• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

How did Thailand come to this?

tonychat

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
24,581
Points
0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10124847.stm

Troops used armoured vehicles to smash through the protest barricades
Three months ago, Bangkok appeared to be a successful South East Asian capital city - now government troops and anti-government protesters are fighting in the streets. The BBC's Vaudine England considers how it came to this.

Huge and thriving, Bangkok has long been seen - and seen itself - as a great city. But now there is blood on the streets.

It is hard to imagine how Thailand got to this - and how it will manage to recover.

One explanation is simply that a crazed rabble of poor people came to the city from the under-developed north, flauning their love for a former prime minister - Thaksin Shinawatra - and being paid to do so.

Another vision talks of class war and a peoples' uprising, as the masses rise up on the barricades.

The reality lies somewhere in between and can only be understood by a brisk walk through Thailand's recent political history.

It is easy to speak of the 18 new constitutions in the past half-century, and the many coups. It is hard for people living in more settled countries to imagine that level of uncertainty about the basic rules of the political game.

Continue reading the main story
Whatever version of the recent past is chosen, neither violence nor a death-defying commitment to democracy is unusual in Thai politics

Absolute monarchy only gave way to constitutional rule in 1932 and the play of power between the old feudal system, the military and various democratic forces has been fought out ever since, often with fatal consequences.

Certain big dates stand out: 1973, 1976, 1992, 2006 and now 2010.

Thailand's overwhelming image as a Land of Smiles - as a fantasy land of sun, sea, sex and surgery - has been carefully crafted.

It has seduced many, outsiders and Thais, into believing a facade of stability where there was perhaps more a papering over the cracks.

That paper is now badly torn. Deep-seated fissures, long in existence, can no longer be ignored.

If nothing else, commentators agree, the red-shirts have achieved that much.

Bloody history
Thailand lived under variations of military rule most of the time since the 1932 constitution, during World War II, into the 1970s.

On 14 October 1973, more than 70 protesters were killed and 800 were injured when troops opened fire on huge demonstrations held in support of pro-democracy students.

The then military government collapsed; a new constitution and new elections in six months followed.

On 26 September 1976, two students were garrotted and hanged, allegedly by police. Thousands of students gathered in their support and against military rule.

Two weeks later, on 6 October, that tension exploded into the killing by soldiers, police and right-wing mobs of at least 46 people. Students said many more died.

This moment marked the end of a democratic period, and caused parts of a generation to flee to the hills, joining a communist movement which was later decimated.

Street fighting in 1992 left scores of people dead
By 1980, Gen Prem Tinsulanonda was appointed prime minister after a fellow general had ruled for three years following an October 1977 coup.

Gen Prem is now chairman of the Privy Council, and a target of red-shirt ire for what they claim was his role in the 2006 coup.

Coups and wobbly coalition governments led by appointed prime ministers carried Thailand into 1992, when Chamlong Srimaung led protests against the choice of Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon as prime minister.

King Bhumiphol Adulyadej famously called the two men into his presence to end fighting on the streets in mid-May that year, which had left scores dead, many injured and more than 2,000 people missing.

Back to future
Elections in September 1992 produced a Democrat-led coalition, with Chuan Leekpai as prime minister.

Thaksin Shinawatra proved very popular but highly divisive
Two years later, a telecommunications tycoon called Thaksin Shinawatra made his political debut, under the wing of Mr Chamlong.

In 1995, Mr Chamlong led his Palang Dharma party out of the coalition, causing the Chuan government to fall. Mr Thaksin was deputy prime minister in the next government.

Two coalition governments later, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh was prime minister - he is now chairman of Mr Thaksin's Peua Thai Party.

The 1997 economic crisis brought back the Democrats under Mr Chuan. But elections in January 2001 gave Mr Thaksin a resounding win.

Mr Thaksin used this to accrue wealth and power across a range of Thai institutions. He earned a shocking human rights record and quashed the free press, but poured money into rural areas usually starved of attention.

In elections in 2005 he again won by a landslide, with the highest voter turnout in Thai history. He called another, snap, election in 2006, which the Democrat opposition boycotted. His win was ruled invalid by the constitutional court on 8 May 2006.

Plans for elections in October were foiled by the 19 September coup in 2006. Since then, two Thaksin-allied governments have been elected and stymied by court actions, leading to the current Democrat government, elected by another vote in parliament, not a general election.

Determining whether current troubles are sudden and shocking, or in fact an outgrowth of a long history of conflict - discussion of which has been suppressed by censorship and strict lese majeste laws - all depends on where you choose to start.

Whatever version of the recent past is chosen, neither violence nor a death-defying commitment to democracy is unusual in Thai politics.
 
why such a long article? The start of all this mess is the sale of shincorp to Temasek. It was the trigger, that's all u need to know.
 
why such a long article? The start of all this mess is the sale of shincorp to Temasek. It was the trigger, that's all u need to know.

That is why, i post this. Talk so much but didn't come to the main point. The amg mor should do more research on this. Maybe i will write to them on this to highlight this point that they really missed out.
 
why such a long article? The start of all this mess is the sale of shincorp to Temasek. It was the trigger, that's all u need to know.

That's the means to the reason but not the ends to the reason. Thaksin would sell Shincorp to anyone who could afford, because he knew his days as PM in Thailand were numbered. If he didn't sell in time, even more of his and his family assets would be frozen and confiscated.
 
That's the means to the reason but not the ends to the reason. Thaksin would sell Shincorp to anyone who could afford, because he knew his days as PM in Thailand were numbered. If he didn't sell in time, even more of his and his family assets would be frozen and confiscated.

I don't think you understand the full extend of Temasek involvement. The issue was not about Thaksin selling Shincorp. Most Thais will say that is his right to do so. But the way he did it, subverting Thai law, avoiding taxes, etc. was the real issue. And for that, u need a willing dance partner. What Temasek did was to aid and abet Thaksin in breaking numerous Thai laws.

From what my Thais friends explained to me, it was something like this. Thaksin wanted to sell SHincorp, and wanted to do it his way. He looked around for a sucker stupid enough to do his bidding and settled on Ho Jinx. He actualy flew down to S'pore to discuss this deal with Ho Jinx. Ho Jinx thought it would be a good idea as Shincorp was a market leader in many sensitive industries in Thailand, and agreed to help Thaksin. Thaksin must have done some serious ass kissing.

First, Thaksin told Ho Jinx he does not want to pay any taxes on the capital gains at all. He put his shares into holding companies ownesd by his wife and family, ask Ho Jinx to set up a bunch of nominee companies headed by Thai Malaysian businessmen and what not and use these companies to buy his shares. As a result he somehow ended up paying no taxes on a USD$4 billion sale.

Secondly, because the Thai law restricted foreign ownership in certain industries like air transport and satellite communication, laws which would have restricted Temasek from owning SHincorp, Thaksin said no problem. He proceeded to bribe and bully Thai lawmakers into changing the constitution to allow foreign onwership just so he can go thru with this sale. In fact, barely 2 weeks after the law was changed, the sale of SHincorp was announced. Hence pissing many people off.

ALl these attempts to circumvent the Thai laws can only be done with the connivance of the buyer. No US companies or other soveriegn wealth funds would be part of this fraud on the Thai people. Their executives would be jailed in their own country. Only Ho JInx, Iswaran, and Dhana, and all those other Temasek assholes are of such low character that they would facilitate this.

Than u have to ask the question, would Thaksin have been able to find a buyer as dirty as Temasek? Probably not. Given that, he may not have been able to sell Shincorp for what he want. If he hung on to shincorp, he might still be in power today. Also, if he sold shincorp to a reputable SWF or mutual fund, they would have insisted on above board dealings, he would have ended up paying taxes on it, and it would have given the perception that he is not above the tax law and hence he might have ended his prime ministership in peace.

As far as I can see, Temasek is the cause of todays' events.
 
Very well informed and elaborated. Thanks. I've learned much from you today on top of past fuzzy details and non-details.
 
how did CB kia tonychat end up PIMPING his ladyboy wife?
 
Why these people are not arrested and charge for criminal abetting? :D

Should I complain to CPIB, ICAC or SIB or Interpol? :D

No, you will not see any action from these agencies.

Your only hope is to complain to Tonychat. The fellow has big balls and has been goading Singaporeans to launch large scale protest. Complain to Tonychat, he will lead the protest.:D
 
He looked around for a sucker stupid enough to do his bidding and settled on Ho Jinx

Didn't i mentioned before that sinkie are stupid? This type of low minded loser can be the head of Temasak. Oh i forgot, that is a Lee family company, of course she can be a dickhead there.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10124847.stm

Troops used armoured vehicles to smash through the protest barricades
Three months ago, Bangkok appeared to be a successful South East Asian capital city - now government troops and anti-government protesters are fighting in the streets. The BBC's Vaudine England considers how it came to this.

Huge and thriving, Bangkok has long been seen - and seen itself - as a great city. But now there is blood on the streets.

It is hard to imagine how Thailand got to this - and how it will manage to recover.

One explanation is simply that a crazed rabble of poor people came to the city from the under-developed north, flauning their love for a former prime minister - Thaksin Shinawatra - and being paid to do so.

Another vision talks of class war and a peoples' uprising, as the masses rise up on the barricades.

The reality lies somewhere in between and can only be understood by a brisk walk through Thailand's recent political history.

It is easy to speak of the 18 new constitutions in the past half-century, and the many coups. It is hard for people living in more settled countries to imagine that level of uncertainty about the basic rules of the political game.

Continue reading the main story
Whatever version of the recent past is chosen, neither violence nor a death-defying commitment to democracy is unusual in Thai politics

Absolute monarchy only gave way to constitutional rule in 1932 and the play of power between the old feudal system, the military and various democratic forces has been fought out ever since, often with fatal consequences.

Certain big dates stand out: 1973, 1976, 1992, 2006 and now 2010.

Thailand's overwhelming image as a Land of Smiles - as a fantasy land of sun, sea, sex and surgery - has been carefully crafted.

It has seduced many, outsiders and Thais, into believing a facade of stability where there was perhaps more a papering over the cracks.

That paper is now badly torn. Deep-seated fissures, long in existence, can no longer be ignored.

If nothing else, commentators agree, the red-shirts have achieved that much.

Bloody history
Thailand lived under variations of military rule most of the time since the 1932 constitution, during World War II, into the 1970s.

On 14 October 1973, more than 70 protesters were killed and 800 were injured when troops opened fire on huge demonstrations held in support of pro-democracy students.

The then military government collapsed; a new constitution and new elections in six months followed.

On 26 September 1976, two students were garrotted and hanged, allegedly by police. Thousands of students gathered in their support and against military rule.

Two weeks later, on 6 October, that tension exploded into the killing by soldiers, police and right-wing mobs of at least 46 people. Students said many more died.

This moment marked the end of a democratic period, and caused parts of a generation to flee to the hills, joining a communist movement which was later decimated.

Street fighting in 1992 left scores of people dead
By 1980, Gen Prem Tinsulanonda was appointed prime minister after a fellow general had ruled for three years following an October 1977 coup.

Gen Prem is now chairman of the Privy Council, and a target of red-shirt ire for what they claim was his role in the 2006 coup.

Coups and wobbly coalition governments led by appointed prime ministers carried Thailand into 1992, when Chamlong Srimaung led protests against the choice of Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon as prime minister.

King Bhumiphol Adulyadej famously called the two men into his presence to end fighting on the streets in mid-May that year, which had left scores dead, many injured and more than 2,000 people missing.

Back to future
Elections in September 1992 produced a Democrat-led coalition, with Chuan Leekpai as prime minister.

Thaksin Shinawatra proved very popular but highly divisive
Two years later, a telecommunications tycoon called Thaksin Shinawatra made his political debut, under the wing of Mr Chamlong.

In 1995, Mr Chamlong led his Palang Dharma party out of the coalition, causing the Chuan government to fall. Mr Thaksin was deputy prime minister in the next government.

Two coalition governments later, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh was prime minister - he is now chairman of Mr Thaksin's Peua Thai Party.

The 1997 economic crisis brought back the Democrats under Mr Chuan. But elections in January 2001 gave Mr Thaksin a resounding win.

Mr Thaksin used this to accrue wealth and power across a range of Thai institutions. He earned a shocking human rights record and quashed the free press, but poured money into rural areas usually starved of attention.

In elections in 2005 he again won by a landslide, with the highest voter turnout in Thai history. He called another, snap, election in 2006, which the Democrat opposition boycotted. His win was ruled invalid by the constitutional court on 8 May 2006.

Plans for elections in October were foiled by the 19 September coup in 2006. Since then, two Thaksin-allied governments have been elected and stymied by court actions, leading to the current Democrat government, elected by another vote in parliament, not a general election.

Determining whether current troubles are sudden and shocking, or in fact an outgrowth of a long history of conflict - discussion of which has been suppressed by censorship and strict lese majeste laws - all depends on where you choose to start.

Whatever version of the recent past is chosen, neither violence nor a death-defying commitment to democracy is unusual in Thai politics.

stupid thais. go burn their own livelihood. reminds me of those indons that burnt the factory they were working in.
 
stupid thais. go burn their own livelihood. reminds me of those indons that burnt the factory they were working in.

according to my records,

sinkies vote for a govt that screw their ass daily, they complain daily about their ass pain and how much suffering they have to go through, especially in the forum and yet no balls to deal with it offline.

And when election comes, they still vote for the ass screwer.

I wonder who is more stupid.
 
Singaporeans argue until cow comes home whether to pay StarHub or SingTel for World Cup. Thai TV3 offers free World Cup, HQ building got burnt down.
 
Why these people are not arrested and charge for criminal abetting? :D

Should I complain to CPIB, ICAC or SIB or Interpol? :D

The Thais were burning effigies of Ho Jinx and Gay Loong on the streets of Bangkok, that was how much they hated them the the shincorp deal. The thai govt. that overthrew Thaksin did something much worse than arrest these people. U cannot arrest high officials of another country anyway. Instead, they voided the law, and made Temasek divest its shares in the airline and telecommunications division. End result is USD $2 billion plus in losses. Much better than arresting them.:mad:
 
Back
Top