Rule by Benevolent Despotism. Or Democratic Monarchy . lol
i think thaksin is so bent on getting/grabbing power back that he probably did more damage to the thai kingdom than good.
he's lost his perspective.
in the end, thaksin is not the only guy capable of running thailand. abhisit was never given a chance to administer the country proper. he has been dealing with thaksin's increasingly thuggish methods since day 1.
Maybe thaksin appears to be causing more harm than good by asking the people to revolt. However he also appears to be a victim since he is the PM, he is popularly elected many times yet get ousted in a military coup, his party all get charged for no good reasons, opposition protest and camp outside airport while the army did nothing, the airport protest leader get to be a minister and rewarded while the recent protesters get hit, charged and jailed, Thaksin get charged over ridiculous allegations like buying a land more expensive than the value, his assets r frozen, the government is out to eliminate him by forcing him to have no country to stay etc.
Abishit can administer the country proper if he win the election and do not use dirty tactics. Then he can be considered as "honorable"
By what stretch of imagination do you accuse Abhisit, in power for only a few months, and came to power and survived a no confidence vote in parliament because of Newin, Thaksin's ex-ally.
Like I said, do you think someone in power for a few months can manipulate the independently minded bosses of the various state instituitions?
You think Abhisit is Jesus Christ or Superman?
That the cursed Singapore despot can do it is because he is in power for so long. But what does he get for his treachery against a nation of people? A son witrh cancer of the anus and a zombie wife. If he does not repent quick enough, next in line to suffer his curses will be his grandchildren.
huh? Thaksin was trying to put his relatives into the courts, the miltary, the police and was muzzling the media.
Then why is the court out to get him, the military refusing to obey orders and the media portray a negative light on him ? Doesn't tat tell which party really get their relatives into these areas ?
As said, Abishit is a just face and represent the old elites. These old elites r in power for donkey years.
huh? Thaksin was trying to put his relatives into the courts, the miltary, the police and was muzzling the media.
Like I said previously, I was in Thailand when he was doing all that. Where were you?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then why is the court out to get him, the military refusing to obey orders and the media portray a negative light on him ? Doesn't tat tell which party really get their relatives into these areas ?
OMG you are certainly confused. Thaksin tried and failed and in his trying to become another despot, he turned them (the courts, the military....) against him and everyone seen as his puppet.
The Singapore despot succeeded and now Singaporeans are suffering for it, by having their country sold to foreigners and the despots forcing them to pay and pay money left right and centre.
Originally posted by redDUST:i think thaksin is so bent on getting/grabbing power back that he probably did more damage to the thai kingdom than good.
he's lost his perspective.
in the end, thaksin is not the only guy capable of running thailand. abhisit was never given a chance to administer the country proper. he has been dealing with thaksin's increasingly thuggish methods since day 1.
What would you do if you are thaksin? You could not return to home country because people in power wants you dead. The thai government freeze most of your $$$. The thai government chase you from one country to another country. And the best thing is you have not do anything wrong.
The cursed despot and his daughter in law indirectly HELP caused Thaksin's downfall because any Thai worth his citizenship would not stand for a key business, company sold to foreigners.
The cursed despot and his cronies have no qualms selling out the country but Thais are not dogs and they will never stand for their prime minister, of all people, selling out the country.
huh? Thaksin was trying to put his relatives into the courts, the miltary, the police and was muzzling the media.
Like I said previously, I was in Thailand when he was doing all that. Where were you?
Then name me the relatives tat were put into the courts, military and police. Since u r there, u can name them easily right ?
OMG you are certainly confused. Thaksin tried and failed and in his trying to become another despot, he turned them (the courts, the military....) against him and everyone seen as his puppet.
U mean double standards like the army acting for the present government and not the previous one ? Or u mean the double standard in banning the peope from thaksin party and not the other who commits exactly the same thing. Or the double standard in promoting the protest leaders for the airport siege while suing the protest leader for the current one ?
Can these organisation "turn sides" or "take side" because he tried to "control them" ? Aren't they supposed to be impartial ? They like him they practise one thig and they do not like him they practice another ? Sounds corrupted to me
Thailand and the majority of Thais are for National Pride, Culture, Honour, and not supressing of culture like diminishing dialects, selling out the country to foreigners for a few dollars more... exactly the opposite of what the the cursed despot and his cronies are doing, with support from dogs made inhuman by the propaganda.
The cursed despot and his daughter in law indirectly HELP caused Thaksin's downfall because any Thai worth his citizenship would not stand for a key business, company sold to foreigners
Tat is Thaksin's company. He like to sell to who he sell to who. It is never illegal to sell business. R u going for protectionism ? Might as well slap tax on all food import to help the rural area right ?
Thailand and the majority of Thais are for National Pride, Culture, Honour, and not supressing of culture like diminishing dialects, selling out the country to foreigners for a few dollars more... exactly the opposite of what the the cursed despot and his cronies are doing, with support from dogs made inhuman by the propaganda.
Sorry but majority of thai support thaksin.
They r suppressed in the end by the army
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Then name me the relatives tat were put into the courts, military and police. Since u r there, u can name them easily right ?
U mean double standards like the army acting for the present government and not the previous one ? Or u mean the double standard in banning the peope from thaksin party and not the other who commits exactly the same thing. Or the double standard in promoting the protest leaders for the airport siege while suing the protest leader for the current one ?
Can these organisation "turn sides" or "take side" because he tried to "control them" ? Aren't they supposed to be impartial ? They like him they practise one thig and they do not like him they practice another ? Sounds corrupted to me
You are totally confused. Thaksin FAILED because the Thai people stopped him. How am I to name the names of people he put in power when he FAILED to do that?
Thaksin FAILED and he became desperate, and tried to start a revolution.
Again, he FAILED in starting a violent revolution.
Why dont you ask me to prove that Thaksin cause a revolution in Thailand? He tried and he FAILED to start a revolution in Thailand through violence.
There is no bloody revolution and no one can prove to you that Thailand had a violent revolution started ny Thaksin (I hate to repeat myself, BECAUSE THAKSIN FAILED) but that does not mean he did not try it.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Sorry but majority of thai support thaksin.
They r suppressed in the end by the army
You mean the "losers" (to use the cursed despot term) supported him? He gave them a 30 baht "health card" (you can get cancer and still get treatment for 30 baht, S$1.50 every time you see a doctor) to win their support.
That was not a problem as long as he did not then tried to put his relatives in positions of power in the courts, the military and the police to become a dictator.
If Abhisit tries to do that, consolidate power by appointing dogs, cronies and relatives into position of power, he too will lose support very fast.
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You are totally confused. Thaksin FAILED because the Thai people stopped him. How am I to name the names of people he tried to put in power when he FAILED to do that?
Thaksin FAILED and he became desperate, and tried to start a revolution.
Again, he FAILED in starting a violent revolution.
Why dont you ask me to prove that Thaksin cause a revolution in Thailand? He tried and he FAILED to start a revolution in Thailand through violence. There is no bloody revolution and no one can prove to you that Thailand had a violent revolution (I hate to repeat myself, BECAUSE THAKSIN FAILED) but that does not mean he did not try it.
So.....basically i can accuse anyone of trying to take over the world as long as i keep repeating he/she failed in doing so?
Well, that certainly expands my options.
You are totally confused. Thaksin FAILED because the Thai people stopped him. How am I to name the names of people he tried to put in power when he FAILED to do that?
Then wat r u talking here ? Rheotorics. Wat u had said is completely different from wat mainstream newspapers r talking about. Why don't u comment on the double standards practised by these organisations ? All tis points out tat these organisations r corrupted and taking the sides of the abishit government.
Why dont you ask me to prove that Thaksin cause a revolution in Thailand? He tried and he FAILED to start a revolution in Thailand through violence. There is no bloody revolution and no one can prove to you that Thailand had a violent revolution (I hate to repeat myself, BECAUSE THAKSIN FAILED) but that does not mean he did not try it.
I can prove tat. In his speech he ask the people to go for a revolution. Tat is already clear evidence tat he tried to revolt. Now show your evidence tat he tried to put in his people into the other organisations.
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
You mean the "losers" (to use the cursed despot term) supported him? He gave them a 30 baht "health card" (you can get cancer and still get treatment for 30 baht, S$1.50 every time you see a doctor) to win their support.
That was not a problem as long as he did not then tried to put his relatives in positions of power in the courts, the military and the police to become a dictator.
If Abhisit tries to do that, consolidate power by appointing dogs, cronies and relatives into position of power, he too will lose support very fast.
The way i see it, the dogs/cronies/relatives appointed him rather than the other way around.
You mean the "losers" (to use the cursed despot term) supported him? He gave them a 30 baht "health card" (you can get cancer and still get treatment for 30 baht, S$1.50 every time you see a doctor) to win their support.
Losers ? They r the MAJORITY. U r saying majority of thais r "losers" ? Thaksin won the election despite unfavourable odds against him. And wat is wrong with giving welfare to the people ? U prefer PAP style of asking u to pay tons of money for medical care ?
That was not a problem as long as he did not then tried to put his relatives in positions of power in the courts, the military and the police to become a dictator.
If Abhisit tries to do that, consolidate power by appointing dogs, cronies and relatives into position of power, he too will lose support very fast.
Prove it la ! Why abishit can control the army and court to do double standard actions. Why u refuse to say tat ?
Abis shit have not prove that he has the majority thai people support till he win the next election.
Check it out the previous election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007
bane,
thaksin's lust is power. getting his monies back is secondary. if he can afford to buy man city (sell it later to the arabs for a profit), i don't think $$$ is the primary reason he's kicking up a ruckus in a big way now.
by creating all these unrest that is putting the country in a perilous situation now will not help the country in anyway, especially in these times.
the lost of thai credibility that he engineered to undermine the country when the asean summit was postponed is also 1 step forward, 3 steps back. you reckon world leaders will shake hands with him after what he did if indeed he's successful in his power grab?
whether he is wronged is a subjective discussion.
lastly, one should also understand that in thai history; the military and the king have an intricate and integral say in how politics in run there. to separate these out will just be moot discussion.
Originally posted by redDUST:bane,
thaksin's lust is power. getting his monies back is secondary. if he can afford to buy man city (sell it later to the arabs for a profit), i don't think $$$ is the primary reason he's kicking up a ruckus in a big way now.
by creating all these unrest that is putting the country in a perilous situation now will not help the country in anyway, especially in these times.
the lost of thai credibility that he engineered to undermine the country when the asean summit was postponed is also 1 step forward, 3 steps back. you reckon world leaders will shake hands with him after what he did if indeed he's successful in his power grab?
whether he is wronged is a subjective discussion.
lastly, one should also understand that in thai history; the military and the king have an intricate and integral say in how politics in run there. to separate these out will just be moot discussion.
Question though, can the King tell the military what to do ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Losers ? They r the MAJORITY. U r saying majority of thais r "losers" ? Thaksin won the election despite unfavourable odds against him. And wat is wrong with giving welfare to the people ? U prefer PAP style of asking u to pay tons of money for medical care ?
Prove it la ! Why abishit can control the army and court to do double standard actions. Why u refuse to say tat ?
The word "loser" to describe the poor in a country was coined by Singapore's cursed despot.
(Interview: Lee Kuan Yew -- Part 2 - Middle East Times 8 Feb 2008 ... interview with Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in .... So here we also stay with the losers, make sure they have enough to live ... www.metimes.com/Security/2008/02/08/interview_lee_kuan_yew_--_part_2/377e/ - 27k -Cached - Similar pages)
Like I said, that they supported Thaksin was not a problem and Thaksin winning elections through their supposrt was not a problem.
It became a problem when Thaksin tried to become a despot by trying to suppress the press, and putting his relatives and cronies into positions of power.
Are you tying to tell me that as long as the majority supports him, he can then trun the country communists and declare that only his son can succeed him?
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
The word "loser" to describe the poor in a country was coined by Singapore's cursed despot.
Like I said, that they supported Thaksin was not a problem and Thaksin winning elections through their supposrt was not a problem.
It became a problem when Thaksin tried to become a despot by trying to suppress the press, and putting his relatives and cronies into positions of power.
Are you tying to tell me that as long as the majority supports him, he can then trun the country communists and declare that only his son can succeed him?
...Isn't that the point of democracy ? Will of the majority? If the majority supports such an action who are we to say that it's wrong?
Didn't democracy come about precisely that the majority wants it? Did not the Chinese Communists took over because they had popular support? Did not America gain independence precisely because the majority wanted it?
I find it strange that attempting to help the majority poor can be constituted as bribery.
Originally posted by redDUST:bane,
thaksin's lust is power. getting his monies back is secondary. if he can afford to buy man city (sell it later to the arabs for a profit), i don't think $$$ is the primary reason he's kicking up a ruckus in a big way now.
by creating all these unrest that is putting the country in a perilous situation now will not help the country in anyway, especially in these times.
the lost of thai credibility that he engineered to undermine the country when the asean summit was postponed is also 1 step forward, 3 steps back. you reckon world leaders will shake hands with him after what he did if indeed he's successful in his power grab?
whether he is wronged is a subjective discussion.
lastly, one should also understand that in thai history; the military and the king have an intricate and integral say in how politics in run there. to separate these out will just be moot discussion.
You have to admit that all politicians are fighting for power. The military is maintaining its power in the name of the king. All these three parties have no respect for the consititution, democracy, law and order.
Firstly, the military couped in 2006.
Secondly, PAD blocked the election, blocked the airport
Thirdly, pro-taksin cancelled the APEC.
So, whether peace will come is a subjective discussion even with or without thaksin
But what I can say is that Abhisit has burned down the peaceful bridge between thaksin and anti-thaksin. It can be settled in peaceful means.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:...Isn't that the point of democracy ? Will of the majority? If the majority supports such an action who are we to say that it's wrong?
Didn't democracy come about precisely that the majority wants it? Did not the Chinese Communists took over because they had popular support? Did not America gain independence precisely because the majority wanted it?
huh? Are you out of your mind? You want the possibility of having a "Dear Leader", even if it is just a possibility, to rule over you?
Without democracy there is a distinct possibility that a "Dear Leader" of North Korea and a Stalin of USSR and the Dictators of Burma will end up ruling the country.
In a true democracy with real democratic freedoms, there is no such possibility.
As long as Thailand remains a democracy, if Abhisit cocks up, then he will have to go. If Abhisits starts trying to consolidate power to become a despot, then the other instituitions of democracy will have to stop him even if the majority supports him.