Talk:Thaksin Shinawatra/Archive 1

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Size of Anti-Thaksin rallies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Succession box 

message: "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)
replies: text: '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)
thread_title: Thai Chinese

message: *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)
thread_title:  Material from wikinews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change of audio file 

message: 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)
replies: text: You're reading it wrongly: there were 28 senators. Markyour words 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Impeachment Attempt, DATES do not make sense 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tsunami publicity helped him gain 32/37 seats in Bangkok? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Urban transport infrastructure? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Accusation of insider information during THB devaluation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thaksin's anti-drugs policy: context, details, implementation, impact, and controversy 

message: The article has almost no content regarding foreign policy during Thaksin's administrations.  I have included some notes on 
#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.
#The FTAs.  I have noted claims that this would wipe out several industries.
#Stopping foreign aid.  No controversy here.
#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.
#The Tak Bai Massacre.  Noted how this harmed relationships with Malaysia, the UN, and other countries.
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.
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Foreign Policy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added section on "Temple of the Emerald Buddha incident" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Added section on the Luang Ta Maha Bua Incident 

message: 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)
thread_title: Too many references?

message: 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)
thread_title: Google PageRank of this Article

message: 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)
thread_title: Role of his wife

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed Allegations of Driving without Motorcycle Helmet

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Added short summary of other issues involved in the Thailand Political Crisis 2005-6 section

message: 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)
replies: text: My mistake there - that should be Chaleo Yoovidhya, owner of Kratingdaeng and Piyavate Hospital.Patiwat 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Thaksin not richest individual in Thailand, by far

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How should we structure the election and post-election sections? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The correct spelling is "Shinawatra", but the correct pronunciation is "Shinawat". Jpatokal 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Based on transcription, yes... but not transcription.  If it were, it wouldn't include silent letters. HenryFlower 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying English doesn't normally have silent letters? Nil Einne 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Shinawat or Shinawatra?

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV in Introduction to "Prime Minister of Thailand" section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vote tally

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Doesn't make sense/error

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Thaksin *not* stepping down - just refusing to become next PM 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That is an english saying, right?  I'm not sure how it would work in Thai.Patiwat 06:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isan makes gov'ts, Bangkok breaks them

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes. The claim was obviously absurd. It can be mentioned, but doesn't deserve its own section. Adam 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.
*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)
thread_title:  Article too long - suggestions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Added section on "Education policy" 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Complete rewrite of "Entry Into Politics" section 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Requests 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Voting booths

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.Kingdom of Thailand: Legislative Elections of 2 April 2006". Patiwat 17:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Thaksin and Chidchai 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thaksin accused of adultery by Sulak Sivarak 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Richest