Thaksin ordered by King to dissolve parliament :)

[limbo]

The South is a very traditional Democrat base.

[Flashermac]

So is Bangkok. I live in an area which is solidly pro-Democrat. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I can see the old parliament building from my window as I type this. This neighbourhood goes back to the 1900s.

[itsmedave]

So, as things stand now TRT will win again...and maybe win even bigger than before if the Democrats follow through with their plan to boycott the elections.

 

While I understand and maybe even find honor in their ideal that the election is a sham and they won't give it legitamacy, by boycotting, don't they ensure that the remaining votes all go to Thaksin...thereby guaranteeing another large majority for TRT OR ensuring a violent revolution to remove him from power???

 

Alternative is to campaign and still lose but gain more seats and more leverage in contesting Thaksin's decisions. Still, not that attractive.

 

Meanwhile Thaksin gives both the poor and middle class a raise while cutting taxes thereby buying more votes while simultaneously bankrupting the country. Clever and insanely stupid at the same time.

 

Is it no wonder that they want to keep the rallies going to try to force him out before the election?

 

But, then again, TS resigns and his cronies stay in power and keep their large majority and are things really that much better off for anybody???

 

Damn, this is a hard one. (good tv, though)

[Flashermac]

The election should have been called for April first, not the second.

[Neo]

I understand and maybe even find honor in their ideal that the election is a sham

 

Can you elaborate on that? Why is it you refer to a democratic process as a sham? What is your proposal given the circumstances?

 

Thaksin gives both the poor and middle class a raise while cutting taxes thereby buying more votes while simultaneously bankrupting the country

 

By your logic, ever increasing taxes are better for a country. This just isn't the case. Lowering tax rates CAN increase tax revenue, just as they did during the Reagan years because it lets the economy grow quicker rather than suffocate it.

[itsmedave]

It is a sham because he has continually promised to not dissolve the government while secretly working with his party to prepare a campaign (the aforementioned tax cut/pay rise).

 

It is a sham because he promised that if he ever did dissolve the gov't, he would give 90 days notice, allowing all of those in his coalition the time to move to the party of their choice. Instead, by allowing only 30 odd days, he forces them to either stay with his party or lose their jobs (which doesn't sound especially democratic to me)

 

It is a sham because he has given an exceptionally short period of time for campaigning which leaves litle time for opposition parties to even choose candidates...much less hold a viable campaign.

 

It is a sham because he owns most of the national media either directly or indirectly and used this power to allow only positive stories about himself to be told to the people.

 

Finally, it is a sham because the protests are about him and his selling off of national assets, of him and his breaking down of checks and balances, of him and his avoiding taxes and concealing assets, of him and his extra-judicial killing of drug suspects and terrorist suspects in the south, of him and his control over national media and the military, of him and his callous statements regarding the royalty, and of him and his arrogant disregard for anybody who dares disagree with him...and not about the house who he has shifted the blame to.

 

As to your second point...you completely misstate my logic. I will correct you. By my logic it is always a bad idea to cut taxes and raise spending to such a point that you bankrupt your country. For an American example, I will point to DUbya and his simliar tax cuting while overspending which has caused the deficit to balloon to a tragic size. The only difference here is that most of Thaksin's spending here goes to the por, while BUsh's goes to the rich...but still it is bad policy. (not that the poor don't need the help...but how about by educating them so they can understand how to improve their lives and not be bought and sold by corrupt politicians.

[Neo]

I am just looking for real information because there seems to be some very noisy Thaksin haters who blow everything the man has ever done out of proportion and it's hard to really judge his performance objectively. Not to mention all those that were telling us protests against him would be blood baths, he will be overthrown, blah blah blah.

 

It is a sham because he has continually promised to not dissolve the government while secretly working with his party to prepare a campaign

 

Ok, that is something I have noticed and dislike about Thaksin. Deny, deny, deny until the very last possible instant (bird flu, etc). But in this case, we don't know how much of this was dictated by the King though past experience would say he denied what he knew he was going to do to the bitter end yet again.

 

By my logic it is always a bad idea to cut taxes and raise spending to such a point that you bankrupt your country

 

Yes, but it isn't clear to me that is happening. Under Thaksin the country has prospered. Early in his term the SET index was 250 and now has steadily climbed to 750. Imagine if under GWB if the DJIA went from 10K to 30K...unimaginable. The baht has also strengthened considerably. He has got the ship turned around as when he entered office the country was in pretty bad shape after the collapse. I'm not convinced his successes are a perverbial house of cards, but I don't rule it out either.

 

The only difference here is that most of Thaksin's spending here goes to the poor,

 

It seems at times Thaksin is in a no win situation. Do something pro business and get slammed for helping greedy businesses or himself. Do something for the poor and get slammed for bankrupting the country. One thing you have to admit about Thaksin is he tries very creative new ideas. Some ultimately fail and even looked stupid from the start, but I don't think that is a reason to give up on trying new things. The country needed someone like him to shake things up and get it out of the rut it was in.

 

As for a lot of the other stuff, I dunno; still don't have an opinion one way or the other. There are a lot of polarized thoughts on much of everything.

[itsmedave]

Thank you for the reply. I was dreading what I was afraid was going to turn in to a war of posts. Especially since I am not one of those who has been repeatedly calling for his head...although, I do think it makes for good tv.

 

There is little doubt in my mind, however, that he is not a great leader for his people...but I also cannot say I know of anybody else (past or present) in this country who would be.

 

But I do stand by what I wrote and understand the fury the protesters must be feeling. It is an amazing thing, because things like this don't happen in the western world where I come from. It is fascinating to see it first hand.

 

In your first post to me you asked that I elaborate on why I thought his plan was a sham (which I did...very eloquently) but then you also wondered on what my proposal was.

 

In case you didn't notice, I avoided answering that part in my reply. Because, truth is, I can't imagine how it would be possible for a great solution to this crisis without some sort of divine intervention.

 

In the dream world, the voters would vote based on ideas and not money. But that isn't likely to happen in the near future. So all we can do is sit back and watch with wonder at what happens next. Unfortunate, yes, but it does make for good tv.

[..]

Neo, I agree that not all things he has tried to implement are bad, some are quite good (but I lean towards Keynesian economics so YMMV). Most of his programs are just poorly thought out and implemented. But economically, I believe that Chuan made the hard & unpopular decisions that pulled the country out of the hole that Chavilit/Taksin put it in in the run up to the 1997 crash.

 

And of course there is the elephant in the room which is the extreme cronyism and general lack of transparancy (read that scoffing of laws, either directly or in spirit) in his tenure. That shit just does not fly in a real democracy. And any good things he may have done are overshadowed by this issue.

 

You can say that Hitler was very good at rebuilding a beaten people and economy in a very short period of time, a valid and amazing accomplishment. And you would be right. But that does not make him good because of what else he did. (NOT comparing Taksin to Hitler, just an easy to understand example).

 

Cheers,

SD

[Flashermac]

I'm reminded of something my father once said to me long ago. "If Hitler had died in 1938, he might have gone down as a great leader."

 

Got to know when to quit ...