Thread: Thaksin: Let's put unity before justice

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

I'm not sure whether any other political party could have been voted in given that millions of the electorate sold their vote for a few hundred baht to Thaksin.

It is an unfortunate fact around the world that politicians usually are not worthy of the electorate that voted for them during a democratic process, however, to say that the electorate in Thailand would have voted in the same party who paid for their vote is simply wishful thinking.

Having resided in Issan for the past 7 years i can assure you that many here don't give a toss when voting day arrives unless there is some cash in it for them.

And of course, it is always the courts fault whenever Thaksin is found guilty.

I don't buy this (pun intended). You may be able to buy an electorate once, maybe even twice but four times is a little hard to swallow. One of the major reasons for his popularity is not bought votes. It is because he put some of the poorer regions on the Thailand Map rather than ignoring them in the hope they would go away.

As for the courts, you will of course be able to explain away a 5-4 guilty verdict when the Chairman, who has the casting vote, must vote innocent if the others cannot come to a decision. Not that this particular case should ever have reached court in the first place.

I only know of one person who sold their vote, over near swampy. He was paid 2000B and felt it was nothing as many people were taking the pieces of silver.

Well it is what happened. Taksin is the first "elected" politician to give something of real value to the poor, even though it was theirs to start with.

Some schemes were just scams. The 30 Baht health scheme was introduced where previously it was free. Funding collapsed and care plummeted. A friend was given bandages and paracetamol for a broken leg.

The village fund was misued but some did take the loans and make small businesses succeed. Chicken feed compared to how much was being ripped by Taksin and cronies.

He bought each election because that is how Thai poiltics works. You have no political beliefs so you get together a group of politicians who can deliver the votes and divvy up the future take. Each politician secures the votes in his district by paying local headmen who distribute the cash. Hey presto, instant electroral success.

Taksin was brilliant, he spent heavily and got more snouts in the trough than ever before. Corruption during his reign was breathtaking.

The man is a crook, plain and simple. (Personally I know this) but a brilliant politician. He is coming back for his money and does not care who gets hurt.

Originally Posted by Troy

As for the courts,

why did they resort to a coup - when they could as you imply used the courts ?
it would have allowed them immediate legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world

^ Post coup for those requiring the qualifier.

Originally Posted by Troy

It is because he put some of the poorer regions on the Thailand Map rather than ignoring them in the hope they would go away.

Oddly, the Shinawatra's have been accused of doing just the opposite since they returned to power.

Originally Posted by BKKBanger

Funding collapsed and care plummeted

The problem was the whole thing was put together 'CEO style' the boss decided it would happen and it would happen now. And it proved very popular.

There was no funding for it because the government budget is more or less set in stone in advance by a parliamentary vote. As is happening now for the budget year starting in october.

As a result the whole thing was funded by credit, the hospitals provided care, spent money and were told to wait for their money. as in wait 12-18 months. except nobody told them they were going to wait so long. the less nieve ones set a credit limit as refused to do more 30B work until the government paid off the bill, others ran up bills of 100's millions/billions of baht worth of debit, more cynical hospitals provided the universal aspirin and rest cure.

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

It shouldn't be overlooked that Thaksin's political parties have on 2 occasions been found guilty of electoral fraud.

He himself along with 110 other politicians from his party have been banned from politics for the past 5 years.

So where exactly does an electoral democratic procedure fit in to this picture?

That little chicken is coming home to roost soon. While 110 saw it prudent to bide their time, lie low, keep clean and avoid getting involved in politics until their ban was over, one other person didn't.

Originally Posted by Troy

I don't buy this (pun intended). You may be able to buy an electorate once, maybe even twice but four times is a little hard to swallow.

Try gargling and add a bit of salty water. Works every time.

There is nothing in this country that is not bought. If you don't understand that you shouldn't be here.

Thaksin is just spunking his load, when it's gone and he's shot his wad the wheel will get to turn and maybe the " electorate " will be that much wiser.

Don't hold your breath.

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by Calgary

I have identified several..........................Whybother and Reasonableman elsewhere, and Noelbino here.

he is also editor of both the nation and bkk post

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

Its obvious to me that what Khun Taksin actually alluded to was that reconcilliation and Justice should be running together in parallel.

snigger - you are a sad troll

Youv'e all heard of Bangkok Dangerous, well......

Introducing "Baldrick Dangerous", and he knows why

You can't argue with that

Originally Posted by goostewart

Originally Posted by Calgary

Debating indoctrinated mushrooms is a little like 'shooting fish in a bowl'.

So Calgary, how do you get your information on Thai politics? Apparently you do not speak or read Thai and, as a consequence your information is all filtered. Isn't that the very definition of mushroom? Also, your definition of 'debate' needs a little work. Might one suggest that you look up the word in a dictionary and adjust your childish rhetoric just a notch? Debates do not include childishly repeating your rants and not using the same childish language in an effort to troll. really, look up 'debate', it will be a revelation to you.

Again Calgary, this is not about the message because the message you have is sometimes valid, but it is the way you are saying it. Modify your rhetoric and you will build more of a consensus and may further your cause. If you care about the things you claim then you would do that - because support for your views is what it is all about.

Oh yea, what a dope you are goose

Its the voters who say what goes you MAD PAD SAD Donkey

You can't argue with that

Originally Posted by BKKBoet

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

It shouldn't be overlooked that Thaksin's political parties have on 2 occasions been found guilty of electoral fraud.

He himself along with 110 other politicians from his party have been banned from politics for the past 5 years.

So where exactly does an electoral democratic procedure fit in to this picture?

That little chicken is coming home to roost soon. While 110 saw it prudent to bide their time, lie low, keep clean and avoid getting involved in politics until their ban was over, one other person didn't.

And that one person won the democratic election again

You can't argue with that

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"Whatever Thaksin says won't change red-shirts' attitudes to a real democracy. However, I trust Thaksin will prove himself one day."

helllloooo ?

^
I don't know what the hell you said BF, because you are on my 'ignore' list.

But F'off

Do you and Loosenuts go to the same school?

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

Its the voters who say what goes you MAD PAD SAD Donkey

And if you believe that you are even more unhinged than a flapping shithouse door in a hurricane.

^
You too, thegent!

^ the easy way to ignore all of us who find you utterly delusional and a compulsive liar would be to just fcuk off

take the rest of your sycophants with you

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by Troy

As for the courts,

why did they resort to a coup - when they could as you imply used the courts ?
it would have allowed them immediate legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world

To reply in more detail, the 2006 Coup was more than just a Military Junta getting rid of Dr T. The idea was to make sure that no-one else, who posed a danger to the Amart, could gain the same amount of popularity. This was achieved, in part, by a change in the Constitution and a change of Judicial appointments. The major change to the Constitution was that Senators were no longer elected. So we have a Judiciary selected by the Senate who are approved by the Judiciary. Many at the time called it a Judiciary Coup. However, this all seems to have been forgotten or "washed out" just a few years later. The result is (and was predicted at the time) that any Government that is elected but does not meet "Approval" are already on a sticky wicket. Hence the number of times Ms Y has to keep her head down, bite her tongue and seek counsel from above (in her case from both sides of the fence).

Whatever Dr T was, or still is, he did not stitch the Country up in quite the same way as the Coup leaders did. It is a pity that so many are still fooled by simplistic and arrogant trickery.

Dr T's time would have come, in the same way as others of his ilk (such as Berlusconi who The Economist often likened Thaksin with). A natural death which would have been permanent.

I do not believe the "amart" are as co-ordinated as many believe , else they would have acted before thaksin had managed to stack the judiciary in his favour - instead a coup was approved to stymie his efforts at power consolidation

Originally Posted by BKKBanger

Well it is what happened. Taksin is the first "elected" politician to give something of real value to the poor, even though it was theirs to start with.
.

This is it in a nutshell. When you are used to thieves taking the whole cake, some one who comes along and takes the cake but gives you a few of the crumbs is an improvement, and this is why he was/is so popular.

Most of the Thai people knew he was a corrupt bugger when they voted him in, but the sentiment at the time was "yeah, we know he is a crook, but he made himself rich, maybe he will make us all rich".

The huge irony is that he bribed the country to vote for him - as you said - with their own money - but even more than that is that the stupid dumb f*ck Dems STILL have not got the fucking message.

People like calgary and loose bowels are nutters, plain and simply because they still think there is a clean end to the turd called thai politics. There is not.

They bleat endlessly about the 90 or so killed during the riots, but conveniently forget the thaksin initiated "war on drugs" that murdered an estimated 2,800 in three months - with probably half of them having nothing to do with drugs at all. They conveniently forget the Tak bai massacre, again under Thaksins watch.

There simply ain't no clean side in Thai politics.

And you can't fucking argue with THAT.

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by baldrick

Originally Posted by Troy

As for the courts,

why did they resort to a coup - when they could as you imply used the courts ?
it would have allowed them immediate legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world

To reply in more detail, the 2006 Coup was more than just a Military Junta getting rid of Dr T. The idea was to make sure that no-one else, who posed a danger to the Amart, could gain the same amount of popularity. This was achieved, in part, by a change in the Constitution and a change of Judicial appointments. The major change to the Constitution was that Senators were no longer elected. So we have a Judiciary selected by the Senate who are approved by the Judiciary. Many at the time called it a Judiciary Coup. However, this all seems to have been forgotten or "washed out" just a few years later. The result is (and was predicted at the time) that any Government that is elected but does not meet "Approval" are already on a sticky wicket. Hence the number of times Ms Y has to keep her head down, bite her tongue and seek counsel from above (in her case from both sides of the fence).

Whatever Dr T was, or still is, he did not stitch the Country up in quite the same way as the Coup leaders did. It is a pity that so many are still fooled by simplistic and arrogant trickery.

Dr T's time would have come, in the same way as others of his ilk (such as Berlusconi who The Economist often likened Thaksin with). A natural death which would have been permanent.

nice revision of history, what are you smoking exactly ?