Suthichai Yoon Interviews Stephen Young

[Plus]

He elucidates very clearly that the system of "local representatives" or "patrons" as he calls them bringing issues to changwat level "patrons" who bring information to "patrons" in Bangkok in his opinion worked. That system was laid waste by Thaksin's personality politics.

Where did you get the idea that Thaksin destroyed patronage system?

Is it based only on the fact that he addressed the poor from the TV and executed some central policies that benefited them directly?

He BUILT his party on patronage system, he absorbed about a hundred of sitting MPs even before the elections, with all their canvassing powers. After the elections he absorbed six smaller parties, with their local patronage powers.

All requests for benefits were made through the local patrons and passed up the pyramid, and they had nothing to do with central policies whatsoever - things like roads or hospitals. Near the top his party had about a dozen regional fractions that all demanded access to fund and budgets. There was constant rotating of those pigs at the trough - there were Cabinet reshuffles every few months, I think about ten different cabinets in six years.

Just because a few dazzling projects were delivered straight from Thaksin you concluded that the rest of the society was operating free from patronage system and people got some voice?

I stopped reading your post right there. There can't be anything useful in it if you start from this deeply flawed premise.

[Plus]

a completely patronising view on what he considers "real Thai", and what he considers "Chinese", ignoring that ethnic Chinese play roles on both sides of the polarization.

He was talking about a general concept of imperial China, not specifics of ethnic Chinese in Thailand.

[ThNiner]

After Songkran reds themselves dropped all of their non-Thaksin agenda.

When posters here refer to some deep underlying causes unrelated to Thaksin that are leading them to protest, I can't think of any.

As I said, even their own buck stops with Thaksin. Where do people see any other grand missions in red movement?

Another thing these posters declare without any thought - Thaksin gave people "voice". What voice? How many people sponsored laws were put in place during his reign?

Who invented all those popular schemes -30 baht, 1 million fund, debt moratorium, Ua Arthorn, OTOP? Certainly not the villages of Bang Chiang. It was all top-down, with a heavy doze of government promotion.

How can you say it was "voice of the people"? And where is this voice now? What part of PPP platform came from this "voice of the people"?

Thaksin gave them the best deal, that's all. The same posters who talk about voice quote the poor as "Thaksin was corrupt, but he was the first one to give us something back". That is not giving voice to the people at all, that's the same social contract that keeps places like Saudi Arabia from developing democracy. That's the same stuff Sarit was doing, except no one believed in his corruption at the time.

Thaksin was no Sarit when it came to dealing with opposition, but who knows what Thaksin could have done if he lived fifty years ago instead of the age of internet and human right campaigns?

It's the deal - you do whatever you want and pay us off.

[ThNiner]

I too think that Mr. Young is WAY out of touch and living in the past. He was certainly a member of the elite and fits in with the yellow shirts VERY well. Everyone has their own opinion.

And Thaksin, the richest man in Thailand and the sixth richest ruler in the world when he was PM, with close allies in Bush and Berlusconi, wasn't elite? He is easily the most elite dictator the country has ever had, and in terms of his human rights record, far worse than Sarit.

So true.

[mca]

I too think that Mr. Young is WAY out of touch and living in the past. He was certainly a member of the elite and fits in with the yellow shirts VERY well. Everyone has their own opinion.

And Thaksin, the richest man in Thailand and the sixth richest ruler in the world when he was PM, with close allies in Bush and Berlusconi, wasn't elite? He is easily the most elite dictator the country has ever had, and in terms of his human rights record, far worse than Sarit.

So true.

What's true about it? There's a couple of completely wrong facts there and an opinion that Thaksin was a far worse dictator than somebody who staged a coup, allowed no opposition , installed martial law, went on a communist witch hunt and took complete control of the media to the point of shutting publications down.

Edited September 11, 2009 by mca

[Chewbacka]

Taksin is easily the most elite dictator the country has ever had, and in terms of his human rights record, far worse than Sarit.

So wrong Wayfarer I'm not even going to start.

Just do the research for yourself.

[ThNiner]

What's true about it? There's a couple of completely wrong facts there and an opinion that Thaksin was a far worse dictator than somebody who staged a coup, allowed no opposition , installed martial law, went on a communist witch hunt and took complete control of the media to the point of shutting publications down.

Read previous posts by khun Insight and Khun Plus.

[mca]

Can't see them mentioning anything supporting wayfarers post. Can you?

[Splatter]

"Field Marshal Sarit. He was a dictator, a military dictator, he was a tough guy, but he cared about the people, especially Isaan"

Good heavens.

[ThNiner]

Khun Plus:

Thaksin was no Sarit when it came to dealing with opposition, but who knows what Thaksin could have done if he lived fifty years ago instead of the age of internet and human right campaigns?

Khun Insight:

Right or wrong about the facts, the point remains the same. Thaksin was, at one point, pretty "elite" in the grand scheme of things. Thaksin blaming his oust on the "elite", and not the hundreds of thousands who continuously rallied in BKK for him to stand down (and I don't have far to walk right now to find people who still feel the same way), does seem one massive attempt at misdirection by both him and his PR teams.

Can you now?

[mulliganstew]

I too think that Mr. Young is WAY out of touch and living in the past. He was certainly a member of the elite and fits in with the yellow shirts VERY well. Everyone has their own opinion.

And Thaksin, the richest man in Thailand and the sixth richest ruler in the world when he was PM, with close allies in Bush and Berlusconi, wasn't elite? He is easily the most elite dictator the country has ever had, and in terms of his human rights record, far worse than Sarit.

So true.

Agreed. The wealthiest and most corrupt dictator with the most flagrant oppression of human rights Thailand has seen, repression of the media, bought out opposition and then once in power snuffed out dissent amongst opposition, and put martial law into place long before the coup.

Edited September 11, 2009 by mulliganstew

[MiG16]

Khun Plus:

Thaksin was no Sarit when it came to dealing with opposition, but who knows what Thaksin could have done if he lived fifty years ago instead of the age of internet and human right campaigns?

we cant make arguments and accusations based on 'what if'

Im not raising this point to defend or to ridicule Thaksin or Sarit

but pointing out the problem with that line of argument. if we were to simply assume what someone "COULD" do, and that people should be punished on that basis, then that opens up a whole pandora box for governments, anywhere in the world, to use that line of reasoning to get rid of people that do not fit in with their plans and interest.

i hear a lot of posters (pro and against Thaksin, pro and against PAD) on this forum continuously talk about the need for Thailand to maintain rule of law. where is the call for rule of law now? doesnt part of rule of law include amongst other things: that people should only be punished for the wrong they commit, and also the whole innocent until proven guilty, plus ofcourse that the punishment should befit the crime?

just some random questions

[ThNiner]

if we were to simply assume what someone "COULD" do, and that people should be punished on that basis, then that opens up a whole pandora box for governments, anywhere in the world, to use that line of reasoning to get rid of people that do not fit in with their plans and interest.

(plus more blah blah blah...)

Err, where did anyone on here ever suggest on having teh gov't prosecute Thaksin for his potentail of being much worse than Sarit? Huh? All I saw was just a debate about Thaksin's character? What exactly started the slippery slope here?

[mca]

Obviously actually reading what you want to read rather than what was actually written is your choice. So be it.

I was asking somebody why they considered the post to be "true" considering the inaccuracies posted.

Let's make it easy and do it step by step.

I'm sure the head of Thai Brewery and Grating Daeng (their names escape me) would be rather surprised to find out that they had less money than Thaksin. Therefore he wasn't the richest man in Thailand. And I'm sure that the Thai people would be rather shocked to discover Thaksin was their ruler too.

Let's have a quick look at some of what a dictator is shall we.

Suspension of elections and civil liberties. Sarit 1-0

Repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedure Sarit 2-0

Single party state Sarit 3-0

Complete control of state media Sarit 4-0

Even Plus said that Thaksin was no Sarit. His hypotheses about how Thaksin might have acted back in Sarit's day has no bearing on my questioning the truth of the facts of wayfarers post and Insights post didn't offer support for "Thaksin most elite dictator/richest man" either

The opinion made was that Thaksin was the most elite dictator in the history of Thailand and the richest man in Thailand while PM. My post referred to nothing more than these points. Not whether Thaksin was elite or not or a dictator or not.

Don't let your justified loathing of the man stand in the way of documented facts.

[Chewbacka]

(Taksin) Agreed. The wealthiest and most corrupt dictator with the most flagrant oppression of human rights Thailand has seen, repression of the media, bought out opposition and then once in power snuffed out dissent amongst opposition, and put martial law into place long before the coup.

Taksin was perhaps the wealthiest dictator in relative terms, that you can have but I suggest you do some research about repression of the media under Sarit and how he dealt with political opposition.

I must apologize in general as I am a bit lazy (I should be working) and can't be bothered to write a long post outlining the comparisons between the two but just suffice to note that anyone who thinks that Taksin is worse that Sarit is simply wrong.

Taskin's regime was oppressive, corrupt and controlling and he committed crimes for which he deserves punishment. That is one thing - but then comparing to Thailand's previous prime ministers and saying he was the worst / most corrupt is another. He is certainly behind Pibun, Sarit, Thannom & Prapas in the corruption and oppression stakes and perhaps Suchinda as well.

[ThNiner]

Obviously actually reading what you want to read rather than what was actually written is your choice.

Exactly, but it might help you if I re-quoted what Khun Insight has written:

Right or wrong about the facts, the point remains the same. Thaksin was, at one point, pretty "elite" in the grand scheme of things.

Then

Thaksin blaming his oust on the "elite", and not the hundreds of thousands who continuously rallied in BKK for him to stand down (and I don't have far to walk right now to find people who still feel the same way), does seem one massive attempt at misdirection by both him and his PR teams.

Hope you got the point.

By the way though, last I checked on the "declared" assets Thaksin truly didn't really possess much as you said. Heck, I believe even his chauffeur, his gardenner and his maid were even richer than him! I have no doubt that on paper there's no way that Thaksin could be even richer than the guy who wons RedBull.

Interestingly enough though, after 76 billion Baht of his assests has been frozen, he could still manage to buy Man City, an island, diamond mines and invest in various projects in all parts of the world, and even continue to distribute his money to Isan and nothern folks (almost monthly? ) Interesting, don't you think?

[Gary A]

In my opinion, our farang political experts refuse to acknowledge that one politician is just as corrupt as another. That's the system here in Thailand. They have to make room at the feed trough for all or they will create powerful enemies and will be out of the picture and maybe out of the country.

[Plus]

There are many things to take into account when arguing who was worse, Sarit or Thaksin.

First, you have to make some adjustments for time and customs if you talk in absolute terms like "dissolved the parliament" or "shut down media", just like you have to make adjustments when comparing someone's wealth fifty years ago with today's billionaires. Neither media no parliament had the same value then as they have now.

Second, the perception of whether one was a dictator or not is relative. You must look at it from contemporaries perspective, and I can't offer that. Young can, he was there, and he doesn't seem to see any difference in principle.

Third, labels like "dictator" or "terrorist" have become absolutely negative. I think that ANY dictator in history had a large group of people who absolutely adored him and his benevolence. So I don't accept the logic "if Sarit was a dictator, he couldn't have possibly try to develop Isan, or cared about Isanese poor". Again, I wasn't there, but Young remembers him for that. Sarit is still remembered fondly by many people, including Pridiyathorn Devakula.

Anyway, two things that make Thaksin ins some way worse than Sarit - Sarit didn't pretend that he was spreading democracy, and Sarit knew when to admit his defeat and shut up. As Young said, when they confiscated his ill-gotten properties he didn't try to start a revolution.

I think Thaksin has done a great disservice to democratic development on Thailand by cheapening the concept to "Ah, I know democracy, it's the system the rich use to buy votes and power and then steal more money". Thaksin has turned democracy into a whore and completely confused his supporters to its actual meaning.

[ThNiner]

Very well said Khun Plus.

[jayboy]

Very well said Khun Plus.

Yes very well put.

Here's that interview again from a slightly different angle

http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=822

[animatic]

The field marshal was a dictator as Young fully admits,

but he admires not the man, but the works for the people he DID

accomplish; roads in particular, and water and infrastructure in general.

Disliking Thaksin was not a difficult thing to do.

Hate is far too strong a word, I leave that to the more often injured locals.

Total distrust and fear of his return to vengeful power is an completely different thing.

It's hard to see how the best interests of Thailand are properly served by Thaksin in power again.

That would be just a new dictator, with a jiggered pseudo mandate. Non-starter.

Field Marshall Sarit is in the top two of most corrupt and self-serving dictators this country has ever seen. He makes Taksin look like a fluffy bunny rabbit. Thousands of politcal opponents murdered and jailed. To put it into modern day context, his behaviour was very much similar to the generals running Burma today.

Buliding a few roads was the LEAST Sarit could do (no doubt the contracts to do so lined his own pockets).

But that comment doesn't invalidate what I said.

Sarit managed to do more on the said than most had up front, till that time.

Neither I, nor Young, said he was a nice guy,not corrupt, nor a tyrant.

[animatic]

Not The Nation is not news, it is parody.

An the Mods have asked NOT to link Not The Nation to news topics.

Several have mistaken Not The Nation for real news in the past.

[animatic]

There are many things to take into account when arguing who was worse, Sarit or Thaksin.

First, you have to make some adjustments for time and customs if you talk in absolute terms like "dissolved the parliament" or "shut down media", just like you have to make adjustments when comparing someone's wealth fifty years ago with today's billionaires. Neither media no parliament had the same value then as they have now.

Second, the perception of whether one was a dictator or not is relative. You must look at it from contemporaries perspective, and I can't offer that. Young can, he was there, and he doesn't seem to see any difference in principle.

Third, labels like "dictator" or "terrorist" have become absolutely negative. I think that ANY dictator in history had a large group of people who absolutely adored him and his benevolence. So I don't accept the logic "if Sarit was a dictator, he couldn't have possibly try to develop Isan, or cared about Isanese poor". Again, I wasn't there, but Young remembers him for that. Sarit is still remembered fondly by many people, including Pridiyathorn Devakula.

Anyway, two things that make Thaksin ins some way worse than Sarit - Sarit didn't pretend that he was spreading democracy, and Sarit knew when to admit his defeat and shut up. As Young said, when they confiscated his ill-gotten properties he didn't try to start a revolution.

I think Thaksin has done a great disservice to democratic development on Thailand by cheapening the concept to "Ah, I know democracy, it's the system the rich use to buy votes and power and then steal more money". Thaksin has turned democracy into a whore and completely confused his supporters to its actual meaning.

Very good Plus.

Yes, time and place and context are QUITE important when judging history.

That is why the best historical literature, poses factual descriptions

of the ways and mores of a place at the time to buttress it's comparisons

in relation to a current or future reader's experiences.

Edited September 11, 2009 by animatic

[Plus]

Not The Nation is not news, it is parody.

An the Mods have asked NOT to link Not The Nation to news topics.

Several have mistaken Not The Nation for real news in the past.

Times are changing, we have "American breakfast in Phuket" thread here that starts with NotTheNation article.

I wish mods kept us abreast with these developments, like posting complete Bangkok Post articles.

Right now it's unclear what the policies are on some posting issues.

[justanothercybertosser]

Not The Nation is not news, it is parody.

An the Mods have asked NOT to link Not The Nation to news topics.

Several have mistaken Not The Nation for real news in the past.

JAWOHL!

Ve vill not permit parody and irony!

[Chewbacka]

Thaksin has turned democracy into a whore and completely confused his supporters to its actual meaning.

So there was no vote buying before Taksin?

Before Taksin there was some kind of purity about Thai democracy that has now been destroyed by him?

His supporters / the "grassroots people" have always been distrusting and cynical of those in power and know that they are all alike whether they are a democratic elected vote-buying government, a set of out-of-touch generals, or an appointed prime minister fronting a coalition.

Democracy is Thailand is simply one vehicle buy which the powerful can stay powerful or become even more powerful. His supporters have never been confused into the actual meaning of democracy as it applies to the Thai context.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Chewbacka

[Splatter]

Very well said Khun Plus.

Yes very well put.

Here's that interview again from a slightly different angle

http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=822

I enjoyed that Jayboy. Thanks for the link.

I can see that hurting supporters of the original article.

A very good use of humour to make a point.

[topben]

Actually, I thought most of his comments regarding Thaksin, while nothing new, gave a good overall picture of the current crisis. Although I don't think he really touched on the underlying issues, as they would not be favourable to the old elite who he obviously wants to keep sweet.

his, young's, silence on the old elite still in power speaks volume of himself as relative to an ex-ambassador to thailand.

like george bush ,jr. to his george bush,snr.

"pahk wan" - sweet mouth" - is the word here.

apart from some "insights", nothing is new to the average thai who needs no ph.d. to understand thai politics.

[Chewbacka]

apart from some "insights", nothing is new to the average thai who needs no ph.d. to understand thai politics.

I agree topben and when you read the notthenation article posted above I think my original insightful post to this topic sums it up perfectly when you think about it:

"He's a bit of a tool"

[topben]

The field marshal was a dictator as Young fully admits,

but he admires not the man, but the works for the people he DID

accomplish; roads in particular, and water and infrastructure in general.

Disliking Thaksin was not a difficult thing to do.

Hate is far too strong a word, I leave that to the more often injured locals.

Total distrust and fear of his return to vengeful power is an completely different thing.

It's hard to see how the best interests of Thailand are properly served by Thaksin in power again.

That would be just a new dictator, with a jiggered pseudo mandate. Non-starter.

Field Marshall Sarit is in the top two of most corrupt and self-serving dictators this country has ever seen. He makes Taksin look like a fluffy bunny rabbit. Thousands of politcal opponents murdered and jailed. To put it into modern day context, his behaviour was very much similar to the generals running Burma today.

Buliding a few roads was the LEAST Sarit could do (no doubt the contracts to do so lined his own pockets).

But that comment doesn't invalidate what I said.

Sarit managed to do more on the said than most had up front, till that time.

Neither I, nor Young, said he was a nice guy,not corrupt, nor a tyrant.

why scutle when one is scratching your back whilst you're scratching his. silence is also a key to riches. ask the average thai. he knows n understand the implications - with or without any brand of politics.