"....lobert...." wrote in message
news:dv5pmm$cna$1@reader01.singnet.com.sg...
> maxwell wrote:
> > "....lobert...." wrote ...
> >> maxwell wrote:
> >>> "Touche'" wrote ...
> >>>> He's trying to make clean new image of Thailand
> >>> Cronyist corruption, suppression of dissenters, re-writing law to
enable
> >>> foreign control of core infrastructure while getting paid royally for
> > the
> >>> favors, summary executions and 'disappearances' . . .plus just for
icing
> > on
> >>> the plum cake, disdain for long-term consequences including
> > environmental
> >>> impact . .
> >>> Yes, a real clean new image he's trying to make.
> >>>
> >>>> and it's unfortunate that the people do not realise it.
> >>> Remarkable, since he spends so many hours in front of tv cameras
> >>> broadcasting what he says he is doing. I guess people must be
seriously
> >>> deluded--pehaps some evil spirits have taken over their minds?
> >>>
> >>>> As a biz man he is trying to change the facade of his country
> >>> "facade' is a good choice of word.
> >>>
> >>>> into an economic power in SEA region.
> >>> OIC--just need the right sort of make-over, pretty up her face some.
> > Never
> >>> mind the fundamentals--why would investors care about such?
> >>>
> >>>> Selling Shin Corp is nothing more than good biz sense
> >>> Just like transferring big chunks of Shin to his household servants
was,
> >>> since those 'inconvenient' laws forbade him to maintain control while
> >>> 'serving' as PM.
> >>> Silly laws--like that one that had Shin strapped to being controlled
by
> >>> Thai, as if something as essential as communication and information
> > services
> >>> wouldn't do better if controlled by Singapore money. Sure fixed *that*
> >>> problem, now didn't he?
> >>>
> >>>> and it's a pity that the people do not realise the true implications.
> >>> Such a shame that some look at a thief and see a thief--shame on them.
> >>>
> >>>> OK, maybe he makes a good chunk of money out of it, but so what?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is Thailand going to depend on the . trade and the drugs trade
> > forever.?
> >>> Yes, much bigger money than agriculture, tourism, and manufacturing.
> >>> I'm waiting SO very expectantly for your detailed economic analysis of
> >>> Thailand's economy, as it's obvious you know so very well what you're
> >>> talking about.
> >>>
> >>>> Thanksin is trying to change this and get the people to rely on the
> >>> manufacturing and IT sector but the people are not ready. That's the
> >>> problem. The people are just not ready. They don't have the thinking
> > power
> >>> that he has and the vision that he has.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, just a bunch of dumb little people whose poor little brains can't
> >>> compare with his Mandarin superiority.
> >>> Do you think the Great Man might permit you to grovel before his
> > superior
> >>> feet?
> >>> After all, *you* applaud his superiority so very well.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> What is wrong for a Singapore company to purchase the telecommunication
> > business in Thailand.
> >
> > Do you also figure it's just fine that Temasek's borrowing half the
money
> > from Thai banks?
> >
> >
> > I see you have nothing to say to my comments, so you just write some
nonsense about what you say I approve of.
> >
>
> What you have said about Thaksin were before his last election but he was
re-elected with stronger mandate. So what's wrong?
Need I remind you that 'Touche' was arguing that "(Thaksin is) trying to
make clean new image of Thailand" ?
>If the people have nothing against what he had done,
That's like saying theft is okay if the thief is popular. What Thaksin's
various transfers of assets accomplished (besides enriching himself and his
family and cronies) was to show to the world that he's above the law. What
Thaksin's suppression of critics and buying of votes accomplished was to
show to the world that Thailand is not only corrupted but remains
corruptible. I realize your 'populist' argument is not totally without one
kind of value, but consider that it was not until after His Majesty spoke at
length, saying that it was okay for *His* actions to be criticized, that
Thaksin finally backed off pursuing libel suits against his own critics.
Surely you would not argue that the Thai people do not honor and welcome the
guidance of His Majesty?--well, let's say I *hope* you'd not argue that.
(please note that I do NOT make claims of what I think your belief actually
is)
Surely you should also consider that getting away with breaking laws that
protect the People (like the law that forbids a PM to serve while being in
control of a corporation---that's as specific of an anti-corruption law 9by
intent) as any you'd find) is not okay just because judges themselves fail
to enforce--not if the Law itself is to have meaningfulness.
> what right has the small group of opposition to demand for his resignation
and even boycott the election.
It's called using what power they have to force the issue of how can there
be proper elections when the PM has been allowed to break laws and suppress
accountability. How is it that you'd apparently rationalize Thaksin's crimes
'because he got away with it,' (as if popularity counts (or should count)
regarding law breaking), while on the other hand condemn minority parties
who rightly claim that Thaksin has repeatedly vacated the legitimacy of his
office?
> What is wrong for Temasek's borrowing from Thai banks, it's still
commercial transaction.
Think of where the banks get their money from.
|