Thaksin Will Return With Pride And Dignity

[Tony Clifton]

I thought he'd been amputated at the knees! Still, he'd have more legs than pride and dignity combined.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Tony Clifton

[ratcatcher]

It would be incredibly risky for Thaksin to return even if the PPP win a majority and Samak and Chavalit meet him at the airport with the red carept and the heads of the ASC on pikes, so it is quite unlikely he will will actually come if the conditions are any less than this scenario.

Was that an intentional "typo"- sounds almost like "corrupt".?

[sriracha john]

Abhisit scoffs at People Power Party's Thaksin return pledge

Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva shrugged off the foreshadowed announcement of deposed PM Thaksin Shinawatra's comeback date by the People Power Party at a rally two days before the Dec 23 election. The Democrat Leader said yesterday he had been hearing of Thaksin's planned return for a long time. The public could make their own judgement on the matter. The general election was for the majority of the people, not for a single man or a few people. The PPP announced that veteran politician Chalerm Yubamrung will reveal the date at the party's last campaign rally at Sanam Luang on Dec 21. The Democrats also plan their last rally at the same venue on the same date. Most members of Thaksin's TRT party joined the PPP after the party was dissolved by the Constitution Tribunal. Thaksin has spent most of his time in England since the Sept 19 coup last year. Abhisit said Thaksin had the right to return to Thailand, but he believed most people wanted to see the country move ahead and not fall into someone's trap. Abhisit insisted the Democrats would go ahead with the planned rally at Sanam Luang on Dec 21. The collision of dates and venues for the two rival political giants has awakened fears of a clash between supporters of the two camps and authorities are making plans for heightened security.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/30Nov2007_news06.php

Edited November 30, 2007 by sriracha john

[Ricardo]

It will be great to have Mr. T back, great lad and he can fix the last year of rubbish caused by the junta.

Or at least he can promise to do so, while repeating yet again his promise to take no further part in Thai politics, and with equal truth, in both cases.

[chanchao]

Ehm, Thailand NEEDS everyone to be able to take part in politics. Military juntas and martial law (lifted yet?) send a country backward, not forward.

I completely agree with Britmaveric; Time for Thaksin to make a glorious return.

[jumnien]

I'm all for it!

[Amethyst]

Guys and Girls young and old.... Someone is reading better not say anything about the Junta.

[John K]

The price is way too high to take Thaksin back. How many people will simply disappear if that happens. Trust me when I say it is well within his personality profile for that to happen.

[quiksilva]

I want the Democrats to win but am not particularly worried about what Thaksin will do if he comes back, rather its what the rest will do if he returns that worries me.

[chanchao]

Exactly.

[Tony Clifton]

I want the Democrats to win but am not particularly worried about what Thaksin will do if he comes back, rather its what the rest will do if he returns that worries me.

By the rest, do you mean Thaksin's zombies?

[quiksilva]

I refer to the group who are not particularly related to any political party but are vehemently opposed to Thaksin.

[Tony Clifton]

I'd worry more about the Little Emperor's zombies and freelance followers ready to do anything in the hope of being showered with riches in exchange for their actions, from crying women carrying flowers and showing up at courtrooms or hearings, taxi drivers performing kamikaze acts against tanks, hired criminals beating up senior cirizen and women, to policemen performing magic tricks where lawyers and activists disappear from the face of the earth.

[John K]

I refer to the group who are not particularly related to any political party but are vehemently opposed to Thaksin.

Quiksilva, there are a few groups of people here.

Group 1 There are the ones that know nothing at all about Thaksin.

Group 2 There are the ones that have made superficial observations.

Group 3 There are the ones that understand thaksin in depth.

The group that is most apposed to Thaksin is group 3.

Thaksin knows what is proper and how to act, and he is putting on a good show of that now. When he is in a position of power that facade falls away very quickly. Tony’s post #43 represents a reality if Thaksin ever comes back.

Thaksin is never around when his dirty work is being done but rest assured it is Thaksin’s dirty work because every action ultimately benefits him. That 100% percentage of benefitting Thaksin is entirely to high to be random chance. Please try to explain this vote buying issue, who has the money and who does it benefit? Why is it taking so long to get the tax money he owes? The list goes on and on and he is in the UK. Imagine if here were here!

Edited December 3, 2007 by John K

[chanchao]

You're putting words in his mouth.

I understood very well what he meant, and it isn't the groups you defined. Thailand made great progress under Thaksin.. Sure a bunch of whining Farang barflies didn't like some of the 'social order' agenda and are now coming out of the woodwork defending a military coup.. Sad sad sad. Some day Thailand will have to move on from the old days though, and it may not be pretty when that comes about.

[John K]

Actually I was showing some demographics and why.

Yes I agree Thaksin did some good things, but the price was way to high. 5 for you 5 for me. Prior to Thaksin it may have been more along the lines of 8 for you 2 for me. That is not to mention Thaksin only listens to Thaksin.

[hammered]

Considering the recent call for national unity it will be interesting to see if from today confrontational politics takes a back seat. Government of national reconcilliation anyone?

[quiksilva]

Of course the ideal situation is if the Democrats get in and are led by someone who can get things done. Is Apisak that man, perhaps, but who really sees the Democrats getting the majority vote on their own?

As much as I like them and their policies, another short lived coalition quagmire is just about the best we can hope for, for these guys, which I think is a shame. Because for all of Thaksin's terrible indefensible actions, at least he got things done and with a developing country and this is what matters most.

If Thailand is to provide jobs and opportunities for her populace going forward, Thailand needs to move away from cheap manual manufacturing and move up the value chain, and that requires a great deal of change. Who is there out there right now who can make that happen?

I guess what it boils down to is weighing up Economic development vs serving justice on one person.

Here is the problem, I want to see national growth, but at what price?

Perhaps we should all just take the hit and pay a hefty price to punish his actions, because that is what is on the cards if he returns, its not just him who pays, its all of us.

Edited December 3, 2007 by quiksilva

[Tony Clifton]

Of course the ideal situation is if the Democrats get in and are led by someone who can get things done. Is Apisak that man, perhaps, but who really sees the Democrats getting the majority vote on their own?

As much as I like them and their policies, another short lived coalition quagmire is just about the best we can hope for, for these guys, which I think is a shame. Because for all of Thaksin's terrible indefensible actions, at least he got things done and with a developing country and this is what matters most.

If Thailand is to provide jobs and opportunities for her populace going forward, Thailand needs to move away from cheap manual manufacturing and move up the value chain, and that requires a great deal of change. Who is there out there right now who can make that happen?

I guess what it boils down to is weighing up Economic development vs serving justice on one person.

Here is the problem, I want to see national growth, but at what price?

Perhaps we should all just take the hit and pay a hefty price to punish his actions, because that is what is on the cards if he returns, its not just him who pays, its all of us.

I think you`ve amalgamated Abhisit (Dem leader) and Apirak`s (BKK Governor) names.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Tony Clifton

[Plus]

If getting things done also includes co-opting the whole country to kill thousands of people for nothing, than yes, he was great at accomplishing things.

It would have been impossible under a colation government - no one is strong enough to pull through some nonsense like that.

For every plus there's a minus.

New Consitution was designed to curb the power of politicians anyway. The chance of a baby (a competent AND honest politician) being thrown with the water is too small to seriously consider.

Policy making would be returned to bureaucrats. It's a safer alternative to governement ministers with earth shattering ideas recruited from dodgy cooking gas salesmen.

Bureaucrats have "tenure", Thaksin ministers couldn't last a year on average. Who is better suited for long term policy planning and implementation? Moot question.

[blaze]

If getting things done also includes co-opting the whole country to kill thousands of people for nothing, than yes, he was great at accomplishing things.

It would have been impossible under a colation government - no one is strong enough to pull through some nonsense like that.

For every plus there's a minus.

New Consitution was designed to curb the power of politicians anyway. The chance of a baby (a competent AND honest politician) being thrown with the water is too small to seriously consider.

Policy making would be returned to bureaucrats. It's a safer alternative to governement ministers with earth shattering ideas recruited from dodgy cooking gas salesmen.

Bureaucrats have "tenure", Thaksin ministers couldn't last a year on average. Who is better suited for long term policy planning and implementation? Moot question.

Would these beaurocrats include the military men installed by the junta at the head of most state enterprises shortly after the coup? In which case, why not just say, that power has been returned to that bastion of selfless commitment to the progress of the nation: the Thai Military.

Does anyone really think nobody in this country- now that Thaksin is gone- is strong enough to pull off the murder of innocent (under the law) people except a strong elected government? Check Tak Bai. Kreu Se. Bangkok, 1992. While I agree that the killings in the drug wars dwarfed, in terms of illegitimacy and magnitude those above, ONLY the drug war killings are being seriously investigated. Why not the others?

Edited December 3, 2007 by blaze

[quiksilva]

The only positive thing about the bureaucratic quagmire that would be a Democrat led coalition is that it might be stable, for a couple of years, but the down side is that the country will not make any progress. The first things to suffer in the constant bickering will likely be the green lights on the sorely needed mega projects, such as the dual track freight railway, which Thailand needs to lower logistics costs in order to remain competitive.

As they say, the North elects governments and Bangkok removes them, so why should it different this time around, unless its already a foregone conclusion?

[chanchao]

New Consitution was designed to curb the power of politicians anyway. The chance of a baby (a competent AND honest politician) being thrown with the water is too small to seriously consider.

Without comment, as it's obvious. Thanks for stating it so clear.

[John K]

That is why it is #1 priority of Thaksin and the PPP to quickly trash the new constitution.

[Plus]

I think Chanchao meant that he has a full trust in Thai politicians and none in Thai bureaucrats.

Among these two groups I think bureaucrats are more reliable when it comes to running the country. Civil servants conceive National Development plans, formulate long term strategies, prepare the actual laws, thrash out details, implement the policies and so on. Politicians come to the office for two years at most and need to recoup their own investments and repay their bosses for getting them into their positions. Once in charge they don't do anything in particular except stealing and signing the papers. Whatever little own impact they make is too insignificant in the large scheme of things but they make sure the whole country hears about it. No one knows if it could actually work or not, no one can keep truck of their "hub a day" extravaganza but that's not important - they are just trying to score brownies with the PM and get more chips to bargain for better Cabinet positions. No one strives to get in the government to serve the country, you'd be fooling yourself to think otherwise.

Bureaucrats, on the contraty, are dedicated to making life long careers, they don't have grab and run attitude to governing.

Just a quick look at the current elections confirms that there's no hope in Thai politics ever getting out of the gutter.

There's a lot of sense in consitutionally restricting how much damage politicians can possibly inflict.

[quiksilva]

Unfortunately its precisely because the bureaucrats are in it for life that they never get anything done. Right now, with regional competition for FDI heating up Thailand HAS to do something to keep up.

IF they maintain the mega projects investment plan then all well and good, but without that sense of urgency to see it through, then Thailand will have little chance of keeping up with its neighbours.

[younghusband]

I think Chanchao meant that he has a full trust in Thai politicians and none in Thai bureaucrats.

Among these two groups I think bureaucrats are more reliable when it comes to running the country. Civil servants conceive National Development plans, formulate long term strategies, prepare the actual laws, thrash out details, implement the policies and so on. Politicians come to the office for two years at most and need to recoup their own investments and repay their bosses for getting them into their positions. Once in charge they don't do anything in particular except stealing and signing the papers. Whatever little own impact they make is too insignificant in the large scheme of things but they make sure the whole country hears about it. No one knows if it could actually work or not, no one can keep truck of their "hub a day" extravaganza but that's not important - they are just trying to score brownies with the PM and get more chips to bargain for better Cabinet positions. No one strives to get in the government to serve the country, you'd be fooling yourself to think otherwise.

Bureaucrats, on the contraty, are dedicated to making life long careers, they don't have grab and run attitude to governing.

Just a quick look at the current elections confirms that there's no hope in Thai politics ever getting out of the gutter.

There's a lot of sense in consitutionally restricting how much damage politicians can possibly inflict.

Given the poor quality of Thai politicians I can see that this is a tempting thesis.However I fear you may be overrating the competence and integrity of Thai bureaucrats (though some are certainly first class).The trouble is that along with the ghastly personalities, the mess, noise and vote buying there is through politicians a connection with the people's will which would never be there with bureaucrats in charge.And of course the country cannot throw bureaucrats out.

Thailand really must start being a bit more grown up and not rely on some deus ex machina to sort problems out.Now if one doesn't give a toss about the majority's aspirations (too stupid, corrupt, ill educated etc), the rule by officials makes some kind of weird sense.The trouble is it would not be in practice be truly independent, and subject to pressure from one powerful institution or another

What's perhaps more important than elections is the build up of free democratic institutions ready to take on powerful interests without fear or favour.The real problem in Thailand is the immaturity of civil institutions, though as one looks around the region other neighbouring countries don't seem any more advanced.Perhaps it's just the Asian way.

[Plus]

Actually this country has been run exclusively by bureaucrats through decades of unprecedented growth. All the multinationals you see now came when bureaucrats promised, and guaranteed stability.

The current stalemate in FTA with Japan and the US is a perfect example of politicians screwing up things, or take illegal PTT and Egat privatisations. Politicians have also rushed through FTA with China and Australia just for the sake of it and now that some sectors are suffering, they are all gone, no one is responsible.

It's been over ten years that politicians are trying to select National Broadcasting Commitee. Just select a commitee without breaking laws! That is probably a record.

Ideally politicians and bureaucrats visions should be pretty close. If some opportunist wants to rewrite National Plans and dismisses whole government departments, you are in for a big trouble. If a top government strategists tells you that your policy won't work but you bang your fist on the table - "I was elected by millions of people, who elected you?", the country is in for trouble.

Thaksin was able to temporarily force his policies on bureaucrats but without him they folded like a card house.

That's not the way to run the country.

[Plus]

Given the poor quality of Thai politicians I can see that this is a tempting thesis.However I fear you may be overrating the competence and integrity of Thai bureaucrats (though some are certainly first class).The trouble is that along with the ghastly personalities, the mess, noise and vote buying there is through politicians a connection with the people's will which would never be there with bureaucrats in charge.And of course the country cannot throw bureaucrats out.

I have no illusions about bureaucrats shortcomings but I'm very very suspicious about politicians providing connection with the will of people. Can you give an example? Policies like 30 baht scheme, village fund and Otop were examples of top down approach, people had no say in their formulation, they just bought them as a package. All along Thaksin's mantra has been 'I can take better care of you than anyone else' which is a competition among "I know the best, you just listen to me" types. It's not about people's will, it's about their shopping preferences.

There's a chance that an honest politician won't be able to implement some good ideas that express the will of people because of constitutional restrictions, but what is a real chance of that happening? Slim to none.

[chanchao]

There's a lot of sense in consitutionally restricting how much damage politicians can possibly inflict.

Well, that's an opinion. Of course it's not a democracy anymore then, but something very different. If you're okay with that, and can accept that as a worst case it can lead to things that transpired in Burma or Cambodia not too long ago, then at least your opinions are consistent.