|
Nachrichtenarchiv Thailand
Sore losers, where are you on Thaksin's enemy list?
1. Those who want to own television stations and cannot get one. 2. Those who have been thrown out of the Cabinet. 3. The media, who, for one reason for another, simply don't like him. And then, there are the mere "handful of sore losers" who have hired people to make their chaotic presence felt in certain public places. But that's not going to bother the prime minister, who, for the umpteenth time, vowed that he will do everything possible to clean up corruption within the government. If you belong to one of those three categories, therefore, you don't count for much. Thaksin says he won't listen to you because you are just part of a small minority. He made a point of reminding the audience that about 20 million people voted for him and his Thai Rak Thai Party in the last general election. And, in case you don't remember, his party has a membership of some 14 million people throughout the country. Thaksin didn't say it in so many words but it didn't really take a political science professor to realise the message he was giving. This was, perhaps, the first time he has come out publicly to indicate that he didn't really care very much that hundreds of thousands of people have been showing up at Lumpini Park for Sondhi Limthongkul's show over the past 12 weeks to show their distaste for the country's leadership. He also suggested that at least a good number of them were nothing but "hired guns" brought in to make the protest gathering look real. And, when he talked to about 5,000 taxi drivers a few days later, Thaksin said that the noise heard at the gatherings was nothing but a "dog's bark". Thaksin didn't identify those who were "sore losers" because they couldn't get their television stations. Of course, it's no mystery that he has been more than upset with Sondhi's exposure of several questionable deals. The media firebrand had come to be aware of many things about Thakisn before their personal relationship snapped. The timing couldn't have been more instructive: Sondhi was known to have been eager to set up a television network through the artful use of state-owned TV and radio structures, apparently hoping that his public statements in support of Thaksin at the time, would facilitate the process. It was at this time that, for some inexplicable reason, the two best of friends became the worst possible enemies. But what Thaksin didn't realise, of course, is that the number of disillusioned people who are now bold enough to make their dissatisfaction felt publicly is not a "handful" as he would like us to think. This is either because he is too bent upon discrediting Sondhi and some of his disaffected ex-Cabinet members or because he has lost touch with reality. And the reality is that the public sentiment against him has grown to such an extent that it's no longer an old fool's midsummer night's dream to openly discuss the possibility of "post-Thaksin" scenarios - one of which is the complete removal of all the vestiges of his populist platform. But Thaksin is by no means totally blind to the real reasons why he is being seen as a major disappointment. By repeating his pledge to seriously crack down on corruption (again?) at the end of that radio message disparaging his critics, the premier, even in that incoherent context, was suggesting he realised where his weakest link was: the large-scale high-level conflicts of interests that have refused to go away. Of course, he would never admit it. He knows that the biggest threat to his political survival remains his inability to convince the public that he can effectively get rid of corruption, cronyism and nepotism. Thaksin has always used the 19 million votes in the election as his political shield for all purposes. But that's not a panacea by any means because the fact remains that the 19 million or so voters who cast their ballots for him and his Thai Rak Thai Party had one clear, deafening message for him: Go in there and change the country for the better on the basis of the rule of law and fair play. The overwhelming vote was not a licence for a small group of opportunistic politicians to amass wealth through a corrupt and autocratic rule.
| ||
|
