Talk:Thaksin Shinawatra/Archive 2

Saddam Hussein Comparison

I have removed this particular sentence for two reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure what the point is in including it. Secondly, the quote had no source attached to it. Devineman (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing the Article

I recently disputed the content of the article with Patiwat a couple of days ago on his user page. Reflecting on it, the reason I had so much trouble with the thing is that it is simply too long, making it filled with various innuendoes from both sides. I shortened the article (mostly cut and paste... too sleepy at the moment) and arranged it in chronological order.

The following is my proposed article. I do believe that it is fair for both sides; however, I personally loath Thaksin and you guys might want to check it over. I hope this isn't too much of a change. If you like it, please use it. (Forgive any errors, I'm just too sleepy)

Thaksin Shinawatra

Thaksin Shinawatra (Thai: ทักษิณ ร, IPA: [tʰáksǐn tɕʰinnawát] (help•info); born July 26, 1949), Thai politician, is the current act temporarily in place of prime minister of Thailand and the leader of the Thai Rak Thai party. Before entering politics Thaksin was the founder of Shin Corporation, which included Advanced Info Service (AIS - in brand GSM Advance and One-2-Call!), the largest mobile phone operator. He was one of the wealthy individuals in Thailand. He is married to Khunying Potjaman Shinawatra (Damapong) and has three children: Panthongtae, Pinthongtha and Praethongtharn.

Early Career

Thaksin attended the Thai Police Cadet Academy and joined the Royal Thai Police Department in 1973. He later went on to obtain a master's degree in criminal justice from the Eastern Kentucky University in the United States in 1975. In 1978 he received a doctorate in criminal justice at Sam Houston State University in Texas and was later appointed Deputy Superintendent of the Policy and Planning Sub-division, General Staff Division, Metropolitan Police Bureau. Thaksin quit the police force in 1980 and ventured into various businesses. Overall, most were failures and he was heavily in debt. However, his fortune changed in 1982 when he profited from telecommunication investments. Shinawatra Computer and Communications Group was founded in 1987. In 1990, Thaksin made a daring but successful bid for a 20-billion baht, 20-year concession to operate the Thaicom Satellite.

• You seem to have erased the few paragraphs on his family's business and political background in Chiang Mai. I believe that some mention of his Chiang Mai roots is very important - after all, the North is his undisputed power base, and it is important to mention how that came to be. His highschool should also be mentioned - it is, after all, one of the most prestigous schools in the North. Patiwat 08:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Even if Thaksin never entered politics, he would still be remembered as one of Thailand's the most successful entrepreneurs and a key figure in the growth of Thailand's fast growing telecom sector. Devoting just 3 sentences to his business career is inappropriate. Patiwat 08:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Patiwat, how much does he pay you? He would be remembered as the most evil public figure in Thailand who personally represents how successful a cheater/lier/exploiter can achieve by the power of money. How a civil officer with an insight knowledge about government IT development plan-a national sattlelite concession, opened a company based on that insight knowledge, then cheated on his foreign business partner, can be remembered as a successful entrepreneur???? Pleeeeeaaaasssse!!! Is that a kind of life worth living??

• • You suggest shortening his business background to: "Thaksin quit the police force in 1980 and ventured into various businesses. Overall, most were failures and he was heavily in debt. However, his fortune changed in 1982 when he profited from telecommunication investments." I would prefer to be more specific here: mention what ventures were failures, and what was the investment that actually made him successful. It wasn't the satellite business - that has been one of the worst performers in the SCC portfolio. Patiwat 08:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Political Debut (1994)

Thaksin joined Palang Dharma Party (PDP) in 1994 was appointed Foreign Minister that year. After joining the Cabinet, the Parliament approved amendments to the Constitution (specifically, Article 114) that prohibited ministers from receiving state concessions[5]. This prompted his resignation only after 3 months in office. The PDP soon withdrew from the government over the Sor Por Kor 4-01 land reform corruption scandal, causing the government of Chuan Leekpai to collapse[8][9].

Leadership and Collapse of the PDP (1995-1996)

Chamlong Srimuang, then the leader of the PDP, retired from politics and positioned Thaksin as its new leader. After the 1995 election, the PDP joined the government under Banharn Silpa-acha and Thaksin was appointed Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Bangkok traffic. The PDP pulled out of the Banharn-government in August 1996 and gave evidence pointing to allegations of the government’s corruption in a subsequent no-confidence debate. Soon afterwards, Banharn dissolved Parliament in September 1996.

Thaksin announced that he would not run in the subsequent November 1996 elections, but would remain as leader of the PDP. Some speculated that Thaksin wanted to resign from the party leadership [17][18]. The PDP suffered a fatal defeat in the elections, prompting resignation of most party members including Thaksin. Currently the PDP is still in existence but remained insignificant in the political arena.

• I believe the internal divisions in the PDP (which preceeded Thaksin's entry into politics and continued while he was PDP leader), as well as the frustrations he saw as leader of the PDP, had a big role in his current-day style of political management. The PDP failed because its internal divisions got in the way of developing and implementing a clear policy agenda; whereas the TRT centralizes many functions and any internal factional divisions (with the Wang Nam Yen faction, for instance) have not had any manjor impact on its overall policy agenda. Without describing in greater detail the challenges he faced as PDP leader, this evolution in styles of political management can not be seen. Patiwat 08:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Asian Financial Crisis (1997)

On 15 August 1997, Thaksin was invited to become Deputy Prime Minister in Chavalit Yongchaiyudh's government after the Thai Baht was devalued in 2 July 1997, sparking the Asian Financial Crisis. During an unsuccessful censure debate on 27 September 1997, Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban accused Thaksin of cashing in on insider information about the government's decision to float the baht[20]. Nevertheless, skeptics pointed out that Thaksin's business empire suffered much less from the devaluation than rival companies.[24] He held this position for only 3 months before Chavalit dissolved the parliament in November that same year.

Thai Rak Thai Party and Rise to Power (1998-2001)

Thaksin founded the Thai Rak Thai ("Thais Love Thais" - TRT) party in 1998 advocating a populist platform. After the fall of the Chuan-government in 2001, the TRT won a sweeping victory in the January 2001 elections. It was the first time in Thai democratic history that a single party had won a governing mandate.

Prime Minister of Thailand (2001-Present?)

As Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra initiated many distinctive policies affecting the economy, public health, education, energy, drugs, and international relations. Some view his policies as being very effective and popular with the majority of the Thai people, resulting in two landslide re-election victories. However, his government have been plagued with allegations of dictatorship, demagogy, corruption, conflicts of interest, human rights offences, acting undiplomatically, and use of legal loopholes.

Economic and health policies

See also: Policies of the Thaksin government#Economic and health policies

See also: Thaksinomics

Thaksin's government has designed its policies to appeal to the impoverished majority, together called Thaksinomics, Many feel that these populist policies are responsible for bringing about Thailand's economic recovery from the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Critics, however, charged that Thaksinomics is little more than a Keynesian-style economic stimulus policy re-branded as something new and revolutionary.

Anti-drug policies

See also: Policies of the Thaksin government#Anti-drug policies

Narcotics have been perceived as a problem of grave importance in Thailand and, in response, Thaksin initiated a series of effective but highly controversial policies aimed to eradicate drugs in 3 months. The policy advocated ruthless implementation and over the next seven weeks press reports indicate that around 2,700 people were killed. However, the Government claimed that only around 50 of the deaths were at the hands of the police in self-defense. Human rights critics say a much larger proportion were targets of extrajudicial execution. After a growing international concern the killings became more infrequent. Thaksin's popularity increased substantially despite some public revulsion and Thailand was from the list of major drug-transit or major drug-producing countries in September, 2004[36]. However, the overall success of the policy is still being contested.

• This doesn't mention any other anti-drug policies. It wouldn't be appropriate to give the impression that Thaksin's only anti-drug effort was his "ruthless" program. Several other policies were implemented (e.g., White schools, border closures, etc.) - they just weren't effective. Thaksin didn't take a knife to drug-dealers because it was the only thing he could think of, but because nothing else was working.

Education policies

See also: Policies of the Thaksin government#Education policies

Thaksin implemented a series of revolutionary but highly controversial series of educational reforms during his government. Chief among those reforms was school decentralization which met with massive widespread opposition from Thailand's 700,000 teachers, who would be deprived of their status as civil servants[38]. There was also widespread fear from teachers that TAOs lack the skills and capabilities required to manage schools. In the face of massive teacher protests and threats of school closure[39], Thaksin compromised and gave teachers affected teachers two years to transfer to other schools. The issue was extremely controversial.

Thaksin also reformed the state university screening system by putting more emphasis on senior high-school grades in stead of the national university entrance examination scores. This change was strongly attacked by many, especially in the academic circle[41]. He also initiated the Income Contingency Loan program to make student loans available for vocational and university education.

• The potential benefits of educational decentralization have been proposed for decades among academics, but isn't mentioned at all. Given this issue was so controversial, the reader is left with the question of why Thaksin even pushed the policy in the first place if it was so unpopular with teachers. Patiwat 19:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thaksin's heavy investments in education were one of his most popular policies - that is why the Opposition is so angry with his recent plan to dish out more scholarships in the election interegnum. The nature of his investments in education should be given more detail.

Energy policies

Thaksin speculated that partially privatized, largely self-regulated monopoly utilities would work as economic powerhouses, providing profits to the treasury and private investors alike. This led to his privatization policies being strongly criticized on grounds that they offer little protection to consumers and ample opportunities for conflicts of interest. On September 2001, the National Energy Policy Office (NEPO) approved the partial listing of PTT, the state-owned oil and gas company[43]. PTT became the largest company by market capitalization upon listing in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) and greatly benefited from the global increase in world-wide oil prices. However, anti-Thaksin critics have claimed that PTT's bull run was due to manipulation by Thaksin[44]. There were also allegations that the majority of the PTT shares for sale had been reserved for politicians.

Thaksin has also repeatedly attempted to privatize the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT). One of the goals of the privatization was to raise THB 42 billion from an IPO and use the funds to invest in three new natural-gas powered power plants. However, EGAT's privatization was abruptly delayed when some NGOs and some Union members filed a petition with the Supreme Court a few days before the scheduled listing[46]. On 23 March 2006, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled against the privatization of EGAT PLC, citing conflicts of interest, public hearing irregularities, and the continued right of expropriating public land[47][48]. The ruling led to union leaders and anti-Thaksin protestors calling for the renationalization of other previously privatized state enterprises[50][51].

Southern Thailand Insurgency

See also: South Thailand insurgency

A resurgence in violence began in 2001 in the three southern provinces of Thailand. There is much controversy about the causes of this escalation of the decades long insurgency. Attacks after 2001 concentrated on police, the military, and schools, but civilians have also been targets. Thaksin has been widely criticized for his management of the situation, in particular the storming of the Krue Se Mosque, the deaths of civilians at Tak Bai, and the unsolved kidnapping of Muslim-lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit. In March 2005, Thaksin established the National Reconciliation Commission, chaired by respected former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun to oversee efforts to bring peace to the troubled South. The Commission has yet to submit a final report on the situation.

Foreign Policies

On foreign policy, Thaksin has said that "Thailand requires a progressive foreign policy that firmly supports its domestic counterpart"[60], forcing diplomats to endorse domestic economic programs. This policy has been fiercely attacked by various prominent career diplomats, calling it "demeaning" and did little to enhance Thailand's global stature[61].

Thaksin has also initiated negotiations for several free trade agreements (FTA) with China, Australia, Bahrain, India, and the USA that came under criticism[62]. In a highly controversial move, Thailand joined George W. Bush's multinational coalition in the invasion of Iraq, sending a 423-strong humanitarian contingent. It withdrew the last of its troops on 10 September 2004. Thaksin has also announced that Thailand would forsake foreign aid, and work with donor countries to assist in the development of neighbors, especially in the Greater Mekong Sub-region[63].

• Never before has the foreign policy of a standing Thai Prime Minister been as fierce a target for criticism among diplomats as Thaksin's. The Jayanamas and Kasit Pirom were the elite of Thai diplomacy; yet their public attacks were distinctly undiplomatic. What provoked them to such passion? It wasn't just the FTAs and supporting GWB. The summarized version you've suggested doesn't give any insight at all to the causes of the fierce struggle going on in Thai foreign relations. Patiwat 19:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Other criticisms

There have also been complaints that Thaksin has been stacking the civil service and independent commissions with his relatives and business associates [70] [71] [72][73]. He was also accused of lobbying to remove Lady Jaruvan Maintaka from the position of Auditor General[74].

Respected former Thai ambassador to the UN Asda Jayanama has claimed that Thaksin's two state visits to India were made in order to negotiate a satellite deal for Shin Corporation. However, no evidence for this claim has been yet put forth.

2005 Election

He was re-elected in the February 2005 elections in spite of allegations of widespread corruption in his administration. TRT won a landslide victory, with his Thai Rak Thai party sweeping 374 out of 500 seats in Parliament. The extensive publicity that Thaksin received on television in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami is cited as an important factor in this election. However, in the southern region, still being plagued by separatist insurgencies, Thaksin's party only managed to win one seat. It is also notable that the region is the area directly affected by the tsunami.

Political crisis of 2005-2006

See also: Thailand political crisis 2005-2006

Accusations by Sondhi Limthongkul

The tense political situation was catalyzed by various accusations by Sondhi Limthongkul, owner of the Phoochatkarn Daily newspaper. Sondhi started to hold almost weekly city hall forums in late 2005 to voice his charges and concerns. The gatherings were small at first but became larger gradually. The people participated also adopted the yellow color to show their allegiance to HMS King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

Sale of Shin Corporation

Main article :Thaksin Shinawatra $1.88 billion deal controversy

On Monday, January 23, 2006, three days after new Thai Telecommunication Act (2006) passed on Friday January 20, the Shinawatra family sold their entire stake in Shin Corporation to Temasek Holdings. The family netted about 73 billion baht (about US$1.88 billion) tax-free from the sale, exploiting a regulation that individuals (as opposed to corporations) who sell shares on the stock exchange pay no capital gains tax.

The Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the transaction and found that Thaksin's son, Panthongtae, violated rules with regard to information disclosure and public tender offers in transactions between 2000 and 2002[81]. Panthongtae was fined 6 million THB (about 150,000USD) [82]. The SEC moved to clear Thaksin of the charges pertaining to the deal. The transaction made the Thaksin the target of accusations that he sold an asset of national importance to a foreign entity[84][85]. Supporters, however, counter that the complete sale of Shin Corporation by the Shinawatra-Damapong families had been a long-standing demand of some public groups[88], as it would allow Thaksin to undertake his duties as Prime Minister without accusations of conflicts of interest.

House Dissolution

Thaksin announced a House dissolution on 24 February 2006, in a bid to end the political crisis triggered by the sale of Shin Corporation. General elections were scheduled for 2 April. Thaksin was widely criticized for calling the snap elections [108]. The opposition Democrat, Chart Thai and Mahachon parties announced a boycott of the election on 27 February. [107]."

Formation of the PAD

Thaksin, as an interim prime minister faced growing pressure to resign and in mid-February 2006 anti-Thaksin protestors formed the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and mobilized the first organized group of protestors since 1992. The PAD drew a large number of middle-class residents of the capital. Sondhi Limthongkul was a prominent leader of the protests. The group also included prominent socialites (dubbed the "Blue Blood Jet Set" by the Bangkok Post) and members of the Thai royal family[89], the Santi Asoke Buddhist sect (led by Thaksin's former mentor Chamlong Srimuang) and state enterprise employees. Protestors camped for months outside the Government House in Bangkok. The most notable demands was for Thaksin to resign from his post so that the King could appoint another interim prime minister.

A Nation Divided

The protests were divisive. The Dharmakaya Buddhist sect came out in support of Thaksin. Massive pro-Thaksin rallies were mobilized from northern and north-eastern provinces, some bringing him thousands of red roses. The most notable of these groups was “The Poor People Caravan”, riding farming vehicles to Bangkok. Overall this led to the crisis being protrayed as a conflict between the urban middle-class and the rural poor. The conflict prompted several members of King Bhumibol Adulyadej's Privy Council asked protestors to seek a peaceful resolution to the situation.

2006 Election Results

Unofficial results as of 3 April 2006 showed that the TRT received 16 million votes cast nationwide, with 10 million abstentions and invalid ballots, but with the abstention ("no-vote") option outweighing TRT support in many constituencies in the capital and the South. Thaksin had earlier promised to not accept the premiership if TRT received less than half of the total vote[99]. After an audience with King Bhumipol, Thaksin announced on April 4, 2006 that he would not accept the post of Prime Minister after the Parliament reconvenes despite getting more than half the votes. Thaksin positioned himself as Caretaker Prime Minister but delegated his functions to Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Wannasathit. [111] [112][113]

This election also resulted in the fact that while the TRT Party have the majority in the Govenment, it was unable to form a government because some parliamentary seats remained unfilled due to not enough votes for ratification. The Election Commission held by-elections in 40 constituencies[93] on April 23[94]. Some of the seats still remained empty. The Election Commission scheduled yet another by-election on 29 April but was halted by the Constitution Court.

Royal Intervention

The King gave a speech on 26 April to newly appointed judges of the Thai Supreme Court stating that a royal appointment of an unelected prime minister would be undemocratic. He asked the court to handle the existing conflicts. On 8 May 2006, the Constitution Court ruled 8-6 to invalidate the April election and ordered a new election to be held. The Court also demanded the resignation of the Election Commissioners. The Law Society of Thailand filed a suit with the Supreme Administrative Court stating that Thaksin's transfer of power to Chidchai was illegal[118].

Balance

I´m not sure that this article is as balanced as it could be. I have removed references to "unabashed populism" and keynesian fiscal "pump-priming" (although in the first case I´m not sure that my new text is completely balanced itself). However I still have a feeling that the article is more negative about Thaksin than it should be. I can´t put my finger on it though and of course one can never properly distinuish between reality and ones subjective perspective. Obviously the whole issue is very controversial with protests centred along class lines so it is difficult to find the balance. I think it needs people with fresh eyes to look it over. what do others think? Pugsworth 12:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "unabashedly populist" doesn't sound very neutral (it seems to suggest that populism is something that people should have to apologize for). But replacing it with "designed its policies to appeal to the impoverished majority" seems a bit, well, unbalanced as well. Thailand has a lot of poor people, but only 20% were below the poverty line before Thaksin became PM (~10% after). And policies like universal healthcare and killing all the drug dealers weren't aimed specifically at the poor - they were aimed at the majority, period. How about simply "populist" with a link to the wikipedia article on populism. Any controversies about the validity of populism as an economic/political platform can be more specifically addressed in the article on populism. Any question about the details of the populist policies themselves are dealt with in the article body. Patiwat 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To me even the label ´populist´ by itself still carries a negative connotation, due to the fact that it is often used to critise political opponents. I think the link to wikipedia´s populism article is helpful but don´t feel it entirely resolves the problem. The question for me is who is applying this label? I don´t think the term is neutral enough for wikipedia to use without a reference. Has Thaksin applied the term to himself? if so, then say so, this would be the best solution. If not then I think the term should be appear attributed to his critics in the relevant paragraph. I´ve just noticed the term also appears two paragraphs down "The Nation newspaper called Thaksin's populist platform "a revolution in Thai public policy"[32]." again not attributed elsewhere and appears to be entirely unnecessary in this context. If the policies were aimed the majority, period, then remove the word ´impoverished´ this leaves the same meaning without the value judgement. PS sorry if the unilateral editing goes against protocol, I´m new to all this. Pugsworth 12:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

An earlier paragraph begins "Critics, however, charge that Thaksinomics is little more than a Keynesian-style economic stimulus policy re-branded as something new and revolutionary." For balance, it should be noted that a reputable newspaper did call Thaksin's policies revolutionary. Whether it was revolutionary or not, I don't know. But some people think it is - and some don't. And Wikipedia needs to aknowledge both. Patiwat 20:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't been able to sort through a lot of old campaign material to see if Thaksin/TRT called its own policy platform "populist". It should be noted, however, that it isn't just The Nation calling Thaksin populist. Reputable sources world-wide having been calling him that. Just try googling "Thaksin populist" and see how many websites you get. Patiwat 05:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we please get some references for figures on poverty reduction. I noticed there is a reference to Thaksin's economic policies being effective in poverty reduction in the body without any reference. I'm not challenging the effectiveness of Thaksin's policies, but a 10% poverty rate (which Patiwat mentions) is too low, as that figure would put Thailand on par with advanced industrialized countries! Tettyan 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I referenced a Sydney Morning Herald article. The footnote is right there (no. 29); I'm not sure why you can't see it. That statistics has also been noted by the Council for Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10315/) and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot2_040206.html). Patiwat 20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

From the World Bank report by Dr. Kirida Bhaopichitr: "Incidence of poverty in terms of headcount has fallen from 21.3 percent in 2000 (14.2 percent in 2000 based on the old poverty line) to 11.3 percent in 2004. This decline was mainly contributed by the reduction in the number of poor in the Northeast."[1] This seemed a bit too wordy for the article (and there are many complaints that the article is too long), so I shortened it down. Patiwat 20:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem necessarily implausible. Criteria for defining 'poverty' vary, but are often relative- that used in the UK, IIRC, is half the average income. It's quite possible that since the average income in Thailand is low, only 10% of the population have half (or some other percentage) of that. Henry^Flower 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm more familiar with absolute definitions of poverty. In the US, I believe the poverty line is defined against a consuption basket that is assumed to be able to feed a family of four. Especially since Thailand is a poor country, it makes far more sense to define poverty on absolute terms. Also, for poverty to fall using the relative definition, it would require a fall in income inequility, and from what I understand, income inequality has not decreased in Thailand during the last five years. Tettyan 15:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It is not without reason that Thaksin is called a populist. From the World Bank report, the Gini coefficient of income inequality fell from 2000 (last year of Chuan 2). We're almost, but not quite, back to where we were at the end of Chuan 1! The article is long enough, as many have noted. Do you think Thaksin's reduction of income inequality is important enough to deserve mention in the article? Patiwat 20:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Back in college, I was told that Thailand officially defined poverty as the minimum income required to purchase a basket of goods and services, among them a 2000 calorie/day diet. I'm not sure what standardized definition the World Bank used in their statistics, or whether they use the Thai definition, or whether the Thai definition has been refined over the years. Patiwat 20:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Even as a trained economist, I've always found the term "pump priming" term strange. It sounds so esoteric; by intellectual economists, for intellectual economists. The new edit turns this into "Keynesian fiscal policy", which also has its issues. The 2 links aren't that informative, and it doesn't tell someone who doesn't know economics what the policy is all about. Why not call it "Keynesian-style economic stimulus policy" with a link to the article on Keynesian active fiscal economic policy. Patiwat 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your suggested wording here is good I´ve put it in, however it does lead us to the problem that describing something as Keynesian or keynesian in disguise is not a criticism in itself unless you assume the value judgement that keynesianism is a bad policy - presumably not a position that wikipedia would take. Thus I think we need something to say why critics thought keynesianism was bad in this context.

Also I think the 4th paragraph in this section about the cabinets recent decison to susend the THB investment is irrelevant in an artcile about Thaksin and given the length of this article should be deleted or moved elsewhere.Pugsworth 12:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I included that paragraph to add some balance to the critique of Thaksin's economic policies. Critics (namely TDRI economist Somchai Jitsuchon) have claimed that Thaksin's economic policies had a marginal impact on the economy. But after a key Thaksin economic policy was suspended, economists have significantly dropped their growth estimates - implying that Thaksin's policies had a significant impact on the economy. Patiwat 20:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the balance of various sources (specifically source 13) which claim various achievements to Shinawatra's policies and/or ideas. For instance, the HIV-prevalence and anti-retroviral availability in Thailand has long been praised before the emergence of Shinawatra; therefore, this specific attribution of said accomplishment is misleading alongside many other 'dodgy' successes. No politician or political party in the world has achieved such undisputed policy successes as this article suggests of Thaksin. Neutrality is sorely needed.

Source 13 (a short bio of Thaksin's pre-political career) is used only describe Thaksin's earlier business ventures. It says nothing about whether these ventures were successful or not.

If you have references saying that Thailand gave universal access to anti-retrovirals before Thaksin, then please state them. The references shown are from UNAIDS country reports, which I think are quite balanced. Patiwat 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-drug policy

I translated the parts of the King's 2003 birthday speech where he praised Thaksin's anti-drug campaign, the one that lots of people complain about. The King speech is obviously unscripted and quite tough to translate. I'm sure that some people will read my translation and go "What! The King is praising Thaksin?!?!?!" and then go "This translation has got to be wrong, translated by some Thaksin-flunky for sure". Well, I took the official Thai translation from the Kanchanapisek website (the citation is in the article), so I'll let any editor who thinks he has a better translation offer it here. Patiwat 11:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the transalation. I know you take a policy of including as much information here as possible. I'm just a bit uncomfortable with any attempt to read HM's intentions on political matters. That goes not just for this, but also the many interpretations in the media of HM's 2001 speech (interpreted to be not too flattering to Thaksin) or of his latest speech last December about how "The King can do no wrong" (also interpreted by many as a slap in the face to Thaksin). If consensus is in favor of keeping this reference, then so be it, but as I understand it, any attempt to attribute a political position to the palace risks being in violation of Thai lese majeste laws (yes, Sondhi himself has done this way too many times). I appreciate your efforts to Be Bold! - on the other hand, I personally prefer to err on the side of caution. Regards, Tettyan 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I hear where you're coming from. I have personally hated any attempts to involve the monarchy in Thai politics, because they are almost always self-serving. And because the King's speeches are usually so stream-of-conciousness and filled with teasing, sarcasm, and veiled references that it is hard to discern any clear intent. But in 2003 regarding drugs, I believe his intent was crystal clear. "ไอ้การชัยชนะของการปราบไอ้ยาเสพติดนี่ ดีที่ปราบ แล้วก็ที่เขาตำหนิบอกว่า เอ้ย คนตาย ตั้ง ๒,๕๐๐ คน อะไรนั่น เรื่องเล็ก" (As for the victory of suppression of drugs, the suppression was good. And those who have criticized 'hey, the 2,500 dead people', whatever, that's a small thing). He goes on to emphasize (he even tells everybody to jot it down!) how how every year more than 2,500 people die due to drug-related violence, and ask why nobody has ever counted those deaths. He goes on and on about this in his own style. Read the transcript at http://kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/2003/1204.th.html. This is clearly praise, no interpretation or political guesswork needed. It seems pretty black and white to me, and when the most respected and powerful man in the country praises one of Thaksin's most controversial policies, I think it is worthy to include that praise in the article. Patiwat 20:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I usually try staying tight-lipped about my opinions of HM's speeches, but my feeling was that HM wasn't trying to belittle (or condone) the deaths in the drug war. As I recall, he also pointed out later in the same speech that people were killed for a number of causues; that it's not correct to blame it entirely on Thaksin, but that some authorities should also be held responsible. I remember that the police ordered an investigation to account for all the killings [2] as a result of what HM said here: ​​ที่ทางราชการ​จะ​รับผิดชอบ​ ​ก็อาจ​จะ​มีจำ​นวนหนึ่ง​ ​ก็ลองถามทาง​ผู้​บัญชาการตำ​รวจแห่งชาติ​ ​ไปแยก​ ​จำ​แนก​เป็น​เท่า​ไร. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards, Tettyan 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a reasonable interpretation, given the half-veiled way the King communicates some times. But overall, I don't see how anybody could interpret the King as anything less than praising of Thaksin in the overall narcotics front. Patiwat 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of other users, here is the expanded text of the portion of the King's speech I quote above, plus a translation from The Nation:

"ที่ทางราชการจะรับผิดชอบ ก็อาจจะมีจำนวนหนึ่ง ก็ลองถามทางผู้บัญชาการตำรวจแห่งชาติ ไปแยก จำแนกเป็นเท่าไร ก็เชื่อว่าใน ๒,๕๐๐ นี่ มากที่เขาฆ่ากันเอง แล้วก็ความผิดของเขา มาโยนความผิดให้ท่านซูเปอร์นายกฯ

ไม่รู้ล่ะก็นายกฯ สั่งให้รองนายกฯ รองนายกฯ ก็เป็นซีอีโอ แต่นายกฯ ก็เป็นซีอีโอ ซูเปอร์นายกฯ ก็โยนให้ เพราะว่าบอกว่าเป็นผู้ชนะ ผู้ชนะกลายเป็นฆ่าหมดเลย ต้องรับผิดชอบฆ่า แต่แท้จริงลูกน้องก็ต้องรับผิดชอบ คือ ที่เข้าใจ ซีอีโอไม่รับผิดชอบอะไรเลย ต้องให้รองนายกฯ รับผิดชอบ และต้องมี ๗ คนด้วย รองนายกฯ ๗ คน คือผู้รับผิดชอบ แล้วรองนายกฯ ๗ คน เขารับผิดชอบ เขาก็ผลักให้พวกปลัดกระทรวง ให้พวกรัฐมนตรีก่อน พวกรัฐมนตรีบอกไม่รับผิดชอบ ต้องรัฐมนตรีช่วยว่าการ รัฐมนตรีช่วยว่าการก็ไม่รับผิดชอบ ต้องเป็นผู้ช่วยรัฐมนตรี ผู้ช่วยรัฐมนตรีก็บอกว่า ปลัดนั่นต้องรับผิดชอบ

นายกฯ บอก แล้วปลัดไม่ต้องรับผิดชอบอะไร ไม่ต้องทำอะไร รองปลัดก็รับผิดชอบหมด รองปลัดบอกมีอธิบดี อย่างนี้เป็นการบอกว่า ไม่รับผิดชอบ ไม่มีใครรับผิดชอบเลย ลงท้ายใครรับผิดชอบ ประชาชนซีอีโอ ประชาชนซีอีโอทุกคน รับผิดชอบหมด ไม่จะทำอย่างไร คือการปกครองสมัยนี้แปลกดี กลับไปเหมือนอย่างเก่า กฎหมายประชาชนรับผิดชอบหมด ตอนนี้คนที่เดือดร้อนคือข้าพเจ้าเอง เดือดร้อน ท่านรองนายกฯ มาบอกว่า ทรงเป็นซูเปอร์ซีอีโอ แล้วใช้คำอะไร จำไม่ได้แล้ว"

"Who is going to take responsibility? Some say the prime minister has to be held accountable after the war he led resulted in 2,500 deaths. But the deaths are attributed to many causes. Some are killings among traffickers; some [of the dead] may have been killed by the authorities. I suggest that the national police chief disclose the details of how the 2,500 deaths happened. Killings among traffickers are not the government's responsibility. It is not fair to blame the entire death toll on the "super-prime minister". The prime minister has delegated the task to his deputies. He says he is the victor in the war. It is said he should take responsibility for the killings. But his subordinates should share the blame. The prime minister's seven deputies have also delegated their tasks to ministers and cannot be held accountable. The ministers, in turn, have done the same by passing on responsibility to subordinates and so on down the chain of command to deputy ministers, vice ministers, and permanent secretaries until the passing of responsibility finally reaches the CEOs and, at last, the people. But the people may turn the tables and dump everything on me."[3] Tettyan 01:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, we could go on-and-on about this, given the nature of HM's speeches. Again, I personally rather not include his statements in this article, but if we must keep it, then I will add a qualifier stating that HM did ask for the death toll in the "war on drugs" to be explained. HM almost always equivocates or qualifies his declarative statements in some way, and I believe this case is no exception. Regards, Tettyan 01:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a very loose translation, but then again, the original was quite loose in style as well. As for the article, I believe that inclusion of the King's praise, with disclaimers as suggested by Tettyan, is important. Thaksin has been loudly accused of human rights offenses by his opponents as well as the international community (mostly for Tak Bai but for the narcotics supression drive as well). Yet the narcotics supression drive remains one of his most popular policies domestically. The King's praise is a concrete gauge to this popularity. The King's praise was not unqualified though, and his concerns about the dead reflect the doubt that some Thais feel about the human costs of this most controversial of policies. Tettyan, could you suggest a translation for the King's qualifier that the death toll be explained? The thing is, he doesn't just say it, but goes on-and-on almost but not really suggesting it. Patiwat 20:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A minor point that might shed some light on the King's 2003 comments: the King really hates drugs! Some quotes from his 2002 speech: "​ก็​ต้อง​ขอบใจที่​ได้​กล่าว​ถึง​กิจการที่​ได้​ทำ​มาตลอด​ ​มีสิ่งหนึ่งที่ท่าน​ยัง​ไม่​ได้​กล่าว​ถึง​และ​ก็​เป็น​สิ่งที่​เป็น​ความ​เดือดร้อนของชาติบ้านเมือง​ ​มา​เป็น​เวลานานประมาณ​ ๕๐ ​ปี​ ​ซึ่ง​เป็น​เรื่องของยา​เสพติด​ ​ซึ่ง​ยา​เสพติด​นั้น​มีมาก่อน​เป็น​เวลานาน​ ​แต่​เป็น​ยา​เสพติดที่​ไม่​รุนแรงมากนัก​ ​คือ​ ​ที่​เขา​สู้​กัน​เรื่องฝิ่น...." (My translation): "(Gives thanks to all the people who have wished him well on his projects and stuff)... There is one thing that you haven’t mentioned and that has caused harm on the country for about fifty years. That is narcotics. Narcotics have existed for a long time, but was the kind of narcotic that wasn’t very violent, which was opium...." He goes on and on and on about how bad opion is, how it led farang to invade China, how heroin and other narcotics made Thai people crazy, how high the social costs are, how evil drugs are, etc. Read it for yourself at http://kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/2002/1204.th.html. The key point of trivia: this preceeded Thaksin's "ruthless" suppression campaign by 3 months. When the King talks, people listen! Patiwat 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I would like to add: "However, His Majesty did express concern about reports of extra-judicial killings, adding 'some [of the dead] may have been killed by the authorities. I suggest that the national police chief disclose the details of how the 2,500 deaths happened.'[4]" Any objections? Tettyan 10:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds alright, I guess. But then it should be noted that after the King's speech, National Police Chief Sant Sarutanond did order an investigation, as requested by the King. The result: the police revised down the drug-related toll to 1329, of which 72 were extra-judicial killings by the police. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3334169.stm. Seems aggressively low, but the Police did it at a direct order from the King, so either they truly believe in the revised figure, or they weren't taking the King's order seriously... Patiwat 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that while we've been discussing this, an anonymous editor has gone ahead and added an interpretation of the King's praise, calling it "ambiguous" and literally putting words and assumptions into the Royal mouth. I'm reading the King's speech again, and besides the points that we've discussed above, I don't see how the praise was ambiguous. That same editor also added a bunch of unreferenced "facts", figures, and quotes to the article. I have noted the need for citations, and will remove this stuff if no citations show up. Patiwat 22:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ambiguous praise" are definitely not the words I would use (what does it mean anyway?). I'm still thinking of what would sound better, but can't right now. Also, I remember reading about that investigation the police conducted as a result of the King's speech. I'm still trying to decide what to make of it. Is there any quote from the National Human Rights Commission or other group that opposed the anti-drug campaign that comments on the report? For now, anyways, I'll go ahead and the change I proposed above. Regards, Tettyan 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Police investigation, in response to the King's order, is the BBC link given above. Patiwat 02:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

An enthusiastic anonymous editor (he same one who rewrote the sub-section on the King) has claimed that Thaksin promised to "rid every inch of the country" of meth in 3 months, without citing where that particular phrase comes from. I've done a search on Google for ("rid every inch of the country" Thaksin) and found nothing. I therefore assume that Thaksin never actually said those words, and that the editor was putting those words in his mouth. The sentence has been reverted to its original form. Patiwat 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The enthusiastic anonymous editor claimed that most of the people killed during the anti-drug campaign were poor, and that only a minute portion of "kingpins" were arrested. This is unreferenced, of course, but if true, deserves to be in included in the article. I have been unable to find a reference for it. Could someone please look in to this? I really don't want to delete the entire sentence, because if it is true, it is a valid criticism of the campaign. Patiwat 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The same anonymous editor claimed that the campaign increased the price of drugs but did not reduce the availability of drugs. The second part, about not affecting the availability of drugs would be a very valid criticism of the campaign, but the claim is unreferenced. This sentence isn't biased (unless if the anonymous editor made the fact up). But I can't find any sources that claimed that the campaign didn't reduce drug availability. Could someone please help research this and make the edit? Patiwat 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tettyan, the ABAC poll was a good addition. Now that Thaksin has decided to get back to work, his first decision is to start another anti-drug drive. This is a obviously a political decision, aimed at increasing his popularity in an area he knows people are concerned about (as the ABAC poll attests). Do you think this deserves mention as well in the article? Patiwat 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I recall that even after the big "war on drugs" concluded in 2003, "second phases" and "third phases" were announced later, but I don't remember to them amounting to much. I guess it's a habit of governments to announce things that they don't bother to follow up on (or they do, but it's the media that don't follow up). It's not clear yet what the latest announcement of another crackdown will amount to. Until then, I'd hold off just for now on mentioning that here. Regards, Tettyan 01:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, any response to the anonymous editor's suggested shortening of the drug section (among other sections)? Given it was such a high profile topic, I'm not sure a shortening is neccesary. The anon editor has made the suggestion in good faith, but I don't see anybody responding to it yet. Patiwat 10:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to opine on this matter, since I also invested quite a bit of time in contributing to this section. However, I believe it would make little sense to shrink this section while keeping the rest of the "policies" section intact. The entire "policies" section should be relooked and shortened as a whole, while the details can remain in the Policies of the Thaksin government entry. The anonymous editors' suggestions may be a good place to start, but they need some work. Regards Tettyan 10:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Composition of anti-Thaksin crowds (and other enthusiastic anonymous edits)

The enthusiastic anonymous editor who stormed through the article a few days ago noted that "urban upper/middle class royalist Bangkokians" made up only a small portion of the anti-Thaksin crowd, whereas I originally noted that that same group made up a large portion of the crowd. The original discussion around this original wording provoked no debate a couple months ago when I wrote it. Given all the press this received back then, can anybody actually claim that the middle-class made up a small portion of the crowd? Especially when the second paragraph notes the divisions between region/class that the whole controversy caused. The enthusiastic editor also notes that the royal family (some members of whom petitioned for Thaksin to be replaced by the King) was "vast". Well, yeah, but so what? Is the vastness of the royal family really relevant? The King's position was made clear in his speech. Patiwat 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, those entire two paragraphs is now a mess, full of mis-spellings, bad grammar, no citations, factual inconsisencies, and a POV that is not very neutral. I want to respect the collaborative nature of wikipedia, but part of me just wants to revert that entire section. Patiwat 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Article needs clean-up and NPOV review

The enthusiastic anonymous editor (IP: 58.136.100.43) from a couple days ago made many edits that hurt the NPOV and quality standards of Wikipedia. Too many spelling mistakes to count, long run-on sentences, clearly partisan tone, and no citations for any of the "facts" contributed. And not a single explanation for why he made the edits the way he did. I don't want to do a full revert, since that isn't very constructive either, so I'll let the other editors chip in and either make piece-meal changes or alternative suggestions. Patiwat 03:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting quite absurd. Anonymous editors have made substantial changes to the NPOV of the article. The King's praise of Thaksin's anti-drug policy has been erased, and replaced with criticism taken out of context. Mention that drug use in schools declined has also been erased. New "facts" have been added without citation, e.g., "anti-Thaksin protestors consisted mostly of academics and intellectuals". Facts are phrased in a loaded way, e.g., "Thaksin's overwhelming support in the poor Northeastern provinces and his own hometown of Chiang Mai and nearby areas". Words have been put into people's mouths that they never uttered, e.g., Thaksin never said he would "rid every inch of the country" of drugs. Patiwat 04:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the anonymous editor explain his/her reasons behind the changes made. Perhaps we should leave a note on the IP user's talk page, giving him up to two days to explain his changes. If there is no answer, I believe that all the changes should be reversed. Are there any administrators watching this page? Tettyan 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple IP addresses are behind it. I've left a message on one of them. I don't consider it vandalism; just an enthusiastic Thaksin-hater who doesn't understand Wikipedia norms. The darn thing is, I do not want to revert all of his/her changes. Amid all the POV, faked quotes, and unreferenced opinions, he/she makes some assertions that, if properly backed up, should belong in the article. Patiwat 06:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the multiple IP addresses obviously prove the number of individuals opposed to your words, in which case, your statement about a small minority opposing Thaksin could also be disputed. I think that your article is a little biased. The parts about Sonthi's arguments, for example, you used a lit of descriptive words that seem to suggest that Sonthi has exagerated a lot of things. Fair enough, but since this is a formal article, you must take an objective view. Many people from many different countries will be reading this article, it is not fair that you voice your opinion as fact for millions of people and then get "huffy" when your statements are oppposed.

• I frankly don't see where I've suggested that Sondhi exagerated a lot of things, but if you do, please go ahead and edit it to make it look more formal. It isn't really related to the unreferenced, low-quality, and clearly biased edits made in the past week. Two wrongs don't make a right. Patiwat 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Background to the "Anti-Thaksin and pro-Thaksin rallies" section begins by claiming (without reference) that most of the protestors were academics, intellectuals, and middle class. The final paragraph of that section claims "The chief source of controversy has been Thaksin's overwhelming support in the poor Northeastern provinces and his own hometown of Chiang Mai and nearby areas, leading to the crisis being protrayed as a conflict between the urban middle class and the rural poor." This just sounds weird, weasely, and a bit loaded too. If there was a political conflict between rural Thailand and the urban middle-class, then just say so. But this is not the case. I've only been able to find reference that say "Social instability could easily turn into class conflict pitting the pro-Thaksin rural poor against the anti-Thaksin urban rich" or "Violent class conflict is not impossible in Thailand". I'd prefer to let the facts speek for themselves, and delete this paragraph. Patiwat 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have done some cleanup of the article and will remove the POV and Factual Accuracy tag. I have retained a lot of the POV statements and inaccurate claims, because I think that some of them might valid, and will give other editors the chance to find citations. If no citations come up, I will erase or modify the claims. Patiwat 22:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Public reactions to Thaksin, post-"stepping down"

Some time ago, I had noted the strong positive public reaction to Thaksin after he announced he was not going to accept the Premiership. The reference I used was a ABAC Songkran poll which found that most people wanted to receive blessings from Thaksin compared to any other politician. While OK, equating New Years Blessings with popularity left me feeling a bit uncomfortable. A recently public poll (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/30/politics/politics_30002895.php) might be more appropriate. Done on April 28 (~ 3 weeks after Thaksin made his announcement) it found that 54% preferred TRT's policies, while 7% preferred the Democrats. Maybe not a perfect barometer to the public's reaction to Thaksin's announcement, but maybe better than the Sonkran poll. Any thoughts? Patiwat 03:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have made the edits noted above. Patiwat 04:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this earlier. One thing I wanted to point out was that I think Thai voters are smart enough to distinguish between a party's policies and the person of the party leader. So it's possible to support TRT's policies while disapproving of the Shin sale, Thaksin's abrasive personality and his authoritarian tendencies. The poll you cited that people want TRT's policies to continue, even if they may not think highly Thaksin's other qualities. Well, at least we know that the 55% of BKKers who voted "No" didn't do so out of love for the Democrats' policies. Regards, Tettyan 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Democrat policies? What policies? :-) Back to the topic, it was hard to try to find an ideal measure of public reaction to Thaksin's announcement. One extreme was the ABAC Songkran blessings poll, which showed that Thaksin as an leader still had overwhelming popularity (52% vs. 26% for Chuan and Abhisit combined). But using this poll has always made me cringe, mainly because non-Thais might not understand why a Songkran blessing means so much as a measure of individual respect. Admittedly, the policy poll I ended up using isn't perfect either, but I'd argue against Tettyan by saying that the TRT marketing machine has clearly positioned Thaksin as the man behind the policies. The fact that even after falling to the PAD's attacks, Thaksin as an individual and Thaksin as a policy-maker was still massively popular needs to be noted.

An anonymous editor (he left a message on my Talk page) has edited the sentence to be "A Bangkok poll taken 3 weeks after Thaksin's announcement found that TRT policies were still overwhelmingly popular in Bangkok, with 54.2% preferring TRT policies versus 7.5% for the Democrats." Now this is factually correct, but the way it is worded doesn't support the header sentence "Thaksin's announcement provoked mixed reactions among the public and the anti-Thaksin coalition." The point isn't about the TRT's policies (which weren't really affected by the political crisis), but about the popularity of Thaksin as an individual (which was clearly the target of the PAD's negative campaign). I'm thinking of reverting going back to the original data source: "Thaksin's announcement provoked mixed reactions among the public and the anti-Thaksin coalition. He remained highly popular with a large majority of the population - a poll conducted days after the announcement found that 52.9% of Bangkokians wished to receive Thai new year blessings from Thaksin, versus 26% for Democrat party leaders Chuan Leekpai and Abhisit Vejjajiva combined[5]. In Thai tradition, new year blessings are usually given by highly respected figures." Any thoughts? (p.s. Could the anonymous highly educated elite physician editor please respond here, and not on my Talk page. This isn't personal.)

Is there a poll out there that asks what people thought of the PM's decision to step aside? If I recall correctly, people thought it was the right choice to step aside, but still want a continuation of TRT policies. Thaksin's "sacrifice" also seemed to improve his personal standing too. Perhaps the best would be "Thaksin's announcement provoked mixed reactions among the public and the anti-Thaksin coalition. On the one hand, according to X poll, people approved of Thaksin's decision to "take a break from politics". On the other hand ... [continue with what you wrote above, plus mention the poll on TRT vs Democrat policies]." Hopefully, this could satisfy everyone. What do you all think? Tettyan 07:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem: I don't ever recall seeing a poll that specifically asked about his choice to step aside. Nor were there polls which tested his popularity both before and after the announcement. The Songkran blessing poll and the policy poll are the only ones I could find. Please point out if there are any other results that are publically available. Patiwat 08:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Where "no-votes" anti-Thaksin votes?

The enthusiastic anonymous editor from a few days ago made some edits to the "Election results" section which almost but-not-quite implied that "no-votes" were anti-Thaksin votes. I think this is pretty relevant to the article: was more than half of Bangkok anti-Thaksin? That would have tremendous implications to Thaksin's political future. The results from a Suan Dusit poll on 3 April (http://www.dusitpoll.dusit.ac.th/2549/2549_021.html) point in a different direction: only 19% of people who voted "no-vote" in Bangkok did so because they didn't like the PM. Most others were confused, jaded, bored, etc. So even though Thaksin didn't clearly win in Bangkok, he certainly didn't loose it. Should this factoid be noted in the article? Patiwat 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Decidng who "wins" or "loses" a vote, beyond the mere election numbers, is a tricky exercise off which countless self-appointed political pundits make their living. Just one example off the top of my head: LBJ won the 1968 Democratic primary in New Hampshire with nearly two-thirds of the vote against anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy. So LBJ won by the numbers, but the media declared that he "lost" to a hitherto unknown opponent known as "expected". That's right, LBJ committed the sin of not performing as well as "expected". As for Thaksin, well b/c TRT won 32 BKK seats last year but only pulled off a plurality against the "No" votes this year in nine seats, that was considered a "setback" and a "loss" for the premier. I have the feeling that if TRT won less the 20 seats in BKK last year (but still won overall in a landslide), people would not have been able to make such a big deal about it. You also have the issue of spoiled votes - the anti-Thaksin camp also considers most of those to be votes against the PM (though they have no numbers to back this up). We can discuss all the spin and the polling, I think for the sake of brevity we should just stick to posting the numbers, and that the main figure we should pay attention to is the TRT party-list share of the national vote, since Thaksin promised to resign if this figure fell below 50%. If someone really insists in going into depth analyzing the results, we can do that on the Thailand legislative election, 2006 page. Regards, Tettyan 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is reasonable. But the question is relevant now, more than before, because the conversion rate between "no-votes" to Democrat votes should determine the results of the next Constitution Court mandated election. Patiwat 22:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "No" votes are not all Democrat votes, as people voted "No" for a variety of reasons. Many PAD supporters are also not natural Democrat supporters, so it will be interesting to see where they park their votes the next time around. Once the re-vote takes place, we'll have a clearer picture of what's been going on. Until then, I think we should be careful about including any more speculation in this article. Regards, Tettyan 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone I knew voted no. And yes, because they felt a little apathy towards the government. Not because of Taksin himself persay but if half the country are not behind the guy then how can it work. And yes, everyone who voted no did vote it just to show their opposition to Thaksin. It is difficult for anyone to last very long in politics, look at Blair, Bush etc. It's the same story. The people will never be happy with their leader and you have to respect that. And you must also realise that a lot of the people who voted yes did so because they were bribed. Obviously, you didn't include anything about the manner of thai politics and the tendency to bribe did you? Ins't it fishy that the richest man in Thailand becomes Prime minister?

• This page isn't supposed to be for political debates. The personal feelings of you and me to Thaksin shouldn't be relevant. I'm merely saying that there exists quantitative, authoritative, and timely research that describes the motivation behind the "no-votes" in the last election. Thaksin is a politician, and politicians live-or-die based on whether people like them or not, as you noted. The research clearly suggests that most of the people who "no-voted" didn't do it because they didn't like Thaksin (unlike you and your friends). I was quite shocked at seeing this research, because I thought (like you) that the majority of "no-votes" were people who didn't like Thaksin and converted to the Democrats/PAD. This research is highly indicative of how the next election will go and will have a strong influence on Thaksin's political future. I'm repeating my point here, but even after reading Tettyan's rebuttal, I still think this research result is relevant to this article. Patiwat 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Overseas trip

The post-election overseas trip ended up not having any major political impact. I would suggest removing it at some point. Patiwat 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I don't think this is a terribly important part of his biography. Tettyan 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. At the time, the Democrats/PAD portrayed the trips as the first step of Thaksin's exile from Thailand, yet another instance of the meddlesome PM creating more work for overworked embassy staff, while offering the tantalizing potential that the foreign leaders would snub Thaksin or that overseas Thais would make a ruckus. The TRT portrayed the trips as private trips for the PM to brief foreign leaders on what exactly was happening in Thailand, and also as public demonstrations of Thaksin's still considerable baramee. It turns out that nothing much really happened, as the Thai public's focus was on the EC and the trips went off without any major hitches. Patiwat 03:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture with Mr. "Akbar"?

An anonymous editor (203.144.143.9 and 203.144.143.8) has replaced the US Department of State photo of Thaksin with an atrocious picture of Thaksin standing side-by-side holding a role with a Mr. "Akbar". The anonymous editor Rationale for the replacement is that the "Akbar" photo is a license free photo, implying that the State Dept photo is not.

1) US State Dept photos can appear on Wikipedia (as per 17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105)

2) Akbar side-by-side with Thaksin has no business being the headline photo of the Thaksin biographical article

3) Users User:Paul 012 and User:Henry Flower have gotten into a revert war with the anonymous editor who insists on using the Akbar photo. The original Akbar revision was made on 23:23, 18 May 2006. User:Paul 012 reverted on 23:48, 18 May 2006. "Akbar" did his 1st revert on 23:58, 18 May 2006. User:Henry Flower did his 1st revert on 00:33, 19 May 2006. Akbar reverted a 2nd time on 00:36, 19 May 2006, and then a 3rd time on 06:29, 19 May 2006. I have left a warning on the 203.144.143.9's page. If 203.144.143.9 or 203.144.143.8 reverts a 4th time, could somebody please report this anonymous user for violations of the three revert rule here. Patiwat 09:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record: An anonymous editor replaced the headline photo of the article with one which several editors thought to be inappropriate (the "Akbar" photo). This anonymous editor has, to date, made 5 reverts of the article in a period just exceeding 24 hours, all in efforts to return "Akbar" to the article. The anonymous editor has used three IP addresses, and has been given warnings on the Talk pages of all three. The anonymous editor has not responded to any attempts at discussion. One of these IP addresses was banned for 8 hours as a punitive measure.

I implore to all editors: Repeated reverts are contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Can't we all just get along and talk to each other? Mr. Anonymous, could you please explain why you think your picture of Thaksin standing alongside Mr. "Akbar" is more appropriate than the State Department Photo of Thaksin? I've already noted why I think the State Department photo is appropriate - but if you don't agree, please state your argument.

A warning and a question: Typical next steps in dispute resolution include Informal Mediation, Discussion with 3rd Parties, Surveys, Arbitration, and Protecting the page. However, Anonymous's refusal to discuss this issue is starting to imply that his/her edits do not represent a good-faith different point of view, but are simply vandalism. Since the vandal seems to be using multiple IP addresses, I do not believe that blocking any one of them will be effective in stopping the vandal. I would hate to Protect the Thaksin article, since this would prevent legitimate editors from improving the article. My question to the other editors is: what else can we do, besides endless reverts, to protect the integrity of the article? Patiwat 08:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be treated as vandalism, I think. Including protection if no other way is possible. Paul C 18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous editor/vandal has struck again with a new IP (203.144.143.5), but this time he/she has given a rationale in his/her edit summary: "Old picture is unsuitable in the eyes of many - new one is more recent". Let me address this: just because the new photo is more recent doesn't automatically make it more appropriate. And I fail to see who the "many" people who think the old picture is unsuitable are - so far, the only "people" who have removed the old picture are all anonymous users with closely related IPs. To the "many" people who think the old picture unsuitable: make yourself known!

p.s., To Akbar, sorry if you've been involved in this ruckus without your knowledge. You're a fine looking chap, but it is not appropriate for you to be in the headline photo of a head of government. You deserve better than to be the focus of this childish revert war. If you really want people to admire your looks, could I suggest http://www.HOTorNOT.com.

The Finland Plan/Declaration/Strategy

Rumors of the "Finland Plan/Strategy/Declaration" have been simmering for a couple of weeks, but now that the Bangkok Post, Bangkok Business Daily, and of course, Manager Daily, have latched on to it, I think it is now time to include mention of it in the article. The accusations are quite serious, and some compelling facts are being thrown around to back them up. Plus, this isn't one or two crazies making the accusations: a Senator, the Democrat Party, and others have joined in as well. Discussion of the so-called Plan can be seen here: http://www.angkor.com/2bangkok/2bangkok/forum/showthread.php?p=9672 I refuse to hypothesize on whether the accusations are right or wrong, but I think it certainly deserves mention in this article. Patiwat 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

For a while I thought these accusations were too ridiculous to merit any comment, but what can I say? If anyone finds it necessary to add further details, let me suggest adding it to the Sondhi Limthongkul entry, since it`s been his newspaper after all that`s been beating the drum on this. Regards, Tettyan 03:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Source of the political crisis

An anonymous editor had earlier added this sentence in to the background of the "Anti-Thaksin and pro-Thaksin rallies" section: "The chief source of controversy has been Thaksin's overwhelming support in the poor Northeastern provinces and his own hometown of Chiang Mai and nearby areas, leading to the crisis being protrayed as a conflict between the urban middle class and the rural poor." Does this make any sense at all? How can the man's popularity among North/Northeastern voters be the chief source of the controversy? The article describes several factors involved, e.g., the Shin Corp sale, the lese-majesty/Royal Powers accusations, etc. But nowhere in the article is this class-struggle/regional-conflict thesis expanded upon. I'd suggest removing this sentence. Any thoughts? Patiwat 11:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence. If somebody actually does have a reputable reference that claims that regional conflict or class struggle was the root cause of the crisis, then I'll be more than welcome to add the sentence back in. Patiwat 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming "Stepping down" section?

Thaksin is back from leave. Could I suggest that the "Stepping down" section be renamed "Thaksin takes a political breather" or something? Because he never actually stepped down. Patiwat 11:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "'Break' from politics"? I think that's how The Nation chose to translate Thaksin's own words. Tettyan 11:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Patiwat 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Article needs further cleanup

User:Herrk has suggested that the article needs further cleanup. Could some specific suggestions be made about what needs cleanup? Patiwat 16:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly can!

At present, the article is 71kb long, whereas 32kb is the wikipedia recommendation. For articles exceeding 50kb, the suggestion is to devide. However, "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time".

For the article at hand, I do not think that this is in any way the case. Especially when put into account that the highly regraded King Bhumibol Adulyadej only received a 43kb-article - despite being king of Thailand for 60 years! King Bhumibol Adulyadej most certainly deserves more attention than Thaksin Shinawatra and has had a lot more impact than the latter.

The article 'History of Thailand since 1973' would be a more appropriate place for most of what is posted here.

• Does this reflect the views of the editor who put up the "clean up" tag? I question this because "needs clean up" seems quite different from "needs shortening". That being said, the article should be summarized down, but I don't see the use of comparing it to the size of the King's article. I'll make a try at summarization of some parts, rather than wholesale removal of entire sections. Patiwat 17:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I didn't realize that you User:Herrk were the editor that had put up the "clean up" tag. Apologies. Please sign your discussions with four tildes. Patiwat 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've shortened the article down to 59kB by rewording and removing redundant info in less than half the sections. I'll have another go at it later, but I think this will result in a much smaller and easier to read article, without compromising any significant insights and info. Some sections, like the "Energy policy" section might be a bit difficult for me though, because of its controversial nature. Also note that the massive number of references in the article adds significantly to its size - the references alone account for about 15-20kB. Patiwat 22:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Clean up" tag is applied appropriatly here in deed. It is supposed to be used used for articles with problems (ungrammatical, poorly formatted, confusing, etc.) And the mass of redundant information on the subject which was in the article before Patiwat's laudable effort justified the term confusing.

However, a lot of superfluous quotes still remain. As you know, in order to quote academically correct, it sufficies to set a footnote link as reference. Additional literal quotes are dispensable, particularly in an encyclopedia. Taking them out would pretty much do the job without curbing the content.Herrk 06:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk

Thanks Patiwat for your work in trimming down the article without losing much of the substance. A few things I did think needed to be added back in, however - one was the fine for a technical violation imposed on Pantongtae in the aftermath of the Shin sale; the other was a brief note about Thaksin's high school alma mater - i think it's worth noting however briefly, that Montfort College is among the most elite schools in Chiangmai, and possibly within the entire northern region. Regards, Tettyan 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I decisively disagree with Patiwat. The fine imposed is supposed to be mentioned in his, Pantongtae's, article, not his farther's.

Montfort College's reputation does not belong here, either. A stub exists on this institution where, if necessary, an elaboration on the subject matter can be put and a link to it posted in the Taksin Shinawatra-entry. Herrk 17:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk

• "Decisively disagree" with me? That sounds very dramatic, Herrk, but please realize I was the editor who deleted the mention of Pantongtae's fine! Tettyan, I understand why you might want to include mention of the Pantongtae's fine, as many people view Pantongtae as being a tool of his father - hence the sins of the son are the sins of the father. But in hindsight, Pantongtae's error wasn't really major, as the SEC found in its investigation. I therefore don't think it should be included in Thaksin's article. I'm open to different perspectives on this issue though. Patiwat 04:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The original summarized version by Patiwat mentions that Thaksin, his daughter, Shin executives and other associates were investigated by the SEC and cleared of all wrongdoing. If we're going to include that bit of information, then what's the logic in selectively omitting any mention of Thaksin's son? It should be noted that he was investigated, like everyone else, and charged with a small fine for a rather technical violation (I will try to incorporate the notion that the infraction was minor into the sentence). This section of the article is about the Shin sale (an extremely significant event in Thaksin's political career, I might add) and the findings against Pantongthae concluded the official investigation into that sale. Regards, Tettyan 12:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Tettyan that Montford should be mentioned as an elite high-school. It is mentioned in the article that the Shinawatra family was at the peak of Chiang Mai society - it reinforces this to note that Thaksin attended the most elite school in the Northern region (apologies to any Prince Royal alum). An educated Thai person might know that Montford is an elite school, as an educated westerner would know that Eton and Stuyvesant are elite schools. But the readership of Wikipedia is international, and such culture-specific knowledge should not be presumed. Lastly, I don't think the reader should have to click on every link in order to understand such nuisances and subtleties - if it can be noted in a concise manner in the main text of the article, it should. Patiwat 04:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Article cleaned up

After scrutinising the article a bit closer, I could not help but noticing that the "facts" presented were highly selective and bascially no proper citation was given.

Most of the links HTML links were irrelevant (e.g. footnotes 15,16,18,23,24,25,26 etc.) or inadequantly set.

Others (e.g. footnotes 21,31,35 etc.) were dead links.

Some were take from unreliable sources such as forwarded Google news group threats which where labeled to be taken from newspapers (e.g.3) or reverences to biased blog entries (e.g. 63)

Besides of dealing with those bogus citations, I took the liberty of removing quotes which were too long or irrelevant for the subject (such as that Dr. Taksin Shinawatra used to make coffee AND was the dishes in his younger days).

The same has been particularly done for the several apologetic remarks on "highly criticised/effective" meassures implemented by the government. Additionally, in cases of not complete neutrality or biasedness, such as the remark that people were weeping in response to a certain action.

I tried to give the article adequante lenght and style. However, a lot of citations are still needed. The section on privatisation, in my point of view, is still disproportionally long with regard to the person.

Maybe a couple of other users involved would improve the quality of the article.

Going through the wikipedia guidelines on verifiability of facts and neutral POV might as well. Herrk 03:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)herrk

• Regarding the dead links, please note that all of them can be retrieved from the Internet Archive at http://www.archive.org. They should therefore be returned to the article. Patiwat 03:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Your accusation of "bogus citations" is quite incorrect. Usenet postings of newspaper articles were used for citations rather than direct links to newspaper articles because the online archives of the Bangkok Post and The Nation (Thailand's main english language dailies) simply do not go back that far. I don't think those newspapers even had websites in the early 90s. Herrk, this was documented quite clearly in the Discussion page archives, namely the "Complete rewrite of "Entry Into Politics" section" posting. You erased well over a dozen citations. Could you please add them back in, and erase your "citation needed" tags where appropriate. Patiwat 04:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Herrk, you have replaced several valid and relevant citations with the "citation needed" tag. For instance, I cited the article at http://www.pathfinder.com/asiaweek/97/1010/nat2.html to back up Suthep Thaugsuban's accusations that Thaksin used insider information to profit on the Baht devaluation of 1997. The link works, Asiaweek.com is a reasonably reputable news source, and the accusation is clearly mentioned in the fourth paragraph. Yet you replaced the citation with the "citation needed" tag. This seems to have occured for many other citations as well. If this is a misunderstanding or clerical error, could you please revert back to the original citations. Patiwat 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please,Patiwat, I outlined my reasons. Please read my previous threat. That article reads thorough editing. Herrk 05:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk

• I agree with your reasons that that the article needs editing, but adding incorrect edits isn't helping. You've done some good work already, so could you please double check your work, as requested above? Otherwise, I'll do it for you. Patiwat 07:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Herrk, one of your many edits was to make "Accused of "Finland Plan"" a top-level section and making "Returning from "leave"" a sub-section under it. Could you explain your reasoning for this? I don't really see how Thaksin's return from leave has anything to do with the Finland Plan accusations. Patiwat 08:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Herrk, no links last forever. If there is a full citation of a newspaper article MLA style, then there's no need to delete the entire citation. Just remove the link, and have the citation exist in text only. Those with access to news archives could easily look it up based only on the info provided in the citation itself. Regards, Tettyan 12:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Herrk, you've done some great work! Some of those citations are much more relevant than the older ones. Some questions though:

• You write that in 1990, Thaksin was almost broke, yet won the Thaicom satellite bid. This isn't backed up by the citation. If anything, he was quite successful in 1990, as SCC was listed on the SET in that year. Patiwat 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The quotation reads -quote: In 1990 when Thaksin made a successful bid for a 20-year concession from the Telephone Organization of Thailand he was almost broke, as reported by Post reporters, but still had the daring to offer the TOT 20 billion baht in concession fees to garner the contract. Thaksin has never lacked for courage it seems. and it is taken from the BKK Post election profil 2001; I think it suffices.

As for the following:I wrote "designed by Thaksin and other Thai Rak Thai co-founders aimed at taking control of Thailand and replacing Thailand's constitutional monarchy with a regime dominated by Thaksin and his cronies." I assumed it entailed your 1), did it not?

As for the other points: You sure got a point there. Yet, those accusations can backfire badly on the accussers. That would be the moment when the discussion of this "fiendish" plan would, I think you can guess, be rather be dealt with in the "Finland plan" article, I suppose. But Be bold!

Besides, once those issue are dealt with and the few remaining citations update, I feel that the clean up-tag will no longer be needed. What do you figure?Herrk 16:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Herrkk

• You deleted lots of details on the Finland Declaration, noting that it is a scheme aimed at creating a "regime dominated by Thaksin and his cronies". I have 3 issues with this. 1) It doesn't make clear that the accusation is much more serious that that - he is being publically accused of trying to topple the monarchy, which is rebellion of the highest order in Thailand. 2) It doesn't mention that the Democrats have supported the Finland accusations, unlike many of Sondhi & co.'s earlier accusations (adultery, allying with Satan to destroy the Erawan Shrine, etc.). This lends the Finland accusations much more legitimacy. 3) It ignores the fact that the accusations of toppling the monarchy are being made during the nation-wide celebration of the King's 60th anniversary on the throne. The combination of these three elements is quite a serious blow against Thaksin, and some mention is quite neccesary in the article. Patiwat 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Apologies there Herrk, my mind always mixes up "constitutional monarch" (the individual) with "democracy with monarch as leader" (the system). Sondhi & Co have been accusing Thaksin of trying to destroy the later for a long time, but only recently have they taken to accusing him of trying to overthrow the former. I had already gone ahead and made some edits to that parapraph - could you see if you are OK with it? As for covering it in a seperate article, I'm not sure that is approporiate right now. Thaksin is clearly the one being hurt by these accusations (whether they are right or wrong is another matter) and they should be included in his article. If it later turns out that there is no historical significance, we can always just shorten it down later. Patiwat 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That is your personal evaluation that Thaksin is being "hurt" by those accusations. The way it is now, it seems that "Sondhi & Co" are willingly trying to disturb the celebrations and Thaksin, despite opening the ceremonial procedures, is "hurt". I will put "in retaliation" back into the article, for reasons outlined below.

• I think that your edit is reasonable and your interpretation correct. What I would ideally like to do is include in the article any public polling results to a question like "Do you believe that the Prime Minister is behind the Finland Plot to overthrow the monarchy". Without such data, I'm relying on The Nation, which wrote that "Senior political scientists with PhDs like Chai-anan and Pramote know very well that highlighting the deeply sensitive issue of royal power is an effective way of damaging their opponent's political reputation." Plus historically, accusations of plots against the monarchy are rare but extremely effective. To my knowledge, this tool has only been used twice in Thai history: 1) in 1976, which resulted in the mass murder and rape of students at Thammasat, and 2) in the 40's, when "Pridi shot the King" accusations forced Pridi Bhanomyong into exile. Patiwat 03:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Herrk, I do have issues with 3 points in your edit. 1) "Thaksin and his cronies" is obviously POV, and doesn't belong in the article. 2) The text of the cited Manager article is in Thai, and it would be more appropriate to have a footnote with some English-language text describing the bibliographical details of the article, rather than just a hyperlink. 3) Your edit of what Thaworn said isn't very clear and seems to sidestep Thaworn's conclusion: "Democrat Party deputy secretary-general Thaworn Senniam commented the economical and political development in Thailand since the TRT party has become the ruling force had simularities with the steps outlined in the Manager article." The Manager citation's headline was much clearer: "Democrats believe Finland Declation really exists". For the skeptical, here is what Thaworn actually said: "ถึงแม้จะไม่มีหลักฐานยืนยันว่าเรื่องดังกล่าวเป็นความจริงหรือไม่ แต่พฤติกรรมที่ผ่านมาของ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร รักษาการนายกรัฐมนตรี และพรรคไทยรักไทย ล้วนเชื่อถือได้ว่าเป็นเรื่องจริง" (English: "Even without evidence to prove whether it [the Finland Plot] is true or not, the past behavior of Thaksin and the TRT shows that it is obviously true."). Patiwat 03:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have corrected and changed several things on the Finland Plan

• The "taking control of Thailand and replacing Thailand's constitutional monarchy with a regime dominated by Thaksin and his cronies" sentence seems a bit overly complex and is certainly biased - I have replaced it with "overthrowing the King and seizing control of the country"
• Thaworn Senniam's quote is long and difficult to understand, and doesn't capture what he actually said. I have replaced it, as noted in a previous posting.
• A citation to the main website of the Manager newspaper has been replaced with specific citations to some individual articles
• There is a conflict between what the AsiaMedia article says (there were 5 Finland articles spanning 17-24 May, with a title for the series) and what the cited pages on the Manager website says (there was an article on the Finland Plan on the 8th of May, there doesn't seem to be an overarching title for the series). I've tried to reconcile this by saying that Manager published "several articles" and omitting the alleged series title.
• Thaworn Senniam's name in Thai has been added back in for disambiguation
• I've noted that Sondhi Limthongkul is the owner of the Manager newspaper. He isn't a new face to this article.
• "Some voices criticized the possible hate-instilling impact of the publication..." has multiple weasel words. Reading the linked editorial, it would be more accurate to paraphrase it and say that "The accusations of disloyalty bordering on high treason were strongly criticized for inflaming hatred". Things could also simplified or made slightly more neutral by saying "The accusations were strongly criticized".
• Could we include other perspectives in there as well, e.g., those that supported the accusations? The Nation itseld said that the accusations may work, and even reprinted a scary "Killing evil is no sin" quote. And Dean Pairoj's assasination warning occured when the Finland plan was just becoming public.
• The King's 60th anniversary celebration occured over a period of many days (the events actually started in April), and it is not incorrect to say that the Finland accusations - which occured over an entire month - happened on the eve of the celebrations. The timing is certainly relevant, as all Thais would have the King in their hearts during this time, and the accusations were about overthrowing the King. Patiwat 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

After a personal exchange of emails with the editor who put up the "Cleanup needed" tag revealed that he is now satisfied with the quality of the article, I have decided to remove the tag. If any editor still has issues with article quality, please note it in the discussion page. Patiwat 05:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Energy policies / Privatization summarization

I have shortened down the Energy policies / Privatization section, and moved the detailed contents to the Energy Industry Liberalization and Privatization (Thailand) article, which should give that topic the historical perspective it deserves. I've debated Thaksin's privatization policies with many editors over many months, and know that my summarized version might still be controversial. Well, be bold and edit away! And please remember, detailed analysis should go in either the Energy Industry Liberalization and Privatization (Thailand) article or the Policies of the Thaksin government#Energy policies article. The summarized version should, as always, be as concise and neutral as possible. Patiwat 08:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I might need your help with some of the older quotes, though. If for some claims a prober source can't be cited, what would you reckon? Delete? I would be more in favour of leaving the "citation needed" tag on in such a case. A wrong or mixed up citation, however, must, naturally, be avoided.Herrk 08:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk

• To me, adding a "citation needed" tag to controversial info increases the credibility and value of the article, whereas deleting the controversial info often leaves awkward gaps. I tend to leave a "citation needed" tag for a few days to a few weeks, in the hopes that somebody reading the article will attribute a correct source. Eventually, if the information is controversial, it will either be deleted, sourced, or adjusted in a way that makes the issue irrelevant. Patiwat 08:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Patiwat, again: wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is about facts which can be proven from reliable sources. It is about objectivity.

You claim to "loath" Thaksin, yet you edit the article in a way which is apologetic and favourable towards him by, e.g. insisting on putting into the article that Thaksin has been accusing of aligning with "dark forces". This is a claim likly that is considered to be absurd and will be interpreted that way by the reader - and again fall back on "Sondhi&Co.", as you call them.

Beside, that accusation is not at all at the center of what "Sondhi&Co.". Remember: just by claiming some expertise on a subject, facts can not be generated. But existing ones can be proven by the means of citation of relyable sources.

Thaksin does not need "help" from us. He can help himself and probably does so by employing somebody, maybe two people, who monitor this entry. It is common practice in Thailand to draft cyper spin doctors in order to polish your appearance on web boards etc., as you know.

Neither do "Sondhi&Co.".

But wikipedia does in terms of safeguarding its quality standards! Herrk 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk

• Look, this isn't a place to debate politics. This is a biographical article about Thaksin. Prominent critics have made significant public accusations against Thaksin, which were then reported in respectible newspapers. When these accusations have significant impact against Thaksin's popularity, then why shouldn't these facts be cited in the article? Whether I like Thaksin or not, or whether Thaksin needs my help or not, or whether I agree with the accusations or not is irrelevant. Patiwat 02:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, there is a very thin line about what is "absurd" in Thai politics. You might think that the public regards Sondhi is absurd for accusing Thaksin of destroying the Erawan Shrine. But hundreds of thousands of people still supported Sondhi. Thaksin's popularity has continued to fall. Some people obviously take Sondhi's accusations against Thaksin very seriously, and that is why those accusations were mentioned in earlier versions of the article. Now just days before the King's anniversary, Sondhi has accused Thaksin of trying to overthrow the monarchy. Do you think this is absurd, and lacks all credibility? The press and Opposition are taking it seriously. And how about Sondhi's other accusations, e.g., that Thaksin is corrupt, that he is a dictator, etc. Are these absurd as well? I'm not going to draw a line between what I personally think is absurd and not. I'm just going to continue to cite reliable sources about things that have a significant impact on the subject of this article. Patiwat 02:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind if I asked: can you read? Your replies do not refer to any point made before. Herrk 03:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk

• I'm trying to be civil here, Herrk. Please reciprocate. Every point I've made is a reply to a claim that you made. You claim that I am being "apologetic and favourable" towards Thaksin, I've responded that I am not, and that my loathing for him has not stopped me from inserting many facts both for and against him. You claim that the dark forces "accusation is not at all at the center of what "Sondhi&Co."", and I've responded that even though they are not at the center of Sondhi&Co., they helped further the cause of Sondhi&Co. You claim that the dark forces accusation "is a claim likly that is considered to be absurd and will be interpreted that way by the reader", and I responded that the absurd accusations increased Sondhi&Co.'s popularity and decreased Thaksin's, and furthermore, that it isn't always so clear what is absurd in Thai politics. Patiwat 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, why is it that you monitor that article nearly 24/7? And not contribute to much else in wikipedia? Herrk 03:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk

• Personal discussions have no place on this Discussion page. If you have any personal comments, please make them on my Talk page. Patiwat 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Remaining problems with article

Once again,you have not made any point with regard to what I said. You are just being elusive about the main points.

Just saying "it is", does not prove a thing, mind you. Neither in this forum, nor in the article. And using your sidekick Tettyan [6] to back those "facts" up, does not help a bit.

All I am concerned about is the quality of this article, for the reasons posted earlier.

I do not care about your motives of spending that much time turning the article at hand into an mostly poorly researched and manipulatively written one. As you've seen, sooner or later somebody will come across those insuffiencies and correct them - and you will have to set up your "objective facts" over and over again.

But the forces of wiki will always correct the articles into an unbiased piece of information.

Obviously, you have plenty of time to spare. So why don't you spent a couple of minutes with, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica to get accustomed to the fact that changing a publishing date of a newspaper into "On the eve of..." is not scientific. Or check put style conventions. You will find that quotes of a king rather seldom beginn with an interjection. Plus, the internet is not the only source of knowledge.

At least it would make the research to show your recuse more tempting. Herrk 08:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Herrk

• I refuse to get in to a personal or ideological debate with you. However, let me just state for the record that Tettyan is not my sidekick. The Discussion and Edit history shows that he has actually been a very vigorous and reliable balance against what ever biases I have interjected into the article. Tettyan, sorry to have you implicated in this very unconstructive debate. Patiwat 15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Returning from leave and airport rail link

Would anybody have a problem with drastically shortening the "Return from leave" section and folding it into the "Break from politics" section? In retrospect, the airport rail link stuff doesn't seem to be so politically significant. Patiwat 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The airport rail link was already approved and construction started before the dissolution of parliament (though now suspended b/c of cracks in the pillars, thanx to the fine work of Sino-Thai). What I think is being referred to here (one of the 3 lines recently approved) is the extension of this airport line from Makkasan/Phya Thai to Rangsit. Having just gone through all this, I don't think that this reference is really relevant to the biographical article. Also, now that I've had time to think about it, I don't think the reference to "assassination" in the "break from politics" section is particalarly relevant either. I just fail to see the significance of this statement by some professor. Regards Tettyan 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sections merged. The assassination warning was shown in order to illustrate the fact that mainstream political tension was still high, despite the 1 month break from politics. I've shifted around the sentence order to highlight this.

Family tree not clear

Thaksin Shinawatra's family tree is so clear in the article, which states that "Thaksin's great-grandfather Seng Sae Khu was a Hakka Chinese immigrant from Meizhou... His eldest son, Chiang Sae Khu, was born in Chanthaburi in 1890 ... Chiang's eldest son, Sak, adopted the Thai surname Shinawatra... Thaksin's father, Lert, was born in Chiang Mai" This implies that Sak was Lert's father? Patiwat 05:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Breakup of Economic policies and Heahthcare policies

It really didn't make any sense to combine Economic policies and Heahthcare policies. I have broken them up and added a few sentences on the 30 THB scheme (which didn't even receive one sentence in the original). Patiwat 06:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuan 2 government's term did not expire

A recent edit by Tettyan claims that Thaksin gained power "after the second Chuan government's term expired in 2001". This is not true. Thaksin 1 was the first and only government in Thai history to complete its full term[7]. The Chuan 2 government's term did not expire - it fell[8]. After the Rakkiat Sukhthana medicine scandal, the Sanan Kajornprasart assets scandal, and the Chuan coop shares scandal, the Opposition still did not have enough votes to successfully censor the government. So the New Aspiration Party showed some balls and resigned en masse from Parliament. This forced Chuan to dissolve Parliament in November 2000 (although he delayed things long enough to sneakily pass the 2001 budget) and called for new elections in January, elections which the TRT won by a landslide. Patiwat 16:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• In a parliamentary system, a government "falls" if it loses the support of the House - usually either by defeat in a vote of no confidence, or if one of it's major proposed bills is defeated in parliament. The previous election was held in November 1996; the cabinet agreed to dissolve parliament on November 9, 2000 and set elections for January 6, per the suggestion of the Election Commission. [9] [10]. This had nothing to do the Sanan asset concealment scandal or the censure of government ministers, who survived the censure votes. I also fail to see how New Aspiration's boycott (seems to be a recurring theme in Thai politics) of parliament is relevent to this, as even with the NAP boycott, parliament still had a quorum. If you continue to insist on your position, please show us documentary proof that Chuan was "forced" to dissolve parliament. Tettyan 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Nevertheless, the article is still false, because Chuan 1 did not complete his term to expiration, the way Thaksin did in 2005. Read the first article. Technically, Chuan could have continued to stay in power (although for not very long). So why didn't he put on a tough face for a couple weeks and become the first government in Thai history to complete its term? Because his 6 party coalition was very shaky due to all the corruption scandals, and with the budget and election law out of the legislative pipeline, it had little credibility for staying in power. Should the dissolution of Chuan 2 be called a "fall"? Think about it this way: if the Democrats pulled a policy agenda out of their hats and won the October 2006 elections, would you consider the Thaksin government to have "fallen" (even though it was never defeated in a vote of no-confidence or in a piece of major legislation)? I would. Patiwat 16:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • I'll answer the latter question first. The Thaksin government would not be considered to have "fallen" in the hypothetical scenario you pose, because it was Thaksin himself who chose to dissolve parliament. Similarily, when Tony Blair dissolved the House of Commons one year early last year, if he had lost to the Tories then, that would not have been considered a "fall" - that would be considered defeat in an election. Canada's Kim Campbell had only a few days left in its term (situation similar to Chuan's) when she called an election - her party was defeated in a landslide in the following election (going from 154 seats to 2!), this was also not considered a "fall", but defeat in an election. Back to Chuan - only the Social Action Party had withdrawn from the coaltion, but the coalition still enjoyed a majority. Remember, the last election was held in November 1996 after Banharn dissolved parliament, so the coalition leaders agreed to dissolve parliament and schedule the election for January 6, per the suggestion of the election commission. This date was within 60 days after the dissolution - remember, the constitution mandates that an election must be held within 60 days after the end of a parliament's term. But if parliament is dissolved early, then an election must be held within 45 days. Tettyan 00:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Based on your definition of a "fallen" government, I agree that Chuan 2 did not fall. But neither did it complete its term to expiration, as the article asserts. The first source you cited notes that the government's four year term would have expired on Nov 16, but that Chuan dissolved Parliament on Nov 7. Parliament was dissolved 9 days before its term expired. Patiwat 06:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake in the previous post (something came up while I was in the middle of typing it & I didn't have time to double-check, so apologies in advance). The Constitution madates that an election be held in accordance with the end of the term within 45 days, and within 60 days if parliament is dissolved early. Anyways, back to the topic. In sum, it's rare in many parliamentary systems for a House to serve its full term, as many Prime Ministers have seen it to their advantage use their power to dissolve parliament (a year early in the case of Blair, a few days in the case of Campbell) in order to choose the election date most optimal for the incumbent party. So how about this: "After Prime Minister Chuan dissolved parliament in November 2000, TRT won a sweeping victory in the January 2001 elections, the first election held under the People's Constitution of 1997." -Regards, Tettyan 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Sounds fine to me. I agree with all your points. Based on all your reasoning, I still find it confusing why there was such a ruckus when Thaksin dissolved Parliament. Criticism seemed to resolve around that fact that, like Chuan 2 prior to dissolution, he still had a majority and was never defeated in a vote of no-confidence or in a piece of major legislation. Yet he was criticized for going against the spirit of parliamentary democracy. Patiwat 16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Some potential additions under "Prime Minister of Thailand"

On his latest radio show, Thaksin summarized some key achievements of his government.[11] This might be useful in the article. The problem is, he didn't say specifically what time period he was referring to, although presumably it was 2001-2006, but it also might have been 2000-2005. Some of this is covered in the article already, but we might want to add some specific points as well. My commentary is in italics. Patiwat 22:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Industrial exports soared from Bt2.38 trillion to Bt4 trillion. I think this figure should be noted in the article. This is a massive increase, especially considering the global economic slump that lasted from 2001-2003.
• Tourist arrivals rose from 9.5 million to 12 million per year, contributing Bt400 billion to the country. This should go along with the average contribution per tourists, whether it increased or decreased
• More than two million jobs were created, boosting the workforce to 35.8 million. Doesn't tell us that much, without also looking at how many jobs were lost, the birth rate, and the death rate.
• Annual per capital income jumped from Bt79,000 to Bt101,000. I think this figure should be noted in the article; although 5% p.a. over 5 years isn't bad, but isn't great, either. Presumably this is in nominal terms, so it includes some inflation as well.
• Non-performing loans were reduced from 25 per cent to 8 per cent of total bank loans. Are AMC's assets included in this too?
• The stock exchange index recovered to 711 from 269, taking its market capitalisation from Bt1.28 trillion to Bt5 trillion. A large part of the capitalization boost was due to PTT. This is too volatile a metric to really say anything. Other than that it wasn't just AIS shareholders that got rich during Thaksin's government.
• State-enterprise contributions to the state coffers more than doubled from Bt62 billion to Bt137 billion per year. A lot of that came from PTT, which benefited from oil prices have been going up since 9/11
• State revenues rose from Bt748 billion to Bt1.28 trillion, helping the government to balance the budget after having faced a fiscal deficit of Bt110 billion when it took power. I think this figure should be noted in the article. The deficit was a remnant of Chuan 2's IMF policies. Nethertheless, solid fiscal policy isn't something to be happy about.
• Foreign-exchange reserves were beefed up to US$58 billion (Bt2.18 trillion), while foreign borrowing was cut to $56.8 billion from $79 billion.
• Although public debt swelled from Bt2.8 trillion to Bt3.2 trillion, its ratio to GDP improved from 57 per cent to 41.7 per cent. I've had some horrible headaches on this over the years. The key issue is whether to include the debt of state enterprises in to the figure for public debt. Technically, it is, as long as the state owns at least half of the enterprise - thus PTT's debt is still included in the public debt figure. But the government always claimed that it wanted privatization to reduce the burden of public debt... So I have no idea whether this relative reduction in the public debt is due to prudent government fiscal policy or due to some accounting trick.
• The loan portfolios of commercial banks advanced from Bt4.6 trillion to Bt5.6 trillion. Including non-bank loans, total loans outstanding amounted to Bt7.7 trillion, up from Bt5.7 trillion. I think this figure should be noted in the article. The 35% increase in loans is a good thing for the economy, since it allows businesses to grow. But this boost came after the Chuan 2 years, when it was very difficult to get a loan. So this is partly a rebound from the IMF-era. Note that loans grew faster than GDP, which isn't neccesarily a bad thing. First because of the IMF-era had unnaturally few loans. Second because it drives rural the loan shark mafia out of business. Third because access to reasonable-interest loans allowed the rural sector to grow in a way that it couldn't when its only source of capital was the mafia.
• Households have been building up debt but the burden remains at 0.9 times earnings. Whether consumers (and especially the rural economy) have too much debt is a matter of much controversy. We'd have to compare that with other countries - were we higher than Korea before their credit card crash? And I'm not sure what ".9 times earnings" means - it might mean that my total debt is 90% of my monthly salary - 7.5% of annual income. It would be scary if it meant 90% of annual income.
• Some 96 per cent of the population enjoy access to healthcare, compared to 76 per cent five years ago. I think this figure should be noted in the article. This is one of the government's key triumphs. Although critics like to point out that the quality of state healthcare has declined and docters have suffered.
• Workers with secondary school education now make up 25 per cent of the employed from 19 per cent. This is much lower than I thought. Don't more than 25% of all teenagers go to secondary school? What do they do afterwards, become slackers?
• The proportion of disabled people receiving allowances rose from 4.6 per cent to 7.1 per cent. Pensions were paid out to some one million senior citizens, while only 400,000 received anything before. Thailand will face a retiring baby boom as well, although a bit later than the Western nations. Solid fiscal policy and the mandatory savings system will go a long way to preventing this from being too much of a problem.
• Drug cases were slashed from 422 to 160 per 100,000 people. I think this figure should be noted in the article. Another triumph, although critics will loudly scream out that this was accomplished over the blood of drug dealers and other innocent people during the 2003 campaign.

Assassination plot

I'd suggest that we don't make any additions regarding the assassinatoin plot until the news becomes clearer. Right now, the papers are filled with many conflicting accounts: whether the bomb was live or not, whether the car was parked or not, whether the car left ISOC HQ that morning or not, whether the driver was assigned officially Pallop's driver or not, etc. When the facts become clearer, we can add this to the article, but until then, lets wait for the misinformation to weed itself out. Patiwat 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

August 2006 car bomb

The article includes a quote stating the blast radius of the bomb would be 1 km, but that the bomb only weighed 67 kilos. Since the MOAB, the biggest non-nuclear bomb used by the US military, weighs 9,500 kilos and only has a blast radius of 130m, I think the figures in the article are likely to be very wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.222.186.204 (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Where does article need cleanup (Aug 2006)?

Manop just added a cleanup tag to the article. Could some specific suggestions be made about what needs cleanup? This tag has been added before, and cleanup performed. Since then, there has been some vandalism, but the article has been pretty much stable. Patiwat 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the tag without explaining. Since I'm not familiar with English WP, I don't know which the best tag to use to keep up with the English WP standard. Things need to be fixed including reference tags and those written in Thai. Regards --Manop - TH 20:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, you mean 1) converting the in-line reference links into footnotes, and 2) eliminating Thai language references when english language references exist, right? Patiwat 02:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

2001 Constitutional Court decision (NCCC vs. Tha==ksin) not mentioned?

Not mentioned in the article is the 2001 Constitutional Court case which aquitted him of the NCCC's charge that he mis-stated his assets. This was an extremely controversial case at the time, and still provokes disagreements. It should be covered in the article. XKMasada 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Can someone elucidate the passage under the Prime Minister heading that reads..."A controversial leader, he has also been the target of numerous allegations of lèse-majesté, treason, usurping religious and royal authority, selling assets to international investors, religious desecration, and siding with gods of darkness"? I was just confused if this was a common term in Thai or a common allegation. Thanks. --Antorjal 01:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sondhi Limthongkul accused him in a public protest of hiring a man to destroy the Brahma Erawan Shrine in Bangkok so he could use relics from the shrine in a ceremony that would impart to him the powers of the Gods of Darkness. It wasn't particularly clear which gods he was referring to, but it might have been Rahu. It might sound silly if you're not into this type of stuff, but apparently the crowds ate it up. Patiwat 10:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Its weird, even for Thailand, so here is exactly what the references say: "Sondhi had claimed that the man was hired to destroy the shrine so that it would be replaced with one containing a “dark force” that was aligned to Thaksin. “Sondhi is the biggest liar I have ever known,” Sayant said, explaining that it was his son’s depression that drove him to commit the sacrilegious act. Two days after the shrine tragedy, a “spirit house” was erected at the TRT party office in a ceremony attended by Thaksin’s wife Pojaman Shinawatra. Gossipmongers were at work immediately, claiming that Pojaman was seen placing a gold package, supposedly taken from the desecrated shrine, inside the new spirit house."[12]
• and: "The father rejected an alleged statement by government critic Sondhi Limthongkul that Thanakorn was hired by Khmer black-magic practitioners to destroy the Brahma statue in order to replace the Brahma's divine power with a dark force to support Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra."[13]

TAX and the Sale of Shin Corporation

The text is somewhat misleading. How can you "exploit" a tax system that explicitly states that individuals do NOT pay a specific capital gains tax. CG profits would be taxed as ordinary income in Thailand. The tax code has been this way for over 30 years so don't blame Thaksin.

2006 Military Coupe

Obviously the situation will change quickly and althrough the control of the country is by the military, Thaksin should still be considered Prime Minister until such time that it is indisputable that he is not. I think placing unverified or questionable "facts" into the bio until it can be verified and appears a settled matter, not just something in transition. --Gohiking 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete "Tension with the palace" ?

Patiwat, I think I wrote that part with the information from the same book you've use and it is today stated on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/20/thai.king.ap/index.html

It stated that there has been a tension between the king and Thaksin for a long time. If I did it wrong in the content and wording you should fix it, not delete it.

Why did you do that?

Please explain.

--Thai History 0102 16:50, 20 September 2006 (Pacific Time)

Prime Minister Position Abolished?

Since Gen. Sonthi has already revoked the constitution, is it fair to say that the position of Prime Minister is hereby abolished? Arbiteroftruth 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read that a successor PM will be named in 2 weeks, so who really knows? --Gohiking 01:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The junta announced that the junta President (Prathaan, not Prathaanathibodi) has powers equivalent to the Prime Minister. So the PM position hasn't been abolished. A proper PM will supposedly be appointed in 2 weeks. Patiwat 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Article length

As of 21 Sep 2006, the article body (not including Intro, Trivia, and References) is less than 5,700 words long and 62KB in size. This is less than the suggested 6,000 to 10,000 word length which Wikipedia:Article size notes as the limit at which readers may tire of reading a page. It is, however, larger than the 30-50KB recommended article size. Its large size, despite its reasonable length, is due to the large number of footnotes and citations. Subsequent edits should try not to significantly increase the overall size of the article body. Patiwat 20:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thaksin: the legacy

The military junta has announced that it will be "reviewing" some of Thaksin's key policies, so I guess it's time to check whether this article's coverage of his policies covers the points that the history writers will either damn or absolve.

• The CEO-governor was picked out for review.[14] Since the article had not covered the key elements of this particular policy, I have added a short sub-section on it as well as his other key administrative policy, the restructuring of ministries, all of it backed up by an article from a CUHK professor.
• No review has been announced for Energy, but since Piyasawat Amranan has been loudly rumored for the Energy Ministry, we can probably expect the appointed government to try to break up EGAT, i.e., back to Piyasawat's EPPO/NEPO policy back in in 1998. I believe the summary of Thaksin's energy policy already provides sufficient context for whatever changes might or might not occur, although it might be a bit slim.
• The junta explicitely said it would not mess with OTOP and village microcredit funds, both key elements of Thaksin's economic policy.
• The junta explicitely said it would not mess with 30-baht, a key element of Thaksin's public health policy.
• Strangely, the junta said it would continue his southern strategy. Not sure how Sonthi will do that, since his plate is now very full, but regardless, the article already covers this topic quite well.
• No mention has been made about his education policy, e.g., Dream School, school decentralization.
• The junta has focused on corruption in a ad-hoc fashion, but hasn't made any structural recommendations on how to change anti-corruption strategy.

This might all change after the Cabinet is appointed, but it seems as if, in terms of coverage, the article will largely survive the judgement of history. But I'd like to know what others think about this issue. Patiwat 23:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from vandalism

This page has been the target of several instances of vandalism over the past weeks. Please refrain from this practice. If it continues, I will request that this article be protected or semi-protected. Patiwat 00:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from vandalism

This page has once again been the target of several instances of vandalism over the past weeks. Please refrain from this practice. If it continues, I will request that this article be protected or semi-protected. Patiwat 17:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that this Article should be protected from vandalism, not from the random editors but from you Patiwat. You constantly give this article a non-neutral point of view. It can be observe from the lack of content in the "Critism" section. You also make it seem that the critism is easily disputed. This article is very long and elaborated with long details about Thaksin's success, but when it come to his flaws there are almost nothing. Am I to believe that this person is so perfect?

You quoted so many of "The Nation" article when they are delivering fact that goes against the coup and put Thaksin is better light, why don't you take some of the article that goes against Thaksin and improve the critism section as well? For example this article http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/page.news.php?clid=35&id=30038248 where Thaksin have his lawyer try to prevent the result from the probe into his corruption being made public? Or this http://www.nationmultimedia.com/images/tkassets.jpg? There are many more if you so choose to find, all I wonder is why do you only seek the harder to find pro Thaksin article? I mean, if you are not going to use the anti Thaksin one because you believe The Nation is not netural, then why use any article from them at all?

Now tell me, if only you are preserving the article's Pro Thaksin status while several other are editing it to make it otherwise do you not think that your opinion may be biased? Now I'm not very neutral on this topic, even though I believe that my feeling toward Thaksin probably represent the majority of Thai Urban Middle and Upper class, I acknowledge that I am not neautral. That is why I do not edit this article. I never intend to edit any wikipedia article, but your one sided approach in this article simply disgusted me. I believe that you should refain from editing this article in the future as you are not qualified to. I believe this would not be too hard, unless of course you are making a living off editing this page. 210.86.146.246 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Well Put!

Falsely reference of "Post-coup critism" section

From this reference http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/11/politics/politics_30031650.php, it was claimed by hi-thaksin.com that many politicians was hired by Saprang. However, hi-thaksin.com is just a personal website and far from a reliable source for the political information. It also made falsely reference in the wiki by claiming it as a "fact". I will remove the list of politicians in the article because there is no reliable source, evidence, clues or anything that can be linked to those politicians at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.172.29.116 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

• The reference is The Nation, which is a reputable newspaper and news source, not Hi-Thaksin. Besides, the Hi-Thaksin allegations were confirmed by the junta. Patiwat 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening of Corruption Charges against ex-PM and wife

I have to add the latest BBC News on the Thailang High Court allowance of corruption charges vs. the ex-PM and wife.

--Florentino floro 06:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

poverty fell by half in 5 years???

Please provide a reference to support this... The World Bank document simply doesn't support the 50% reduction claim, although it does support a decline in poverty numbers. The figures are also questionable due to changing standards in measurement, which makes the comment read somewhat biased. I will remove the comment if no support can be found.

• Read page 6 of the overview of the World Bank report. Poverty fell by from 21.3% in EOY 2000 to 11.3% in EOY 2004 (using the same poverty line). It fell even further in 2005. Patiwat 03:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Perhaps maths is not your strong point? I have read the article already thank-you.Zontrax 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • It seems your standard for mathematical precision is probably better than mine. Would you be satisfied if, instead of saying that poverty declined by half, the article read that poverty declined by 46.9%? Patiwat 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia or fiction?

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. It is clearly written as pro-thaksin propaganda, with little regard for truth.

For instance: "He provided near universal access to affordable health care"??? Huh? Perhaps in Thailand he made a difference, but in the universe??? I think it is a somewhat exaggerated comment.

There is no evidence for a 50% reduction in poverty. I have removed this once, but it has been replaced by someone.

Any comment that is against Thaksin is qualified by phrasing such as 'Junta-imposed', even in cases where it is inappropriate, or there is no reason (or evidence) to believe the Junta had any influence in the decision. I suggest a complete overhaul of the article, with certain members banned from editing it.Zontrax 07:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest you read the article on Universal health care to understand the definition of the term. Hint: it does not mean he provided health care in Alpha Centauri. Patiwat 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• • In which case, perhaps you should reword it to refer to 'Universal Health Care', rather than Universal Access. Although i will concede the point assuming you are able to find a citation to back it up - I don't see one listed. It shouldn't be too difficult to find one, as the media used to print what they were told to print.Zontrax 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you're the only person who would think that "universal health care" implies that coverage is being provided to living beings all across the universe. The Wikipedia article on the mater is called "Universal health care", not "Universal access to health care." The source is provided in the article - coverage increasd to 96%. I'd rather not put every reference to every fact in the introduction, since the information is repeated in the article body. It would get messy. Patiwat 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, there is also no citation for the claimed 'povery fell by half' - I suggest rewording it to report the facts as stated in the World Bank report - I assume you've read it? And perhaps a better reference than the article "Thaksin lauds his own achievements", printed in the media he controlled would be less biased?Zontrax 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Read my response to your previous posting. The reference is provided in the article as well. Patiwat 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would make these changes myself, but every time I change something, you simply revert it - I feel somewhat muzzled, perhaps akin to the media while your boss was in power?Zontrax 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I have not reverted all of your changes, only the incorrect ones and the ones that distort the overall neutrality of the article. I also do not think that major additions to the already long introduction should be made. Some of your edits were actually quite useful to the article. Patiwat 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Junta-appointed", when stated, is a statement of fact, and worth noting because legislatures, anti-corruption agencies, and other government organizations in Thailand are not conventionally appointed by military juntas but by popular mandate and other means. Patiwat 03:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• • "Junta-appointed" is not a statement of fact - it is POV and a leading statement, as well you know. Perhaps you should find a reference to support that phrasing? I find your popular mandate suggestion intriguing though - perhaps a section on vote buying 'allegations' is appropriate? Perhaps we should start adding a 'Thaksin-appointed' panel or court to other parts of the article?Zontrax 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you seriously claiming that the legislature, the AEC, and the constitutional court were not directly appointed by the CNS? Prior to the coup, the legislature was elected, the AEC didn't exist, and the judges of the court were selected by the Ministry of Justice permanent secretaries, not the Ministers. Patiwat 02:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I am seriously suggesting that you back up your claim with a reference - surely that would support your argument better? I was also questioning the need to state it was Junta-Appointed, afterall who else is going to appoint a body to investigate? Do you state who appointed the bodies existing previously? The Junta (or rather the non-elected government) are currently in control over Thailand and their position should be respected even if they didn't come to power through democratic means. This article is supposed to be Neutral, not just presenting the viewpoint of Thaksin.Zontrax 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
        • As per your request, I have added references backing up the fact that the AEC, the legislature, and the constitutional court tribunal were all appointed by the military junta that overthrew Thaksin. The AEC froze Thaksin's assets, the court banned him from politics, and the legislature forbid any future parties from reusing the TRT name. Prior to the coup, these bodies either did not exist, were democratically elected, or were appointed by the permanent civil service. To not state the extraordinary origin of these agencies would give the impression that the actions were done as part of a constitutional exercise of law and justice. This is a biographical article on a living person. To state that the subject of this article was found guilty and punished for a offenses, without stating that the agencies that made those rulings had origins that were unconventional, would break the BLP rule of "do no harm." Patiwat 03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • It is surely worth noting the reasons why these agencies/courts imposed the bans and freezes? Currently it reads as though they were unfair punishments with no crime, dismissed by the 'junta-imposed' comment, rather than fully investigated criminal offences. I did previously add a sentance giving the reasons for the punishments, but it was reverted. Zontrax 04:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • The reasons are surely worth noting, and they are noted. For instance, the reasoning of the Constitutional Tribunal that banned him from politics is given in great detail. Criticism and praise of the ruling, made by various pro- and anti-Thaksin individuals, including a member of the Tribunal itself, are given. That being said, I can't help it if I could only find one individual publicly praising the ruling. If you can find other third parties praising the ruling on legal grounds, feel free to add them to the article. I have also clarified the reasoning for the AEC's assets freeze, and have placed it in the introduction rather than in the article body.Patiwat 04:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • And you still think you write with NPOV??? Unbelievable! Zontrax 05:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article reads entirely as the 'defence of Thaksin', not a neutral article with both sides fairly argued. Currently Thaksin is most known for the allegations of corruption and human rights offences, but this article doesn't address these fairly. Perhaps after the return to a 'democratically elected' government you might allow people to change 'your' article?Zontrax 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Allegations of corruption and human rights offenses are included in the article, including in the introduction. Please keep your or my personal views on politics out of this debate on how Wikipedia should be edited. Patiwat 02:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • All allegations in the article are given a cursory comment, with his defence arguments presented more thoroughly than the allegations. His history and alleged sucesses are long, while the negative perspective is short. I am the one trying to remove personal views on politics from this 'sensitive' debate, and I suggest you read this page in detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewZontrax 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • As you seem to be suggesting that I don't have a neutral perspective, I would suggest that a 3rd party enters to better neutralise the article - however from reading the comments of other editors throughout this discussion page, that has already happened and you have monopolised the article and discussion, making it a waste of my and everyone elses time.Zontrax 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

ḹ

• • • I have officially requested 3rd party review. Why don't we both cool down on the content edits a bit until a 3rd party gives an opinion. Please don't make the long introduction any longer! It's already very long. Patiwat 08:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • How dare you remove my comments and leave yours there. What exactly was wrong with my edit, and how dare you decide that it is less significant that some of your pro-thaksin comments. I think the biggest and most topical news regarding Thaksin is his human rights record. It definitely deserves to be included in the introduction. Perhaps some of his historical 'achievements' should be moved lower?Zontrax 10:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Third opinion. In this particular context, I believe that the word "junta" is grossly overused in the introduction. It is clear in the article that "the junta" refers to the Council for National Security. It would be appropriate to refer to this body by name or by abbreviation, whichever suits the article more properly. It should be noted, however, that the actions taken after the coup were by a newly appointed bodies, but use of the phrase "junta-appointed" should not be redundant (as it is now, being the first words in two consecutive sentences). Also, phrases like "the head of the military junta" do not support WP:NPOV and may show editor bias. If the man has a name, it should be supplied and linked in this article. If you would like an outside party to rewrite this particular paragraph to better support WP:NPOV, please feel free to let me know. —  Scottjar  → Talk 19:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have implemented Scottjar's suggestions, namely:

1. Explained at the point of first mention that the military junta was the Council for National Security (CNS)
2. Replaced the first 5 uses of "junta" with "CNS", making sure not to be too redundant as Scottjar noted
3. Replaced "the head of the military junta" with "Sonthi Boonyaratkalin" and added link

Yes Please Scottjar - whenever I make edits Patiwat immediately reverts them! Zontrax 23:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• The edit you made had nothing to do with Scottjar's suggestion. Patiwat 06:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant, almost all my edits are immediately reverted by you. I would have preferred to have a neutral party to complete these edits, but for now it has improved. I will check back when I have more time to see if there is any further vandalism. Zontrax 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be a FA

Topic

Again my edit removed without discussion.

I added a well referenced, independent, factual, non-damaging edit to the introduction earlier. It appears that again user Patiwat has removed it because it is not a pro-thaksin statement.

The comment refers to the criticisms widely publicised throughout the international press from the Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. It refers to their concerns about Thaksin's human rights record, and their statement that he is a human rights offender of the worst kind. Please explain why you have removed this Patiwat? Zontrax 10:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• The reasoning for my edit was placed in the edit summary. I've rewritten the paragraph again, but modified it so that it fits better within the flow and context of the introduction. Zontrax's original placement, after the sentence on Sondhi Limthongkul's campaign, didn't really make any sense. Human Rights Watch's critical quote is now placed in the list of other critical allegations, with some contextual details provided (the anti-drug war was also one of Thaksin's most popular policies). Patiwat 06:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Returned to my edit. Who are you to say what reads better? I prefer it my way - shall we get a 3rd opinion or are you ready to grow up yet? Zontrax 06:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • With my edit the paragraph flows much better. It begins with anti-Thaksin comment and ends with neutral, international agreement. With your edit you remove some of the key words, in order to make the criticism of Thaksin appear less severe than it is. I understand your motivation, but again you are suffering from POV. Zontrax 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Since you seem satisfied with Scottjar's suggestions and my implementation of his suggestions, I've gone ahead and asked for his opinion on this paragraph as well. Please refrain from edits until he give his input. Patiwat 07:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Might I remind you, that you don't own this 'wiki'. It is somewhat hypocritical of you to ask me not to improve the article. The objective should be mutual - to best improve the articles that are here. Given the extensive attention (obsessive?) you pay to this subject matter, it is clear that you have a stake in the outcome of the article, so perhaps you don't share the same improvement objective? While we clearly disagree on the subject matter there is no need for arrogance or for you to be patronising. Zontrax 07:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• In an edit war, affected parties are asked to refrain from editing to let things cool down and to let third parties have a look at things. I've suggested that we do just that, and it seemed you are not in agreement. Whatever. I'll wait Scottjar's inputs.
• I'd suggest that you presume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. If you insist on questioning my personal objective, I'll tell it to you: to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles related to Thailand. Patiwat 07:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.. Before this turns into a school playground. Let me provide specific reasons for why I prefer my wording to yours. In your version sentence 3 states 'his opponents', but it is not clear who those opponents are. His opponents are those in sentence 1, who frequently challenged him - not the Human Rights Watch. Placing the HRW reference and quote in the middle of these 2 sentences confuses them. In my version they are a list of the criticisms his opponents have labeled him with. I choose to place the HRW sentence at the end of the paragraph to indicate that the criticisms are not only from his opponents (and the PAD), but also from independent, international watchdogs, which adds weight to the verifiability of the accusations. On Scottjar's userpage you have misquoted me, with a spelling mistake, repetition of 'independent' and other errors - please view the edit on the main page for my actual wording (perhaps this misquotation was due to the 'edit war'?) I would still like to edit it further, with links to Amnesty International and HRW pages, but will leave it for now. On the issue of 'Vandalism', perhaps the word was poorly chosen, but if I was to repeatedly delete your work, would you not consider it offensive?Zontrax 08:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Vandalism is a specific term in Wikipedia. It means the "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Official policy also states that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." If I were a vandal, I wouldn't bother having this conversation right now. Vandalism can have potentially severe punishments, including blocking. It's not right for you to make such serious allegations so casually. Patiwat 18:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• • In which case it is a fine judgement call. I would suggest to you that deliberately deleting NPOV statements which contradict your opinions would count as compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. At the point of the comment you were not engaging in mature conversation about the argument you were simply 'being bold'. It is not the first time you have been accused of Vandalism regarding this article (see above), so perhaps you should consider being more careful, or standing back from the debate before weighing in. I don't think you should be blocked though, as you do bring an alternative perspective to the article - but please remember that you do have an 'alternative perspective', not necessarily the 'right perspective' - and I fully concede that my perspective is also just a 'different perspective', which deserves equal respect to yours, especially when it is fully referenced. Also remember that you do not own this article, and your possessive attitude towards it is somewhat concerning. I shall leave this article for a while, and return when the dust has settled a little in order to continue to improve it.Zontrax 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • If you really think I am deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, then go ahead and formally accuse me of vandalism and follow the due process. Go ahead - I won't take it personally. I stand behind my own work. Patiwat 06:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Guys, let's remember to keep our cool when editing Wikipedia. It's supposed to be fun :) That being said, after comparing this and this version of that paragraph, here's the juxtaposition I came up with:

However, his government was frequently challenged with allegations of corruption, dictatorship, demagogy, treason, conflicts of interest, acting undiplomatically, tax evasion, the use of legal loopholes and hostility towards a free press. His opponents accused him of lèse-majesté, selling domestic assets to international investors, and religious desecration. Independent, international bodies, including Amnesty International, have also expressed concern at Thaksin's human rights record. Human Rights Watch described Thaksin as "a human rights abuser of the worst kind", alleging that he participated in media suppression and presided over extrajudicial killings. A series of attacks in 2005 and 2006 by Sondhi Limthongkul and his People's Alliance for Democracy destroyed Thaksin's name and reputation. He was also subject to several assassination attempts.

What do you guys think? As always, when writing a WP:BLP article, we must remember to maintain NPOV by letting the facts speak for themselves. I included the {{cite needed}} template for some links to support that there was more than one assasination attempt, hopefully you guys can provide them (I'm sure there are, I just didn't have time to peruse the article and find them). Hopefully we can come to a consensus on this paragraph. —  Scottjar  → Talk 13:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for stepping in Scottjar! Who said we weren't having fun? ;) I still think the independent criticism from HRW shouldn't be in between the 2 sentences describing criticisms from opponents, for reasons outlined above - but if I'm outvoted, fair enough. The biggest concern I have with the new rewrite is that it reads as though HRW suggested the violent anti-drug campaign was popular! It wasn't even the violence that they actually criticised him for, it was the extra judicial murders during his premiership (even if some of them were alleged drug dealers) - I think 'extra judicial murder' deserves to remain there as it is the crux of his human right violation criticisms, and the criticism isn't solely aimed at the anti drug campaign, but on more recent events in the south too.Zontrax 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Incidentally, surely there is a reference to support the assertion that the anti drug campaign was popular? I'm not sure I have come across anyone who could condone the murders of thousands of people, without them having an opportunity to defend themselves. Zontrax 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• The drug war was by far his most popular policy - it had a 92% approval rating. The reference is in the body of the article. I can add it to the introduction as well. I refuse to speculate about why the vast majority of the public (including the King) supported it but you didn't. Patiwat 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I have updated the rewrite after reading the cite and your comments (previous). I have reordered the sentences, which makes it clearer who is claiming what against him. I'm going to wait for Patiwat to weigh-in before changing it again, but feel free to keep commenting. And I'm having fun as well! :) —  Scottjar  → Talk 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think saying he 'participated' in extrajudicial killings goes perhaps a bit too far! The allegation from HRW was; Presided over extrajudicial killings during the notorious "war on drugs". HRW says 2,500 people were killed during one three-month period at the start of 2003. I would vote for using their 'presided over' wording.Zontrax 01:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Hah, I didn't realize how that read until you pointed out. Clearly, that was wrong. It has been corrected. —  Scottjar  → Talk 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overall, this seems fine.
  • In the 2nd sentence, I'd suggest replacing "His opponents accused him of" with "He was accused of". Saying that it was his opponents that accused him of stuff doesn't really add anything, I think.
  • In the 3rd sentence, I'd suggest replacing "Independent, international bodies, including" with "Independent bodies, including". The term international doesn't really add anything here. Also, AI and HRW are already sufficiently well known internationally that they don't need that much contextual information.
  • In the introduction, I'll add two references, one for each assassination attempt. They're already in the article body.
  • I'll also add some wikilinks for tax evasion, conflicts of interest, and extrajudicial killings.
• I'll go ahead and make the edits if you're both OK with these suggestions. Patiwat 18:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• All those edits seem fine with me. Feel free to make the edits to the main article. —  Scottjar  → Talk 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Edits made. Scottjar, thanks for your suggestions! Patiwat 09:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A note on the structure and length of the introduction

The introduction has to pack in a lot of information in a limited amount of space. Structure and strict summarization are neccesary in order to maintain readability and overall NPOV. Here is the current structure. Editors are asked to keep any additions within the appropriate paragraph, and not to add too much new content that gives undue weight to any one topic that doesn't really stand out.

1. Name, date of birth, location of birth, key occupations, and notability.
2. Business career, political career pre-2001
3. Key policies and there impact 2001-2006
4. Key criticisms and attacks against him
5. The coup and how it affected him
6. Family

- Patiwat 07:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality check, but no discussion?

This article has been nominated for a neutrality check for several weeks now. I've seen no discussion of specific issues where neutrality has been questioned. Without any discussion, I think it would be valid to delete the tag. Patiwat 02:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay, if nothing else it warns readers that they should be careful when reading it. Further discussion should come here. Making the article neutral would require a complete rewrite, and you wouldn't allow that, which would create another revert war. The neutrality issues revolve around the wording (and the structure) of the article - anything positive is lauded, while anything negative is mentioned in passing with many qualifications that try to dismiss it with phrasing such as 'some people claim'.

I wonder how the article would read if the positives were rephrased with 'some reports suggest that', for instance 'some reports suggest that poverty fell by nearly 50% in 5 years'? Phrases such as "The CNS then established a committee that froze his all of his bank accounts, claiming that he had become unusually wealthy during his term in government..." would be better written as "The CNS established an independent body to thoroughly investigate Mr. Thaksin's wealth over his term in government, and they later froze some of his assets."

Throughout the article a lot of space is dedicated to defending Mr. Thaksin against the charges against him - this is not a court case, it is an encyclopedia. Less space is dedicated to the charges laid before him. It is clear that the article is trying to create positive publicity. I wonder how the Saddam Hussein article would read if it was written by a member of his party?

The article begins with positives, so the criticisms of Thaksin are so low down the page, most readers wouldn't get that far. The introduction is a little better now though.Zontrax 04:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for a neutrality check for several months now with no check. I'm taking off the tag. Patiwat 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You requested a discussion, and I added some discussion points, to which you did not respond. I am adding the tag back, until the matter is discussed.Zontrax 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• What discussion points? Patiwat (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Are you able to read? Read above. Or are you simply able to revert any edits that you disagree with?Zontrax (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Refactor

I am investigating how to refactor this article so that it is not so long. Things like early life and his police career are of less Importance.--LittlePiggy4 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
But his criminolgy doctorate degree must have done him something very evil, either to create complex and high-stake corruptions, briberies, media oppressions, human rights violations,or mass murders, anything you name it in criminlogy textbooks. Last but not least, after jumping bails, escaping jail sentences, he accused the judges and still tries to pull strings on his proxy governments to amend the law to launder his family. What a crook!
More info from People's Alliance for Democracy website www.antithaksin.com
124.120.52.199 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Candy box bribery

Thaksin Shinawatra on June 26, 2008, denied any part in the candy box bribery case, amid court's guilty verdict against his own 3 lawyers in the corruption suit. They were caught hiding two million baht (59,800 dollars) in cash and delivering it to a Supreme Court judge.bangkokpost.com,Thaksin denies involvement in snack box caseBBC NEWS, Bribe case tarnishes Thai ex-PM--Florentino floro (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Long article

doesn't it seem this article is getting rather long. Isnt it high time to divide it? Lihaas (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)124.120.52.199 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree. Stuff on Thaksin is too long to cover up with unreliably distorted and partial facts given making illogical explainations of WHY WHY WHY? More facts from another side at www.antithaksin.com 124.120.52.199 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article stinks of POV

Sadely it seems that a handful of users (or, should I say, primarly 2) have taken it upon themselfs to distort this article to become a appologetic and skewed work of fiction. For us that has lived for several years in Thailand and been able to follow the issues first hand, this article is a disgrace. Non-withstanding that the offending editors are repeatedly dismissing of any debates on the walkpage and repeatedly revert anything they don't see fit. Here is a clue: You don't have a soleownership of the truth and final judgement.

For now it reads as this article was mostly covered by a paid editor within Thaksins own staff. 124.120.82.156 (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But what can we do about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.28.25.35 (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the opening paragraph not mention that he is a wanted fugitive on the run from massive corruption cases in his home country which has multiple arrest warrants out for him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.64.31.2 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. On one of Thaksin's personal website, he declares "The truths shall set you free." I would put another sentence next to it. "But my(Thaksin's) money will set me free." After failing to bribe the judges through his leading lawyers, his family fled to UK, escaping jail sentences and jumping bails. He was brave enough to shout back that it was not his day when Manchester people know it was exactly his day to be warmingly fired from MCFC. Later, Thaksin accepted that Thai judiciary system had double standards. Most Thais agree with that since there was one which he could buy and another one which he cannot buy, by which he have to flee. See more balanced facts in People's Alliance for Democracy's Website 124.120.52.199 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I edited out the sentence that said the 2005 election saw a marked decrease in vote-buying. This is clearly not true and citation 7 used to provide legitimacy to the statement points to greater not reduced vote-buying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.110.211 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maew

(Thai: ทักษิณ ชินวัตร, IPA: [tʰáksǐn tɕʰinnawát]; Chinese: 丘達新, Qiū Dáxīn, nicknamed by the media as แม้ว (Maew, same as Miao and Hmong, a northern Thailand hill tribe. This nickname is despite the fact that Thaksin is entirely of Hakka ethnic background, but was only born in Chiangmai near the hill tribe areas. This ethnic epithet highlights the extent to which the Thai Chinese are integrated in the Thai society, so much so that emphasizing one's Chinese immigrant roots does much less damage to one's image than erroneously labeling him as a regional, indigenous tribesman)

It's just a nickname. Don't over analyze it. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

...and this trivial issue definitely shouldn't take up half the intro paragraph! That said, I'm surprised to note that Thaksin's other, even better known nickname, "Square Face" (Ai Na Liam), isn't noted at all. Jpatokal (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)