GOVT'S ALLEGED PLAN TO KILL THAKSIN

[Wallenda]

Lets look at Thaksin for a second...his policy his reign. Who, besides himself, benefited the most? who suffered the most? Yes he was corrupt. ALL Politicians it seems are corrupt. Yet, the poor got *something* under his regime. Did the elite really lose anything? Or did they get a taste of what he took?

 

Now lets look at the alternative. A majority appointed government. Appointed by who? the Bangkok elite? Will the poor have a voice under this? will it be heard? Think the alternative to Thaksin will be any better? Will the poor get anything?

 

Ok so Thaksin sucks, the alternative sucks...and the people are stuck in the middle...sound familiar? What choice would a wise man make in such a situation?

 

I'm not sure throwing crumbs to the poor is much of a goal to shoot for, and its not gonna result in much progress toward first-world type governance there. That country needs a leader who's sincerely interested in doing something about corruption -- setting that tone finally. Thaksin? With him in, I'd say there's no chance of any progress in that direction until after he dies, and what would be left of democratic institutions by then.

 

[Old Hippie]

<< Did the elite really lose anything? >>

 

The answer is a most definite YES!

 

The T-man appointed his own relatives and supporters to high positions where they could rake in the corruption. The people who for years had occupied those positions were understandably pissed off. (The Petroleum Authority is one instance that comes to mind.) Mr T's greatest mistake was in alienating these folks. He was simply too greedy for his own good. Politicians are supposed to share the wealth, not seize it all for themselves.

 

[color:red]Thaksin greedy? You said it all when you said he ousted the previous group that was skimming the till. As for politicians supposedly sharing the wealth, not seizing it for themselves...ah...he ain't the first last or only one in that country doing so. [Probably better not to involve them into the discussion - KS][/color]

 

 

<< A majority appointed government. Appointed by who? the Bangkok elite? >>

 

Uh ... you don't understand parliamentary democracy. Thaksin's own last government was "majority appointed". His party did not have enough to form a govmt on their own. It's sort of the US Congress where the majority of the members members pass or reject proposed laws.

 

[color:red]Apparently I don't understand it as it stands now, I am basing this on what I read PAD wanted, if I am wrong, ok, sorry.[/color]

 

The current PM is the head of a coalition of ELECTED members of Parliament. Bangkok hardly has enough votes to elect a PM. In fact, much of the Dems' strength really lies in the South. Newin brought in his faction to join the Dems in forming the government, and Newin is from Khorat - not Krungthep. The govmt has a majority thanks mainly to MPs from Bangkok, the South, and the Khorat-lower Isaan area.

 

[color:red]SO they dumped on corrupt guy and his bunch and replaced them with another, and that is progress?[/color]

 

The middle class was happy to see the last of PM Thaksin, since his "help the poor rural folks who vote for me" policy was based on spending tax money collected in the cities (minus his own, of course, since rich folks never pay taxes).

 

[color:red]The middle class in any country always bitches that their tax money is supporting the poor who can't pay and the rich who won't pay because they write the tax laws to protect themselves. SO should the poor starve and die off? If the middle class was so happy to see Mr. T go, then explain why he still has so much support...? Oh from the lower class? do they out number the middle and upper? should their votes/voices count?

 

TRT was effectively outlawed, so the people couldn't vote for them even if they wanted to. Then they formed a new party which was what? outlawed as well? What kind of "democracy" is this? Not necessarily trying to defend Thaksin, just trying to see it from all sides, and frankly, so far, I don't see where either side is any better than the other. [/color]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

<< Apparently I don't understand it as it stands now, I am basing this on what I read PAD wanted, if I am wrong, ok, sorry. >>

 

 

Ironically, what PAD is calling for is a return to the much praised "democratic constitution" of 1932, the one honoured by Democracy Monument on Ratchadamnern Avenue. That constitution established a government half elected and half appointed. What exists now is a fully elected government, though there is no majority party. The Red Shirts insist a free election would give Mr T a majority. That remains to be seen - and will be whenever an election is called.

 

Basically, Thaksin is no improvement on what was - yet he did cast some crumbs to the poor. The fact that the people rally to him for it tells you how neglected they had been by previous governments.