Jump to content

Thaksin complains of mistreatment


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, JAG said:

I'll say it again, because you chose to ignore it. They submitted themselves for re-election. On both occasions the military staged a coup to prevent that. Checks and balances.

He won the last election with reckless financial policies, including promising 15,000 baht per tonne for rice of any quality from anywhere. Of course the farmers voted for it, who wouldn't? But it has damaged the rice industry of Thailand to this day.

It is not enough to just win elections, policies must be long term  and for the country's benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 minute ago, bannork said:

He won the last election with reckless financial policies, including promising 15,000 baht per tonne for rice of any quality from anywhere. Of course the farmers voted for it, who wouldn't? But it has damaged the rice industry of Thailand to this day.

It is not enough to just win elections, policies must be long term  and for the country's benefit.

And who is to judge that policies are for the country's benefit - the people, in an election, or the military, appointing themselves to the role? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JAG said:

And who is to judge that policies are for the country's benefit - the people, in an election, or the military, appointing themselves to the role? 

Civil servants, technocrats who work for the country, not a powerful clan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if he still supports coups when it suits his financial situation?

Who are you talking about?
Thaksin?
Suthep?
Abhisit?
What type of politician would support a coup of any kind?
To study politics and democracy then to support a coup.
"Hands up all those in favour of me running the country"
"No one? Right I'll ask again and this time I'm holding a gun"
"Everyone agrees, I'm the new leader"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wilsonandson said:


Who are you talking about?
Thaksin?
Suthep?
Abhisit?
What type of politician would support a coup of any kind?
To study politics and democracy then to support a coup.
"Hands up all those in favour of me running the country"
"No one? Right I'll ask again and this time I'm holding a gun"
"Everyone agrees, I'm the new leader"

Go back to 1992 and see who gave one of the coup leaders a very expensive new car in exchange for a government contract.

Mr Thaksin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2017 at 8:05 PM, colinneil said:

Why post bs.?Thaksin legged it befoe he was jailed.

Exiled is when the country kicks you out.

Poor sod his billions must be running low, so now he  is looking for sympathy.

5555 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Civil servants, technocrats who work for the country, not a powerful clan.

 Well, credit to you for stating that you think that policies should be decided by "civil servants and technocrats". Clearly no place for politicians or electoral democracy in such a regime.

 

Now you won't be surprised that I disagree with that concept. Who is to select and appoint and oversee these civil servants and technocrats, and in whose ultimate interests will they work There will always be different views and directions advocated within any country, and the direction of policy should be decided by the electorate. You mention "powerful clans", such clans ultimately derive their power from the electorate. If they lose that support then they lose that power.

 

I believe that an elected government should decide policies, and it is the job of the parliamentary opposition to oppose them. Civil servants and technocrats work for the elected government, they shouldn't control it.

.

Now you (and others) may consider this utopian nonsense, but it is no more so than expecting an installed government not to act in the interests​ of the power group that installed then.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wilsonandson said:


Mao, Thaksin and the Lance Armstrong connection. Have you been watching David Icke on youtube?

 

13 hours ago, ianf said:

Being a retired old bugger in this country I have spent the past few years catching up on my reading, I have been particularly interested  in the lives of famous people, politicians and so forth who have been leaders in their fields. These include Mao, Stalin, Amin, Saddam  and so on. In my own personal life I have been targeted by a relative who turned out to be a conman and I lost a lot of money to him. Academically it is interesting to reflect on how he held me in thrall and managed to get me to believe his lies.  In my sporting interests (cycle racing) I have watched over the years the events and behavior surrounding Lance Armstrong. All of these people have social behaviour patterns in common - some on a greater scale than others. Some more damaging than others. The personality disorder - we can call them either sociopaths or psychopaths or both - seem to be the common thread linking all of these people. And to my mind Thaksin fits into this mould exactly, fairly and squarely. That he is less than straight forward is a given. He manages to build and maintain a loyal following and he believes his own lies to such an extent that others believe them too. His protestations of innocence, how he has been unfairly treated, his denial of events over the years that everyone knows are centred around him and so points to a sociopathic disorder. Trump is another example of these types of people and I am watching carefully as he day-by-day reinforces my view of him. These people are dangerous. Mao is one of the best examples of how someone with this disorder can ruin the lives of millions of people. To this day he maintains a devoted following despite the fact that he was an absolute monster in every sense of the word. These people quite often reach a status that does not equal their ability so their behaviour and actions become more alarming as each day passes.

Sorry old chap, I got confused with all that rambling, about Mao and Hitler, so this is all about Thaksin being what? a cruel psychopath who took over by revolution or putsch then proceeded to eliminate his opponents by murdering them and oppressing the populace, doing away with democracy, creating a one party state .............. er are you sure you are not referring to the current regime???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JAG said:

 

Well, credit to you for stating that you think that policies should be decided by "civil servants and technocrats". Clearly no place for politicians or electoral democracy in such a regime.

Now you won't be surprised that I disagree with that concept. Who is to select and appoint and oversee these civil servants and technocrats, and in whose ultimate interests will they work There will always be different views and directions advocated within any country, and the direction of policy should be decided by the electorate. You mention "powerful clans", such clans ultimately derive their power from the electorate. If they lose that support then they lose that power.

I believe that an elected government should decide policies, and it is the job of the parliamentary opposition to oppose them. Civil servants and technocrats work for the elected government, they shouldn't control it.

 

I agree, in a mature democracy with every word you say but unfortunately most political parties in Thailand are simply conduits for the rich to promote their vested interests, especially Pheua Thai. Now you may counter by saying the people can judge that for themselves every 4 years but the fact is if you throw populist policies at targeted groups you can be sure of their support regardless of the damage to the country- the pledged rice scheme, the tax break on new cars, for example.

Reform of political parties is essential imo, no more parties owned by singe figures. They must represent the people: belong to the people and be accountable to the people. 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has a pat and childish simple view on this guy. Almost everyone. People love to ignore that their favorite best boys walk away from crime, but this guy gets glued with it. Freaking idiots. I think he was "disappeared legally" because he was allowing the West to influence Thailand. Duh. Wake up. Use your eyes to see instead of your ego, which is ALWAYS near-sighted (myopic). Yes, it's a word. Learn something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, than said:

Hi Ricardo, It's a waste of time to discuss with Baboon. 

He continues to believe that his god, fleeing justice for hide at Dubai, is only a mere innocent, that he never changed the 1997 constitution for his own interests. That he never threaten press and critics.
He continues to believe that black shirts are a pure invention of the international press.

 

Apologies, you may well be right, but I have this quaint notion about the actual facts being important, naive of me I know. :jap:

 

It's hard enough trying to fathom what's going on here, without allowing errors-of-fact to go unchallenged, as they would become the new 'norm'.

 

We all make mistakes, I'm happy to acknowledge it and apologise, where I myself am shown to have made one.

 

I believe that former-PM Thaksin also shares this total belief in his own innocence, of any errors or wrong-doing at all, but he too is only human, and does make mistakes IMO  ...  the rice-scheme, the war-on-drugs, or the decision not to share with the country some part of the capital-gains on his Temasek deal.

 

He might have been remembered as having been a great PM, if only  ...

 

...  but perhaps it was his advisers who were always at-fault. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JAG said:

 

The only way to actually know exactly what his standing is with the Thai people is to have a free and fair election, in which his party (proxies if you like) can stand. The last election (before the one that was prevented by Suthep and then the coup) was internationally and nationally (by the losing party) agreed to be free and fair, and resulted in a win for his party. As did the one before that.

 

Now unlike the two posters  I quote, I think that his party, faction, grouping, whatever you want to call it, would probably win. I may well be wrong, I certainly haven'y gone around canvassing Thai opinion. But two things do occur to me; the junta having prevented such an election by staging their coup are determined to prevent another such election, and also seem determined to prevent any meaningful political activity or protest by the Thai people. This I suggest points to an awareness on their part (and they will have the intelligence  resources to know more accurately than anyone else) that his party, faction, grouping, whatever you want to call it, would probably win, as they did in the previous two elections, and after the previous coup. This they will not risk.

 

 

 

 

You very well may be correct. There is a certainly a lack of viable political candidates at the moment. Who will step forward and be the next leader? Who is qualified? Certainly not Abhisit, who blew his last chance to an alarming degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, in a mature democracy with every word you say but unfortunately most political parties in Thailand are simply conduits for the rich to promote their vested interests, especially Pheua Thai. Now you may counter by saying the people can judge that for themselves every 4 years but the fact is if you throw populist policies at targeted groups you can be sure of their support regardless of the damage to the country- the pledged rice scheme, the tax break on new cars, for example.
Reform of political parties is essential imo, no more parties owned by singe figures. They must represent the people: belong to the people and be accountable to the people. 
.

The key phrase is "mature democracy". Like people, democracies are not created mature, they become mature through a process of growing up. That inevitably involves making mistakes or misjudgements and learning from them.
The trouble here is that when a mistake or misjudgement is made or alleged, then democracy is strangled. It must be allowed to mature. That can be a painful process. Perhaps if that had been allowed to happen since the 1990s we would by now after 20 years (and, oh 5 elections ?) have a maturing democracy.

The same is true of political parties. They have to evolve and change from within. If you impose reform from outside they inevitably end up in the shape preferred by the reformers. Again, they have to be allowed to mature. You have to trust the people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
You very well may be correct. There is a certainly a lack of viable political candidates at the moment. Who will step forward and be the next leader? Who is qualified? Certainly not Abhisit, who blew his last chance to an alarming degree.


The criteria for who is qualified must be left to the electorate. If more people ( majority) vote for him then he is qualified, whether he is any good or not. Otherwise you are just stuck with an appointed person, who is beholden to the power group or faction who appointed him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JAG said:


The key phrase is "mature democracy". Like people, democracies are not created mature, they become mature through a process of growing up. That inevitably involves making mistakes or misjudgements and learning from them.
The trouble here is that when a mistake or misjudgement is made or alleged, then democracy is strangled. It must be allowed to mature. That can be a painful process. Perhaps if that had been allowed to happen since the 1990s we would by now after 20 years (and, oh 5 elections ?) have a maturing democracy.

The same is true of political parties. They have to evolve and change from within. If you impose reform from outside they inevitably end up in the shape preferred by the reformers. Again, they have to be allowed to mature. You have to trust the people.

It didn't work very well trusting the people in the 1930s, did it? You're right about change having to come from within though, reconciliation for example can only happen if people genuinely want to reconcile. Which brings me to education, the key to  driving reform and development in Thailand. Got to reform the schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in any other western country the political parties they have in Thailand would all be locked up or disbanded, how can you have a wanted criminal running a political party from outside the country. While thaksins lackies continually ignore the fact he is a criminal and that if the people he has paid to vote for him continue to do so he should be allowed to run the country, really shows the lack of mental capacity of them. Thaksins reckless unfunded  policies that bought all his support from uneducated people are the only reason they continue to support him, they lack the ability to think rationally and are continually hounded by the reds with all his propaganda so they have become brainwashed into believing it all. If this country is opened up to all parties being able to hold public rallies in all areas and not be threatened/chased out by the reds so that the truth is put out there there may well be a change, if the red radio/tv stations were stopped from their propaganda shows to brainwash the people  then maybe they would start to realize the truth. The only way to have free and fair elections in Thailand is to stop thaksins lackies from riding rough shod over all the people and spreading his monetary rewards to them as well as all his lies. Just look at the amount of farmers that saw exactly what he had done and how he had lied to them, how many of them committed suicide because they were not paid as promised, slowly they are seeing the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any other western country, it is not only political parties that would be disbanded. The problem in Thailand is that even if political parties are as bad as you describe them, the other components/institutions are (at least) not better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 6:49 PM, snoop1130 said:

He insisted that he has been loyal to the Monarchy and fully supportive of constitutional democracy.

Loyalty is a unrecognized concept to this slime bag, unless you count loyalty to his wallet. Even then it's more like unbridled greed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/04/2017 at 5:58 AM, rooster59 said:

Twenty-one civilians, including a Japanese journalist, and five military officers lost their lives during the 2010 clashes between security forces and red-shirt protesters, who were calling for the then-Democrat government to step down and hold elections. More than 800 people were also injured in the clashes.

 

Altogether, at least 90 people were killed and more than 1,000 injured during the political unrest that year.

And how many were executed during the extra judicial slaughter of his so called ''war on drugs''?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to 1992 and see who gave one of the coup leaders a very expensive new car in exchange for a government contract.
Mr Thaksin.

Your keen on Thai politics. Goodness, how long have you been in Los? 1992, I was at uni listening to Blur and smoking pot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamestaylor said:

Sad thing is if he was allowed back and re-ran for Prime Minister he would still win. Here in the poorer Isaan areas he is still a hero and thats where the numbers are.

And why?

 

Because corrupt as he may have been, self serving as he may have been, He and his subsequent administrations  are the only ones who have ever bothered with them. The "numbers" may be poor, they may be ill educated, but that does not mean they are stupid. Nor does that mean that they are not aware that every time they have elected him (or his proxies if you like) that government has been overthrown at the behest of a relatively small group from Bangkok. Corrupt and self serving as he may have been, but that doesn't even come close to the degree of corruption and, self serving  cynicism displayed in repeatedly overthrowing the elected government to install your own pet regime, because you know that regime cannot win an election, and you wish to remain in charge, and close to all the benefits which come from that.

Edited by JAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2017 at 8:21 PM, Wilsonandson said:

You would leg it if you had to go to prison for 2 years. Say he stayed and went to prison he would have died there. Some one would have been paid to end his life. He did the right thing and got out. Now is he a bad dude? Yep, he certainly won't let it go. But neither will the other side. So to me this is like karma. As long as one side hates the other these games will continue. My advice is for the current government to talk together with Thaksin and come to some sort of truce so we all can move on or they can. Too long this boring war of colours has been going on. Move on Thailand.

 

 

I think you're right, partially. He twigged he was in for a spell in prison when the judges didn't accept the pastry box bribe. He never denied the offence, just thought he was entitled to be above the law, or could just reverse things and walk away scot free.

 

But more worryingly for him was those 15 plus other cases. The Krungthai fraud has seen other defendants convicted and sentenced to 18 years. That's serious jail time. He whines on everything is politically motivated whereas what he means is he should just be let off.

 

He needed that amnesty to wipe these all off the slate. Or he must wait the statute of limitations on all those pending charges. And then deal with the prison sentence and any charges for jumping bail.

 

I suspect neither side will give way. The prize is too great. Thaksin has had it almost in his grasp and now can't ever not keep trying. Others are equally determined he, and his family, won't succeed. And as is always the case, the poor majority end up paying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

And why?

 

Because corrupt as he may have been, self serving as he may have been, He and his subsequent administrations (proxies) are the only ones who have ever bothered with them. The "numbers" may be poor, they may be ill educated, but that does not mean they are stupid. Nor does that mean that they are not aware that every time they have elected him (or his proxies if you like) that government has been overthrown at the behest of a relatively small group from Bangkok. Corrupt and self serving as he may have been, but that doesn't even come close to the degree of corruption and, self serving  cynicism displayed in repeatedly overthrowing the elected government to install your own pet regime, because you know that regime cannot win an election, and you wish to remain in charge.

 

I'm sure there is an element of what you say. My wife, who is well educated, and many of her friends and peers voted for PTP. They really believed that Yingluck would be a new, fresh, figure of change for the better. No one influenced them, or bribed them, or coerced them in doing this. Having said that, none would vote for any Thaksin / Shin controlled party again. They were bitterly disappointed by the outcome, performance and blatant dishonesty. Who would they vote for - that's the golden question because the choices don't exactly appeal. Many, quite sadly, now see voting as a waste of time.

 

However, in the NE, I know that money is handed to encourage voting a certain way. Village heads a promised bonus if they deliver 100% in favor of certain candidates. Villages are promised money will be assigned for certain projects meaning another opportunity. People are frightened to be seen to support someone other than how instructed. No doubt the same things happens in other parts of the country with the party that controls that area. You do get hiccups, like when PTP lost the safe Don Meuang seat in a by-election, or failed to win the BKK governor position when they thought it was assured. But generally the areas / parties are fairly predictable.

 

It would have been very interesting to see how PTP would've reacted to loosing an election. Based on by-elections they lost, not very well. And as we're seeing more and more, not just in Thailand, the days of accepting electoral defeat graciously seem to be a thing of the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I'm sure there is an element of what you say. My wife, who is well educated, and many of her friends and peers voted for PTP. They really believed that Yingluck would be a new, fresh, figure of change for the better. No one influenced them, or bribed them, or coerced them in doing this. Having said that, none would vote for any Thaksin / Shin controlled party again. They were bitterly disappointed by the outcome, performance and blatant dishonesty. Who would they vote for - that's the golden question because the choices don't exactly appeal. Many, quite sadly, now see voting as a waste of time.

 

However, in the NE, I know that money is handed to encourage voting a certain way. Village heads a promised bonus if they deliver 100% in favor of certain candidates. Villages are promised money will be assigned for certain projects meaning another opportunity. People are frightened to be seen to support someone other than how instructed. No doubt the same things happens in other parts of the country with the party that controls that area. You do get hiccups, like when PTP lost the safe Don Meuang seat in a by-election, or failed to win the BKK governor position when they thought it was assured. But generally the areas / parties are fairly predictable.

 

It would have been very interesting to see how PTP would've reacted to loosing an election. Based on by-elections they lost, not very well. And as we're seeing more and more, not just in Thailand, the days of accepting electoral defeat graciously seem to be a thing of the past.

It would have been very interesting. "Just suppose" rewrites of history are always dodgy, but I would be fascinated to know what would have happened if Thaksin had, let us imagine, completed three terms in office, faced with an increasingly effective parliamentary opposition, and ultimately been ejected by a dissatisfied electorate in 2013?

If we assume (gulp) that the military had remained out of politics, yet stood ready to ensure that the result of the election was honoured, then they would have had little option but to go. Noisily, angrily perhaps, but I think that they would have had to go.

 

That would have been good for the country and actually good for Pheu Thai,  Thailand would be enjoying something approaching the "mature democracy" which we were discussing on this thread a couple of hours ago. Pheu Thai would now be the main opposition party in parliament, and working hard on rebuilding its support to try to get back in later this year.

 

Instead....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have been very interesting. "Just suppose" rewrites of history are always dodgy, but I would be fascinated to know what would have happened if Thaksin had, let us imagine, completed three terms in office, faced with an increasingly effective parliamentary opposition, and ultimately been ejected by a dissatisfied electorate in 2013?
If we assume (gulp) that the military had remained out of politics, yet stood ready to ensure that the result of the election was honoured, then they would have had little option but to go. Noisily, angrily perhaps, but I think that they would have had to go.
 
That would have been good for the country and actually good for Pheu Thai,  Thailand would be enjoying something approaching the "mature democracy" which we were discussing on this thread a couple of hours ago. Pheu Thai would now be the main opposition party in parliament, and working hard on rebuilding its support to try to get back in later this year.
 
Instead....

Carrying on your sentence.

Instead we have the red and yellow divide and politics in Thailand going nowhere fast. Therefore wouldn't it be great if the current PM could meet Thaksin face to face and discuss reconciliation. Putting an end to this divide. As Suthep and the PDRC said:-
Stronger together
Reform, Reset, Restart
End the hate and start again. Yes, new politicians, new rules to stop corruption but with everyone's agreement. Thailand belongs to Thai people from the Southern tip to the Northern most part. Again:-
Stronger together
Reform, Reset, Restart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...