Good, bad or indifferent he was what he was, what's your take (no pun intended)?
Printable View
Good, bad or indifferent he was what he was, what's your take (no pun intended)?
Surely it depends on the perspective you take. When he was elected, the country had been through a horrendous economic upheaval. It certainly seemed he might be able to get Thailand back on its feet and start to do something for the mass of the people in the countryside. To begin with, that is what happened. The universal health scheme was a huge benefit. The Bt. 1 million to each village head should have been had not inevitable corruption resulted in the average Thai seeing precious little of that. Soon the stock market was rising and the economy was finally going somewhere.
But then power went to the guy's head. Maybe it had been there all along. After all, it was known only too well that candidates for parliament had to declare their assets. Subsequent to his election, his gardener and housekeeper were found to own vast quantities of shares in his companies. Excuse me??? The constitutional court came within one vote of stripping him of his post (that vote almost certainly having been bought). His anti-drug campaign was a disaster; yet after 3 months and around 2,500 extra-judicial killings, he had the gall to stand on his soapbox and tell the world that Thailand was "now" drug-free. The Tak Bai incident in the South when 1,300 protesters were stripped to the waist, ordered to crawl to nearby trucks as they were kicked and beaten (seen by the world on television) and then 78 were found dead after being driven like cattle for 5 hours in open trucks in the gruelling heat, resulted in Thaksin merely expressing regret and insisting his military cronies had done no wrong.
The idiocy of his camping overnight at Suvarnabhumi because he said work was not being completed fast enough. The strict clampdown on reporting of his activities with, for one, the dismissal of staff from the media for reporting cracks on runways at BKK. These and other shenanigans were then followed by the blatant theft of state funds when he sold his shares in Shin Corp. to Singapore's sovereign wealth fund for US$2 billion, having first changed the law both to raise the percentage of state assets which could be sold from 25% to 49% and then to ensure his family paid zero tax on its vast profit. Add to this his wifeтАЩs lawyer handing a lunchbox filled with Bt. 2 million in cash to one of her prosecutors in a land case. He was an out-and-out crook.
For the gay community, I believe Thaksin was a disaster. His first Social Order campaign in 2001 was headed by old Thaksin friend and Interior Minister, Purachai Piumsombun, with the aim of cleaning up the countryтАЩs image as a sex haven and halting the moray decay of its youth. By all accounts a religious family man of strict morals who, unusually for Ministers, stuck rigidly to the law, Purachai went about his campaign as if with a vengeance. тАШEntertainment venuesтАЩ were zoned and strict closing times implemented, times for the sale of alcohol were regulated, raids in the bars became common . . . Even the General Manager of the famed Oriental Hotel objected in the Bangkok Post to the effect this would all have on tourists. Yet upcountry the campaign was popular. I believe this was the start of the slippery slope which will culminate eventually in the end of most of today's nightlife. What it has also done is drive much of it underground, accessible to Thais but all-but closed to foreigners.
All this is generally known. What is known by very few are ThaksinтАЩs behind-the-scenes machinations at very high levels regarding a certain family and a certain event likely to occur sooner rather than later. ThereтАЩs little doubt that these were largely the reason behind the the most recent coup.
A fair assessment. I always thought that ensuring his family paid no tax on the Shin Corp sale was his biggest political mistake. The PAD protest, leading to the coup, was triggered by that. Of course, from a moral point of view the extra-judicial killings in the drug war and the Tak Bai incident and other killings should already have made clear his unsuitability for office in the eyes of civilised people.
Agreed! But I had hoped this topic would ask how your life was effected.
Well, in that case MFAS, as someone who spends just five or six months of the year in Thailand, I don't think my life has been affected one jot. In strictness though, I think the question is best addressed to Thai nationals and not to passing sex tourists, or even passing happy sex tourists. Unless, of course, someone can point out his policies had an effect on the gay sex industry. I'm afraid I don't have enough knowledge on the before and after situation to make any meaningful comment and leave it to others with greater knowledge to offer an opinion.
Fair question! I can give my views as a regular visitor since 1979 (average 4 times a year) and as a Bangkok resident since Thaksin came to power. Four examples of the Thaksin effect on me -
1. Thailand has become a less polite society towards foreigners. That is clearly relative and maybe Thais are also less polite to each other in the capital, but I can cite many instances where the small courtesies always shown pre-Thaksin have disappeared.
2. Thai bureaucracy and red tape is as bad as before when I had expected a technocrat like Thaksin could and would have instituted far-reaching reforms. I keep my business based in Hong Kong when I had hoped eventually to move it here.
3. The range and timing of entertainment and nightlife for gay men has suffered. Purachai's "reforms" were too drastic and many just don't work. Restricting the sale of alcohol in retail stores to certain times of day was pure idiocy and has done nothing to curb teenage drinking or deaths from drunk driving.
4. Corruption has become pervasive, much more so and at much higher percentages than pre-Thaksin. Living in a society which accepts corruption at all levels of society is something that is difficult to ignore. It has only directly affected me a couple of times, one personal and once in a business matter. But it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
Not much effect on how I lead my life in Thailand. Pictures of him in the media (that smug, greedy, gangster mug of his!) were guaranteed to bring on an urge to do violence, preferably via a punch to said ugly mug if possible. Also, come to think of it, there was all the fun of endless vitriolic exchanges with the head-in-the-clouds Thaksinistas on the old Bahtstop board. Yeah, I kind of miss those.
It is pervasive but I think it cuts two ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainhall
Fountainhall has summed it up very well in both replies.
I would add that the gentleman stepped out of his amart community with consessions to the poor such as the health card scheme and old-age pension. He remains popular in the countryside as a result but cynics would say he did it for ulterior motives.
He's a sly fox and I think he feared a movement towards, let's say, more equal wealth adjustment and planned to be astride two horses if and when he needed to choose. His old friends didn't like it and so he's banished.
In the meantime they're back at the trough again.
Meaning it takes two to tango, as it were?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manforallseasons
I believe it is far worse than that. It is now endemic in a society which expects it. The public's view on Thaksin's robbing the state through the Shin Corp deal seemed to be. "Well, everyone does it. Why single out Thaksin?" When corruption gets to that level of acceptance, it literally rots the infrastructure of society, undermines institutions and thwarts efforts to reduce poverty and catalyse sustainable growth. Everyone loses except a few at the top of the tree.
More than 20 years ago, a business colleague of mine was asked to quote for a project here through a middleman. After the quote was submitted, the middleman said it had to be revised - upwards. He wanted 30% added to it which would be split evenly between him and my colleague. My colleague did as he was told and won the contract. Now the rather toothless anti-Corruption Commission estimates that the level of bribes has risen to 30% - 50%.
We've all heard tales of motorists stopped by police because of a broken tail light which happens to be working perfectly. Either a few red notes are slipped into the accuser's hands or the accused has to go to court. It's Hobson's Choice. Who in their right mind will consider the time and expense of taking such a trivial issue to Court? So yes, both parties are complicit. And that again illustrates the problem. Nothing is going to stop it barring a total crackdown with, as happened in Hong Kong in the mid-1970s, a totally independent law enforcement division and a separate judiciary. That trapped a lot of the big players, including a top Police Commissioner. Hong Kong retains that Anti-Corruption Commission which is much admired by the public, and has become one of the least corrupt territories in the region.
Getting to the op's question, my life in Thailand as a retired expat has changed little no matter who the prime minister's or dictator's name might be (Chuan Leekpai, Thaksin, Surayud, Samak, Somchai, Abhisit, Yingluck, General Prayuth, all in my time here). As a gay man life has changed very little because of the government and the only drama for me personally was the closing of the airports by the PAD, losing the English radio stations for about a year and the recent changes at the gay beach (Dongtan). Don't get me wrong I have great empathy for the Thai people and hope the current situation has a happy ending, but I myself simply realize I'm living in a Banana Republic and just accept it.
Thank you Up2U for your answer to the original question. :ymapplause:
But we don't live in a self contained bubble here.
I offer you the thai proverb: "When elephants fight the ants get crushed".
We are ants here at best.
What a sarcastic comment, implying that many of us have not tried to answer your question. You're lucky that anyone should bother at all when you give nothing of yourself. Why don't YOU tell us how Thaksin affected YOUR life in Thailand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manforallseasons
Peter sorry you are right! Frankly I didn't give a shit about his alleged wrongdoings and I liked things like paying your vehicle infractions direct to the cop that stopped you also it was mentioned that he appointed someone to upgraded Thailand's image as a sex resort but I believe that was more talk than anything, places like Sunee plaza thrived during his time as did other places, look now!
I'm sure Thaksin had regulations but were they enforced maybe. Another reason the bars aren't doing well is because people like me drive and with the new check points with breathalyzers and one drink almost puts you over the limit why sit in a bar there is only so much club soda one can drink.
You could also easily argue Thaksin's and Yingluck's policies helped kill the commercial sex industry more than anything, but their polices just took a few years to truly take effect. The 30 baht health care scheme, 33% raise in minimum wage, the rice scheme, and so on. People aren't as desperate as they once were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manforallseasons
I beg to differ Matt the real death came after Thaksin and his sister isn't even worth discussing.
There were twice as many gogo bars in sunee before Thaksin came to power and initiated the social order campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manforallseasons
When it started there were ~12. When he finished probably only ~6
When I first came to Pattaya in 2001... I could easily spend a whole night touring the sunee gogo bars
There are now only 3... Can do them in 45 minutes!
The social order campaign killed the gay gogo scene... and left us with rip-off "super" pubs like Dream boys in BKK
According to some the whole social order campaign was meant to intimate and annoy some of the confirmed bachelors of the establishment...
I would like to thank fountainhall for the effort made to provide a detailed response to the question posed.
And it makes quite a read.
Back when Thaksin was in power my Thai friendтАЩs mother had photos of him on the wall next to those of the king. She thought he was wonderful and was horrified when he was ousted. However when I asked my Thai friend what difference he thought it would make he just laughed. He takes no notice of politics at all and dismisses all politicians as тАЬbad menтАЭ.
Personally I canтАЩt think of any difference itтАЩs made to me, as far as my trips are concerned, and IтАЩve been visiting once or twice a year since 1990. The month I spent in Pattaya over Christmas and the New Year was one of the most enjoyable I've had but I've never spent much time in the bars and I don't visit Sunee more than once or twice a trip.
Were I lucky enough to be able to live there permanently, one of the upsides for me would be getting away from politics and politicians at home. Thai politics in my opinion is their business and as a foreigner I can "like it or lump it" ( as mother used to say).
Thaksin was before I first came to Thailand, so I can't judge. Anyway, my interest in Thai politics is limited.
But I can say that the change from democracy to military dictatorship didn't affect me at all (once the few weeks of curfew were over), it simply makes no difference. I wouldn't even know if I'm living in a democracy or in a military dictatorship if I hadn't learnt from the news!
The decline in number of Sunne Plaza gogo bars is deplorable, so is the price rise in Soi Twilight (approx 8% per year). But that cannot directly be attributed to politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFAS
Fountainhall: (and MFAS): Have you ever considered that the Thai have it right by "institutialising" society's embedded 'corruption'?Quote:
Originally Posted by fountainhall
Many other countries around the world - including most of the westernised countries - have tried to stamp out corruption with little success. Yes, some big names have gone to the 'slammer' or "left for warmer climes" or suffered 'extreme prejudice'. Yet, as one head is cut from the hydra, another emerges. Total apparent progress = zero, zip, zilch, none. And it is still the "few at the top of the tree" that profit most.
I know of one senior bureaucrat who, just prior to retirement, was offered a 5-year contract as the Head of Department under the Minister if he was willing to donate US$5mill. to a special good-works fund. Double-edged sword, yes. But workable and with societal pluses.
I am not condoning 'corruption' but I am realist enough to know .....
that the effort & funds dedicated to destroying it are wasted with many better uses for these resources,
that it is part of the 'human experience', and it will never go away,
that unconscionable miscreants should be rooted out when they directly cause harm to other people.
Thai society appears to have adapted to its own system. Who are we to criticise or sit-in-judgement?
To answer MFAS' original question, I have been in Thailand regularly since 1996 and, as a visitor, I have experienced no significant changes for better or worse. The 'horse' hasn't changed, only the jockey(s).
As a living decendant of my ancestors I think it incredible that Thais pay so much attention to the amount of melanin in their skin.
This substance I assume is the target of the white cream army that my friend carries around with him in his knapsack (not handbag!) where ever we go.
Yes, certain basic fundamentals don't change.
I have certainly considered it, but do not accept in any way that they "have it right"!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yraen
You are of course absolutely correct when you say corruption is not limited to Thailand. In one or more of its forms it is surely in evidence in most countries. Even with the much-praised Independent Commission Against Corruption, no-one claims that Hong Kong is corruption free. Only recently the co-Chairman of Hong Kong's largest Property Developer and a former Head Civil Servant were jailed for corruption. But the level of corruption has been decimated and all Hong Kong residents have become hugely grateful for that. In another thread, I have railed against the American electoral system which to outside observers as well as many Americans seems bedrocked in the obscene amounts of money trying to elect Presidents. In other countries like much of Africa and quite a few in Asia it is much more deep-rooted.
But I can see zero merit in "institutialising" corruption. It quite literally rots away at the very fabric of society. When it gets to the levels practiced - and tolerated by most - here in Thailand, there is nothing like a level paying field in any endeavour, whether it be in industry and commerce, the awarding of government contracts, tourism, education (rotten virtually to its core), the ambitions of its younger generations, the forces of supposed law and order - and so on. The only winners are those at the very top who through their ill-gotten brides and pay-offs are able to control and manipulate the way people have to behave.
Anyone who considers the institutialising of endemic corruption as acceptable, also accepts that society will revert to the laws of a particularly dense mangrove swamp, a mafia way of controlling a society and its people, a system where vast amounts of funds which should accrue to the state disappear into the ether of offshore accounts (yes, Thaksin had those as well - illegally) and where influence is all. Do you think Thais really are happy that the heir to the Red Bull fortune has got away Scot-free with racing his Ferrari along Sukhumvit at 5:00 in the morning with alcohol and drugs in his system, knocking over and dragging a policeman to his death and then hiding in the family compound for around 8 hours before being given up for questioning? Are they happy that second rate Hollywood producers, Gerald and Patricia Green, the partners-in-crime of the former Governor of the Tourist Authority during the Thaksin era, Jutamas Sirawan, were fined and jailed in the USA some years ago for offering substantial bribes to the aforesaid lady for the rights to set up the ill-fated Bangkok Film Festival, bribes that just happened to find their way into the offshore accounts of Jutamas and her daugher? The Greens were jailed in the USA in 2010. To date, no action has been taken here against Jutamas. How many billions has THAI International lost over the years through government ministers and civil servants lining their pockets with bribes from the purchase of far too many different aircraft and engine types? And who is now paying for that? TG staff and passengers.
I believe the vast majority of Thais put up with corruption because they cannot believe there is a way to get rid of it as long as the politicians and top businessmen are corrupt. Establish a Hong Kong-style ICAC here and I am certain their response eventually would be similar to that given by Hong Kong residents in 2000. When asked what were the most important events in 150 years of Hong Kong history, the establishment of the ICAC polled in 6th place. Yet when set up, it was called "Mission Impossible" and few gave it any chance of succeeding.
Well said, fountainhall. The 'realists' who imply or openly state that most Western countries are as corrupt as Thailand (so why bother trying to change things in Thailand?) are good at providing anecdotal evidence but when it comes to international bodies which systematically collate the evidence (eg Transparency International) we invariably find that Western countries dominate the upper reaches of lists for their relative lack of corruption. Singapore is usually the only non-Western country in the top ten. I agree with you that endemic corruption holds back a country in all sorts of ways. Of course sex tourists and sexpats can be said to benefit from corruption which makes me, at least, feel uneasy about discussing the subject. But I hope I never reach a point where 'institutionalising' corruption seems the right way to go, surely the ultimate in cynicism.
Singapore is an interesting case and owes that position inevitably to its former PM Lee Kwan Yew. I suspect corruption was pretty rife in Singapore prior to independence, as in Hong Kong pre-1975. Lee realised that the root of corruption is cash and power and in the majority of cases it occurs because those who feel they deserve more do their best to make it happen. To stop that rot, he ensured that government ministers and civil servants were paid, relatively speaking, the same as their counterparts in industry. Consequently, he looked for the brightest and the best with Singapore quickly having the highest paid ministers, civil servants and Prime Minster in the world. Thus the younger Lee's annual salary last year - after a recent 28% cut - is in the region of US$1.7 million, more than the combined salaries of the PMs of France, Italy, Germany, Britain, Russia, South Africa, India, Brazil, Turkey and Japan - COMBINED! It certainly dwarfs Obama's $400,000, although US Presidential perks perks include a couple of special 747-400s etc. and tens of millions in speaking fees after leaving office! Throw in a dash of national pride and Singapore consistently is top of the ratings.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterUK
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/...graphic_02.png