« Prev Page 15 of 16 13 14 15 16 Next You cannot reply to this topic Go to first unread post 389 replies to this topic

[WinnieTheKhwai]

The benefit is that Thaksin stays in the news, and at the top of the headlines. To be honest I don't think he anticipated the governments overreaction, but he does know that Abhisit is prone to make mistakes when poked a bit. One of those guys in government is clearly going to blow a fuse and throw his toys out of the pram, exposing their insecurity.

I think Thaksin's short term strategy is to stay in a position where people talk about him, and listen to what he has to say. He's better able to do that from Cambodia, which after all is right around the corner. Then the current government act like they're stung by a wasp every time Thaksin does anything.

Anyway, I don't think there's more to it than that Thaksin wants to stay influential, never mind that he's not physically in Thailand; he needs to do that in order to re-construct the 'rural alliance' that worked so well for him in the TRT days.

Personally, I would hope that people in favor of empowering the poor in Thailand would move beyond his figure and come up with a person with less baggage who's far less easily dismissed.

Edited by WinnieTheKhwai, 2009-11-08 09:33:14.

[rixalex]

coalminer, on 2009-11-07 17:40:26, said:

TV pictures taken a few seconds ago at one of my neighbors house.

Look at top right text.

Big failure of a newbie with 5 posts .....

First of all coalminer you accuse dataserver of being a big failure for correctly pointing out that your neighbours were not wacthing ASTV. The big failure was yours and yet you seem unable to muster an apology.

coalminer, on 2009-11-07 22:30:42, said:

Newbie, you seem to be a previous member of ThaiVisa.

For what reason was your membership annihilated and did you need to comeback under your present alias?

I remember to have read that a banned member of ThaiVisa is forbidden to come back under another alias ...

(Hope that mod's don't read this ...)

What's more you now you accuse him of being a banned member. I assume you have some evidence for this?

[Livinginexile]

He's getting closer..
The expat community is becoming very nervous

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Quote

The expat community is becoming very nervous

I don't think there is such a thing as an expat community that agrees on anything.

( Well, other than the price of beer and ATM withdrawals. )

For me, it's not so much that I would like to see Thaksin back, but rather a return to a more democratic system with less influence (or better yet, no influence at all) from the army and so on.

Part of national reconciliation means that you have to accept that there is a sizable contingent of people who will feel left out and disenfranchised when they're artificially blocked(*) from voting for the person they want. You simply cannot harp on about national unity (like Abhisit likes to do like a broken record) while clearly not respecting people with a different opinion from your own.

(* Artificially blocked: includes military coups, rewriting the constitution to favor the elite, removing elected governments repeatedly over things as trivial as the PM being on a TV cooking program until finally ending up with a favored clique in government.. Even if you don't agree with this then at least accept that TRT/Thaksin's electorate sees it that way. [Cue: someone stating they're all uneducated lower-caste hicks who's opinions don't matter and can't be trusted with democracy.])

If Abhisit were truly a leader (Ok, I know) then he would have the political courage to work out a deal that respects all parts of the country and all classes of its population. By not doing so he de-facto solidifies the status quo, a status that really doesn't do anything to improve things for the poorer regions and classes, or even Thailand as a whole for that matter.

I also suspect some expats to actively don't WANT Thailand to progress, because they like the added financial power they wield while Thailand's economy goes down the drain (or, doesn't grow), and they too appreciate the source of cheap.. erm, 'labor'. So pretty much the same selfish and exploitive interests as the Bangkok PAD/Democrat elite.

Edited by WinnieTheKhwai, 2009-11-08 10:29:09.

[hammered]

Right now Thaksin with assistance of his proixy Chavalit is walking all over what the military hold dear: Cosy up to a tradional enemy, talk about autonomy down south, imply negotiations will not be done on the hard Thai negotiating line, imply we are certain in a few years hence things will be our way, act like Thaksin will be back linked into all the ohters. Working oin the fears of the enemy can be succesful in a negotiation if indeed one is going on and we shouldnt forget the asset seizure decisonm is imminent. Anyone who thinks that is not part of the context is delusional.

As to powerful friends well Im sure all are aware of this and it will be interesting to see on what side these things fall but a reading of history from a bunch of decades ago reveals intially it may actually be that the power resides in others than powerful friends at least for a while. I doubt this one is certain

Of course the whole scenartio does not address the issue that there is no set of ruyles all agree to and there probably wont be unbless forced on both sides (and who does the forcing?). It also deosnt address that both sides have done their best to indoctrinate people to there way of thinking. Neither side cares about debate but rather pure indoctrination. Mind you in power games among powerful elite people such is often the case.

Abhisit has failed some would say not tried to reconcile people but then again ditto in Somchai, Samak, and Thaksin and anyone who thinks Chavalit would even try ios either delusional or doesnt know anything about Thai politics. There is no real desire toi reconcile just to win. The word reconcile is defined by both sides to mean what they want.

[Siripon]

Yinglak( Thaksin's sister) was on TV this morning saying Thaksin would make clearer his role regarding Cambodia on Tuesday.
Working out how to limit the damage no doubt.
I still believe he'll not set foot in Cambodia, too much of a coward.

[otherstuff1957]

^ He's probably realized that it would be a bad strategic move. While there might be short term benefits and the people in Issan might be excited and encouraged by his proximity, a lot of the Red voters in the central plains are probably shifting political allegiance as we speak. If he loses them, the current incarnation of TRT may not even be the biggest minority party in the next election.

He might issue an official refusal of the offer or he might make a confusing, ambiguous statement that people can interpret however they like and that he can spin one way or the other as things play out.

[ballpoint]

WinnieTheKhwai, on 2009-11-08 09:31:53, said:

... but he does know that Abhisit is prone to make mistakes when poked a bit...

Any facts to support this statement? You admit to knowing the thoughts of Thaksin, how often do you speak to him? I’d say that Abhisit was poked about as far as possible over Songkhran, and made the right decision, making your hero look like a clueless whiner on international television to boot. In fact, I’d go as far to say the opposite, and will supply evidence to back it up as well. In 2006, Thaksin seemed desperate to get more support so he sold off AIS to show he was serious about not mixing business with politics. All well and good, but he couldn’t resist the chance to make as much out of the deal as possible, first by using complex share transfers within his family, during which time the shares increased in value by huge amounts, secondly by exploiting a loophole and not paying a sataeng in tax on the deal, and thirdly by changing the law, enabling him to sell to the investment arm of a competing country. In the face of mounting public anger he stubbornly hung on to his position, and refused to defuse it by donating a portion to charity, or some other act of goodwill. He was poked, he made a huge mistake. No doubt the pedantic “he was never convicted of any crimes following this”, by those very same posters who claim to clamour for democracy. Let me ask you, was it ethical? How would a normal MP, let alone the PM, of a truly democratic country have been dealt with if found doing the same? Another example? His interview on CNN over Songkhran, he was poked by Jim Clancy and blundered on, reading his prepared script about how he hoped things would have panned out – big mistake. And now this. The smart thing to do would have been to graciously thank Hun Sen for the offer, but decline it. Instead he saw the chance to try and further divide Thailand, and indeed, may even have been one of the architects of the offer, accepted it and is now dithering about what to do. Big mistake.

[rixalex]

ballpoint, on 2009-11-08 14:51:06, said:

The smart thing to do would have been to graciously thank Hun Sen for the offer, but decline it. Instead he saw the chance to try and further divide Thailand,

Yes, i think the thought of dividing Thailand further and creating tension must have been a big part of the attraction. Another factor is his ego. He needs to feel important and he needs to feel wanted. That made it an offer he couldn't resist. Having accepted however, it has now dawned on him that it might lose him some support in Thailand.

As we speak, i have no doubt that somewhere out there in the desert our square-faced little friend has his best men frantically trying to cook up the best way to back out of all this and come out smelling of roses.

[ballpoint]

WinnieTheKhwai, on 2009-11-08 10:13:03, said:

...For me, it's not so much that I would like to see Thaksin back, but rather a return to a more democratic system with less influence (or better yet, no influence at all) from the army and so on.

I’d argue that it’s impossible to go back to a “more” democratic system, partly because Thailand has never had a true democratic system, and partly because one man making all the decisions, including literally life and death ones, is not a democracy, no matter how many people voted for him. All those arguing that one person one vote is the sole cornerstone of a democracy are sadly mistaken. A true democracy also consists of a system of checks and balances, an independent judiciary, who no person is above, the ability of any party to freely campaign anywhere, without fear of violence or murder, and the respect for the people by those they voted for. Thailand has never had these last four, unless you count the military removing a corrupt government as a check and balance? In which case, I’ll accept that on the day of the coup, Thailand was more democratic than it was previously, because a corrupt government was removed. Despite all the spins to the contrary posted here, the coup was, on the whole, popular. There was no organised protest under a charismatic leader, ala 1992, immediately following it. That came later, initially as a violent counter to the PAD, and then as a more organised “bring back Thaksin” movement. Going off topic here I know, but it’s fundamental to the root of this thread and many others.

Quote

You simply cannot harp on about national unity (like Abhisit likes to do like a broken record) while clearly not respecting people with a different opinion from your own.

Quite right, and we've all seen how the red leadership, including Thaksin, "respects" the opposing side. Indeed, I doubt very much that Thaksin respects his own side, seeing them as revolution fodder. In the interests of balance, I'd also put Sondhi in the same boat. As we’re often told by both sides, the majority of shirt wearers of both colours are common folk. The single largest division between them at the moment is the fate of Thaksin. It is folly to spout that he is the only way to reconcile them. He is not the cure, he is the disease. How can the rehabilitation of the one man responsible for the division be reconciliation? It’s not, it’s a poke in the eye to the yellows and a win to the reds, (still referring to the common supporters, I couldn't care less if the leaders on both sides had their eyes poked out), and will not solve anything. I’d go so far as to say that Thaksin is not as important as he, and his supporters here, make him out to be, and would be quickly forgotten by the rank and file of both sides should they develop their own true grassroots leaders. Unfortunately, those leaders who could not be corrupted would probably end up missing and / or dead. I don’t have the answers, but I do know Thaksin is not one of them. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is the silence of a few good men, a species that sadly appears to be extinct in Thai politics. I do believe, however, that Abhisit is a better man morally than Thaksin, Chavalit, Chalerm, Samak, Jatuporn, Newin, Suthep, Sondhi, and all the others currently standing on the stage. I may be grossly mistaken in this, and if so I would freely admit it, but only time will tell. And, until we get the benefit of hindsight, no amount of poisoned foresighting by Thaksin and his goons will change that opinion.

[Samuian]

ballpoint, on 2009-11-08 14:51:06, said:

WinnieTheKhwai, on 2009-11-08 09:31:53, said:

... but he does know that Abhisit is prone to make mistakes when poked a bit...

Any facts to support this statement? You admit to knowing the thoughts of Thaksin, how often do you speak to him? I’d say that Abhisit was poked about as far as possible over Songkhran, and made the right decision, making your hero look like a clueless whiner on international television to boot. In fact, I’d go as far to say the opposite, and will supply evidence to back it up as well. In 2006, Thaksin seemed desperate to get more support so he sold off AIS to show he was serious about not mixing business with politics. All well and good, but he couldn’t resist the chance to make as much out of the deal as possible, first by using complex share transfers within his family, during which time the shares increased in value by huge amounts, secondly by exploiting a loophole and not paying a sataeng in tax on the deal, and thirdly by changing the law, enabling him to sell to the investment arm of a competing country. In the face of mounting public anger he stubbornly hung on to his position, and refused to defuse it by donating a portion to charity, or some other act of goodwill. He was poked, he made a huge mistake. No doubt the pedantic “he was never convicted of any crimes following this”, by those very same posters who claim to clamour for democracy. Let me ask you, was it ethical? How would a normal MP, let alone the PM, of a truly democratic country have been dealt with if found doing the same? Another example? His interview on CNN over Songkhran, he was poked by Jim Clancy and blundered on, reading his prepared script about how he hoped things would have panned out – big mistake. And now this. The smart thing to do would have been to graciously thank Hun Sen for the offer, but decline it. Instead he saw the chance to try and further divide Thailand, and indeed, may even have been one of the architects of the offer, accepted it and is now dithering about what to do. Big mistake.

"he smart thing to do would have been to graciously thank Hun Sen for the offer, but decline it. Instead he saw the chance to try and further divide Thailand, and indeed, may even have been one of the architects of the offer, accepted it and is now dithering about what to do. Big mistake."

Agreed, he is making one after the other because he believes himself he is free of faults, trying every possible u-turn, to turn his fortune, miserable failure, it's NOT one second about his "beloved country" only about his ceased power, influence and of course his "live savings"!

And using the expression "life savings" for 2.2 Billion is just another smack in the face of the havenot's he claimed to bring out of poverty, in this he has reached Mastership but he never had the genuine intention to do so - just using it as the bait and it worked well, for sometime....


Now Abhjisit calling on him to take the countries interests first, before his own, was a good move, pointing in the right direction!

[Old Man River]

RegularReader, on 2009-11-08 08:32:55, said:

You are a step ahead of the debate. I agree it will require an organized push to take advantage of this situation, but the conditions are set, to make a move against Thaksin. Whether or not the Dems/BJP can take advantage of it will become apparent in the next few days.
In any case, I stick by my point that Thaksin is wrong if he thinks the loyalty to him is about anything more than money. Isaan people are not stupid - they've had to live this way for a long long time.

I don't think there is any question this is all about money (isn't it always?).

[Old Man River]

caf, on 2009-11-08 08:20:06, said:

Taksin is just ruffling feathers and he knows he can do that with impunity.

People like Thaksin, Hun Sen and Chavalit (head of the Puea Thai Party) don't engage in anything so superficial as just ruffling feathers.

There is the view by some, and it seems plausible, that it is a first step by Hun Sen to support the Puea Thai Party which is in need of financial support in return for very friendly relations should Thaksin once again become PM. There is no question people at this level have an ulterior motive in this, whatever it is.

[Steve2UK]

ballpoint, on 2009-11-08 14:51:06, said:

WinnieTheKhwai, on 2009-11-08 09:31:53, said:

... but he does know that Abhisit is prone to make mistakes when poked a bit...

Any facts to support this statement? You admit to knowing the thoughts of Thaksin, how often do you speak to him? <snip>.............................................

Instead he saw the chance to try and further divide Thailand, and indeed, may even have been one of the architects of the offer, accepted it and is now dithering about what to do. <snip>

Pot, kettle.

[canoncam]

Japan's news agency, Kyodo, is just now reporting that Hun Sen announced today that Thaksin will be arriving in Cambodia next Thursday.

Ostensibly to give an economics lecture.


http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/i...?storyid=469385

[hammered]

This is rapidly heading to a showdown. I would think negotaitions between the sides in the power game are probably off the table right now.

Hun Sen has upped the stakes again by saying Thaksin will go to Cambodia. How will Abhisit react?

[RegularReader]

Old Man River, on 2009-11-08 16:55:37, said:

RegularReader, on 2009-11-08 08:32:55, said:

You are a step ahead of the debate. I agree it will require an organized push to take advantage of this situation, but the conditions are set, to make a move against Thaksin. Whether or not the Dems/BJP can take advantage of it will become apparent in the next few days.
In any case, I stick by my point that Thaksin is wrong if he thinks the loyalty to him is about anything more than money. Isaan people are not stupid - they've had to live this way for a long long time.

I don't think there is any question this is all about money (isn't it always?).

Yes, for the Thai people, I am sure, it's "all about the money".
And for Thaksin right now, it's also "all about the money" - always has been.
Perhaps they don't know it, but, he needs Thai people, more than they need him, right now.
What I am suggesting, that his getting into bed with Cambodia, is viewed by many Thais, as infidelity and this will either make him like the unfaithful lover, wherein he will offer them the earth (quite possible), or be completely spurned (50/50 chance).

[caf]

Publicus, on 2009-11-08 03:55:08, said:

Quote

Politics is much more fun if you look at it with a distance, its just a great game, don't take it serious, its so insignificant.

MBL

I recommend you advise the imbalanced and obsessive compulsive Thaksin of your claim certain. He definitely could use your wise if facile counsel.

Publicus; read what MBL has written and open your mind to other possibilities and views. Can't you see that your views are one-sided and biased. You are losing arguments because of your aggresive propaganda style.

A more reasoned argument may get people to change their opinions. I think some of your points have some validity but they are lost causes because of the way you present them so venomously.

Put more water in it and be jai yen

[caf]

brahmburgers, on 2009-11-08 07:02:37, said:

Let Thaksin shoot himself in the foot once again.

Abhisit is playing his cards well, and getting a boost in public confidence. Peua Thai heavies have seen the latest two polls showing Abhisit is gaining in popularity, and they're doing what any Thai politicians would do in such a predicatment; disdaining the poll results.

But they and the remnants of the Reds are quaking, as yet more bricks fall from their paper mache wall which tries to appear solid (as if backed by many Thais) but is as solid as wet rice falling from a blimp.

"Peua Thai heavies", "Reds are quaking" "paper mache wall" "wet rice falling from a blimp"

All good propaganda stuiff I suppose but a little short on facts and critical thinking don't you think.

Why not visit some of the Asean countries and then come back and write a short piece for us on their views on Thailand and its direction - preferably with facts rather than old rhetoric

[caf]

mca, on 2009-11-08 08:36:55, said:

Err.... "You Need Hands" caf mate.

Thanks mca.

But it was you are a pink toothbrush, wasn't it

[caf]

rixalex, on 2009-11-08 08:44:00, said:

caf, on 2009-11-08 08:20:06, said:

Old Man River, on 2009-11-08 07:56:29, said:

While I want to stay out of your arguement of who has friends where, out of curiousity, please explain your comment that this is a tactical move. Normally, tactical moves aren't made without clearly defined benefits in sight. What is the clearly defined benefit in sight?

You are right, it is wise to stay out of the argument. Publicus avoided the point. He shows that he knows enough about Thai politics to understand the recent positioning but he chooses to slant his posts as purely anti-thaksin. He ignores other points. But he is astute enough to be aware of them.

Taksin is just ruffling feathers and he knows he can do that with impunity.

What was the old Max Bygraves number " You need friends"

Just to get this clear, you are saying that the clearly defined benefit in sight is ruffling feathers?

Black Songkran wasn't sufficient a ruffle?

No I wasn't saying that.

He is keeping "them" on their toes. He gets almost daily television coverage after how many years after the coup??? Who is afraid of what? Think a little more deeplyan from wider sources.

[caf]

WinnieTheKhwai, on 2009-11-08 09:31:53, said:

The benefit is that Thaksin stays in the news, and at the top of the headlines. To be honest I don't think he anticipated the governments overreaction, but he does know that Abhisit is prone to make mistakes when poked a bit. One of those guys in government is clearly going to blow a fuse and throw his toys out of the pram, exposing their insecurity.

I think Thaksin's short term strategy is to stay in a position where people talk about him, and listen to what he has to say. He's better able to do that from Cambodia, which after all is right around the corner. Then the current government act like they're stung by a wasp every time Thaksin does anything.

Anyway, I don't think there's more to it than that Thaksin wants to stay influential, never mind that he's not physically in Thailand; he needs to do that in order to re-construct the 'rural alliance' that worked so well for him in the TRT days.

Personally, I would hope that people in favor of empowering the poor in Thailand would move beyond his figure and come up with a person with less baggage who's far less easily dismissed.

Well put.

[tig28]

Quote

rixalex, on 2009-11-08 09:21:16, said:

tig28, on 2009-11-07 21:16:22, said:

I most certainly take every opportunity to point out current corruption --- as far too many posters here write trite and ill founded views with the pretence that all corruption is Thaksin only.

"with the pretence that all corruption is Thaksin only. " ???

The only pretence is the pretence in your head that just because people mention Thaksin's corrupt ways, that means they also think that Thaksin is the only corrupt one. He's not. I've already stated that.

tig28, on 2009-11-07 21:16:22, said:

Weirdly you seem to feel that acknowledging existing current corruption somehow diminishes that of Thaksin ...

Please quote where i have denied existing current corruption. I don't. It exists.

You are simply making stuff up now.

Thank you for that really illuminating response ---- reasoned & intelligent!!! From your first insightful reply it seems you now agree. Well done!!!

"You are simply making stuff up now"

rixalex --- I think it is probably best if you leave that type of assessment to the adults!

[WinnieTheKhwai]

ballpoint, on 2009-11-08 14:51:06, said:

WinnieTheKhwai, on 2009-11-08 09:31:53, said:

... but he does know that Abhisit is prone to make mistakes when poked a bit...

Any facts to support this statement? You admit to knowing the thoughts of Thaksin, how often do you speak to him?

I read his Twitter tweets pretty much daily. For the record though, I'm not a Thaksin fanboy.. I would love to see more people in the Red camp move beyond the topic of Dr. Thaksin, or at the very least see other people stepping up to the plate who aren't old style regional dinosaur power brokers.

Edited by WinnieTheKhwai, 2009-11-08 20:36:26.

[otherstuff1957]

WinnieTheKhwai, on 2009-11-08 20:35:27, said:

For the record though, I'm not a Thaksin fanboy.. I would love to see more people in the Red camp move beyond the topic of Dr. Thaksin, or at the very least see other people stepping up to the plate who aren't old style regional dinosaur power brokers.

^Yes! I think that many of the stated goals of the Reds are just what this country needs: relaxed or abolished LM laws, more money spent on upcountry development projects, no more appointed senators, etc... However, the people that lead the Reds seem mostly to be a bunch of unprincipled scoundrels whom I would not trust to run a small 7-11 without getting their fingers into the till.

I also wonder how deep their leaders' commitment to those ideals is. Their more commendable goals seem to take second place to their obsession with getting Thaksin back. And, if that ever happens I suspect that the Red idealists like Comrade Giles would be quite disappointed in Thaksin's performance.

Of the current Red leaders, the ones that seem more trustworthy - perhaps Chaturon and Mingkwan, are always overshadowed by the more gangsterish elements.

Edited by otherstuff1957, 2009-11-08 20:57:41.