Talk:Thaksin Shinawatra/Archive 1

NPOV
"One way he has consolidated his position is via his dominance of the country's media. Five of Thailand's six television stations are state or military owned. The sixth is controlled by Shin corporation, the conglomerate Mr Thaksin founded and which is now worth more than $2.5bn, with interests ranging from mobile phones to satellites and the internet".Boy, boy that is not good at all. He makes the Italian prime minister look like a joke with his approach to media. Note, i am not saying he is a bad leader, his health policy are impressive, but a total control of media is not healthy. gathima 15:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a bit misrepresentative. The 5 state/military TV stations have always been state/military owned.  Thaksin can hardly be said to have been a major consolidator - every Prime Minister for the past 50 years has had absolute control over nearly all the TV media.  This only changed when the first private TV station ITV was established.  Ironically, ITV was managed by The Nation, so you could argue that ITV actually increased media consolidation.  Unfortunately, ITV-director and Nation editor-in-chief Suthichai Yoon soon drove the station to near bankrupcy, and SCB (the King's bank) had to restructure it and sell a big chunk to ShinCorp.  The Nation's consolation prize was sweet: 25 million warrants with an excercise price 20% below IPO price.  []  Note that these transactions happened in 2000 - before Thaksin became PM.

Please discuss political issue in this article somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia, not a webboard. People like you always ruin NPOV in any article they visited. So don't.--Genocide2st 12:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, it is true that Thaksin is not in the fondness of many. Recently, there've been issues and criticism on his excessive exercise of power. If you've read more news and been 'open-minded' to both sides, you might see more truth. AngelUnderCover 20:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

AngelUnderCover, I am pretty sure you did not understand what Genocide2st said. His point was that political criticism and people's opinion do not matter here, no matter if they are right or wrong, good side or bad side, etc. An encyclopedia is about facts, facts and facts based on NPOV. Thank you. --203.146.247.69 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestion, but the point that Genocide2st [what a name!] made is inaccurate also. I've seen no point of attacking others' opinions and pulled out strong words like "people like you always RUIN NPOV." Who is he [and also who are you] to judge others? Obviously, the statement was made upon a biased ground - if only you dare to admit the truth.

NPOV
To: 70.245.133.17 -

If you have problems with content in this article, please discuss it in this forum first! Do not delete entire sections without any explanation. This is supposed to be an open-source encyclopedia, not a place to promote personal agendas. Your revisions are damaging the NPOV in this article. (Tettyan 11:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Size of Anti-Thaksin rallies

 * To 63.246.163.156 and others - There seems to be some disagreement as to the actual size of the anti-Thaksin rallies. Before making any further changes to this section, I think we should discuss matters here first.  Various different media outlets appeared to report widely different figures.  Perhaps we should come up with a range and perhaps note the sources.  Someone should also pull up the official police estimates - off the top of my head, I recall that their figure was about 50,000 for the first rally and 30,000 for the second, but don't quote me on that.  Anyways, it would be good to get the opinion of several different contributors before any more changes are made to this section. - Tettyan 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * About the size of the rallies, I'd suggest you guys to look at international sources rather than the local one, since the local ones are mutually controlled and self-censored. Recently, a TV news program has released the false number as 1,500, which was obviously incorract. I'm going to ask permission for some pictures taken during the rallies from photographers. Those pictures will reveal the truth, the sea of people that definitely exceeds 1,500.


 * It is always difficult to count of the number of people at mass rallies, no matter where you are. Like Heisenberg, the only rule is that there is never a single correct figure. It is almost comical remembering the widely differing numbers being thrown around during the US anti-war demonstrations in 2003. Protestors always quoted an absurdly a higher number - and protestees always quoted an absurdly lower number.  The press always quotes the extremes, depending on where there are on the political spectrum. It is not the purpose of wikipedia to dispute these numbers.  Ranges and sources should be noted.


 * It took me hours, but I finally came up with sources for attendence figures for most of the rallies. I also noted the massive pro-Thaksin rally on March 3.  This, along with the the "Mob Ee Taen" means that "Anti-Thaksin rallies" doesn't make sense as a section header any more.  I have changed it to "Anti-Thaksin and Pro-Thaksin rallies"Patiwat 19:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Kudos for all your effort in keeping this section up-to-date. One thing I want to say is that this section of the entry is becoming very long, and will only continue to grow longer as the situation develops.  I would like to suggest creating a seperate entry to on the rallies.  Another radical idea would be to rename the Thaksin Shinawatra $1.88 billion deal controversy entry "Thailand Political Crisis, 2006" and update the latest information on the rallies there.  The section on the rallies on this page could then be reduced to providing background information.  My second suggestion would require more work, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me.  What do you all think?  Regards, Tettyan 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with renaming/consolidating the sections. For one, I believe the causes of the current crisis are very complex - the Temasek deal is only one component, along with the Royal Powers/Emerald Buddha/Charuwan thing, the Luang Ta Maha Bua/Gag order/Press freedom thing, the privatization controversy, etc.  Relabelling the Temasek controversy as a general "Thailand Political Crisis, 2006" section might give the impression that the crisis is due specifically to the Temasek deal.  That being said, I do agree that the Rallies section is growing long, and with rallies occuring every weekend, can only get longer.  After the election, I'm pretty sure the rallies will continue, but their nature will change.  I think it will be important to note down these changes - the goals, size, location, composition, etc.; I wouldn't want to reduce the amount of detail just yet, given the dynamism and complexity of the rapidly changing situation.  For now, I'd rather err on the side of greater detail rather than lessor detail.  When things cool down a bit and we have a bit more historical perspective, I'd be more than happy to take a stab at editing things down.Patiwat 15:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken, as the situation is still very fluid. Maybe after all this is over and we have a little more historical perspective, I would like to work on creating an entry on "Thailand Political Crisis, 2006" that will detail all aspects of the controversies, including Royal Powers, Luang Ta Maha Bua, press freedom, privatization, etc.  I agree that the whole matter is rather complex, and in the big picture, is about more than just Thaksin himself - hence, why I suggest having a seperate entry about the political crisis, rather than just including the info under his entry.  But that can wait for now.  Tettyan 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just my two satang worth, I think a separate article on Thailand Political Crisis, 2006 is an excellent idea, especially as the Thaksin article is getting quite long and the issues that the crisis involves will ultimately be bigger than just Thaksin, even though he is at the center of it all. Wisekwai 16:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Succession box
Is there something I'm not getting here? Thaksin is a candidate in the election. If he is re-elected, then his successor will not be elected on April 2. So why should we change the accurate statement that he is the incumbent PM to the (optimistic but probably untrue) statement that he will be succeeded on April 2? Markyour words 22:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thai Chinese
"He is a Hakka Thai Chinese." This suggests he of wholly Chinese descent. I don't think this is correct. I thought his Chinese ancestry was some generations back and that his family has intermarried with ethnic Thais. The article should state correctly what his family background is. Adam 00:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Thai Chinese' AFAIK refers to any Thai with a substantial amount of Chinese ancestry, not necessarily pure Chinese. (If you asked a Thai for an example of a Thai Chinese, Thaksin would probably be the first name they mentioned).   The Hakka bit (if true- I've never heard it elsewhere) is an interesting snippet, but it could perhaps be reformulated to be less dogmatic. Markyour words 12:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK: Thaksin's great-grandfather Seng Sae Khu was a Hakka Chinese immigrant from Guandong who arrived in Siam in the 1860s. In 1908 he settled in Chiang Mai. He married a Thai woman called Sangdi. His eldest son, Chiang Sae Khu, was born in Chanthaburi in 1890, and also married a Thai woman, called Saeng Somna. Chiang's eldest son, Sak, adopted the Thai surname Shinawatra ("does good routinely") in 1938 during the Phibun regime's anti-Chinese campaigns, and the rest of the family also adopted it, including Loet, Thaksin's father, born in Chiang Mai in 1919. Loet married Yindi Ramingwong. Thaksin is thus one-8th Chinese by blood, and his family was "Thaïfied" by the 1930s. (Source: Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker, Thaksin: the Business of Politics in Thailand)\, Silkworm Books 2004). I will incorporate this in the article. Adam 13:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Material from wikinews

 * Opposition may boycott Thai election; demonstrators want Thaksin out. Wikinews, February 26, 2006
 * Thai snap-election set for April 2, 2006. Wikinews, February 24, 2006
 * Leader of 1992 pro-democracy uprising joins calls for Thaksin's resignation. Wikinews, February 20, 2006
 * Thaksin escapes Constitutional Court scrutiny. Wikinews, February 16, 2006
 * Sondhi continues using Thailand Weekly show to attack PM. Wikinews, January 14,2006
 * Thai PM sues media critic for one billion Baht. Wikinews, November 17, 2005
 * Thai PM promises action on suspected militants. Wikinews, October 27, 2005
 * Thai PM sues newspaper for 500 million baht. Wikinews, October 12, 2005

phew!

I won't keep this up to date, but the Thailand portal on wikinews might be worth watching. --Brianmc 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Change of audio file
I listened to the [old] ogg-vorbis file of the pronunciation of PM Thaksin's name (Thai people are colloqiually referred to by their first names)—— and found the enunciation unclear and the tones slightly exaggerated (personal opinion), not to mention the fact that the first syllable (i.e., Thak) was completely inaudible. It was simply absent from the file. And so, I have taken the liberty of making a new audio file, uploading and re-linking it to the article. I hope it is acceptable. Humbly, Trisdee 10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment Attempt, DATES do not make sense
In the following paragraph, the sequence of order of the dates do not make sense, since the senators must have had submitted the petition before the court rejected the petition:

In February 2006, 28 senators submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court calling for the prime minister's suspension for conflicts of interest and improprieties in the sell-off of Shin Corp under articles 96, 216 and 209 of the Thai constitution [6]. The senators said the prime minister violated the Constitution and was no longer qualified for office under Article 209, but the court rejected the petition on 16 February. [7]

So, could some clear this up? --Patpecz 18:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're reading it wrongly: there were 28 senators. Markyour words 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You´re right, thanks. In a few days I´ll delete this entry in aviod any unnecessary confusion. --Patpecz 15:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tsunami publicity helped him gain 32/37 seats in Bangkok?
The article states that post-tsunami publicity helped Thaksin gain 32 out of 37 seats among Bangkok's middle classes. This doesn't make any sense, and is not factual at all. I'm going to delete the tsunami reference.


 * Um, yes I think the Tsunami reference does have a factual basis. Please see Background of Thailand's 2005 General Election.  I'm going to reverse the article back to the previous state and we can invite comments from other users first before we decide what should be done. Tettyan 08:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "The extensive publicity that Thaksin received on state television in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami impressed Bangkok's notoriously unpredictable middle-class, where Thai Rak Thai won a surprising 32 out of 37 constituencies, although as of November 2005, allegations of fraud in three of those districts are still being investigated." This rather long sentence lists only one reason why Thaksin won a landslide in Bangkok. It is of course not the only reason why TRT won Bangkok.  Personally, I don't even think it was an important reason (given that increased publicity didn't do a thing for him in the south).  How about changing this to be "The extensive publicity that Thaksin received on television in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami is cited as a factor in driving Bangkok's unpredictable middle-classes to elect Thai Rak Thai in a surprising 32 out of 37 constituencies.  However, as of November 2005, allegations of fraud in three of those districts are still being investigated." No particular reason to pick out "state television" because every channel (including UBC cable) was saturating viewers with news of Thaksin, K. Phoom, and other tsunami coverage.  No particular need to emphasize the "notoriety" of the Bangkok middle-class's unpredictability.Patiwat 18:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "notoriety" is not the right world. The message I was trying to send was that the scale of TRT's victory in Bangkok was entirely unexpected.  I don't have the figures with me at the moment, but while almost all the polls were predicting that TRT would win the majority of the Bangkok seats, none predicted that TRT would sweep more than 30 (don't have figures handy now, but some polls before the Tsunami predicted TRT could win as few as 20 seats).  As for television coverage, free-to-air television (e.g. state tv) is  the most important source of news for voters, cable TV stations arn't very influential in comparison.  Aside from that, I think it's fair to go along with the rest of your suggested changes, except maybe adding "an important factor" or "a key factor", since analysts point out that the Tsuanmi did have a significant impact on the direction of the campaign.   I agree that we should also delete the reference of fraud allegations, as the statute of limitations  passed a month ago (1 yr after the election) without the Election Commission taking any action.  Regards, Tettyan 10:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was in Bkk at the time, and while I don't speak Thai and therefore wasn't following what was being said on TV, it was obvious that the tsunami was crowding out all other news, including the election campaign, and that Thaksin was getting blanket coverage as Mr Man of Action etc etc. This can only have helped him, although I agree that it doesn't explain why he got no increased support in the South. Adam 10:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The political situation in the south was a bit complicated. The tsunami certainly helped TRT grab a seat from the Democrats in Pang Nga, part of the area most affected by the tsunami.  But much of TRT's boost in the south was offset by another important variable - the ongoing insurgency in the Muslim-majority provinces of the Deep South.  Tettyan 12:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Urban transport infrastructure?
User Patiwat has added some details about Thaksin's economic policies. While I see no problem to most of the points he added, since they are about policiies that have already materialized, I'm not sure it's appropriate to include "urban transport infrastructure" on the list, since it is a policy that has yet to materialize. I'd like to invite comments from other users first. Tettyan 08:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It'll take years, if not decades for all the planned projects to completely materialize. And hasn't some of the $50bn already been invested already?  If anyone still takes issue with this, why not just change it to "proposed urban transport infrastructure improvements".Patiwat 18:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Two points. First, I guess it's not very easy to catagorize Thaksin's "populist" policies.  The meaning of "populist policy" can be open to interpretation, but as I understand it, in the Thai context, "populist" policy refers to policies designed to appeal to the "masses", specifically, "grassroots" voters in rural areas.  Thus, policies like the debt moratorium, SME promotion, the village fund, low-interest agricultural loans, the OTOP scheme, and cheap health care would certainly fit in this catagory.  I'm not sure if urban transport infrastructure, or even promoting IT in schools,   could be characterized as "populist" policies.  Second, I'm not sure if the government's policy on "urban transport infrastructure" is so clear, unlike the other policies you mentioned.  It wasn't an important part of TRT's 2001 campaign platform, and while promises were made during the 2005 election, the direction of the policy since hasn't been too clear.  For instance, in August 2005, the government changed course and cut back the infrastructure plan drastically, scrapping proposed train routes in favor of express bus services.  This move has been partially reversed since then with the much-touted "mega-projects", which may or may not materialize.  But TRT also initially opposed extending the Bangkok Skytrain to Thonburi.  Thus, I am a bit wary of including "expanding urban transport infrastructure" on a list of the Thaksin government's keynote policies.  Regards, Tettyan 12:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're a Bangkokian, the new mass transit plan is certainly seen as a populist measure, designed to appeal to the urban masses (and there are ten million of them). Maps of the new tranit plan have been published. Bidding documents have gone out. The plans are moving forward. These are new policies, not something carried forward from the Chuan Government and not something thought up by the Bangkok Metro Administration. Yes, there have been conflicts between the BMA and the central government about the full extent of the policy. But think about how many times you heard mass transit investments being mentioned by Abhirak during his election campaign. Not at all. Upgrading urban transport infrastructure is definately a TRT policy. It will change Bangkok as much as Gov. Chamlong's BTS changed Bangkok. And yes, the BTS took forever and was doubted by everybody as well, but it is still remembered as a Chamlong policy. As for school IT, trust me, if you're from a rural area, and make less than the GDP/capita, can't afford a computer, and your kids go to school, then school IT investments are an extremely popular and visible policy.Patiwat 05:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're certainly entitled to your views about the government and BMA's plans for urban transport infrastructure. But even before the current political crisis, investors and other observers expressed doubts if the projects would ever materialize, given the government's lack of clarity on the plans.  You claim that bidding documents have gone out, but how is that possible if the government hasn't even delivered the terms of reference yet?  About the maps, many of the maps you see published are actually plagiarized from an independent railway enthusiast who made the maps himself a few years back.  The map doesn't reflect official policy, which is only natural, since the master plan still has yet to be finalized.  Taking all this into consideration, I don't think the issue is so clear-cut as you put it, especially compared to the situation with the other policies that you mentioned.  Thus, for the sake of NPOV and factual accuracy, I strongly advise that we err on the side of caution and remove the reference to "urban transport infrastructure" as one of Thaksin's signature policies. Tettyan 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Clintons' healthcare reform and GWB's social security reform never materialized, but they were clearly important policy goals that, for better or for worse, became landmarks of those politicians - and that are mentioned in their respective articles. I drove down the street today and saw campaign signs saying "Urban mass transport: 10 Routes in 300 kilometers: we will start building by the end of this year". I'm reading the Thaksinomics website (http://www.thaksinomics.com/Grand_Project_Schemes.htm) and seeing reference to the 2003 plan to spend 650USD in making Chiang Mai an aviation hub as well as other projects. Thaksin is clearly pushing this policy, and is investing a lot of political capital in them. He is a politician - this is what politicians do. I do not see why this should not be included in his article.


 * Yeah, they promised the same thing in the last election, but I havn't seen a single track laid since. In any event, the Clinton and Bush each had detailed proposals that they pushed but were effectively rejected by congress (an issue in presidential systems that you don't encounter in pariamentary systems).  The Bangkok transit issue is one that I follow closely, and it's not the same as the Chiang Mai air hub project that Thaksin has touted from the beginning.  Regardless of what TRT says, the government's record on this policy is far from consistent.      This isn't a place to place to recite Thai Rak Thai's election platform verbatim, we want to get accross the essence of Thaksin's "populist" policies in a neutral way.  If we wanted to list everything, maybe it's also worth mentioning the idea to divert funds for cancelled subway/skytrain lines to drought relief in the northeast..  To me, this shows that transit projects arn't a very high priority, especially when compared to those policies directed at rural voters (Thaksin has invested far more political capital in more controversial schemes, such as decentralizing education, which are not mentioned in this article).  For those who are following this discussion, please be sure to take a look at all the reference links.  I don't want to resort to a poll on this, but I would like to see more comments from other users.  Regards, Tettyan 10:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One more point I'd like to make. If you ask any observor of Thai politics (casual or expert) to list the policies most associated with "Thaksinomics",  they'll start with mentioning rural development schemes like OTOP and cheap agricultural loans, as well as the 30-baht medical care program.  Further down the list would be the so-called "ua athorn" programs such as the scheme to distribute cattle to poor farmers.  You're not likely to hear "urban transport infrastructure" anywhere.  Economists Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker devote only half a sentence to it in their 2004 book on Thaksin and his policies (i'm not kidding, it's tucked away on pg 127).  And former Morgan Stanley economist Daniel Lian, the most prominent advocate of "Thaksinomics" among foreign investors, openly downplays the importance of investing in mass transit infrastructure in Bangkok.    So by all means, rural credit schemes, cheap health care, even maybe IT in schools belong on a list of Thaksin's important policies.  But it's clear that "urban transit infrastructure" does not.  Regards, Tettyan 11:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I havn't seen any further comments on this for the past few days. If there is no objection, I'm going to remove the urban infrastructure reference for the time being.  My suggestion is that the reference to urban transit can be made in the entry that details Thaksin's policies: Thaksinomics.  Alternatively, since the proposals for transit infrastructure are just one component of larger policy - the "mega-projects" (again, for more details, see the "Thaksinomics" entry), we could replace the mention of "urban transit infrastrcture" with a more general reference to the "mega-projects" or "nationwide infrastructure development programme".  Regards, Tettyan 02:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though some have doubted "if the mega-projects would ever materialize", it seems that many public and private-sector economists have already factored the mega-projects into their projections for GDP growth. I have noted the indefinate cancellation of these projects and resulting the negative GDP impact in the article. Patiwat 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of insider information during THB devaluation
The article states "It is alleged that during this tenure, Thaksin used his position to obtain inside information that helped his businesses survive the forthcoming Asian Financial Crisis. To date, these claims have never been investigated.[1]" I'm reading this, and inferring that these claims have been made since the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, and due to whatever reason, have not been investigated for the past 9 years. This smells very nasty - has Thaksin been covering himself up all these years? Yet if you read the link (to the December 17, 2005 edition of The Nation), you'll see that the claims were actually made by media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul during his rally of December 16, 2005. So the reality is that over the past 2 months, these claims have not been investigated. Which doesn't seem that unreasonable, given that Sondhi had no evidence in the first place. I don't think the article is representing the facts very clearly.

I'd suggest changing this section of the article to "In a rally on December 16, 2005, media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul claimed that during Thaksin's tenure as Deputy Prime Minister, he gained inside information from Finance Minister Thanong Bidiya about the 1997 devaluation of the Baht. Sondhi claimed that such inside information helped the Shinawatra-group of companies survive the subsequent Asian Financial Crisis."


 * If you check the history of this page, that item was added before Mr. Sondhi gave his speech. The allegations are common knowledge in some circles, but they's no record that they've ever been investigated.  Please see: Pasuk Phongpaichit & Chris Baker, Thaksin: The Business of Politics in Thailand (Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books, 2004), pp. 57-59. In the meantime, I will reverse the change and add the footnote.  Regards, Tettyan 09:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Help me with my history here. After the devaluation but before Thaksin won his first election, didn't the Chuan administration appoint a respected high-level commission to investigate whether any sneaky stuff happened during the devaluation?  I recall that the BOT Governor at the time got into quite a bit of trouble, but the politicians got a clean bill. Was Thaksin one of the targets of the investigation? If so, did he also pass cleanly? If he wasn't investigated, was it because there was no reasonable reason to suspect him, or because..... something else?Patiwat 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

$1.88 billion Shin Corp transaction - Added details on legality and ethics of Shincorp transaction
User Patiwat has added the following information: "Authorities have investigated the transaction and have found it legitimate. The transaction also made the Prime Minister the target of accusations that he was selling an asset of national importance to a foreign entity, and hence selling out his nation. Supporters, however, counter that Thailand's mobile phone industry is highly competitive, and that little criticism was raised when the Norwegian firm Telenor aquired Total Access Communications, the country's second largest operator." You seem to make no mention that Thaksin's son was forced to pay a 6 million baht fine by the Thai Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) or the charges that caused the fine to be levied. Using the term "legitimate" to describe the "authorities" characterization of the transaction is also a bit loaded and could indicate POV. I'm debating whether to simply edit these sentences or rewrite them completely to ensure NPOV. Tettyan 13:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I read an article in the Independant that said the Shinawatra-Temasek transaction was cleared as legitimate. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article351354.ece) "Successive waves of anti-government protests have threatened to topple the billionaire telecoms tycoon since shares of his giant family firm, Shin Corp, were sold to the Singapore government investment house, Temasek, for a tax-free windfall profit of $1.9bn. Thaksin's son Panthongtae, 27, was recently fined for not declaring all his assets. Public tolerance for the first family's financial finagling now appears to be stretched to the limit - at least on university campuses and inside Bangkok. ... ... But allegations of insider trading in the Shin Corp deal, which elevated the family into the ranks of the billionaires, abruptly burst the protective bubble which had kept critics silent. On the eve of the sale, Thaksin's son and daughter bought an 11 per cent stake in Shin from an offshore company aptly called Ample Rich for just one baht (2.5 cents) a share, then sold it to the Temasek-led group for a near 50-fold profit. The authorities ruled the deal legitimate. Though the Prime Minister personally adhered to the letter of the law, this sale has raised concerns among many Thais, not least nationalists, who don't want a major utility comprising mobile phones, broadband internet, satellites, and even a budget airline in the hands of a foreign power." If "legitimate" is too loaded, then maybe "adhered to the letter (but not neccesarily the spirit) of the law" might be less so?


 * As for rewriting the other sentences (which deal not with the legality of the deal, but with the ethics of economic nationalism), please try to ensure a NPOV. I don't think it can be disputed that "ขายชาติ" (nation seller) is one of the major accusations that the protestors are making against Thaksin. In order to maintain NPOV, we should show the other side of the coin - that international transactions like this go on all the time in Thailand, that foreign entities have for a long time owned big chunks of most major Thai telcos (Telenor-DTAC, SingTel-AIS, Orange), and that Shincorp isn't neccesarily a national security asset given the hypercompetitiveness of the mobile phone industry (i.e., if the Singaporeans wanted to screw Thailand and shut down the AIS network tomorrow, Thais could simply migrate to a variety of other competitive operators). I don't want this to go deeply into the pros and cons of economic nationalism (e.g., the "Arabs running American ports" arguments or the "Chinese running American gas stations" arguments").  But we should note that there are legitimate arguments against the ขายชาติ accusations.Patiwat 21:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd expect better from the Independent. I was originally thinking about something along the lines of "the SEC found no evidence of wrongdoing" or "no laws were broken, except for the disclosure requirement." The violation of the disclosure requirement surely deserves mention, but perhaps we should note that it is a relatively minor violation.  Tettyan 02:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. I agree that "legitimate" might be too loaded.  How about "The Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission has investigated the transaction.  "The investigation concluded that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his daughter Pinthongta are clear from all wrongdoing," said SEC secretary-general Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala on February 23, 2006. However, the SEC did find that Thaksin's son, Panthongtae, violated rules with regard to information disclosure and public tender offers in transactions between 2000 and 2002. He was fined 6 million THB (about 150,000USD). "The case is not severe because Panthongtae did inform the SEC but his report was not totally correct" said the SEC's deputy chief Prasong Vinaiphat. However, the transaction has made the Prime Minister the target of accusations that he was selling an asset of national importance ... ..." Patiwat 05:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds great! Thanks for making the effort.  Regards, Tettyan 09:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames
I normally would not include a person's nicknames in a Wikipedia biographical article, but you can't read a newspaper without the headlines referring to Thaksin as "หน้าเหลี่ยม" (Naa Liam - square face) or "แม้ว" (Maew/Meow/Miao - a derogatory term for people of the Hmong hilltribe).

I will not argue about racial slurs or the maturity of teasing people based on their looks. But for better or for worse, these nicknames have become part of Thailand's political vocabulary.

I therefore think some mention of these common nicknames should be included in the article. Just a short note in the beginning "He is commonly known by the press and his critics as "Naa Liam" (Thai: หน้าเหลี่ยม - "square face") and "Maew" (Thai: แม้ว" - a derogatory term for people of the Hmong hilltribe). " If need be, accompany this with a photo of a newspaper headline calling him หน้าเหลี่ยม or แม้ว or a protestor with a sign saying หน้าเหลี่ยม or  แม้ว.Patiwat 06:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the reason for the second nickname? Badagnani 07:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. Since he's not a Hmong, I thought at first that it was an insult (the way a bigoted white southerner from the US would be greatly insulted at being called the n-word). But that seems a bit convoluted. I've asked around, and most reasonable people (the ones that don't go into racist nationalistic mode) just picked up the term from the press. Any protestors out their who know the origins of this term? Patiwat 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As my understanding, Maew is his born nickname. As other Thai people, one always have at least one nickname. I might be wrong. --Manop - TH 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd always thought that Maew was because he's a northerner, and was a bit of mild teasing. But I may also be wrong. :) HenryFlower 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Teasing or not, it is derogatory (even the Hmong article says so). Mom told me never to call a Burmese, Laos, or hilltribe person Maew, because that might be very cruel to them.  The name is extremely uncommon - I know of no other public or private person who has that nickname.Patiwat 20:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify this a bit. The Hmong have historically been a hilltribe around Siam's borders.  But there were also large groups of Hmong in Vietnam and Laos.  During the Vietnam War, they supported the foreigners, and after the war, tens of thousands were moved/exiled/deported/racially-cleansed to refugee camps in Thailand.  I am ashamed as a Thai to say that we didn't treat many of them hospitably.  In fact, we treated them like trash.  Some Thais might look down on Hmong by calling them Maew, but this only brings shame upon ourselves.  So if you're talking Thai politics to a Vietnamese/Laos-American, play it safe and don't call Thaksin by his unfortunate nickname!Patiwat 21:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[User:Adam_Carr] deleted the sentence noting Thaksin's nicknames "He is commonly known by the press and his critics as "Naa Liam" (Thai: หน้าเหลี่ยม - "square face") and "Maew" (Thai: แม้ว - a derogatory term for people of the Hmong hilltribe)." claiming that derogatory nicknames do not belong in the article. I would normally agree, but when every single newspaper in Thailand has exclusively used those nicknames in their headlines for years - then they move out of the category of "derogatory" and into the category of "accepted political terminology". Thaksin can't help it of the Thai press is unprofessional and his critics childish bigots. Please, I don't want to get in an edit war. Read the above paragrah and explain why you don't think a widely used nickname should not be included in an autobiographical article.Patiwat 06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone above said they think "Maew" is Thaksin's nickname, at least from childhood. If that's accurate, then it might not necessarily refer to the Hmong people.  Badagnani 06:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the nicknames don't belong in the article, I said they don't belong in the opening section. I have moved them to somewhere else in the article. I think that is appropriate whether the nicknames are derogatory or not. Adam 06:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't belong in the "Introduction" but in "Economic and Health Policies -> Criticism"? Nonsense!  I'd argue that widely used nicknames belong in the "Introduction" section where people can see them and recognize them, one-off nicknames belong where-ever is topical, and less used nicknames belong in the "Misc" section.  Anywhere except "Economic and Health Policies -> Criticism"....Patiwat 07:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake. I saw the "Criticism" heading and decided to park the sentence there, without seeing that it was "Economic and Health Policies -> Criticism" (This article is far too long, by the way). So it doesn't belong there, but it doesn't belong in the opening section either. It is an essentially trivial matter and belongs somewhere in the body of the article. Adam 07:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is a trivial matter. If this were like "Slick Willy" or some other less commonly used childish nickname, then I would have no argument.  These have essentially become his second name.  No newspaper uses "Thaksin" anymore in their headlines.  A casual person would know of him as "Maew" - and this should be noted early in the article.Patiwat 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "No newspaper uses "Thaksin" anymore in their headlines: No? Adam 08:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can reconfirm that at a newspaper stand today. But for the past month it seemed that most if not all of the headlines were calling him "Maew".Patiwat 08:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thaksin's anti-drugs policy: context, details, implementation, impact, and controversy
I have made substantial additions to the “Prime Minister of Thailand” section regarding Thaksin’s anti-drugs policy. For better or for worse, this is remembered as one of his landmark policies. I have made use of Pasuk Phongpaichit’s (Chulalongkorn University) paper at http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/events/lisbon/05_phongpaichit in summarizing the context, details, implementation, controversy, and impact of the policy. I believe it is significantly more NPOV and informative than “Thaksin's 2003 campaign against drug dealers was alleged to amount to the extrajudicial execution of several hundred suspects, and was heavily criticized by civil rights watchdogs.” I would appreciate it if some further additions could be made to the section, especially some hard before-and-after figures on drug use, and maybe statistics on the effectiveness of addiction recovery.Patiwat 07:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that the war on drugs "has been effective at substantially reducing drug use", but from what I've read and heard, we can only say this definitively about the short-term. Drug prices did shoot up initially, but they have gradually been coming back down, and since many of the higher-level dealers managed to escape the onslaught, drugs are making back on the market, though maybe not on the same level as before the campaign.  Thus, I'd like to add a qualifier by saying "the policy has been effective at substantially reducing drug use, at least in the short-term."  I agree that more statistics on the overall impact of the policies on the drug market are necessary, but I'm not really sure where to dig.  Anyways, there doesn't seem to be much dispute on the immediate effectiveness of the policy, but the longer-term picture doesn't seem so black-and-white.  Regards, Tettyan 09:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather say "the policy has been effective at substantially reducing drug use, at least up to the present day." Unless if the context makes it unambiguous, I don't like using terms like "short-term", because it wont be clear what time horizon we're talking about, i.e., effective for 6 months? 12 months? 2-3 years? At this point in time, we simply can not know. If drug use were to substantially increase in the future, then simply replace "present day" with whenever that increase occurs. As for any scepticism regarding the anti-drug policy's effectiveness, I have no comment. The dearth of any hard statistics to back up any effectiveness claims is quite frustrating. If it wasn't for the fact that the rest of Pasuk Phongpaichit’s paper seems very well researched, I wouldn't even repeat his claim that the policy was very effective.Patiwat 10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. Why don't we go ahead with your suggestion adding "at least up to the present day"?  If there are no further comments from other users, please make the change whenever you can.  Regards, Tettyan 10:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo
The current photo "Stage used for anti-Thaksin rally on evening of 5 March 2006, Sanam Luang, Bangkok, Thailand" is misrepresentative. There isn't anybody protesting and the stage is empty. It isn't evening - it is clearly during the daytime and people wearing hats against the sun. It looks like a the typical Sunday afternoon crowd of people walking around Sanam Luang. And on that day, tens of thousands of people were claimed to be protesting? I've replaced it with a photo that I took near the Rama V equestrian statute, with a protestor (a friend of mine) wearing anti-Thaksin yellow and the slogans clearly visible. In the background you can see plenty of protestors and the Throne Hall.


 * "Stage used" means "stage which was used", not "stage being used". Markyour words 13:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Point noted. No offense to the original taker of the photo.  But I still think that a picture of an empty stage and less than a dozen people walking around - half of which aren't even protestors - isn't really communicating the nature of the rally.


 * Could somebody go to the protest site and take a photo of the sign that has the painting of Thaksin smiling next to George W Bush - you know, the one wear they dress like bikers and Bush looks dumb. This one .  I'd really like to put this in the article.  I mean, I can't stand the protesters and what they stand for, but that painting is just brilliant.Patiwat 20:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Policy
The article has almost no content regarding foreign policy during Thaksin's administrations. I have included some notes on The only other element I have not included is Surakiat's campaign for UN S-G. I'll let someone who can seperate the facts from the rumors write that.
 * 1) His foreign policy for domestic development approach. All my friends at the MFA hate this, since for them, it is demeaning for diplomats to be broomstick salesmen and rambutan hawkers.
 * 2) The FTAs. I have noted claims that this would wipe out several industries.
 * 3) Stopping foreign aid. No controversy here.
 * 4) Joining the Iraq invasion. Noted the size of the humanitarian force and the number of Thai troops killed.  Does anybody recall if there were any mass protests?  I was in the US at the time, and it seemed like the entire world was protesting.
 * 5) The Tak Bai Massacre. Noted how this harmed relationships with Malaysia, the UN, and other countries.


 * Patiwat, let me first say that I'm quite impressed with your initiative in expanding this page, especially the changes you made today. Now, I hate to be parsing words again, but I must say that I'm a bit uneasy with your use of the term "elite diplomatic community".  I think the point you make in this note is correct, but I think the choice of words in the entry implies that the MFA's grievances (like the Jayanamas) with Thaksin are rather petty.  Also, while this policy may be a source of MFA officers' discontent, I should note that former Ambassador Kasit (another prominent government critic) embraced the OTOP promotion policy very enthusiastically.  It seems his grievances stem less from Thaksin himself and more with former Foreign Minister Surakiart.  Anyways, I've gone on a bit of a digression here.  Let me suggest that we replace "elite diplomatic community" with simply "career diplomats".  Regards, Tettyan 11:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How about changing "elite diplomatic community" to "some influential members of the diplomatic community". Because in the Thai diplomatic community, the Jayanamas are as influential as you can get.Patiwat 15:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. If you want to try and economize on words though, you can also try "some prominent career diplomats".  Either sounds fine, let me know what you think, or go ahead and make the changes.  Regards, Tettyan 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Identifying the protestors (both for and against)
In almost any newspaper article on the protests, both Thai and foreign, the anti-Thaksin protestors are almost always identified as "urban", "upper/middle class", "educated", "academic", "intellectual", "buddhist", "elite", or "royalist". Thaksin supporters are almost always labelled as "rural", "uneducated", and "poor". Of course, broad brushstroke labels always distort (I fit 7 out of 8 of the anti-Thaksin labels, yet I can't stand Sondhi; I know many rural poor who hate Thaksin). But since such labels seem to be universal, I think the article should make note of them.

Added section on "Temple of the Emerald Buddha incident"
I have started a seperate section on the "Temple of the Emerald Buddha incident". The incident stems from widely publicized claims that at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha, Thailand's holiest site, Thaksin presided over a ceremony that only the King could preside at and sat on the same chair as the King. And this in Thailand, where the only thing most people respect more than the King is Buddhism. Although later shown to be total nonsense, these allegations caused Thaksin's popularity to fall dramatically, and is still exploited today with Sondhi's "Return Power to the King" slogan. I believe that this is sufficiently important to deserve it's own section.Patiwat 21:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Added section on the Luang Ta Maha Bua Incident
Thaksin sued Manager for THB 500 million because of a vicious religious sermon published by that newspaper. Given that Thaksin has received so much criticism for the lawsuit, I think it is only fair to note down some excerpts from the sermon that caused him to file the suit. I have seperated into its own section.Patiwat 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That sermon is horribly difficult to translate! Could somebody who understands curses and gutter dialog in the northeastern dialect please listen to it (a recording of it is available at the Manager website ) and help come to a better translation?  And please ammend any questionable sections with the original Thai.Patiwat 22:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone noted correctly that the sermon was clearly (and not just allegedly) critical of Thaksin. But the real issue isn't whether it was critical, but whether it was libel/slander. Thaksin apparently thought it was.  I'm thinking of changing this to "sermon was extremely critical of Thaksin, and allegedly slanderous.  It was further controversial because it came from a monk (who are above criticism in Buddhist Thailand)." Any thoughts?Patiwat 20:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to your proposed changes. Seems as if this page has been quiet lately save for the two of us.  Anyone else out there have any input?  Tettyan 02:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been reading through this section again, and I think that it would be helpful to try to place Luang Ta Maha's opposition to Thaksin in context. I think some discussion of the Thaksin government's alleged interventions in ecclesiastical affairs (e.g. the appointment of an "acting" Supreme Patriarch) and the polticization of the clergy (or were they always politicized?) are major issues in this dispute.  While I think Patiwat has made many helpful changes to this section, I don't think it gives the reader much of an idea as to why Luang Ta Maha is opposed to Thaksin.  When I get around to it, I will try to dig up some references but in the meantime, I'd like to hear what you all think.  Regards, Tettyan 09:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I've heard a lot of bull$hit about Thaksin and the Sangkharaj from the protests, and I always suspected there were many layers of Buddhist politics that were not being mentioned by Luang Ta Maha Bua or the press.  What common cause could make the cursing blessing-giving Luang Ta Maha Bua work alongside the ascetic Santi Asoke, I have no idea.  It seems as if there is a multi-lateral Buddhist civil war going on between followers of different monks/temples/sects, and that Thaksin, unfortunately, took a side.  Sick religion and sick politics - perfect together.  I don't give a damn about religion, I really don't care. Just make sure it is balanced and focused on Thaksin.  Throw any Buddhist cival war stuff onto a seperate article if neccesary.Patiwat 22:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Tettyan, if you're going to write that article on Thai Buddhism and put Thaksin's religious troubles in context, you might want to read "Buddhism, Legitimation, and Conflict" by Peter A. Jackson, particularly Chapter 4: State Control of the Sangha in the Twentieth Century. Patiwat 09:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many references?
User Manop has noted that there are too many references in the article, especially in Thai. I agree that references in Thai may be confusing to non-Thai speakers if they are not noted specifically as being in Thai. But I disagree that there are too many references in this article. Thaksin Shinawatra is sufficiently controversial to warrant a massive amount of disinformation, lies, and slander about him all throughout the net. For an example of an extreme of this, look at the article on Panthongtae Shinawatra a few months ago. References will only add the the credibility of the information in this article. I believe that liberal use of references is the only way to sort out the weat from the chaff. Any thoughts?Patiwat 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Google PageRank of this Article
As of 30 March 2006, this article ranks 2nd in a google search of "Thaksin Shinawatra" (behind the official government website of www.thaigov.go.th/general/cabin/thaksin-e.htm and out of a total of 1,480,000 pages). Thanks to all contributors! Lets keep on making those high quality contributions.Patiwat 19:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Reformatting the Discussion page
I think the Discussion page should be reformatted. There should be a section specifically on "NPOV allegations - please note any POV issues within subsections here". Anyone with accusations of POV can make sub-sections here about specific issues (e.g., "Media consolidation", "Should Sondhi's allegations be listed?", "Too much emphasis on controversy - not enough on policies", etc.), and we can have discussions within those sub-sections. The current situation is that people are noting POV issues everywhere, and Discussion page is getting a bit big and unstructured. Thaksin is a very controversial leader, and more POV allegations are sure to come about. Any thoughts?

Role of his wife
The introduction mentions that his wife "has been a long-time supporter on both the political and business fronts". 1) Does this belong in the introduction? Hillary role in Bill's political life isn't mentioned in Bill Clinton's introduction. And 2) There is really no mention in the main space of the article about his wife's role at all. For the sum of these two reasons, I think this should be taken out. I'll await comments - if none, I will remove.Patiwat 13:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Allegations of Driving without Motorcycle Helmet
I have removed the allegations that Thaksin drove a motorcycle without wearing a motorcycle helmet. 1) Despite being flagged for lack of citation for some time, no citation has been given, and 2) Although I take traumatic head injury very seriously, I don't think this is very relevant in a biographical article. Unless if somebody has a citation where a respected PAD leader mentioned this in the protests or has some evidence of political impact, I'm removing it. Patiwat 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Added short summary of other issues involved in the Thailand Political Crisis 2005-6 section
The current summary of the "Thailand Political Crisis 2005-2006" makes note only of the Shin Corp sale. As noted by several, the crisis was a bit more complicated by that, and is given more detailed coverage in a seperate article. But only mentioning the Shin Corp sale in the Thaksin biographical article isn't really giving a balanced view to Thaksin's role in the Crisis. I have made a very short summary of other issues related to the crisis, namely the allegations made by Sondhi. As this is a much condensed high-level summary of what used to appear in that section, I believe that this is relevent to the biographical article. If you think it is still too detailed, or doesn't deserve any mention at all, then please say so and make suggestions. Patiwat 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate to be beating a dead horse on this one, but I'm with Adam in questioning the necessity of the Erawan Shrine incident. If this had happened 2 years ago, I doubt it would have inspired a mob to move against the PM.  In this case, while I don't dispute the fact that the allegation was prominent and outrageous, I don't think it had any noticible impact on increasing the size of the anti-Thaksin movement.  People who already hate him attack him for it, people who love him defend him.  It's similar to the adultery allegations mentioned earlier - yes, people talk about it, but we just have to take a step-back from all the newspaper headlines and take account of what really matters when we're trying to put together an accurate history and biography.  I have no issue with the other three items you listed - Sondhi's claims that led Thaksin file lawsuits against him were indisputably a factor in the sparking the crisis.  If the Erawan incident never happened, I doubt the past few weeks' course of events would hardly be any different.  Regards, Tettyan 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I question this claim of "no political impact". The Nation, the most westernized of Thai dailies, took it quite seriously, with the following headline "Thaksin the wizard attempts a supernatural twist" and the following lead paragraph "Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has expanded the battle of his political survival into the realm of black magic, Khmer voodoo, ancient astrology, supernatural powers and religious beliefs. His dark secret has become well known. Witchcraft and wizardry are now the name of the game."  It ended with "From now until April 2 and beyond, the dark force of witchcraft and wizardry will hold sway in Thai politics" .  Like it or not, The Nation is pretty influential among expats and so-called "intellectuals".  Now I don't know about "intellectuals", but most Thais are very supersticious, and take black magic seriously.  The Nation claimed that the incident was fitted into King Narai's prophesy of doom for the kingdom.  The Nation also gave its front page to Sondhi's claim.  I know I'm being lazy and citing The Nation a lot here, but if the most westernized daily is taking it this seriously, then it really did have some emotional impact to most traditional Thais.  Many blogs have also made note of the black magic accusations. All this put together tells me, without any fancy multiple regression analysis, that Sondhi's claim had some clear political impact. Patiwat 17:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam and Tettyan, lest you form the opinion that I think that _everything_ has political impact, let me note an incident that I do not think had any noticable political impact. The Nation (in an editorial, of all places!) noted that Senators Karun Saingam and Pichet Phattanachote, while protesting at the Royal Plaza, went onto the stage and told women protestors to pass photos of Thaksin between their legs and curse Thaksin three times to leave Thailand and flee to Singapore.  Now, if the curse had been that Thaksin leave Thailand and flee for England...... :-) Patiwat 17:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw that article too. It is a regular opinion column by a known Thaksin-hater.  He might sit on the paper's editorial board, but the column, which is signed with his name, reflects his own opinions and not of the editorial board or the newsroom.  Looking back on the whole situation, the main drivers of the crisis were Sondhi's allegations of Thaksin's violations of "royal powers" and corruption along with the Shin Corp sale.  Most of everything else that happened just reinforced people's pre-existing political prejudices.  For instance, the Erawan Shine incident further proved to Thaksin-haters that he is villain beholden to darker forces, while to Thaksin-lovers it showed that Sondhi would stoop down to any level to personally attack the PM.  Likewise, the adultery allegations just was further evidence to Thaksin-haters that the guy is unethical and immoral, while for the other side, it was represented another sign of hypocrisy from the anti-Thaksin folks.  Nobody's minds changed as a result and people didn't go to protests as a result (they were all already there!).  In any event, there's already a warning whenever this article is edited that the entry is too long - if you really insist that these details are necessary, please include them in the Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 entry.  Regards, Tettyan 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thaksin not richest individual in Thailand, by far
Thaksin is not, as originaly claimed in the article, the richest individual in Thailand. As of the 2005 Forbes list, he trails behind K. Charoen (USD 3bn), Charoen Kratingdaeng, and the Dhanin Chearavanont (USD 1.4bn). The King has been taken of the list for many years, but the last post-'97 estimate of his wealth was USD 2-8bn. Edit has been made. Patiwat 16:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake there - that should be Chaleo Yoovidhya, owner of Kratingdaeng and Piyavate Hospital.Patiwat 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Reminds of the debate over whether to call Shin Corp the largest conglomerate. We should just say "was one of the richest men in Thailand" or something like that.  Regards, Tettyan 02:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thaksin's continued popularity in Bangkok
An anonymous editor deleted a note referring to Thaksin's continued post-election popularity in Bangkok. Since it is often noted in both this article and the political crisis article about how many Bangkokians hate him, I think that the poll results showing his continued popularity are an important fact. Could the person who deleted this note explain why they do not think this relevent - otherwise, I will revert.


 * I wasn't the one who did that, but I'd like to opine. From the election results, 45% of voters voted for TRT, while 55% abstained. He's certainly popular among many segments of Bangkok's population, but to say on a generalized level that Thaksin is "popular in Bangkok" would certainly not be correct.  Similarly, it would be incorrect to say that the acting caretaker PM is "unpopular in Bangkok."  A more accurate asessment is that Thaksin remains controversial in Bangkok, loved by many, loathed by others.  Regards, Tettyan 03:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you're saying (he "remains controversial in Bangkok, loved by many, loathed by others"), but it would not be correct to make that statement in the article without some data points to validate it. Thus, the mention of the poll result which shows that after he "stepped down", he was ranked top among Thai politicians.  The other side of the coin regarding his unpopularity post-"stepping down" is already stated, e.g., the PAD's continuing protests and the Democrat's continued boycotts. Patiwat 05:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this (additions in bold): "Thaksin's announcement provoked mixed reactions among the public and the anti-Thaksin coalition.  The Democrat Party welcomed the decision and promised to cooperate to resolve the current political crisis. However, they continued their boycott of by-elections. Many expect that this will prevent Parliament from reconvening and a Government from forming within the 3 May time-limit set by the Constitution - thus causing a constitutional crisis[108]. In a celebration at Sanam Luang on 7 April, PAD leaders announced that their new goal was the eradication of the Thaksin "regime"[109][110]. A new schedule of protests was later laid out, focusing on Bangkok and the South[111].
 * Public reaction was mixed. The break in political tension prior to the Thai New Year was welcomed by most.  Days after announcing he would step down, a poll conducted by Assumption University 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 .  However, many were concerned about the impending constitutional crisis and further protests that could spoil  King Bhumipol Adulyadej's Diamond Jubilee Celebrations 	   . Patiwat 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A fickle and unpredictable lot those Bangkokonians are! Anyways, I think your proposed edits sound great.  Any other opinions, particularly from the one who originally made the change?  One other thing - are those polls conducted in Bangkok only of those registered to vote in Bangkok, or of all Bangkok residents?  Because something like 20% of Bangkok's de facto residents are registered upcountry, including those people when polling could impact the results significantly.  Cheers! Tettyan 12:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea about the specifics, besides what was in the newspaper article. ABAC Poll is one of the longest running polling organizations in Thailand, and hence one of the most respected (Along with Suan Dusit Poll). Patiwat 22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV??!?!? Is anybody even reading the first sentence of the article!??
How can an "encyclopedia" entry that starts with "... is the current prime minister of Thailand and the leader of the populist Thai Rak Thai party." Populist, maybe true, biased, definitely. And then it later goes into tangential issues such as "prior to becoming Prime Minister, he transferred ownership of his companies to his family members, maids and drivers"

And what about this "Energy Policies In energy policy, the Thaksin government has continued and accelerated the previous Chuan government's policy of liberalization and privatization. **It has also pushed strongly in developing renewable power and promoting conservation**. It's policy has been strongly criticized", a noteworthy positive point, and what does it get, one sentence?!?!?

what i'm trying to say is that all in all, let's skip all pretenses of NPOV. this is blatant political bash--whatever side you are on.


 * 'Populist' is the term used by the BBC: . HenryFlower 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Everybody, including the Thaksin-haters, refers to him as a populist. His policies are populist.  That is a statement of fact.  Populist doesn't mean popular.  It just means pork-barrel, bread-and-circuses, popular with the majority of the people.


 * I've long had issues with the "prior to becoming Prime Minister, he transferred ownership of his companies to his family members, maids and drivers" sentence. It might seem tangential but it isn't.  Thaksin used to be a massively rich man, one of the richest men in Thailand.  This certainly needs noting in an encyclopedia article.  But currently, he technically doesn't have any wealth, because he gave it all to his kids and staff.  So he is no longer the richest man in Thailand.  This needs noting - I don't think it is a tangential point.  He didn't give it away to charity - the money remains very close to him.  How would you suggest it be written?


 * As for your criticisms of only one sentence being devoted to conservation/renewables, I'd suggest you finish reading the entire section. The one sentence is merely an introduction to three paragraphs of content on conservation and renewables.Patiwat 20:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How should we structure the election and post-election sections?
I'd suggest something straight-forward that wouldn't require editing the previous sections. I don't think the current crisis will end with the election (Chamlong has already made a protest appointment for the 7th, thus I don't think it is time for a consolidated "Thailand Political Crisis 2006" section yet).

Like making a new section after "House dissolution" called "The 2006 election and its aftermath". Divide it up into 3 sub-sections. 1) Election results summary, summarizing how many TRT MPs won, voter turnout, % of overall votes for Thaksin, yellow and red cards, and summarized allegations of voting fraud. 2) Parliamental issues. The inevitable debate about whether parliament can sit given the 20% voter turnout issue, the "party list MP becomes a monk" issue, and any other legal barriers for the new government. 3) Rallies and protests. Same info as before: demands, composition, location, size.  Any other suggestions?Patiwat 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been an issue I thought about before. Which info with regards to the election should be included here, as opposed to in Thailand legislative election, 2006?  Maybe we should have a very brief summary about the issues surrounding the election as a section of this article, and include a "Main Article" link to Thailand legislative election, 2006.  All the messy details can then go there.  On another note, I havn't seen many updates to the election article lately - any idea on how we should organize it going forward?  Perhaps we can apply Patiwat's suggestions to that article?  Regards, Tettyan 10:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The absolute minimum for me is the success/failure of Thaksin's 50% ultimatum (he staked his political life on it) and the status of the expected 20% minimum vote constitutional crisis. I suspect we'll need a long section for post-election protests.Patiwat 12:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Added section on "Phra Phrom Erawan Incident"
I added a section that documents Sondhi's accusation that Thaksin masterminded the destruction of the Brahma Erwan Shrine. Of course, this was vicious baseless slander by Sondhi, but it was made in a public forum, captured by the press, and made just one day after that very sad incident. So true or not, it did damage Thaksin's reputation.


 * Sorry, I don't mean to be picky, but I'm not sure how important this incident is in the grand scheme of things. Sure, political oppenents accuse each other of all sorts of things all the time and are always making statements.  But I think we should focus on those statements that have an impact on the political situation.  I'm absolutly not trying to defend Sondhi's outburst here, I find it absolutely disgusting.  But I don't really see how this has affected the course of the anti-Thaksin campaign, or the election campaign for that matter.  What is certain is that this incident's importance pales in comparison with the controversy surrounding Sondhi's alleged comments to Kom Chad Luek newspaper with regards to HM the King.  Regards, Tettyan 12:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a vicous attack motivated by one thing and only one thing - to destroy Thaksin's character at a critical point in Sondhi's smear campaign. It was made before thousands, recorded by the press, and reprinted to the public of Thailand the next day.  It concerned a topic which left the Thai public shocked and confused, and open to such baseless accusations - to say it did little harm or wasn't important in the grand scheme of things is wishful thinking.  As such it certainly does belong in the biographical article.  It did not affect the anti-Thaksin campaign as much as characterized it.  Don't forget, this is the same campaign that accused Thaksin of treason against the King, rebellion against the monarchy, called his son a drug-addict, called him a monster and an enemy of Buddhism, called him a traitor, an upsurper.  Sondhi's "intellectual" audience was primed and ready when Sondhi called him an ally of Satan.


 * This has nothing to do with the Khom Chad Luek controversy. If you think that deserves mention, then write it yourself.Patiwat 13:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Shinawat or Shinawatra?
In Australia, radio and TV newsreaders sometimes give his given name as Shinawat, and sometimes as Shinawatra. Why the difference? JackofOz 00:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The correct spelling is "Shinawatra", but the correct pronunciation is "Shinawat". Jpatokal 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it's like silent letters in English: you don't pronounce the "w" in "Greenwich" and "Cholmondeley" is pronounced "Chumley."  The silent letters in Thai (which often come from Sanskrit, but have been "Siamized," such as for example the fact that "Sri" is always pronounced "Si," without the "r") carry through into the romanized spellings.  Badagnani 02:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that makes sense. The article gives the correct pronunciation (Shinawat), but I'm wondering if a note would be useful, making it explicit that the -ra is silent and explaining why.  JackofOz 02:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, it isn't wrong to pronounce his name as ShinawatRA in English. Pronunciation of such names in English from any language that requires transliteration into the Romanic alphabet is usually how the transliteration "reads" for an English speaker.  --AStanhope 15:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really like your understanding. Thai romanization system was based on transcription not transliteration. Addition, his first name is pronounced starting with /t/ sound not /th/ as written. You might listen to the sound file that User:Trisdee created. He did pretty good job.--Manop - TH 19:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on transcription, yes... but not transcription. If it were, it wouldn't include silent letters. HenryFlower 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're saying English doesn't normally have silent letters? Nil Einne 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, ... the words are also based on another lanugage probably Pali or Sanskrit. So some sounds have been changed in Thai where the words are kept as the same. Then the English romanization is based on the original word/sound. You might ever heard about the Singha beer which is pronounced as [Sing] in Thai and [Singha] in Pali/Sanskrit.--Manop - TH 19:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not remotely possible for English-speakers who don't speak Thai to pronounce Thai proper names correctly, so there is no point in trying. The same is true of Chinese and Arabic names. Everyone pronounces [King] Taksin and [PM] Thaksin the same way, for example, and no transcription system can change this. So Thaksin has a Thai name and an English name, just as Krung Thep (Grung Dairp?) is "Bangkok" in English. Stop worrying about it. Thai pronunciations of English names can be just as comic. Adam 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in Introduction to "Prime Minister of Thailand" section?
The introduction to the "Prime Minister of Thailand" section reads: "Like Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Thaksin has been dogged by the conflict of interest between his post as Prime Minister and his massive business interests, and in 2001 he only narrowly escaped conviction (and a 5-year ban on holding political office) for concealing financial assets. It has been alleged that the judges were bribed to acquit him and investigations are underway. In his defense, Thaksin insisted that the concealment of his financial assets was an honest mistake." I would argue that this is not very balanced. We have a man that as Prime Minister had some very distinct (and controversial) policies in areas of economics, public health, energy, and drugs - yet the introduction only talks about one specific issue of controversy. Furthermore, the very first words talk about this Silvio guy - who has absolutely no relationship to Thai politics.

I'd suggest a rewrite: "As Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra initiated many distinctive policies affecting the economy, public health, energy, drugs, and international relations. Some view his policies as being very effective and popular with the majority of the Thai people, especially the rural poor.  However, his governments have been plauged with allegations of dictatorship, demagogy, corruption, conflicts of interest, human rights offences, acting undiplomatically, and use of legal loopholes.  A controversial leader, he has also been the target of numerous allegations of lese-majesty, treason, upsurping religious and royal authority, religious desecration, and siding with gods of darkness."  Any thoughts?
 * Gods of darkness?
 * Sondhi Limthongkul, the popular leader of the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), claimed on the day after the most respected Brahma shrine in Thailand was destroyed that Thaksin masterminded the desecration in order to install a new shrine to the gods of darkness. This claim was made in front of thousands and was reprinted by the local press and media.Patiwat 04:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote tally
Is it normal in Thailand for the Prime Minister/ruling party to pronounce an unofficial vote tally? It seems to be a bit dodgy since it opens room to allegations of bias by the electral commission or political pressure applied to the ec for a certain result. I know it isn't uncommon for media organisations to have their own unofficial results and for political parties to sometimes mention their expectations based on unofficial results and for candidates to mention what their staff and volunteers believe the results may be but from memory, neither in Malaysia or NZ did the ruling party to be make an announcement of victory based on unofficial results or in fact pronounce unofficial results at all. Nil Einne 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking again it appears the first unofficial results were from the Nation website (I guess a Thai newspaper?). Is this the case or were Thaksin's results/unofficial claims announced first? Nil Einne 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unofficial results have been put up by the media almost immediately after the election closed, and have been updated since. Thaksin made his comment on the afternoon/evening after the election.Patiwat 04:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense/error

 * where TRT won 19,032 votes, with 47,718 abstaining and 1,897 abstaining, giving TRT a win with 27.7% of the vote

I guess the 1,897 were either spoilt votes or some other kind of vote? 1,897 out of ~60k sounds like quite a lot. I guess a lot of these were done on purpose? (e.g. ones where they write Thaksin is an idiot) Nil Einne 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My error. That should have been 1,897 invalid ballots.  Lots of invalid ballots this year.  Lots of people ripping up ballots, writing comments on them, marking ballots in blood, etc.Patiwat 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Thaksin, not the details of the election results, which belong elsewhere. Adam 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thaksin is a politician. Politicians stand in elections.  He staked his political life on the election outcome.  It is therefore valid to show summarized election results, to the extent that the summarized results support his promises and the validity of his next government.  Detailed election results belong in the election article.Patiwat 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is valid to say in broad terms what the outcome of the election was, and then to discuss the implications of the result for his career. Election details like those being discussed above do not belong here. They belong at Thailand legislative election, 2006. Adam 04:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to talk about the implications of the result for his career, then go ahead and contribute. I'm not stopping you.  But "broad terms" that omit critical details are useless and distortive.  Critical details include 1)Thaksin staked his political life on the fact that he would win at least 50% of the popular vote.  The article notes that he win that, and gives the latest figure.  2) Thaksin's opponents are trying to overturn the election result because of the high number of abstentions.  The article gives an example of a district where there are a high number of abstentions. 3) The official election result is far from over, since another round of elections has to happen in districts where TRT got <20% of the votes.  I believe that these are all critical details.  This is noted in the article.  Patiwat 04:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thaksin *not* stepping down - just refusing to become next PM
Someone changed the sub-heading from "Thaksin Refuses to Accept Premiership in Next Government" to "Stepping down". Like it or not, Thaksin has not yet "stepped down". He has merely announced that he will refuse the position of PM when Parliament convenes in a month. Look at his quote. From now until the Parliament Speaker nominates a new PM to the King, he is still legally caretaker PM. If you have issues with this, then please discuss it here.Patiwat 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what the phrase means. There's no implication that he already has. HenryFlower 19:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hugh? Doesn't "stepping down" mean "Bye. I'm resigning as PM. No more Thaksin to pick on"?  He is still PM.  He has not resigned from the Premiership.  His legal status today and in the coming weeks is no different from his legal status last month.  He will not be resigning from the Premiership until the House Speaker nominates a replacement PM.  He has not stepped down.  Even the PAD is willing to accept him as PM for another 30 days.  Please, if you don't like the factual "Thaksin Refuses to Accept Premiership in Next Government" then suggest a replacement that isn't as confusing as "Stepping Down".Patiwat 20:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Stepping down' means "will resign". It's not confusing to any native English speaker. (And the previous heading was a monstrosity).  HenryFlower 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know this is hardly the point, but Patiwat is supposed to be a native English speaker... Cheers, Trisdee 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which makes his problem rather baffling. The BBC has no such problems. HenryFlower 21:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well pardon this native English speaker, khun khroo Henry. But this isn't about english comprehension - this is about political comprehension.  Thaksin did not go on TV and say "I'm stepping down".  He said he would not accept the Premiership.  Parse those two statements with a political mind, and you'll realize that they are two very different messages - as those intellectuals at the PAD realized immediately.  Stepping down would have been a victory for the PAD, a loss for Thaksin, but would have forced the PAD to go back home - end of political crisis.  Wishful thinking for the PAD.  Beneath his tears, Thaksin made a very carefully worded and subtle political statement - and I don't believe the header "Stepping down" captures that.Patiwat 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Careful subtleties are for discussion in the body of the section. The effect is that he is stepping down, and that is what belongs in the heading. HenryFlower 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Isan makes gov'ts, Bangkok breaks them
I think the saying which I heard several times in Thailand - "Isan makes governments, but Bangkok breaks them," is very appropriate to what has happened. Thaksin has the support of the great majority of the country, but cannot govern in the face of the Bangkok political class. Can anyone give a source for this saying? Adam 23:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The person most associated with that saying is Anek Laothamatas, former leader of the Mahachon Party, in a 1996 essay entitled "A Tale of Two Democracies: conflicting perceptions of elections in Thai politics". He was still a professor at Thammasart at the time of writing.  I have a copy of the essay somewhere, but it's not on me at the moment.  Tettyan 01:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That is an english saying, right? I'm not sure how it would work in Thai.Patiwat 06:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Energy Policy discussion
Somebody changed the introduction to the "Energy Policy" section from "Thaksin government has continued and accelerated the previous Chuan government's policy of liberalization and privatization.   It has also pushed strongly in developing renewable power and promoting conservation." -> "Thaksin government took a U-turn from liberalization reform proposed under the Chuan administration, in favor of a model that emphasized privatization of state-owned companies but with little emphasis on competition or regulatory oversight."  Apparently, this person 1) doesn't agree with my interpretation of Thaksin's privatization policy and 2) doesn't think that conservation/renewables is important enough to mention in the introduction of the energy section. I strongly disgree with 2) on grounds that it presents a 1-sided picture of Thaksin's energy policy and that conservation is pretty important given global energy prices in the Thaksin era, and will revert that edit. I would like to discuss 1)

Thaksin did not take a U-turn from Chuan's electricity policy. Despite much talk, the Chuan-government didn't do a single thing to liberalize the electricity market. Not a single thing, despite all those reports from Piyasawat, despite massive pressure from the IMF, despite all those years in power. Chuan wanted EGAT privatized, and was therefore even more bitterly hated by EGAT employees than Thaksin. Besides details that don't need mentioning in this article (like ISO vs. ring-fenced SO), the key distict policy difference between Chuan and Thaksin was that Chuan wanted EGAT unbundled into many different privatized pieces (the English model) while Thaksin wanted a privatized "National Champion" (the French/EDF Model). Those protestors were and have always been protesting against privatization and selling "national assets" - that is the key issue in peoples' minds. Both Chuan and Thaksin wanted privatization, and were both despised. They just wanted privatization in different ways. Therefore, Thaksin did not make a U-turn; more like a change in course while going in the same direction.

If you don't agree discuss it here and we'll try to find something that is factually correct while still capturing your different point of view.Patiwat 07:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I must second Patiwat's version of the facts. I don't have time to look for the reference now, but there was an Asiaweek interview around 1999-2000 with then-Finance Minister Tharrin in which he discussed his vision for privatizing the energy industry.  Regards, Tettyan 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It goes back even further than that. EGAT was an absolute monopoly until Anand's government.  Anand let SPPs/IPPs produce electricity, which today gives them a significant share of the market.  One of the largest IPPs was Saha-Union's controversial coal plant (Anand was Chair of Saha-Union before he became PM and for a decade after he retired from politics).  Anand also got NEPO to come up with a 10-year master plan for the privatization of EGAT.  Piyasawat, head of NEPO, spent the next 9 years and 5 governments writing reports about how he would replicate the English power pool, break up EGAT into tiny bits, and then privatize all the tiny bits to those nasty foreign investors.  Chuan went along for the ride, but didn't really implement anything either; he just blamed everything on the IMF.


 * Then the California-crisis happened, power pools were ridiculed world-wide, Thaksin was elected, the economy recovered, and Thailand needed much more electricity quickly. Thaksin fired Piyasawat, and decided - for better or worse - that it would be cheaper and less risky to build 3000MW in 5 years with a strong privatized national champion rather than a bunch of tiny privatized power companies.  Acharn Anek was humuliated in the 2005 elections for trying to revert back to pre-Anand policy.  It is a long story that doesn't need to be told in this article.  But it would be damn wrong for this article to give the impression that Thaksin was the originator of the the privatization plan.Patiwat 11:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

On a different note, somebody edited the "Introduction" of the energy policy section such that mention of criticism was only made regarding privatization policy. This implies that Thaksin's renewables/conservation policy is uncontroversial. But as noted in the detailed section, the renewwables/conservation policy has been controversial too. Lots of people claimed that the conservation drive was inconvenient and probably didn't save that much energy. Hard core academics have claimed that RPS has never been applied in a non-pool market. The more cynical Thaksin-haters have said that the RPS only benefits EGAT and Thaksin's cronies, as only EGAT knows how to do renewable energy. So it deserves mention that even the renewables/conservation policy has been controversial. If no comments, I'll revert.Patiwat 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the one that made the edits. I'm new to Wikipedia and realize that I probably should have first initiated discussion about it. I apologize.


 * No need to apologize - Be bold! Patiwat 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the main problem with what you wrote is that you're conflating "privatization" with "liberalization". These are two very different things, and the distinction is crucial in the Thai case. Privatization simply refers to private ownership. Liberalization refers restructuring markets to encourage competition. It is possible to have liberalization without privatization. And possible to have privatization without liberalization. Piyasvasti's power pool model emphasized privatization and liberalization: splitting up EGAT and privatizing the pieces, divesting transmission from generation, and promoting competition in electricity generation through bidding on a power spot market overseen by an independent regulatory authority.

EGAT never liked the liberalization component of Piyasvasti's agenda because it threatened EGAT's monopoly hold on the sector. When Thaksin came to power, EGAT's political power rose relative to NEPO/EPPO. Piyasvasti was sacked. Thaksin reorganized energy agencies, creating the Ministry of Energy and Minister of Energy Promin hired the Boston Consulting Group to push/analyze/develop the "National Champion" & "Enhanced Single Buyer" ideas. This new plan continued to emphasize privatization, but was a U-turn with respect to liberalization. Instead of "efficiency through competition" we had "strength through self-regulated partially privatized state-owned enterprizes". No unbundling of transmission and generation. No independent regulatory oversight. No competition (unless you consider the continued presence of IPPs with long term power purchase agreements).

To the investor, it still looked like privatization. But to the consumer or observer concerned with power sector governance, the differences were far more significant than the similarities.

For much more on this, please read Thailand's Electricity Reforms: Privatization of Benefits and Socialization of Costs and Risks published in the peer-reviewed journal Pacific Affairs. (For sake of full disclosure, I was a co-author).

How about changing the intro to: "In energy policy, the Thaksin government continued the Chuan government's privatization focus, but with important changes. Whereas the Chuan government's policies sought economic efficiency through competition and regulatory oversight, Thaksin's policies placed confidence in the prospect that partially privatized, largely self-regulated monopoly utilities would work as economic powerhouses, providing profits to the treasury and private investors alike. The Thaksin administration has also initiated a policy process to encourage renewable energy and energy conservation. Thaksin's privatization policies and actions have been srongly criticized on grounds that they offer little protection to consumers and ample opportunities for conflict of interst. The Thaksin government has been commended for paying attention to energy conservation and renewables, but actual conservation policies put in place have been criticized as ineffectual, poorly targeted and burdensome."

I agree that the part about conservation and renewables should stay in the intro. As a renewable energy professional in Thailand it is my observation that the changes in renewables and conservation are not as relevant as the changes that have happened in market structure. But conservation and renewables could (under plausible market/policy circumstances) make a significant contribution to the energy mix. I agree that Thaksin's conservation policies have been controversial. "Inane" said one energy conservation professional with whom I work closely: shutting down gas stations at 10 pm annoys people but does little or nothing to save energy -- they're going to fuel up anyway. Much more effective would be serious programs on improving industrial boiler efficiency, forcing EGAT to allow new industrial combined heat and power (CHP) SPP generators to connect, and/or an expansion of the work of the EGAT DSM office including changing EGAT's incentive structure so that DSM is encouraged. So far Thaksin's renewables policies haven't been that controversial because there's been little concrete policy put in place in his tenure besides the 8% target set in August 2003. One point regarding your section on renewables -- in current Ministry of Energy plans the proposed RPS will actually contributes to only a small portion (140 MW) of the Thai government's 8% renewables target. Feed-in tariffs, like those used in Germany, Spain, China, Denmark and dozens of other countries will make up the remaining >1300 MW of the electricity portion of the renewables target. See: http://www.palangthai.org/docs/FeedinTariffs2Apr06.doc for a paper I recently wrote on this topic. Heat and transport policies will be just as important as electricity policies for meeting the 8% renewables target.


 * I agree with most of the facts that you have noted. And you might be surprised at how many opinions, as well.  Looks like both of us have been closely involved in the whole process (although I haven't really been involved in renewables).  As I've noted before, "U-turn" doesn't really capture the subtle difference between Chuan's (actually, Piyasawat's/Anand's) and Thaksin's privatization and liberalization goals.  Go ahead and be bold - your suggested change is at least better than what we have now.  That being said, I don't really agree with the tone, and I think the sentence is much too long and is hard to understand.  But edits can be made later. Patiwat 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One other point: although we note how each government's policy goals are different, and some are arguably more effective than others in achieving particular economic goals, it should be noted that little of this has actually been implemented. So even though implementation of the Thaksin reforms might arguably make things worse than implementation of Chuan's reforms (or not), they are actually quite an improvement over the way things are done right now and have been done over the past decade (where EGAT had pretty much sole influence over who could build or not). Patiwat 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet another point: EGAT didn't object to liberalization because it threatened EGAT's monopoly - EGAT hasn't had a monopoly in generation in over a decade. EGAT has had two things motivating it 1) keeping its employees happy, and 2) maintaining influence over the ESI.  1) was satisfied by minimizing the degree of breakup in generation - where the majority of EGAT employees are.  2) was satisfied - not by trying to maintain high-market share in generation - but by keeping transmission and generation together, and even more important, by the minimum of seperation between transmission and the systems operations planning.  Of course, 2) was a means to an end, and not without controversy.  The end was to have a high-assurance supply of electricity to support a volatile high-growth economy.  EGAT (and the government decision-makers) was afraid after seeing slow growth low-volatility economies adopt pools which resulted in high-publicity systems failures that harmed the economy. Let's take this offline or continue the discussion in the section noted below. Patiwat 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also suggest that we create a new page on Thailand Energy Market Reform, where a lot of the subtle and detailed points we have discussed can go. The historical (pre-Thaksin) perspective should be captured, because Thaksin has been only the latest actor in this long play.  Put a very high-level summary in the Thaksin biographical article, focusing specifically on what Thaksin did differently and what actual impact it had (if any).  Don't worry; we'll get into endless debates later, because energy policy is a controversial topic.  But controversy hasn't stopped Wikipedia from being a a great community-driven fact-based NPOV encyclopedia.  Patiwat 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A quick question: do you know if the BCG output (not just the National Champion work, but other stuff as well) has been made public? I know it has been leaked, but is it available on the web or has it been clandestinely published?   While the Piyasawat-preferred model had many organizations backing it and trying to persuade the public, EGAT's preferred model (which as you noted, BCG had a large role in) was pushed almost exclusively on government decision makers.  For NPOV, the EGAT perspective should be captured, and any of the publically available BCG stuff would make very useful citation material. Patiwat 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On another issue in the Energy section, someone wrote, "However, the anti-privatization petitioners (including the Confederation of Consumer Organisations, People Living with HIV/Aids, Alternative Energy Project for Sustainability, Free Trade Area Watch, and the Four Region Slum Network[54]) have been harshly criticized by both Thai and international investors, who accuse them of using underhand tactics in delaying the listing." What kind of "underhand tactics"? Do you have any references for this?


 * Filing the petition so close to the IPO date left the Court with no choice but to abruptly delay the IPO while it deliberated the case. Rather than filing the petition early (say, before the corporatization) and giving the court lots of lead time.  Believe me, the investor community was seriously pissed off at this - especially the majority of EGAT employees.  A lot of money and energy went down the drain due to the last minute spike in the tires.  I'll find a citation for that - but give me some time. Patiwat 10:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, for completeness it would be nice to see sections on transportation, and perhaps on a special section on PTT.--58.8.44.37 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Article too long - suggestions
The article is getting too long. Here are my suggestions on what we should keep, compress, move, and delete, and why. Comments, please


 * Essential: Policies (the entire Prime Minister of Thailand section). Thaksin is a politician, and the measure of a politician should be measured by his policies and impact on the people.
 * Essential: Controversial Incidents. This accusations/smears will remain attached to him for a long time and need to be documented.  Too many lies floating around.
 * Critical: Ongoing events (House dissolution and the 2006 Legislative Election, After the 2006 Election). I'm not sure how these things will end up, and would prefer not to shorten them until some degree of closure occurs.
 * Can be compressed or moved to seperate section: Pre-election Protests. No need to note down the dates, size, slogans, etc. of each weekend's protests any more.  Although the intensity and composition of the protests are important to note because this is the first time a massively popular elected PM has been forced to step down because of protests.
 * Not really relevent any more: Impeachment attempt.  Petty to begin with, and didn't result in anything.  Just a short note needed.Patiwat 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that most of the crisis has passed (hopefully), it's time to create the "Thailand Political Crisis, 2006" article. We can include the excessive info not necessary here over there.  What I'd like to do is take the Thaksin Shinawatra $1.88 billion controversy article and expand off of that.  I understand that there's a lot more to the crisis than just the deal (which was just the trigger).  I think the new entry should include much of details included here and maybe a background section on the roots of the crisis - which are quite complex.  As someone else mentioned, the whole crisis is more than just about one man - we can't forget factors such as interest group opposition to policies such as free trade & privatization (primarily from labor unions, but some farmers as too), as well as conflicts within the Buddhist clergy and grievances from certain business groups (principally Sondhi and TPI's Prachai).  Now that I've outlined it all, creating a new entry looks like a pretty herculean task.  Anyone want to help?  Regards Tettyan 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea, as noted previously. But sorry, I'm not interested with the new article.  All I'm concerned about is that the Thaksin biographical article tells you what his policies were and what impact they had, gives a fair explanation of the controversies he faced and slanders thrown at him, and explains the nature of the protests that led him to "take a break" from politics.  And isn't too long - although I would tend to err in the side of length and detail given the crisis isn't really over.  Good luck, Tettyan.When you have a working draft of the new article ready, I'll take a stab at cutting down the current Pre-election Protests sections.Patiwat 10:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me excercise my right to flip-flop and suggest that the article might be long but isn't neccesarily too long. It is a bit shorter than the article on Bill Clinton, also a prolific but controversial politician. When shortening it down, I'd suggest we don't go too wild.Patiwat 13:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is not whether the article is "too long" in an abstract sense but whether all the material in it is relevant to the subject of the article, and whether its various parts are given appropriate weight within the article as a whole. Looking at the article in this light I would say:
 * The section Luang Ta Maha Bua incident is longer than is merited by the importance of the incident.
 * The only reason this sermon is shown is because any reasonable person reading it would call it disgustingly slanderous, causing Thaksin to sue Sondhi for libel, which caused Sondhi to claim that Thaksin was gagging the press. Eventually, the claim that Thaksin was gagging the press were reproduced by every news outlet in the world, without mention at all to why Thaksin sued Sondhi in the first place. Patiwat 17:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, this is a biographical article about Thaksin, not a detailed account of the current political crisis. The incident should be mentioned in the account of the election campaign, but doesn't merit a whole section. Adam 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Except that for balance, any mention of "has been accused of gagging the press." should also note that "the newspaper had printed a sermon that many viewed as slanderous.  Respected human rights lawyer senator Thongbai Thongpao noted that the libel suit had merit."Patiwat 06:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The section Phra Phrom Erawan Shrine incident really has nothing to do with Thaksin at all and should be deleted.
 * In the final stages of his reelection campaign, Thaksin is publically accussed by a highly popular opponent of desecrating of one of the holiest sites in Bangkok, and you say this has nothing to do with him at all? Patiwat 17:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The claim was obviously absurd. It can be mentioned, but doesn't deserve its own section. Adam 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The context of the claim should also be noted: one of a series of baseless cruel accusations from a man who swore to take Thaksin down using any means neccesary. Patiwat 06:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If we tried to list all of Sondhi's absurd allegations against Thaksin here, the Wikipedia server would likely crash. I'd try to limit a list of allegations to ones that had a concrete politcal impact.  For instance, the Luang Ta Maha Bua incident is definitely one because it led to several lawsuits and was indirectly related to Sondhi's show being cancelled on MCOT.

Tettyan 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The section Anti-Thaksin and pro-Thaksin rallies should be moved to a separate article and given only a brief summary here. This is not an article about the anti-Thaksin movement. Adam 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hence my proposal to expand the Thaksin Shinawatra $1.88 billion deal controversy article to something like "Thailand Political Crisis, 2006". I'm working on it, but give me some time.  Much of it will involve simply moving stuff here over there. The roots of anti-Thaksin movement are rather complex, so I do want to have a background section to introduce the new entry. Wanna help?

Added section on "Education policy"
I have added a section on Education policy. Education reforms enacted by Thaksin were revolutionary and controversial, and opponents to school decentralization were one of the founding pillars of the PAD. My family is full of radical teachers, and I hope that the section is balanced and fair. The ADB's Synthesis Report on education reform was an important backgrounder.

I've also added subsections on holistic education, teacher development, the university loan scheme, and the Dream School scheme. Of these programs, only the Dream School scheme was controversial. Although I've tried holistic education and it sucks...

I have omitted any specific mention of his access-to-education policies. Thailand has near universal primary education, and the People's Constitution ensures nine years of compulsory education and guarantee 12 years of free education. I couldn't think of any Thaksin programs that specifically addressed implementation of these goals (unless if you consider poverty eradication as being a prereq to access to education), so I just didn't mention it.Patiwat 17:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also omitted the "White Schools" project. 1) I consider it an anti-drugs policy, not an education policy. 2) Thaksin implemented it well, but it was a Chuan-government policy innocation. Patiwat 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Great job! Just have one amendment here.  Much of the decentralization policy is based on the 1999 Education Act and the 1999 Decentralization Act, both passed by the Chuan government (or were the ministry bureacrats always at work on them?) in compliance with the constitution.  These laws earned Chuan the hatred of the teachers, and when TRT first came to power, Thaksin promised a review of these policies.  After dithering for four years, the gov`t came out with a compromise to make school decentralization "voluntary".  Is there any objection to this version of the facts?  If not, I`ll amend this section to reflect these elements. Regards, Tettyan 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. The whole idea was mandated by the 1997 Constitution.  The 1999 laws were initiated by Chuan, but he never implemented them.  Thaksin knew it would be controversial, and he took a masive political gamble by pushing school decentralization - something that has been talked about for years, but never went anywhere due to lack of political will.  Educational reform had a large role in the political crisis, but deserves a section of its own.  Thaksin took some compromises (voluntary transfer, within 2 years), but essentially was the first PM in Thai history to decentralize education.  I doubt even he would have been able to do it without the massive election victory in 2005.  And given the current political situation, I think we can forget about significant educational reform for the next few years.  As such, educational reform is one of his most significant contributions to Thailand.Patiwat 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a short note on Thaksin's reform of the university entrance exam system. Like school decentralization, this reform had been discussed by intellectuals for decades, but never saw the light of day until Thaksin pushed it through the academic bureaucracy. Although it had little political impact, the introduction of GPA, GPAX, O-Net, and A-Net will over the years affect hundreds of thousands of high-schoolers and university students - and therefore deserves a note in Thaksin's autobiographical article. But deeper controversies (e.g., the scoring of the O-Net and A-Net sections, or the conflict between the elite schools of Bangkok who benefited from the old system and upcountry schools who will benefit from the new system) should be discussed in the Policies article. Patiwat 07:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of "Entry Into Politics" section

 * The current section on "Entry into politics" is pretty uninformative. No mention at all about the circumstances of him joining the PDP.  Nor how his leadership of the PDP.  No explanation at all for the circumstances that led to the downfall of one of the most influential parties of that era.  I've done quite a bit of work to detail this out.  Forgive me if I'm a bit weak on references here - I'm relying on lots of old posts to SCT (big thanks to all the old SCT buddies), as the Bangkok Post and Nation archives don't go back that far.Patiwat 20:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests

 * I'd like to request that somebody expand on the universal healthcare program. Of all Thaksin policies, this is one of the most popular and distinctive.  I've written tons of stuff about his other policies, but the lack of concrete info in the article on the 30-Baht program is embarrasing.  If the Democrats get their way and "destroy Thaksinomics", I'd like to be able to remember what they destroyed.Patiwat 23:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to request that somebody contribute something on the "social order" campaign. Me and all my buddies hated it because it meant an early end to clubbing and carding became so much stricter, but it apparently made Thaksin very popular.  Go figure.... Patiwat 23:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With all the Thaksin-haters out there, why isn't there anything concrete about his legitimate corruption scandals? The CTX scandal?  The C-130 scandal?  So much emphasis has been given to the slander and the lese majesty and the royal powers stuff, but so little of substance. Patiwat 08:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article contains no links to the Southern Unrest. There is a mention of the Tak Bai massacre (in the foreign policy section) and a few mentions of the southern political situation, but nothing detailing what many have called the single most dramatic failure of the Thaksin government. I'm surprised nobody has taken a stab at this yet. Patiwat 00:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I've given this subject what I feel to be the minimum of coverage that for it to be balanced and factual, and have also linked to the main Southern Insurgency article. Patiwat 06:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Tettyan has noted that Thaksin has been accused of stacking independent comissions with his people. I don't know about the EC and the Courts, but chief on my mind is the Khunying Charuwan case.  I've been trying to research her for some time, but all I've gotten are dead ends.  The Nation and Post claims that Khunying Charuwan was "noted for her graft-busting".  However, archive searches of Charuwan (Jaruwan/Jaruvan/Charuwan/etc.) all give no mention of her until Thaksin fired her.  She didn't seem to exist until she was fired.  Then, she claims that the King didn't sign the order, all hell breaks loose, and suddenly, she becomes well known for cleaning out corruption and blasting Thaksin.  I've also tried mining the SCT archives and other sources, but also got dead-ends.  She doesn't seem to exist until she was fired.  Does somebody have primary sources attributing to her work _before_ she got replaced? Patiwat 06:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting booths

 * Excellent work on the voting booth diagrams, but don't you think it should belong in Thailand legislative election, 2006 as opposed to this entry? Just another suggestion to cut the size of this article down a bit. Tettyan 03:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved that text to the election article. The diagrams are marked "copyright patiwat" and therefore cannot run at Wikipedia. If Patiwat wants to include them he must release them to the public domain. Adam 03:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, and you're calling me "knew to Wikipedia". Didn't you bother to read the licensing information before you deleted it? I created those diagrams and therefore hold copyright.  That gives me the right to license it to anybody with whatever terms I like.  I licensed it under Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike. I refuse to release it under public domain.  If you have a problem with the Creative Commons license, well, that's your problem. Patiwat 04:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing the entire section over did it, I believe. The most important and controversial election in the subject's life, and you don't mention that his political opponents want the results voided?  Can you imagine the GWB article without any mention of Florida?  No offense, but that is just bad editing. Patiwat 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The controversy involved a decision by the Election Commission (which is independent), and as far as I know, Thaksin was not directly involved in any way (although his critics may say otherwise). At this point, the self-styled "civic groups" are taking the EC to court on this, NOT Thaksin.  On the other hand, Bush v Gore invovled, well, Bush and Gore.  Tettyan 02:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Points noted. But this is Thaksin's election - any controversy about it affects Thaksin's credibility very directly, both as PM and as a candidate.  As you noted in your own recent edit, the civic groups are claiming that Thaksin's alleged interference with the EC is just one in a series of past interferences with independent commissions.  I don't think the political situation over the next few weeks would make any sense (not that it is making too much sense right now) if the election controversy is glossed over. But back to the article though: are you OK with the one sentence summary of the election controversy "After unofficial voting tallies became public, the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) petitioned the Administrative Court to suspend the results of the election."  Do you think this properly sets the context for the by-elections? Patiwat 03:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that sounds fine, but please refresh me on the facts a bit. I remember Chamlong declared as he voted that the PAD was going to ignore the results of the election anyway. So did the decision to petition the Administrative Court come BEFORE or AFTER unofficial results started leaking out?  The PAD already tried (and failed) to petition the courts to cancel the elections the week before.  A cynical observer might just say that if the NO vote was in the majority, the PAD would NOT challenge the the outcome, and vice versa.  But I shouldn't speculate further, this would be the wrong place to do so.  Regards, Tettyan 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Preliminary elections results for Bangkok started filtering in Sunday evening, and by Monday morning it was clear that TRT won Bangkok and the rest of Thailand, but lost the South. I had posted on SCT the results of a spreadsheet model showing this at noon on Monday (source: .  On Monday (don't recall the time, I only found the article at 11pm on the "Breaking News" box of The Nation, but it might have occured earlier in the day), the PAD filed a petition to the Central Admin Court to nullify the election due to the positioning of the booths (source: ).  That evening at around 9 or 10pm, Thaksin went on TV to declare victory with 16 million votes (at the time, it seemed closer to 2/3 rather than 61%) and suggest setting up the independent Reconciliation Committee.  So fairly clear that the petition came AFTER the results came out, as noted in the summary. Patiwat 05:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Status of Thaksin and Chidchai
Many many media sites are misinterpreting this. Thaksin is Caretaker Prime Minister. He has been Caretaker PM since he dissolved Parliament. Chidchai is Caretaker DPM and Caretaker Justice Minister. Thaksin has not resigned - He can not resign. Article 215 of the Constitution says that a Caretaker Government to be in place until there is a new Cabinet. Thaksin is currently "on leave" and has delegated his authority to Chidchai. But Chidchai is not Caretaker PM - he isn't an MP hence can not be PM according to the Constitution. Patiwat 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, Thaksin is still Caretaker PM (on leave of absence) while Chidchai is "Acting Caretaker Prime Minister" as long as Thaksin is on leave. A rather awkward-sounding title, but I think that's the officially correct way to refer to Chidchai. Tettyan 03:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that the TNA has been specific about _not_ calling him Chidchai Caretaker PM, but calling him acting interim PM. Which is just as awkward....Patiwat 04:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going around editing "caretaker" or "acting caretaker" or "acting interim" into the post-dissolution sections of the article yet. Every single website I've seen has been inconsistent with what they call the positions these days.  Best to wait a few weeks/months/years until the controversy dies down and we finally figure out what to call these guys. Patiwat 04:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Allow me to correct myself. Unlike previous elections, Chidchai was on the TRT party list, although his status as an MP is still unofficial.  But that means that he _could_ conceivably be made PM.  His status is funny - a friend in Government House told me that he was "Caretaker to the Caretaker Prime Minister"

As of 22 April, the first paragraph of the article is self-contradictory about whether Thaksin is still PM. He is still caretaker PM until Parliament reconvenes and presents the name of a new PM to the King. He is, however, on indefinite leave and has handed over his responsibilities to DPM Chidchai. The link to Adam Carr's website does not support the statement that "He currently is not Thailand prime minister. ". Patiwat 17:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Length of article
Patiwat, this is all very worthy material, but it doesn't really belong in the Thaksin biographical article, certainly not at this length. Now that the Thaksin regime has apparently ended, you should start an article called Policies of the Thaksin government and transfer all this material to it. Adam 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I vehemently disagree. Edit it down if you think some details are not relevent to the subject.  But policies and public impact are essential components of a politician's biographical artle.  Everything is mere posturing.Patiwat 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you do disagree. But the problem here is that although you are obviously extremely knowledgable about Thai politics, you are also (a) knew to Wikipedia, and (b) very intensely focused on this subject. I think you are therefore not the best judge of what does and does not belong in this article, which is a biographical one. Obviously there needs to be sections on Thaksin's beliefs, policies and actions in government, but not at this length or level of detail. I will wait a while for some more opinions, but my current intention is to move the bulk of this content to Policies of the Thaksin government. Adam 03:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe that is elitist - Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, and _nobody_ is the best judege. Anyway, I've done some edits as suggested. If they are still to long and inappropriate, feel free to discuss or edit further.


 * I have edited down the section significantly. Edited sections are half as long as before, with lots of extra details removed.  I have continued to include all major criticisms of his policies though, as well as the counter-criticisms.


 * I have _not_ touched the "Energy" section and the "Foreign Policy" section though. I think the "Energy" section needs a re-write to capture distinctions between the Chuan and Thaksin policies (the English vs. French liberalization models, as noted in an above section). I'm not in a hurry, because I think that energy was Thaksin's most controversial policy. Please don't be rash and delete the entire section, like somebody did with the "Disputing the election result" section.
 * I don't know what to remove from the "Foreign Policy" section. I've captured the "merchant ambassader" controversy, the FTAs, the Iraq invasion, the Tak Bai issue, and Thaksin's undiplomatic behavior issues with the minimum space neccesary to include criticisms and counter-criticisms were valid.  For reasons mentioned in an above section, I have omitted the Surakiat's UN GS bid. I think all of these points need some brief mention in the article, but as many have noted, the article is too long. Could somebody with a better eye try to edit this down?Patiwat 05:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to edit the sections down - I think they are excellent material and should appear in the encyclopaedia as they are. I am not proposing to delete them. I only argue that they should not be in this article. Adam 06:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You and many others have noted that the article is too long and that much information is too detailed for a biographical article. I have copied the fully detailed information into a new article called Policies of the Thaksin government.  Much detail, particularly policy details and impact, has been removed from the main biographical article but remain in the detailed Policies of the Thaksin government article.  What remains is, I hope, a high-level summary of Thaksin's policies that is factual and balanced - if it is not, please discuss it here.  I think that this _does_ belong in the article.  Come on, we're including allegations that he drove a motorcycle without a helmet, but we can't talk about what policies he initiated and whether those policies had an impact on the public welfare?  What is this, a PAD demonstration? Patiwat 06:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that last comment confirms my view that you are too closely engaged with this subject to make entirely detached decisions about how to produce the best possible article. I have already said that there should be a summary of Thaksin's policies in this article, and I have said several times that I think your material is very good. What more can I say? I am pleased you have accepted the view that there should be a separate article, so I don't see now that we have anything to argue about. Adam 07:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for "closely-engaged" people who passionately care about content like you or me, Wikipedia wouldn't exist.


 * Again, I've included a high-level summary that in my closely-engaged opinion, is the minimum of length that still remains factual and balanced and relevent to the biographical article. If the contributors think it is too still detailed and doesn't belong, then go ahead and delete or edit it further. I'll be taking a "break" from politics for the comming days and weeks. I am not stepping down :-)  Good luck, and may the 5 pillars be with you. Patiwat 07:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As foreshadowed, I am moving the stuff about the anti- and pro-Thaksin rallies and other related matters to another new article, Thailand political crisis 2005-2006. Adam 07:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, now that Thaksin is going, all of this material needs to be rewritten in the past tense - as should have been done in the first place. Adam 07:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thaksin accused of adultery by Sulak Sivarak
At a speech in Sanam Luang during the height of the anti-Thaksin protests, controversial social critic and winner of the Right Livelihood Award Sulak Sivaraksa spread a rumor that Thaksin Shinawatra had committed adultry: "As for breaking the Third Precept, I don’t have hard evidence. But there are lots of rumors that Thaksin and his cabinet ministers have engaged in many illicit sexual reveries—that Thaksin has been unfaithful to his wife. There is even a toddler who looks astonishingly like Thaksin. All these still cannot be proven. So we may have to give him the benefit of the doubt. But truths about Thaksin’s notorious sexual life will surely surface after his fall from power—like those of the dictator Sarit Thanarat." (source: http://www.sulak-sivaraksa.org/sulak313.php) As noted, the rumor is completely without evidence, but so were most of the allegations made against Thaksin during those protests. However, if I had not known and respected Acharn Sulak for years, I would disregard this as the most vile, cruel, and baseless of accusations. Acharn Sulak has always been straightforwad bordering on spiteful, but he has always been listened to and, unlike Sondhi, has a reputation for being factual and speaking truth to power. I would therefore think it is valid to note this accusation in the article.

Note, this is not an issue about whether or not Thaksin has committed adultry. This is an issue about 1) whether it can be verified that he was accused of adultery and 2) whether this allegation has any relevance in his biographical article. The answer to 1) is "yes"; the answer to 2) is "probably". The article on Bill Clinton, after all, includes every wild talk radio allegation made about that individual. You could argue that, spoken in a public forum with tens of thousands listening, recorded by the press and in his own website, and spoken by a respected individual, Sulak's claim has some authority.

I invite discussion before I make the following change: "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, adultery , religious desecration, and siding with gods of darkness. Many of these allegations have been without evidence, but all of them together have arguably contributed to his downfall." Patiwat 20:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've said before - if we tried to list everything Thaksin was ever accused of, this article would never end! The stuff you hear in the infamous "Ai Na Liam" song is only the tip of the iceberg.  The adultery issue here is different from Clinton's case - there, it eventually led to his impeachment.  On the other hand, there have always been rumours about Thaksin's personal life floating around, but it never seemed to impact his political standing before (it certainly didn't affect Anand Panyarachun when he was PM - personally, I think most Thais accept this as a fact of life when it comes to their politicians). Without the Sondhi factor and the Shin Corp sale, Thaksin likely wouldn't be in the predicament he finds himself in today.  Regards, Tettyan 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points, although I'd argue that Thaksin isn't Superman, and the character smears have collectively, if not individually, hurt him. But it is tough to draw a dividing line between what smears had a clear political impact and which ones didn't.  (Although the royal powers smear is a clear example of an extremely powerful and politically impactful one - allowing Sondhi wear yellow and use "we fight for the King" as his battle-cry).  I'd argue that the adultery smears, although not as politically impactful as the royal powers crap, was politically impactful - because it was made by Acharn Sulak (who has fought pretty much every PM in modern Thai history and successfully fought against all libel/lese-majesty charges), and because he is compared against Sarit, who by all accounts really was a legit sexual monster.  If it wasn't so viral a smear, it wouldn't have appeared in so many press mentions (Thai Day, the Nation, many blogs and political discussion boards like Phanthip and 2Bangkok).  I don't think this compares against the trash spoken against Anand and Chuan.  Those allegations were all social soopsip - but Thaksin's allegations are made by respected individuals in front of tens of thousands of Thaksin-haters and captured and repeated by the press. "Intellectuals" might not have been swayed by it, but plenty were.  Your thoughts are appreciated, but I'd like to hear from more than just you and Adam. Patiwat 03:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On a related note, I'd argue that the "enemy of Buddhism" allegations (replacing the Sangkharaj, Luang Ta Maha Bua, desecrater of Brahma shrine, etc.) were collectively very politically impactful. It allowed the PAD to put forward a diverse coalition of Buddhist groups into the core of the anti-Thaksin movement (you can't get more diverse than Santi Asoke and the folowers of Luang Ta Maha Bua).  It also led Thaksin to put together his own powerful Buddhist coalition (Dharmakaya).  Political messages from religious leaders might be old news in the US, but never to my knowledge has Thai Buddhism been so intrically involved in politics.  And it is even more impactful in Thailand because we are arguably more respectful of religious authority.  Even then, I don't think I'm seeing the entire picture.  Tettyan, you had mentioned some time ago about putting some short notes together on Thaksin's role in the conflict going on inside Thailand Buddhism.  Any updates? Patiwat 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Richest
I thought Thaksin was the richest man in Thailand before he became PM and had to juggle his finances? Can't find a cite older than Forbes 2002 (post-PM) though, which ranks him as #2. Jpatokal 10:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right there. In the data cited in the above "Thaksin not richest individual in Thailand, by far" section, I was using the Forbes 2005 list. But shouldn't we focus on the current rather than on the past? I think it would be more useful to say "His family is one of the richest in Thailand, although prior to becoming Prime Minister, he transferred his individual ownership ...". Any other suggestions? Patiwat 11:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)