Yingluck, but Thaksins' own two TRT-governments did have an absolute majority, so weren't so subject to constraints by external-opponents.

Which was part of the problem, he didn't need to seek consensus or allies to the same degree, do you recall in the summer of 2006 when he told reporters not to bother talking to his other ministers, as he made all the decisions ? His views on democracy would appear to have changed markedly since he lost power !

But this conversation started, when I pointed out only that IMO he hadn't run the country perfectly, I've always said that he did some things right, especially in the first couple-of-years.

I think he'll be remembered best, not for any of his actions over the past decade, but for simply making the votes of the poor slightly-more important.

[slerickson]

Don't blame it all on the junta. There are major international trade headwinds slowing down all economies. We may be at the threshold of another financial catastrophe within the next 12 months.

My girl friend loves the old government because of the health care and pension benefits that was given to poor Thai people as a safety net. She says it only costs 30 bt to go to he doctor or hospital now.

[sawadee1947]

thank you for your quote. I kiked the way you described the former situation under Thaksin.

You mentioned the 2500 murdered people during his anti-drug war. If those have not died how many more might have died of those addicts or overdose's?

This man was like a "Janus" with 2 faces. It was not all bad. And many plans could not be carried out because of boycotting by his opponents.

The other things you mentioned are still going on and the hill tribe people did not get their citizenship. And nobody is interested. Thailand to the Thais.

Again, there is a lot to complain but it was not all in his hands. Too many clans, to much greediness.

"If those have not died how many more might have died of those addicts or overdose's?"

Fair point, but only if the dead were dealers, HRW later said that at-least half were not at all connected with drugs ! One notable example, which sticks in my mind, was the innocent elderly couple who only escaped death, by sheltering from the spray of bullets behind their fridge !

"And many plans could not be carried out because of boycotting by his opponents."

More true of the later Thaksin-influenced/directed PPP/PTP governments, led by Samak & Somchai & Yingluck, but Thaksins' own two TRT-governments did have an absolute majority, so weren't so subject to constraints by external-opponents.

Which was part of the problem, he didn't need to seek consensus or allies to the same degree, do you recall in the summer of 2006 when he told reporters not to bother talking to his other ministers, as he made all the decisions ? His views on democracy would appear to have changed markedly since he lost power !

But this conversation started, when I pointed out only that IMO he hadn't run the country perfectly, I've always said that he did some things right, especially in the first couple-of-years.

I think he'll be remembered best, not for any of his actions over the past decade, but for simply making the votes of the poor slightly-more important.

thank you for your reply.

I think I can agree with you. Another question in this connection is if Thailand can have full democracy or will be better ruled by some kind of dictatorship. But this we are not to discuss here.

[dominique355]

Spending money on ( infrastructure ) the roads , which when you look at the whole of Thailand and to where you can drive on the black top and where upgrades are moving ahead, the employment on this alone is generating internal monies, soon the expansion of rail , and fast rail , bts lines, expansion of both major airports , Rayong upgrade, Tourisim is still generating a lot of foreign currency , so unless Mr T fugitive has his nose in the books or has psyche powers,

I think the man has verbal diarrhoea,

Maybe he heard that the infrastructure investments are a lot of hot air to sooth people's worries.

The high-speed dual track railway was said to be downgraded first to low-speed then to single track and finally to a fully Chinese operated and managed show piece. Not sure how this will working for Thais and Thai economy. Maybe that's what Mr. T thinks.