Suthichai Yoon Interviews Stephen Young

[mca]

2) Pose a question for Dem fans. Before MrT's tenure, please name one actual thing that the Dems ever did that benefitted the Thai masses.

For one, the Dems were actually the ones who pulled the country out of IMF loan deal mess. They were the ones who actually amassed gov't treasury druing that time. You can look up the data from Bank of Thailand. I once read it somewhere.

And LaoPo, you are totally off base if you believe I'm Khun Sriracha_John. The mods can easily see where I log in from. I'm sure they know there's no way that Khun Sriracha_John and I are the same person. Besides, my English is still poor by native speakers' standard.

Your abbreviation of government and the plural possessive on speakers' is spot on though. Hmm. You're not the bloke from "Chris Delivery" are you?

[jasreeve17]

2) Pose a question for Dem fans. Before MrT's tenure, please name one actual thing that the Dems ever did that benefitted the Thai masses.

For one, the Dems were actually the ones who pulled the country out of IMF loan deal mess. They were the ones who actually amassed gov't treasury druing that time. You can look up the data from Bank of Thailand. I once read it somewhere.

And LaoPo, you are totally off base if you believe I'm Khun Sriracha_John. The mods can easily see where I log in from. I'm sure they know there's no way that Khun Sriracha_John and I are the same person. Besides, my English is still poor by native speakers' standard.

Your points are arguable both ways (and often have been), can you show evidence please - as you always say...

I read a thread a while back where I researched figures on corruption and 'policies that benefitted people rather than MP bank accounts'. I studied loads of acknowledged and respected world bodies. The Dem governments were shockingly bad. Now, I try, optimistically, to distance Abhisit from these previous Dem governments, but you have to say that the Dem governments before MrT's time were outragously corrupt and inept which is, of course, why the Thais never ever ever voted them in...

Having said that, I'd love to see Abhisit turn over a new leaf for the Dems. Job no 1: kick the army out of politics, which, alas, will be one job too far for him...

[ThNiner]

Your abbreviation of government and the plural possessive on speakers' is spot on though.

Credit to my middle school English teacher then.

[ThNiner]

2) Pose a question for Dem fans. Before MrT's tenure, please name one actual thing that the Dems ever did that benefitted the Thai masses.

For one, the Dems were actually the ones who pulled the country out of IMF loan deal mess. They were the ones who actually amassed gov't treasury druing that time. You can look up the data from Bank of Thailand. I once read it somewhere.

And LaoPo, you are totally off base if you believe I'm Khun Sriracha_John. The mods can easily see where I log in from. I'm sure they know there's no way that Khun Sriracha_John and I are the same person. Besides, my English is still poor by native speakers' standard.

Your points are arguable both ways (and often have been), can you show evidence please - as you always say...

After some quick googling. Here it is:

http://www.talkystory.com/site/article.php?id=6255

http://www.oknation.net/blog/print.php?id=286908

http://www.weopenmind.com/board/index.php?topic=5274.0;wap2

The thing is you might need to be able to read Thai though. Will however try to summarize them in English later, if time permits.

[LaoPo]

Friend of yours or do you have access to his photo database ?

I just googled "ทักษิน สุนทร" for pictures. You can try it too. It's incredibly easy and simple you know.

It's nice to have a bright and smart Thai student amongst us who speaks and write good English but, although I speak and write in quite a few languages, Thai is not amongst them...

And, you must have misread me (again) since I didn't think you were Sriracha John; I was just surprised that someone was able to dig up old photos so fast; but now you explained.

That didn't give you the right though, young man, to comment with such a biting sense, towards me.

You wouldn't dare to do the same to your Dad, would you ? You could try to show respect to your fellow members, no matter how young or old they are.

But....I recognize the smart @rsed young student a bit, looking in an old mirror

LaoPo

[Johpa]

Thaksin humbly cupping his nuts in the presence of General Sunthorn Kongsompong, the 1991 Coup leader, who granted Thaksin the telecom monoploy.

Now by Thai standards of social behavior, this picture hints at the two having a far closer personal relationship that I had imagined.

But again, I think it was really a matter of luck as I doubt either party fully comprehended the future revenue stream of the telecom business. At the time, a cell phone in Thailand was more a status symbol than anything else. If Sunthorn had known the full financial implications of the monopoly it would not have been handed over to a relative outsider like Thakisn.

[ThNiner]

And, you must have misread me (again) since I didn't think you were Sriracha John; I was just surprised that someone was able to dig up old photos so fast;

I see. You suggested nothing here. Just a couple of accidental captial "ONE"'s and an unintentional bolded "Mr. Sriracha_John."

In the (almost) 5 years I am a member of TV I can recall only ONE, just ONE previous, now banned, member who was also very well informed and also having a huge photo database about Thaksin, and that was Mr. Sriracha_John. Funny, he had the same habit as you have, posting photos with biting subtitles about Mr. Thaksin

What a coincidence Mr. ThNiner, isn't it ?

[animatic]

Thaksin humbly cupping his nuts in the presence of General Sunthorn Kongsompong, the 1991 Coup leader, who granted Thaksin the telecom monoploy.

Now by Thai standards of social behavior, this picture hints at the two having a far closer personal relationship that I had imagined.

But again, I think it was really a matter of luck as I doubt either party fully comprehended the future revenue stream of the telecom business. At the time, a cell phone in Thailand was more a status symbol than anything else. If Sunthorn had known the full financial implications of the monopoly it would not have been handed over to a relative outsider like Thakisn.

Thaksin looks like he's about to pop a blood vessel smiling...

or happily hides his woody at the good news of Uncle Sunthorn taking him under his wing.

Fawning toady back them eh?

Edited September 12, 2009 by animatic

[Insight]

Please read my post again. (Tried my hardest not to sound sarcastic there-failed miserably)

What did the democrats put on the policy table that would have made those folks want to change?

Was the democrat platform so amazingly wonderful that people would have thought " No cash from Thaksin so I'm definitely voting Dem! Look at what they're offering!"

Can't recall them offering much at all really.

I've read all subsequent posts to this, but from what you and ThiNiner "debated", it looks like you guys had a bit of a discussion about a party's policies. Bloody h3ll - novel!

Now if only folks in the villages did that, rather than ticking off the highest bidder. I bet you my next vote the Dems will come out on top.

[jasreeve17]

2) Pose a question for Dem fans. Before MrT's tenure, please name one actual thing that the Dems ever did that benefitted the Thai masses.

For one, the Dems were actually the ones who pulled the country out of IMF loan deal mess. They were the ones who actually amassed gov't treasury druing that time. You can look up the data from Bank of Thailand. I once read it somewhere.

And LaoPo, you are totally off base if you believe I'm Khun Sriracha_John. The mods can easily see where I log in from. I'm sure they know there's no way that Khun Sriracha_John and I are the same person. Besides, my English is still poor by native speakers' standard.

Your points are arguable both ways (and often have been), can you show evidence please - as you always say...

After some quick googling. Here it is:

http://www.talkystory.com/site/article.php?id=6255

http://www.oknation.net/blog/print.php?id=286908

http://www.weopenmind.com/board/index.php?topic=5274.0;wap2

The thing is you might need to be able to read Thai though. Will however try to summarize them in English later, if time permits.

Thanks for these viewpoint articles.

I offered you profesional articles from major, and respected, international news sites, you give me kiddies stuff... what's next? the manager to prove your point?

[Insight]

In the (almost) 5 years I am a member of TV I can recall only ONE, just ONE previous, now banned, member who was also very well informed and also having a huge photo database about Thaksin, and that was Mr. Sriracha_John. Funny, he had the same habit as you have, posting photos with biting subtitles about Mr. Thaksin

What a coincidence Mr. ThNiner, isn't it ?

Friend of yours or do you have access to his photo database ?

LaoPo

Brilliant work, Clouseau!

I'm Sriracha John!

/edit - just seen

And, you must have misread me (again) since I didn't think you were Sriracha John; I was just surprised that someone was able to dig up old photos so fast; but now you explained.

That didn't give you the right though, young man, to comment with such a biting sense, towards me.

FAIL.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Insight

[Changian]

Everytime telecoms concessions are mentioned people seem to forget that the Democrats under the leadership of Anand Panyarachun, widely regarded as a good guy, awarded a multi-billion baht concession to Telecom Asia, now True - owned by CP, to build and operate two million telephone lines in Bangkok.

By pure coincidence, and of course nothing more, General Suchinda, the 1991 coup-leader who installed Anand as Prime Minister, was appointed Chairman of Telecom Asia just after he was toppled from power.

[Plus]

My scenario was not aiming to be undemocratic. Just for the ease of considering the 2 major players without confusing the basic question of who would win (because I'm sure you agree it'd be one of the two).

A bit like when you go to a restaurant. You order Coke or Pepsi right? Not "A glass of the Tesco own brand cola please"

I meant hypothetical, not hypocritical, sorry.

Thailand has never had a run off elections, I have no idea what would supporters of Chart Thai Pattana choose, for example. And when you go to a restaurant there are also ice teas, coffees and what not. Also most restaurants get their sodas from one supplier only - either Coke or Pepsi, not both.

The coalition system means that all problems must be resolved through consensus, there's not "one ring that rules them all".

in the sense that usually the government is representative of the most mainstream ideology after votes have been counted after elections took place (and coalitions have been formed as a result). Hence, the government (coalition) will have 50% + x votes to count on when it comes to passing legislative bills and the "opinion of the majority is represented in parliament". Of course a lot of opinions (surely not all) are represented in parliament, BUT the most mainstream one will succeed. After all, elections are in the statistical sense just held to "sample" the opinions of the whole population and gauge the proportionate distribution of ideologies - based on which the parliament is formed.

Ok, and what is undemocratic about the current parliament? It certainly has a ruling coalition that represents the majority of voters, just as previously PPP led coalition had.

which is an ideology - not in the sense of left, right, center, green, fascist... but the local communities and regions have interests in their local development. Naturally their interests collide with each others as they all are competing for the same pot.

Errm, no, by ideology I meant some nationwide ideas on how the country should be run. Scrambling for funds distributed to the regions is not ideology as I meant it.

So basically you are saying that it doesnt matter which party (or group of factions) is the reigning party as long as it is not Thaksin's? Again, I still wonder though...if MPs truly represent their people and that's what people are only concerned with, how would it matter if Thaksin's party was in power? Since it also doesnt matter which "banner they are flying under"?

I don't fully understand what you were saying.

It doesn't matter if Thaksin's party gets the power. I don't really care, as long as the government works for the country, or at least the majority of voters. There's not so much difference between Thai parties anyway, and a large part of the government is made of coalition partners who will always be there, regardless of what party the PM belongs to.

The problem with PPP was that they were serving Thaksin and not the voters. And that's Thaksin's problem, too - even the friendly government can't help him, his problems are with judiciary and the govt has no control over it, and politically his party didn't have enough votes to push for amnesty all by itself - coalitions, remember? Chart Thai had no problems working with PPP in governing the country, but pushing for Thaksin was not the mandate they got from those who elected them, so PPP couldn't get Chart Thai's cooperation on any Thaksin related matter.

[emsfeld]

Ok, and what is undemocratic about the current parliament? It certainly has a ruling coalition that represents the majority of voters, just as previously PPP led coalition had.

What I find undemocratic is that votes have been cast on the premise that MPs belong to certain parties that have their own agendas/ ideologies. I find it's a bit of a cheat on the voter that those MPs just join other parties as they like (after PPP had been ousted) and then form the new government without holding new votes. The right thing to do would have been to let those MPs sort their allegiances out and then hold an election so that everyone is aware/ can to some extent predict which type of coalition their vote will serve.

From your posts and those of ThNiner I understand that you guys believe it's not a big issue to people in the North and Isan. I dont know about this so I dont want to judge, but it would be an issue to me and also is to a number of Thai people I know.

Errm, no, by ideology I meant some nationwide ideas on how the country should be run. Scrambling for funds distributed to the regions is not ideology as I meant it.

Ok, maybe ideology is not the best terminology, let's say agendas.

It doesn't matter if Thaksin's party gets the power. I don't really care, as long as the government works for the country, or at least the majority of voters. There's not so much difference between Thai parties anyway, and a large part of the government is made of coalition partners who will always be there, regardless of what party the PM belongs to.

True, I completely agree. I am not convinced though that the current government's (or the powers behind) main interest is the benefit of the whole country, but rather to maintain status quo. Examples of which are the banning of certain editions of international magazines and newspapers, blocking/filtering of websites, the way Lese Majeste laws have been enforced and used in the judicial system...all examples of controlling information and inconveniencies. I dont see all of these being beneficial to the country - sorry.

Edited September 12, 2009 by emsfeld

[LaoPo]

Thaksin humbly cupping his nuts in the presence of General Sunthorn Kongsompong, the 1991 Coup leader, who granted Thaksin the telecom monoploy.

Now by Thai standards of social behavior, this picture hints at the two having a far closer personal relationship that I had imagined.

But again, I think it was really a matter of luck as I doubt either party fully comprehended the future revenue stream of the telecom business.

At the time, a cell phone in Thailand was more a status symbol than anything else. If Sunthorn had known the full financial implications of the monopoly it would not have been handed over to a relative outsider like Thakisn.

I agree with your view but we don't know if and how (much) the good General took for his cut..if there was a cut but it would surprise me if there wasn't any.

NOBODY at that time could foresee the future of mobile phones and if someone here says he did, he's......not telling the truth.

Having a cellphone in the early nineties was a show-off and quite expensive versus nowadays and most people were still disgusted by the idea of having a mobile phone.

Hong Kong was one of the first places on earth where I was literally gasping when I noticed the thousands of people with a mobile phone...in the streets, restaurants, everywhere.

No way that was common yet in Europe, let alone in Thailand. Now, 5 and 6 year olds have their own mobile phones in my neigbourhood; it's safer the parents tell me

Maybe it is.

LaoPo

[animatic]

Remember these MP's were ALWAYS as much aligned in factions,

and smaller cliques than any global party name alone.

PTP has several remnants of other defunct parties to, it has always been this way.

TRT was really the first large instance of a huge coalition of smaller cliques

being purchased whole sale BEFORE an election.

And it still did have MUCH infighting and deal making to keep it together down the line,

lest that LARGE point be forgotten.

You likely didn't notice that these faction moved as blocks as their leaders saw fit,

based on their interpretation of the best place to be for their aims, or best chance of being in the game.

Being in the game is the best chance for their constituents too. Not side lined with a lost cause.

If several formerly TRT /PPP aligned factions decided staying with Thaksin puppets was not serving

they and their constituents best interests, they went where it DID suit them better.

In blocks of from 5 to 30 at a time.

So basically the voting blocks of 'Regional Puyai approved Pols' moved where they got the best deal,

rather than no deal. Thus benefiting their home crowd too.

The ones bitching and moaning are the ones who stuck out with the lost cause and are marginalized.

-------------------------------------------

I had a mobile phone in 1991 in NYC, it was the size of a army walkie talkie,

but made me a lot of money for it's trouble to take along. Great for street film shoots,

and just being available in a New York Minute.

Even rented it out as a prop a few times for $200 a day.

I never once found anyone disgusted with the concept, more were jealous.

Edited September 12, 2009 by animatic

[Plus]

What I find undemocratic is that votes have been cast on the premise that MPs belong to certain parties that have their own agendas/ ideologies. Now, rather then those MPs just joining other parties as they like (after PPP had been ousted) and then these factions forming the government is a bit of a cheat on the voter.

Potentially, yes, in this case, however, only 32 MPs joined switched camps, the rest went to the PTP. Those 32 MPs, "Friends of Newin", might have to answer to their voters, but so far there's no signs of breaking their bond that stretches back for decades. Newin has changed probably a dozen parties in his political life, and they always stood by him. In recent provincial elections Newin's party practically owned lower Isan, btw.

There were reports of more MPs wanting to join Newin's Bhum Jai Thai, but for the moment they are tied up with PTP.

Before 2007 elections PTP was isolated, they had not friends, nobody who'd promise their voters to support PTP, so no one was cheated in that respect, apart from those 32 MPs I mentioned.

Technically Democrats could have formed the coalition right after the elections, but without Newin's defection their numerical advantage would have been too slim and even slightest disagreement between coalition partners would have threatened the govt support. There's also a rule that Cabinet ministers can't vote in Parliament, and there are about 30 of them, so that's another problem for a slim majority coalition.

There were reported rumors this year that Democrats were ready to ditch Bhum Jai Thai and run a minority government, but so far they haven't been substantiated.

I don't understand your point about status quo. The activities you were talking about were going on even with PPP was in power, you can't honestly attribute them to Democrats.

There are no signs of corruption in Democrat side of the govt either, when something comes up, like managing community projects, one of the biggest Democrat names, Kobsak, was promptly removed. The rest of the corruption cases are related to coalition partners.

My point is that it's hard to see Democrat government as self-serving, they are honestly trying to pull the country through the crisis.

[LaoPo]

And, you must have misread me (again) since I didn't think you were Sriracha John; I was just surprised that someone was able to dig up old photos so fast;

I see. You suggested nothing here. Just a couple of accidental captial "ONE"'s and an unintentional bolded "Mr. Sriracha_John."

In the (almost) 5 years I am a member of TV I can recall only ONE, just ONE previous, now banned, member who was also very well informed and also having a huge photo database about Thaksin, and that was Mr. Sriracha_John. Funny, he had the same habit as you have, posting photos with biting subtitles about Mr. Thaksin

What a coincidence Mr. ThNiner, isn't it ?

...you're right.....

".....I can recall only ONE, just ONE previous, now banned, member who was also very well informed and also having a huge photo database about Thaksin..."

You're number 2 now but since he's banned you're #1 and I'm happy we can call upon you if we need an old picture, OK ?

LaoPo

[Plus]

Sri Racha John is an old member, but not old enough to keep 1991 shots of Thaksin and coup makers in his archive.

What do you think Thaksin thought of democracy in those days? He allegedly gave out a Rolls Royce as a bribe to get that satellite concession.

I see a very inspired young man with the sense of big things to come oozing out of every pore. It's a shame he turned out such a screw up.

I see that at that time he did all his best to achieve "success", and he didn't do anything wrong by the standards he was taught.

I see that he was absolutely sincere in all his endeavors, and a little UBC incident was just a blip, or a foreboding of things to come, if you want.

Just when things all turned so wrong?

Did he really go for PMship to expand his business, or was it a second thought that eventually brought him down?

Was he just a vehicle for big business to enter politics, or did he personally shown them the way? Or did he really wanted to show the country how things should be run, professionally speaking? No one talks about his legacy in that sense - did he really change the ways of bureaucracy?

Just when did it all go so terribly wrong? And did he see this fateful transition himself, or was he too conditioned by his earlier, sincere motives to acknowledge the change?

The man is still torn between his allegiance to monarchy instilled from the birth and his urges for pardon that border on ultimatums.

It's a great case study of human nature. It's got all you can possibly think of, and every feature is manifested in its extremes, comparing to the norms of this country.

I really wish he gathers enough sense to come back, face the jail, and pray for the best. Then he can give some more lessons to all of us.

[mca]

A point we can agree on Plus. If you could have eradicated Thaksin's negative points and concentrated on his positive then there's a PM who could have possibly done some good.

As I place I've called home for the best part of 1/3 of my life it truly saddens me to see Thailand stumble from one mess to another. It's not just Thaksin's fault. It's been that way long before he ever arrived on the scene.

I sincerely feel that no matter who runs the country it'll make no difference. The rot has set in. To change the way Thailand is you've got to change the mindset of an awful lot of people (and not just in a political sense). I see a lot more immorality creeping in to all areas of Thai society than before. Maybe people look to their leaders (and for sure I'll include Thaksin in this-like I've said I've got no love for the man), see the stench and think "Good for the goose, good for the gander"

Small examples. My sister in law is dealing with an incident at my niece's school (she's M3). My niece was told by her teacher that if she didn't attend extra tuition classes run by the teacher (for a fee of course) she'd fail her entrance to M4.

I was at a restaurant with my wife about 2 months ago and I saw my wife was had a scowl on her face. When I asked her what the problem once she said "Did you hear the next table?" When I said I wasn't paying attention she informed me that the head of the table (a guy in his 40s) had told the rest of the group to order anything they liked because the money came from the (and I quote verbatim) "stupid" kids in his extra classes.

These are not "I was in the SAS in Iraq out to assassinate Saadam" anecdotes. They're the plain truth.

I've got a million stories like this. I'm sure others have to

The sort of people my daughter has to wai every morning.

I'm sorry but a spade is a spade in my book. Thailand won't change while this sort of mindset is entrenched in society. It doesn't matter if you're yellow, red, blue or whatever hue you choose. For sure the vast majority of locals are decent people. But there's an awful, awful lot who aren't. And a lot of the rot starts from the people who're supposed to be have the morals to teach and lead others.

Ramble over. I'm still half asleep. Back on topic!

[Publicus]

True to which I would add Thailand's culture, customs and traditions are rooted in the Old World and its decrepit mores, norms and social systems. Thailand is a Third World country to boot.

The musical chairs of coups, election frauds, changes of government etc only chronicle which among the elites and cliques can grab control of the Thai treasury and decide which bribes and extortion schemes get to be granted to whom.

Meanwhile, the deeply rooted Old World society and ways of Thailand remain the profoundly self defeating constant. Unless somehow changed, something which can appear to be impossible, this factor will always greatly outweigh the importance and significance of the regular and predictable musical chairs games.

[mca]

Well put publicus.

When the prof goes on about the patronage system part of me thinks "Jobs for the boys to the nth degree"

[animatic]

I suspect it all went wrong in 2001 when the court absolved him of his cash hiding endeavors.

He was proceeding like most any hiso puyai by the rules of the game in BUSINESS as generally understood.

But while politically astute enough to co-opt the system of smaller parties and create the TRT juggernaut,

he was NOT astute enough to understand at a certain level of observability, bad actions DO become

sore thumbs in the publics eyes. That if it's left under-controlled, it becomes a raised foot into the public's face.

Temasak was the final raised foot. He had shown toes and heels to many in the business classes for decades.

But that was SOP, still he made more enemies than he ever imagined.

In the process, his on going success gave him a sense of superiority and invincibleness. ie HUBRIS.

After the 'Hidden Assets Honest Mistake', he really did think he could pull off anything.

But soon the voices started calling him up short and being the omnipotent puyai he always aspired to be

he tried to stifle those dissenting voices, and at that time, the shuttering decent of a, open press commenced.

Sue them to silence, using lawyers like samurais, or sometimes kamikazes....

Between 'Honest Mistake and Temasek', it is the history of a man at odds with

his older mistakes now finding a means to hammering him back.

And his attempts to silence their voices.

With Temasek and his OBVIOUS desperation to 'not lose', he went over the top and was removed.

Because of the dissolved parliament, the disavowed corrupted election, and defections from his yes-men cabinet,

Thaksin was both coming under ever greater pressure, that he seemed overwhelmed by,

coupled with ever greater 'absolute control' of the government in his hands alone.

"It doesn't matter if he leaves my cabinet, I am the only one who does any work here anyway."

Good coup, Bad coup,

Real Democracy lost, or sham democracy lost,

it all started going pear shaped with the court absolving him of all deceits ;

because he had just won a big election. And THAT decision went to his head.

Edited September 13, 2009 by animatic

[Plus]

I sincerely feel that no matter who runs the country it'll make no difference. The rot has set in.

Thailand has been rotting that way for centuries, and yet somehow made progress, too.

During his formative years as a politician Thaksin was probably a victim of prevailing political culture, and once he figured out how to use it he became a victim of his greed, following the dictum about "power corrupts".

His moral compass failed him, he wasn't properly taught in his childhood.

The system that allowed him to rise to the top is utterly corrupt, true, but I think it's just a side effect of introducing democracy, when the bureaucratic way of running the country had to give space to "democratic" leaders, people who had no chance of advancing via traditional means and used electoral shortcuts to power instead. Over decades they formed their own culture on how to cheat, lie, and steal, and call it democracy, and Thaksin swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

The problem with these people is that they are not prepared for leadership, they are not taught about duties and responsibilities, or pitfalls. In traditional civil service structure that knowledge is passed from generation to generation, and if you wanted to advance, you had to learn it from your superiors in order to move up the ladder.

I'm not saying that bureaucracy is perfect, but it assured some sort of quality. It surely didn't allow as many people to advance as electoral democracy does, but maybe that's not such a bad thing, given that politics is now perceived as an utterly corrupt occupation filled with greedy self-serving people who do not care about the country even a bit.

"Democracy" took in too many opportunists, the overall leadership quality slipped, wrong examples have been set, wrong culture has been cast, and now it weeds out all honest candidates on approach.

[animatic]

If we took away all of Thaksin's faults, he would still be PM.

So that is nothing more than fantasy land game playing.

He was always the sum of his holes.

[jayboy]

I sincerely feel that no matter who runs the country it'll make no difference. The rot has set in.

Thailand has been rotting that way for centuries, and yet somehow made progress, too.

During his formative years as a politician Thaksin was probably a victim of prevailing political culture, and once he figured out how to use it he became a victim of his greed, following the dictum about "power corrupts".

His moral compass failed him, he wasn't properly taught in his childhood.

The system that allowed him to rise to the top is utterly corrupt, true, but I think it's just a side effect of introducing democracy, when the bureaucratic way of running the country had to give space to "democratic" leaders, people who had no chance of advancing via traditional means and used electoral shortcuts to power instead. Over decades they formed their own culture on how to cheat, lie, and steal, and call it democracy, and Thaksin swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

The problem with these people is that they are not prepared for leadership, they are not taught about duties and responsibilities, or pitfalls. In traditional civil service structure that knowledge is passed from generation to generation, and if you wanted to advance, you had to learn it from your superiors in order to move up the ladder.

I'm not saying that bureaucracy is perfect, but it assured some sort of quality. It surely didn't allow as many people to advance as electoral democracy does, but maybe that's not such a bad thing, given that politics is now perceived as an utterly corrupt occupation filled with greedy self-serving people who do not care about the country even a bit.

"Democracy" took in too many opportunists, the overall leadership quality slipped, wrong examples have been set, wrong culture has been cast, and now it weeds out all honest candidates on approach.

This is an articulate statement of your position and I appreciate the clarity.One aspect puzzles me which is why more weight needs to be given to the bureaucracy in Thailand than in other successful countries.I'm aware that there were some similarities in Japan but nevertheless the democratic process was always predominant there (and of course the last election there was a great blow to entrenched bureaucratic power).

[mca]

wrong examples have been set, wrong culture has been cast, and now it weeds out all honest candidates on approach.

This has always been my opinion.

To use a rather crap analogy. A genuinely straight, honest (and by that I don't mean "fairly straight" and "pretty honest" but the real deal) political candidate in Thailand is like a martial arts expert.. He's the best but if 15 big guys attack him on the street (outside of a Bruce Lee flick) he's going to get his arse kicked.

[Publicus]

The recent election earthquake in Japan was indeed a shock to its bureaucracy, a horror within it that has been long overdue and which Thailand has yet to experience. Thaksin's changes to Thai bureaucracy were tailor made to suit Thaksin and his cronies to facilitate their nefarious ways and means; they were done consistent with the classic, traditional and characteristic Thai customs and mores. Thaksin couldn't be other than who his is any more than the yellows or reds couldn't be more than who and what they are.

Still, in Japan elections and political parties don't impact its monarchy, or vice versa, and because of Japan's particular history the military is irrelevant in election campaigns and outcomes. In Japan political change and developments in socioeconomics are irrelevant to either the monarch or the military. It's become the norm too in republican S Korea. Further, when was the last time Taiwan had a coup?

A major reason Japan and other stable and prosperous countries of the region have a sound political system and a respectable if imperfect democracy is that their institutions are properly organized and arranged. Historically Japan didn't request Western help in these respects but the hand of the West is none the less conspicuous, as it is in S Korea and Taiwan etc.

When Thaksin & Co founded TRT as the stern Thai response to the 1997 financial collapse and economic meltdown they predictably guaranteed only complications and conflicts of the most serious and severe nature.

[LaoPo]

The recent election earthquake in Japan was indeed a shock to its bureaucracy, a horror within it that has been long overdue and which Thailand has yet to experience. Thaksin's changes to Thai bureaucracy were tailor made to suit Thaksin and his cronies to facilitate their nefarious ways and means; they were done consistent with the classic, traditional and characteristic Thai customs and mores. Thaksin couldn't be other than who his is any more than the yellows or reds couldn't be more than who and what they are.

Still, in Japan elections and political parties don't impact its monarchy, or vice versa, and because of Japan's particular history the military is irrelevant in election campaigns and outcomes. In Japan political change and developments in socioeconomics are irrelevant to either the monarch or the military. It's become the norm too in republican S Korea. Further, when was the last time Taiwan had a coup?

A major reason Japan and other stable and prosperous countries of the region have a sound political system and a respectable if imperfect democracy is that their institutions are properly organized and arranged. Historically Japan didn't request Western help in these respects but the hand of the West is none the less conspicuous, as it is in S Korea and Taiwan etc.

When Thaksin & Co founded TRT as the stern Thai response to the 1997 financial collapse and economic meltdown they predictably guaranteed only complications and conflicts of the most serious and severe nature.

Your post is interesting but drifting away from the original topic if you start taking Japan into the discussion and comparing it with Thailand. But...ala

If you talk about Japan being stable and democratic I suppose you're talking Japan after WWII ? Well, I'm not so sure if Japan is that democratic as you're trying us to believe.

Japan has a very strong and dominant hierarchy all the way from top to bottom, like a pyramid, and the top few tells/order the rest what and how to do and accomplish things, the same as they told their educational "system" to deny at all costs the horrors they caused during their cruel wars in China and SE Asia.

But, let's jump back to the OP.

LaoPo

[Seismic]

Please look at the round table that he belongs to. Then look at the where the financial support for that round table is drawn.

I have not attacked the character of Mr Young, and I am sure he is a fine gentleman. However, he is from what is known as the Beacon Hill crowd. If you know Boston, you will understand what I mean. They have a different perspective on things. Let me put it this way, no one of the demographics associated with an impoverished Thai ever went through the front door on Beacon Hill. The rear entrance was for them. Even lace curtain Irish had their problems on Beacon Hill.

I do not doubt that Mr. Young is a friend of Thailand. The question though is which Thailand? Mr. Young is indeed a credible voice in respect for those that grew up wealthy in Thailand. As a credible voice for those that suffered during the CIA backed commie hunts or that grew up poor in Thailand, I think not. US foreign policy of that era has since been shown to have been flawed and predicated on false assumptions, but it was a product of the fears and concerns of that era. Mr. Young reminds me of the character Charles Emerson Winchester on the old MASH TV series. He wasn't bad, or evil, just in his own world.

There is no argument that Mr. Thaksin had and still has his faults. However, the continuing use of him as the scapegoat for all of Thailand's current problems is ridiculous. The problems we see today were a long time in the making. There is blame for everyone.

This also provides an opportunity for me to clarify a term that I had used in my original post. A moderator was kind enough to amend it to read "servant". I apologize and regret any offense that may have been given to some as it was not my intent to use the term in a racist manner or disparage the people of Issan. (The penalty for that would be a smack across my head from one of my friends, so, no, I definitely was not trying to do that.)

Young was instrumental in getting the ball rolling in the Baan Chiang studies, but apart from his youthful days at the International School, he has not been a regular visitor and is no more a old friend of Thailand than any other kid from the ex-pat elite of yore who studied at the International School in Bangkok. (Note: there were also missionary kids at that school whose families are not part of the elite) He is not considered a major academic and certainly not a noted Thai scholar as in his era it was Cornell and not Harvard that was the center of Thai studies in the US.

Young is better known for promoting a politically conservative global pro-business agenda and as such should have embraced Thaksin. But Thaksin made only one key mistake and it had little to do with being more Chinese than Thai (note the articles by the truly noted Thai scholar Prof. Keyes on the subject of Thaksin using traditional Thai imagery), Thaksin was relatively new to the table and did not sufficiently share in the fruits of his administration with the older more established Bangkok players. If you want old school dictatorial intent then perhaps Young should spend more time musing on his family's friendship with Sarit.

I wonder why the Nation considered this particular 'old friend of Thailand' for an exclusive? The chap made some salient points but for the most part, his reasoning is flawed and hide-bound by the fuedal patronage system that his forebears enjoyed when he was growing up here. He considers his family was on the 'inside' and through that tenuous claim, bedded with this 'fabled' involvement with Baan Chiang, someone at the Nation considers this the perfect 'learned and revered' farang opinion on the current political debate. I guess they are too close-minded to consider that there's possibly some other, well-educated, younger farangs with deeper, more recent personal and commercial ties to Thailand with something more credible and relevant to say.

I am with geriatrickid and Johpa on this one. A farang 'elitist' speaks; take it or leave it. For what it's worth, I choose the latter. Thaksin did have the biggest nose in the trough and between feeds, chose to thumb it at (most of) the people that helped fatten his wallet and leveraged his fast-track entry to the elitist club. The elitists only have themselves to blame for clinging to the system that gave Thaksin the key to Pandora's Box.

There will be tears.

I have to say that after 30 years out here and being (obviously) very interested in the current situation in Thailand (and its future), that the above posters have said very eloquently just what I wanted to say. I was in a village just north of Khon Kaen in 1988, visiting with thai friends, they didnt have running water or 24 hour electric then. Personally while having no love for Thaksin ( simply because he just wanted too much ) I do understand his motives in trying to politicise his power base, This is still (in reality) a semi feudal country, and many of Young's comments struck me as being condecending (as only someone who is not on the outside looking in can be).