You are engaging in revisionism and the rehabilitation of Thaksin. Your comments
are puerile. Nobody has claimed that corruption in Thailand did not exist before and after Thaksin. It was much worse under
Thaksin. Thaksin did not bring democracy to Thailand, he brought autarchic dictatorship. He did not improve the lives of the poor;
he bought their political support. Maybe
he paid higher and more bribes than others, if you regard that as a positive move.
Thaksin eroded civil liberties in Thailand which, while not fully enforced heretofore, were better before Thaksin appeared on the scene. Thaksin totally ignored the law and did as he pleased.
Your statement that there was nothing to erode is silly. Finally, your disparagement
of Cod by referring to Cod and his comments, respectively, as a “hiso” and “delusional ramblings” reflects very poorly on you and makes one very suspect of the legitimacy of anything you say.
[…] but also gives the government a handy excuse down the road to roll back its reforms. Fortunately, voices of moderation and tolerance have emerged to counteract some of the more inflammatory claims that have appeared on the […]
Sorry, no blog! Just quick reflections after moments that were particularly difficult. There’s a bit of a running narrative I suppose, since Nich and Andrew have been nice enough to share this and two others prior.
Again, the attempt to relegate Thaksin to the past as a “throwback”…I think not. He is not just another businessman; he is a crook of the highest order.
Thaksin is neither a yellow shirt nor a red shirt. He’s a self-serving egocentric looking out for the main chance. He will do anything to get his way. And that is to make Thailand his own fiefdom with a shinawatra dynasty.
Any talk of his making deals, if real, will only be towards making his position stronger. Not to compromise, we’ve seen many times over the years that he is lacking in integrity and honesty.
This article is really trying too hard to fit the current situation in classic argument. How relevant is it really to imply that Thailand can be simply reduced into an divide between the bourgeois and the proletariat? Yes, you can make the argument that it is, but what argument between two (or more) sides can’t be shoehorned in that way if we try hard enough.
The most important point brought up in the article is that the situation is allowing more people to be more vocal and involved in politics. This is an important step that we can’t deny, but is it necessarily being impeded by a single force as the article suggests? There are many factors that we can all argue, but we should be at least hopeful that the political process will find it’s way over time once the conversation has finally started.
” In fact under his government, Thaksin oversaw a vast erosion of civil liberties, press freedoms and instituted a program of extra-judicial justice that laughed at the very notion of courts and laws.”
What Cod is writing here is the kind of revisionism that only a blue-blooded ultra royalist would come up with.
Is he really claiming that before Thaksin came along Thailand was a beacon of civil liberties, press freedoms and rule of law?
Thaksin was and is a product of a political system whose roots are traced directly into coup after coup, massacre after massacre, decades of impunity, horrific human rights abuses, the complete curtailment of democracy and an acceptance of dictatorship that seems almost pathological.
Despite obvious failings there is little doubt that having, at least, a democratically elected government, with a clear mandate and delivering key improvements to the lives of ordinary poor Thais was a huge step-forward from the endless parade of coup governments that preceded it.
Thaksin didn’t erode anything because there was nothing to erode in the first place.
Stick to the facts New Mandala please – not the delusional ramblings of just another Bangkok hiso.
“If you committed a crime and are found guilty, you should face punishment even if the whole country votes otherwise.”
This may be true in a country with an impartial judiciary but not in Thailand.
Surely the decisions of an elected parliament are more democratic than a biased court?
Whether you agree with it or not, if parliament passes the amnesty that’s the democratic process at work. So it’s up to people to express their opposition as they are doing.
And to say the country “stands on the brink” supposes the military will come out again but for now there is no sign of that, in contrast to under the previous government.
Cod wrote “His crimes are well documented and overeported so lets fast forward in time to the present day.”
Strange.
Thaksin’s “corruption” conviction was very much cooked up by an illegal coup government with even members of the committee set-up to look into it walking out in disgust.
As for the rest – who originally ordered the “War on Drugs”? There is no way Cod (who has previously announced his loyalty to the monarchy on numerous occasions) would dare to reference that.
So, in actual fact, despite having most of the judiciary, the elite, the army and two quite long periods of government lined up against him Thaksin has only ever been convicted of one “crime” – and that was put together by a politicised coup court.
New Mandala, we need analysis that at least attempts to deal with the facts, not attempts to conflate child-like assertions into “evidence”, something which then destroys the credibility not only of your contributors but also of this site.
I find all this talk of a mysterious deal somewhat baffling. Who has done a deal with whom, and why? Surely the events of the past few days have shown once again that there is no deal? Unless we are talking about the alignment between Thaksin and the crown prince, which is hardly news.
Exercising power from behind the scenes is a long-established Thai tradition. There is absolutely no doubt that Thaksin has done this in spades whenever his supporters have been in Government since 2006. If he were as bad as most people here assume he is, new corruption scandals would be breaking out daily. This is especially so, given his enemies’ strong interest in exposing his wickedness. Where is the evidence, everybody? Instead he seems to be a typical Thai power broker, no worse than others in most respects, and probably more careful than he needed to be in the past. The difference, is that he has become the preferred patron of the masses, who are better educated than they used to be, and now show a very distinct preference for capitalist bread over royal circuses. That is how democracy is supposed to work, and that is what is vehemently opposed by the upper echelons of Thailand’s anti-democratic old order.
The worst thing about the PT-led coalition government is that it has made no effort to abolish the lèse majesté law. It is under pressure to do so from its own supporters, who have suffered the most under the law. The Government’s pretty solid excuse is that a bloody coup would be a worse outcome for Thailand than the suffering of those in prison. The other Thaksin sins that are trotted out from the early part of this century are the murder of drug suspects by police, which the King supported, and the mess in the south, which is kept festering by a mad combination of century-old Thai imperial overreach, militant Islamism and the crazy militarist Queen’s “special interest in the South”.
As I see it, all of Thaksin’s sins, and more, would have been forgiven, if he had not committed the unpardonable sin of unleashing democracy. His motives are selfish, but the outcome is a good one for the Thais. His sins have been repeated ad nauseam by his enemies, but their motive is to undermine democracy rather than to improve the standards of public behaviour in Thailand. A good outcome of this relentless attack on Thaksin’s character is that it probably has got him, and a lot of other people in public life, to stay cleaner than they used to.
In fact, a comment in matichon, nov 3, p 3, already spoke of the compromise between thaksin and the “real center of power”. phuea thai had resolved to “serve the old power” as the democrats had done earlier. All this was a signal for a ceasefire between the “phrai” and the “ammart”. those who had wanted to achieve complete democracy with thaksin and phuea thai found out that theirs were merely “sand castles on the beach”.
You might call it maid-trafficking but since it happens in a posh model member state of the British Commonwealth of Nations where everything (including money) is squeaky clean (no chewing gum please, our maids will not clean that dirty American stuff!) and under absolute totalitarian utilitarian Orwellian control, I can only say: carry on!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Seeds of Thai democracy
OG,
You are engaging in revisionism and the rehabilitation of Thaksin. Your comments
are puerile. Nobody has claimed that corruption in Thailand did not exist before and after Thaksin. It was much worse under
Thaksin. Thaksin did not bring democracy to Thailand, he brought autarchic dictatorship. He did not improve the lives of the poor;
he bought their political support. Maybe
he paid higher and more bribes than others, if you regard that as a positive move.
Thaksin eroded civil liberties in Thailand which, while not fully enforced heretofore, were better before Thaksin appeared on the scene. Thaksin totally ignored the law and did as he pleased.
Your statement that there was nothing to erode is silly. Finally, your disparagement
of Cod by referring to Cod and his comments, respectively, as a “hiso” and “delusional ramblings” reflects very poorly on you and makes one very suspect of the legitimacy of anything you say.
Voices of moderation on Burmese Facebook
[…] but also gives the government a handy excuse down the road to roll back its reforms. Fortunately, voices of moderation and tolerance have emerged to counteract some of the more inflammatory claims that have appeared on the […]
The end of the Red Shirts?
Trebor has it just right. If the answer to his question is correct, then this amnesty bill is a blessing in disguise.
Seeds of Thai democracy
I concur with your thought. The judicial system in Thailand is too askew for me to believe in its impartiality.
After the bombings: 15 October in Yangon
Sorry, no blog! Just quick reflections after moments that were particularly difficult. There’s a bit of a running narrative I suppose, since Nich and Andrew have been nice enough to share this and two others prior.
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
Again, the attempt to relegate Thaksin to the past as a “throwback”…I think not. He is not just another businessman; he is a crook of the highest order.
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
Thaksin is neither a yellow shirt nor a red shirt. He’s a self-serving egocentric looking out for the main chance. He will do anything to get his way. And that is to make Thailand his own fiefdom with a shinawatra dynasty.
Any talk of his making deals, if real, will only be towards making his position stronger. Not to compromise, we’ve seen many times over the years that he is lacking in integrity and honesty.
Interview with Burma’s Ma Thanegi
[…] forward to more from these publications. Ma Theingi would be […]
Malaysia to build bridges with North Korea
Looks Like a Publicity Stunt and a Misguided Application.
N. Koreans are Hungry for Food to Fill their Stomachs and for Help in the Agriculture and Food Production .
Engagement in Education is a Priority that Can Follow Later.
Without the Facilities of China and the Cooperation of S. Korean,
Little Can be Done.
The Bridge Cannot be Functional .
Seeds of Thai democracy
This article is really trying too hard to fit the current situation in classic argument. How relevant is it really to imply that Thailand can be simply reduced into an divide between the bourgeois and the proletariat? Yes, you can make the argument that it is, but what argument between two (or more) sides can’t be shoehorned in that way if we try hard enough.
The most important point brought up in the article is that the situation is allowing more people to be more vocal and involved in politics. This is an important step that we can’t deny, but is it necessarily being impeded by a single force as the article suggests? There are many factors that we can all argue, but we should be at least hopeful that the political process will find it’s way over time once the conversation has finally started.
Seeds of Thai democracy
Then there’s this
” In fact under his government, Thaksin oversaw a vast erosion of civil liberties, press freedoms and instituted a program of extra-judicial justice that laughed at the very notion of courts and laws.”
What Cod is writing here is the kind of revisionism that only a blue-blooded ultra royalist would come up with.
Is he really claiming that before Thaksin came along Thailand was a beacon of civil liberties, press freedoms and rule of law?
Thaksin was and is a product of a political system whose roots are traced directly into coup after coup, massacre after massacre, decades of impunity, horrific human rights abuses, the complete curtailment of democracy and an acceptance of dictatorship that seems almost pathological.
Despite obvious failings there is little doubt that having, at least, a democratically elected government, with a clear mandate and delivering key improvements to the lives of ordinary poor Thais was a huge step-forward from the endless parade of coup governments that preceded it.
Thaksin didn’t erode anything because there was nothing to erode in the first place.
Stick to the facts New Mandala please – not the delusional ramblings of just another Bangkok hiso.
Seeds of Thai democracy
“If you committed a crime and are found guilty, you should face punishment even if the whole country votes otherwise.”
This may be true in a country with an impartial judiciary but not in Thailand.
Surely the decisions of an elected parliament are more democratic than a biased court?
Whether you agree with it or not, if parliament passes the amnesty that’s the democratic process at work. So it’s up to people to express their opposition as they are doing.
And to say the country “stands on the brink” supposes the military will come out again but for now there is no sign of that, in contrast to under the previous government.
Seeds of Thai democracy
Cod wrote “His crimes are well documented and overeported so lets fast forward in time to the present day.”
Strange.
Thaksin’s “corruption” conviction was very much cooked up by an illegal coup government with even members of the committee set-up to look into it walking out in disgust.
As for the rest – who originally ordered the “War on Drugs”? There is no way Cod (who has previously announced his loyalty to the monarchy on numerous occasions) would dare to reference that.
So, in actual fact, despite having most of the judiciary, the elite, the army and two quite long periods of government lined up against him Thaksin has only ever been convicted of one “crime” – and that was put together by a politicised coup court.
New Mandala, we need analysis that at least attempts to deal with the facts, not attempts to conflate child-like assertions into “evidence”, something which then destroys the credibility not only of your contributors but also of this site.
Seeds of Thai democracy
From today’s Bangkok Post:
“Some 63 judges have condemned the government’s blanket amnesty bill, saying it will destroy the rule of law and set the wrong precedent for society.
It is the first time that Court of Justice judges have publicly expressed their political views.”
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/378352/judges-join-opposition-to-blanket-amnesty-bid
BTW, isn’t “engulf” in your first line rather hyperbolic – bordering on imaginative?
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
Thaksin’s power derives from his democratic mandate.
Take that away and he’s just another businessman.
Thailand and the shape of Thai democracy has changed so rapidly that Thaksin and the elites are now throwbacks.
They just haven’t realised it yet.
Seeds of Thai democracy
My recent and favourite “Codism” on the recent protests was this
“The women in this crowd are alot hotter than the last protests”.
https://twitter.com/fishmyman/status/397365588739096576
Isn’t it great that New Mandala find such monumental intellects to overwrite historical revisionism?
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
I find all this talk of a mysterious deal somewhat baffling. Who has done a deal with whom, and why? Surely the events of the past few days have shown once again that there is no deal? Unless we are talking about the alignment between Thaksin and the crown prince, which is hardly news.
Back to Thailand’s future
Exercising power from behind the scenes is a long-established Thai tradition. There is absolutely no doubt that Thaksin has done this in spades whenever his supporters have been in Government since 2006. If he were as bad as most people here assume he is, new corruption scandals would be breaking out daily. This is especially so, given his enemies’ strong interest in exposing his wickedness. Where is the evidence, everybody? Instead he seems to be a typical Thai power broker, no worse than others in most respects, and probably more careful than he needed to be in the past. The difference, is that he has become the preferred patron of the masses, who are better educated than they used to be, and now show a very distinct preference for capitalist bread over royal circuses. That is how democracy is supposed to work, and that is what is vehemently opposed by the upper echelons of Thailand’s anti-democratic old order.
The worst thing about the PT-led coalition government is that it has made no effort to abolish the lèse majesté law. It is under pressure to do so from its own supporters, who have suffered the most under the law. The Government’s pretty solid excuse is that a bloody coup would be a worse outcome for Thailand than the suffering of those in prison. The other Thaksin sins that are trotted out from the early part of this century are the murder of drug suspects by police, which the King supported, and the mess in the south, which is kept festering by a mad combination of century-old Thai imperial overreach, militant Islamism and the crazy militarist Queen’s “special interest in the South”.
As I see it, all of Thaksin’s sins, and more, would have been forgiven, if he had not committed the unpardonable sin of unleashing democracy. His motives are selfish, but the outcome is a good one for the Thais. His sins have been repeated ad nauseam by his enemies, but their motive is to undermine democracy rather than to improve the standards of public behaviour in Thailand. A good outcome of this relentless attack on Thaksin’s character is that it probably has got him, and a lot of other people in public life, to stay cleaner than they used to.
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
In fact, a comment in matichon, nov 3, p 3, already spoke of the compromise between thaksin and the “real center of power”. phuea thai had resolved to “serve the old power” as the democrats had done earlier. All this was a signal for a ceasefire between the “phrai” and the “ammart”. those who had wanted to achieve complete democracy with thaksin and phuea thai found out that theirs were merely “sand castles on the beach”.
Maid to order in Singapore
You might call it maid-trafficking but since it happens in a posh model member state of the British Commonwealth of Nations where everything (including money) is squeaky clean (no chewing gum please, our maids will not clean that dirty American stuff!) and under absolute totalitarian utilitarian Orwellian control, I can only say: carry on!