Another Military Coup.

Generalisations are nice, but specifics in regard to this 'small progress' would be even better.

There is a term used in association with Thai governments and that is, 'money politics'. As the political scientists Pasuk Phongpaichit and Sungsidh Piriyarangsan have written, 'The cabinet has been jokingly compared to a convenience store, 'open 24 hours'. This was written in September 1996, but it still seems apt today, don't you think?

Boon-ua Prasertsuwan, the Speaker of Parliament and Deputy Leader of the ruling Chart Thai Party at that time noted, 'The budget is like a popsicle that's passed around. Everyone gets a lick at it when it comes their way, so that by the time the one at the end of the line gets it, there's little left....Most of the time corrupt politicians and officials escape punishment. In fact, most of them continue to prosper and command respect in society'.

But, this is not true of Thaksin. Why is he different? Why was he seen as a threat that had to be removed?

Think of Thaksin's money as that popsicle. How much of it do you think will be left for good works after it has done the rounds in the government and military?

The lady, Pasuk Phongpaichit, has written a biography of Thaksin that is available in Thailand. I have yet to read it, but will get it on my next trip to Thailand.

The book I am quoting from is, Corruption & Democracy in Thailand.

Texpat wrote:Do you think the current government isn't shady dealing?

I'm convinced that the current government which came to power via parliamentary fanangling after the legitimately elected government was overthrown is chock full of nothing but individuals of the highest morals and integrity. If they learned anything from the corruption trials, it's probably better ways of how to cover one's tracks.

As Khun Jack is fond of reminding me and others, including you on a previous occasion, the government before this one was of the coalition variety. One of the members of that coalition, led by Newin, and his followers dropped out of that coalition to to bring the current government to power. This is legitimate in any democracy and happens quite a bit in Europe.

Canada, currently, has a minority government led by the Conservative Party that can be forced into an election, or another coalition can be formed to lead the government. It is up to the minority opposition Liberals, Quebec separatists or the New Democrats to continue to support the Conservatives or bring down the Conservative government.

On the other hand, I share your sentiments.

Yes, sometime in the late 1990s, a couple of ministers were forced to resign from Chuan's government owing to corruption. I will try and look this up in one of my books to give you the specifics. Give me a few days.

Wiki is useful. By the way, to continue the trend, Chuan is also Sino-Thai.

Although generally regarded as relatively clean and honest when compared to other Thai administrations, Chuan's government found itself plagued with corruption scandals and rumors. Key cases of corruption included:
Rakkiat Sukhthana, Health Minister, was charged with taking a five million THB (125,000 USD) bribe from a drug firm and forcing state hospitals to buy medicine at exorbitant prices. After being found guilty, he jumped bail and went into hiding.
Suthep Thaugsuban, Minister of Transport and Communications, whose brokering of illegal land deals caused the fall of the Chuan 1 government, was linked to abuse of funds in setting up a co-operative in his southern province of Surat Thani.[12]
The "edible fence" seed scandal, in which massive overpricing of seeds distributed to rural areas happened. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture was forced to resign.[13]
The Salween logging scandal, where up to 20,000 logs were felled illegally in the Salween forest in Mae Hong Son. Some of them turned up in the compound of the Democrat party’s office in Phichit province.[13]
Sanan Kajornprasart, Interior Minister, as well as 8 other cabinet ministers were found to have understated their declared assets. Sanan was later barred by the Constitution Court from politics for 5 years.[14]
Chuan himself was found by the National Counter-Corruption Commission to have undeclared shareholdings in a rural cooperative.[14]
Chuan stepped down as the head of the Democrat Party in 2003.


And Thaksin introduced efficiency to the bureaucracy, which angered some people. This policy was reversed after the coup. Again, from Wiki,

One of the most visible of Thaksin's administrative reforms was the restructuring of government department and ministries, labeled the "big bang." It was hailed as a "historic breakthrough" and "the first major reorganization of ministries since King Chulalongkorn set up Thailand's modern system of departmental government in 1897." Plans had been studied for years to loosen perceived rigidities and inertia of the old system but were not implemented until the Thaksin government. [92]

The restructuring was designed to streamline the bureaucracy and focus it on performance and results. New ministries were carved out in Social and Human Security Development, Tourism and Sports, Natural Resources and Environment, Information and Communication Technology, and Culture.

Thaksin transformed the role of provincial governors to that of active policy managers. Historically, central government ministries operated in the provinces through field offices headed by senior officials who reported back to Bangkok, while the Interior Ministry appointed provincial governors whose role was largely ceremonial.

A key component of Thaksin's administrative reform policy, the "CEO-governors" epitomized what was called his "transformation of the operating style of the traditional bureaucracy into a more results-oriented instrument that would be responsive." Piloted in 2001 and introduced in all provinces in October 2003, CEO-governors were put in charge of planning and coordinating provincial development and became accountable for overall provincial affairs. The "CEO governors" were assisted by "provincial CFOs" from the Ministry of Finance who reported directly to each governor. Governors were authorized to raise funds by issuing bonds and were given an intensive training course. [93] After the coup, the junta reverted the role of governors.

The Thaksin era also saw the opening of a number of government one-stop service centers to reduce red tape for anything from investment to utilities and ID-card processing.

Oh, don't worry about that. It just happened to be nearby when I was digging around for information on ministers that had to resign over corruption.

Just to be clear, I am not positive that Thaksin is in favour of a democratic government. He often showed tendencies of a budding strongman/dictator. The military coup might have been a good move to try and preserve democracy, and the current prime minister might be the one to actually do it. I believe Abhsit is a true believer in democracy, but he has to tread a fine ground.

Part of my objection to recent events is the role of Chamlong, Sondhi and the yellow shirts. I do not see them as proponents of democracy, and less honourable than Thaksin. Yes, hit me hard for this statement. But, would you really want Sondhi to head a government?

In addition, many people in the north and northeast, in both rural and urban areas, believe that Thaksin was a good man, they support him. This does not mean that they care whether or not he is a democrat, but just that he seems to get things done for them. And he notices them, which is a novel idea. Not everyone favours democracy in Thailand.

However, if anyone is going to keep Thailand on a possible road to true democracy it has to be Abhsit at this moment.

Thailand is a great country with a number of politically active and intelligent people. They will, I hope, find the best path for the country in the trying times ahead.

Nearly all Thai politicians are dirty to a degree. Thaksin's dirty money games has less to do with his downfall than did his immense popularity.

Simply, he was a threat to the establishment.

A golfer can win the tournament on the course but lose by technicality if he submits an incorrect scorecard.

Similarly, a Thai politician can have the support of the people and be elected time and time again, but be exiled on technicality if he becomes "too big for his britches." There may be only one recipient of unconditional love and adoration. And it ain't Thaksin. Shin corporation and a Bangkok land deal were excuses, not the reason.

The ideal scenario is when businessmen, politicians and military (three-legged stool) are all kept at bay through distrust, infighting and corruption. It practically guarantees an environment which supports the one cause.

Some one is trying to cause trouble.......http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/20 ... 25122.html

I like this thread. I'm actualy learning something.

Ok, I am neutral as to who heads the Thai government. I am very pro-get on with a new vote and let it be respected.

The case against Thaksin seems to be similar to the same case made against Clinton. He governed well for those who put him in office. Too damn well. So the opposition had to resort to a smear campaign to notonly remove him from office, but also to tarnish his legacy. I'm not at all suggesting that the smear campaign was/is baseless; but like Clinton, there is no other way they could have any hope of winning in a free and fair election.

KHONDAHM wrote:I like this thread. I'm actualy learning something.

Ok, I am neutral as to who heads the Thai government. I am very pro-get on with a new vote and let it be respected.

The case against Thaksin seems to be similar to the same case made against Clinton. He governed well for those who put him in office. Too damn well. So the opposition had to resort to a smear campaign to notonly remove him from office, but also to tarnish his legacy. I'm not at all suggesting that the smear campaign was/is baseless; but like Clinton, there is no other way they could have any hope of winning in a free and fair election.

I read alot of your posts that indicate your are an intelligent person,so I wonder how you can think that democracy reigns or ever reigned in Thaialnd,Programed,intentionally uneducated poor individuals that are manipulated by paid off Village headmen tthat persuade them to vote for thieves,is not a democracy.
The right or wrong of the coup,is incidental,compared to the flagrant fleecing of the nation by this idiot!The idolization and support for this flim flam multi-billionaire is ludicrous and stupid!

nkstan, you are reverting to form as a spokesman for Sondhi and Chamlong and the rest of the yellow shirt PAD leadership who believe that peasants are some form of sub-human species who should not be allowed near a ballot box.

The fact is it would be ludicrous and stupid for rural people to vote for anyone but the candidate they prefer. He is the one who has noticed them, and is perceived to be the one doing something for them. Even PAD admits that. Furthermore, they get paid to vote his way. Why would they vote for someone else?

This idea that farmers are political virgins and naive is out-of-date, incorrect and just plain wrong. You might be the one person in Thailand that doesn't get it.