maxwell wrote:
"....lobert...." lobert@.. wrote in message
...

What you have said about Thaksin were before his last election but he was
re-elected with stronger mandate. So what's wrong?

Need I remind you that 'Touche' was arguing that "(Thaksin is) trying to
make clean new image of Thailand" ?

And he is, with his anti-drug and other crackdowns. He may not be
succeeding but the statement that he is trying is undeniable. Certainly
has a better image than New Jersey.

If the people have nothing against what he had done,

That's like saying theft is okay if the thief is popular.

No, it's like saying that theft is okay if the people say that theft is
okay.

What Thaksin's
various transfers of assets accomplished (besides enriching himself and his
family and cronies) was to show to the world that he's above the law.

Why? He didn't pay taxes because the law said he didn't have to. That's
not "above the law", that's following the law. Of course what you mean
is that he's above "your personal law" which you, as a devout elitist,
has decided overrules any law that the people make.

What
Thaksin's suppression of critics and buying of votes accomplished was to
show to the world that Thailand is not only corrupted but remains
corruptible.

That's what it shows *you*. You don't hardly represent the rest of the
world.

I realize your 'populist' argument is not totally without one
kind of value, but consider that it was not until after His Majesty spoke at
length, saying that it was okay for *His* actions to be criticized, that
Thaksin finally backed off pursuing libel suits against his own critics.

Libel suits are within the law. So, yet again, Thaksin is following the
law not above the law. In this case the King advised him to back off so
he did out of respect.

Surely you would not argue that the Thai people do not honor and welcome the
guidance of His Majesty?--well, let's say I *hope* you'd not argue that.
(please note that I do NOT make claims of what I think your belief actually is)
Surely you should also consider that getting away with breaking laws that
protect the People (like the law that forbids a PM to serve while being in
control of a corporation---that's as specific of an anti-corruption law 9by
intent) as any you'd find) is not okay just because judges themselves fail
to enforce--not if the Law itself is to have meaningfulness.

what right has the small group of opposition to demand for his resignation
and even boycott the election.

It's called using what power they have to force the issue of how can there
be proper elections when the PM has been allowed to break laws and suppress
accountability.

That's the standard argument that elitist rebels have used to overthrow
popular governments for years. What it means is that the people don't
support them so they'll use "any means necessary" to take power because
they know that the people are just too stupid to support them. That's
pretty much what you've said in several posts.

How is it that you'd apparently rationalize Thaksin's crimes
'because he got away with it,' (as if popularity counts (or should count)
regarding law breaking), while on the other hand condemn minority parties
who rightly claim that Thaksin has repeatedly vacated the legitimacy of his
office?

"Rightly claim"? Is that enough? The Republicans "rightly claimed" that
Clinton vacated the legitimacy of his office by lying under oath. If
the people who don't like the country's leader "rightfully claim" that
he did something they don't like should the leader step down? Even
though the people don't believe it? Even though the people don't want
him to step down? Just on the say-so of a New Jersey nitwit?

What is wrong for Temasek's borrowing from Thai banks, it's still
commercial transaction.

Think of where the banks get their money from.

Hmmm. Depositors? Investors? Where did you suppose they got it? The
Tooth Fairy?