But here’s the real issue: “So what if he’s a corrupted politician.” Yes, it does matter. Sure, finding a politician in Thailand who is not corrupt is not easy, but being corrupt and being seen to be corrupt does matter. One of the reasons – just one – that the yellow shirts got support was because of the perception of nepotism and conflicts of interest. Yes, it does matter.

Most of you probably don’t know this, but Thaksin brought universal health care to Thailand. It cost 30 baht that is less a dollar a year for health care. There’s also a million baht per village scheme, where you could take out a loan and do what ever you want with it. Most people in the rural area borrowed from that fund to buy cell phone and a vehicle with it. That is a good stimulus package. He even promised a cow for each family, but never got to it.

If he ever runs for a President in the US, I would definitely vote for him.
The republican are trying to stall the universal health care, I wish Thaksin was here in the US. Americans should learn from Thaksin because that is what we need in the US.

Before Thaksin, politicians campaigned based on their local patronage, their public image, and the organization of their canvassers. Oh, and they also bought votes.

After Thaksin, politicians campaigned based on the policy agendas, their record of policy implementation, and the organization of their canvassers. Oh, and they also bought votes.

By making promises and being able to deliver on the ones that people cared about most, Thaksin helped change Thailand’s political culture.

Take a look at the Democrats. Their campaign in 2001 was traditional – they campaigned on being a respectable party who knew how to manage things, while Thaksin promised universal healthcare and microcredit. Democrats lost, Thaksin won, Thaksin delivered. In 2005, the Democrats also did a traditional “image” campaign – they said that if you voted 201 Democrat respectable MPs, Thailand’s parliament would be stronger. Democrats lost, Thaksin won. Finally, in 2006, the Democrats started getting smart and made promises: free healthcare, Skytrain expansion, and completely free K-12 education. Using Thaksin’s techniques, they were finally gaining traction with the electorate, but the coup prevented them from finally gaining back some ground.

Who knows whether post-coup elections will see the Democrats reverting back to 2001/2005 practice, or will see them continue to make Thaksin-style promises, ala 2006.

From then on Thaksin just kept on bribing the junta generals in power to get his telcom licenses . . innovative again!

Thaksin repeated his bribing ways . . . massively to buy the vulnerable village poor . Not content, Thaksin bought small parties and venal politicians to ensure his TRT party would be unopposed.

Jon Thaksin was NOT ostracized. He was deposed. Booted out. Ousted. By General Sonthi’s coup which was resoundly applauded by the majority of Thais fed up with Thaksin’s corruption and extrajudicial killings and abuse of the Thai constitution.

I still stay mothers who suspect they carry ‘baby Thaksins’ should immediately abort.

IMHO Thaksin, besides being a real flesh and blood billionaire, also stands for a **type of innovator** one finds sometimes in Thai institutions who, initially unanimously welcomed, is eventually unanimously ostracised.

These innovators promise to improve traditional Thai practice with non-Thai practice, taken from western books and scholarship, just like Thaksin was doing right up to his final Council of Foreign Relations speech the day before the coup.

I encountered a female Thaksin in the Thai University I once worked at. She arrived brimming with new ideas and pet projects based on western ideas where she received her PhD, initially everyone loved her, nodding their heads, this woman is going to make changes, within one semester she had stepped on everyone’s toes and alienated almost everyone, her popularity fell as meteorically as it rose, and finally she was ostracized. She remained for another year or two working by herself on innovative little projects in an office all by herself. The ancient Greek definition of ostracism has an uncanny resemblance to what happened to Thaksin:

“…ostracism was often used pre-emptively. It was used as a way of defusing major confrontations between rival politicians (by removing one of them from the scene), neutralising someone thought to be a threat to the state, or exiling a potential tyrant. Crucially, ostracism had no relation to the processes of justice. There was no charge or defence, and ***the exile was not in fact a penalty; it was simply a command from the Athenian people that one of their number be gone for ten years.”***…by temporarily decapitating a faction, it could help to defuse confrontations that threatened the order of the State….Perhaps merely the sense ***that someone had become too arrogant or prominent*** was enough to get someone’s name onto an ostrakon” IMHO this type of Thaksin-like Thai innovator could eventually change Thailand in significant and good ways.

Of course, this is all after the fact. I abhorred Thaksin’s coopting of the constitution and extra-judicial killings, although I’m afraid the reasons why many of us find this to be wrong are not appreciated by rural folk (who I live amongst).

http://www.geocities.com/changnoi2/coupcharter.htm

I hope the end result of this tortuous political process is that some more baby Thaksins pop out of their eggs and through some miracle keep each other in check and prevent each other from usurping all power and wealth, that a linear evolution that betters the life opportunities of rural folk and gives them some upwards mobility, is possible, rather than a mere cyclical repetition of past history.