Red shirts, yellow shirts, blue shirts, no shirts, etc.

[Guest RichLB]

With all the hype being given to the upcoming Feb 26 court decision maybe I should become more informed. Without going into lengthy details, can anyone give a succinct explanation of what the various colored shirt people want? I know the red shirts support Thaksin, the yellow shirts support the current government, the no shirts may have been a one day protest against both, and the blue shirts seem to have disappeared. What I don't understand is why so many Thais are so enflamed as to potentially threaten violence in response to the court's decision. I'm even more mystified why such a large number of people care about what happens to Thaksin's money; how does it affect them?

[macaroni21]

It'll be wrong to think of this as merely a fight over Thaksin's assets. This latest crisis is just one phase in a 10-20 year struggle between two visions of Thailand. It's actually a revolution in progress, but a slowly developing one rather than an acute and horribly violent one, the way most of us think of "revolutions".

 

The two sides in this revolution are the Red Shirts and what I would call L'ancien regime. The latter are a mix of the urban middle- and upper-class, the business elite, the palace and the army. For the last half-century, they have had their way with Thailand, shaping laws, government spending and policies to benefit themselves (e.g. broadcasting licenses are given to the military, no civilian oversight of the military, enforcement of lese majeste laws).

 

Although Thailand is nominally a democracy, the l'ancien regime has paid so little attention to schools and education (and health and other social welfare services) that the majority of Thais, particularly in the rural provinces, are poorly educated, and hitherto, have not had either the intellectual awareness or economic independence to challenge the ancien regime. Instead, the rural masses have remained under the sway of village chiefs per traditional custom and have voted in elections according to the village chiefs' recommendations or for whichever Bangkok party gives out the most cash to buy votes. That's how the ancien regime has maintained its hold on power despite the veneer of democracy. In the past, it didn't matter which party won elections. All parties were part of the ancien regime serving the same interests.

 

What has happened in the last 10 years has been the erosion of this social model. Whether you like Thaksin or not, whether he was corrupt or not, he was the first politician to rise to the top as both an insider and outsider. He was an insider in the sense that he was a successful businessman in his own right, and the ancien regime originally thought of him as one of their own. He was an outsider in that his climb to success was not due to much help from the charmed circle of palace/military.

 

After he became Prime Minister, Thaksin revolutionised Thai politics by showering the rural provinces with social welfare policies, and winning their solid support in subsequent elections. For the first time, the rural masses saw what their numerical strength could mean in terms of getting the distant government in Bangkok to pay attention to their needs. Thaksin also began to dismantle the levers by which shadowy figures of the old elite controlled power. This naturally threatened the old elite.

 

At the same time, other social changes were gaining momentum. The rural masses were breaking out of their subservient way of thinking, getting more politicised, and through media, seeing how the "other half" lives. The Asian financial crisis of 1997, which bankrupted many Thai businessmen, also broke the aura of invincibility that the ancien regime had acquired. The poorer Thais would never again be in awe of the rich.

 

So, when the military, with the support of the palace, mounted the coup d'etat of 2006 to depose Thaksin, thinking they could restore the ancien regime without too much opposition like previous coups d'etat, they were badly surprised. The people had changed. They would not accept a return to the old order.

 

At first the resistance (Red Shirts) was centred around Thaksin, and aimed to restore Thaksin to power, but it would be erroneous to see it as a Thaksin-led force anymore or to hold the same aims. It is now much bigger than Thaksin. It is a social revolution, not well organised, short of resources, but with wide support. It no longer aims to restore Thaksin to power. It wants a decapitation of the Thai elite and a complete reappraisal of the purposes of the Thai state - for the welfare of the people rather than for the benefit of the rich and well-connected.

 

Most members of farang online forums take the side of the old elite (You can see it from others' comments) and pour scorn on Thaksin and the Red Shirts. Mine is a minority opinion on these boards. While I don't have the right to take sides in this Thai revolution, I recognise the power that the Red Shirts have and the legitimacy of their grievances. I also predict that in the long run, they will win.

 

My hope is that their victory need not be through violence. It would be best, and quite foreseeable, for more and more sections of the old elite, e.g. Abhisit's Democratic Party, to make compromises and accommodate the demands of the Red Shirts, and gradually abandon their hitherto knee-jerk subordination to the palace and military.

[Gaybutton]

For me, what you say makes sense out of much of what has been going on. I've learned a great deal from your post that I neither knew nor understood before and now I can appreciate the Red-Shirt position. But there are still three things I don't understand and I would like to know your opinion:

 

1. If the Red-Shirt movement is not looking to return Thaksin to power, then what happens if they do indeed successfully topple the government and who do they want?

 

2. Why would a Supreme Court ruling against Thaksin be the catalyst that spawns a major, possibly violent, response?

 

3. No matter what the Red-Shirt position is, do you think what Thaksin is really after, along with the money, is returning to Thailand, regaining power, and becoming a dictator?

 

By the way, Thai people with whom I have spoken have been saying that if there is going to be a problem in Pattaya as a result of the decision, look for it on the 27th much more than on the 26th.

[Guest cdnmatt]

First off, I'm very new to Thailand compared to many of you, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

 

1. If the Red-Shirt movement is not looking to return Thaksin to power, then what happens if they do indeed successfully topple the government and who do they want?

 

No idea.

 

2. Why would a Supreme Court ruling against Thaksin be the catalyst that spawns a major, possibly violent, response?

 

Because Thaksin isn't so much viewed as an individual anymore. Nowadays, he's viewed more as an idea, and an aspiration. A judgement against Thaksin will be viewed as a judgement against all red-shirt supporters, which is the majority of Thais.

 

3. No matter what the Red-Shirt position is, do you think what Thaksin is really after, along with the money, is returning to Thailand, regaining power, and becoming a dictator?

 

Depends on what you mean by dictator, but history says no.

[macaroni21]

No idea.

 

Neither do I, but most likely it would be someone from the Puea Thai Party, not Thaksin himself. However, I do not see the Red Shirts succeeding so quickly.

 

 

 

Because Thaksin isn't so much viewed as an individual anymore. Nowadays, he's viewed more as an idea, and an aspiration. A judgement against Thaksin will be viewed as a judgement against all red-shirt supporters, which is the majority of Thais.

 

Spot on. I can't agree more.

 

Calling Thaksin a dictator is to fall for the Ancien Regime's propaganda. Like cdnmatt, I don't see that he was one. Fact: Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party was the first ever in modern Thai history to win an absolute majority at an election, therefore he was the first ever PM to govern without a need for a coalition government. This gave Thaksin a freedom of manouver that no other politician has ever had in Thailand; he did not have to painstakingly bargain and make trade-offs with other political leaders and shadowy figures among the old elite. Naturally, the old elite hated this state of affairs, they were not used to being sidelined and un-consulted. In their eyes, Thaksin was behaving like a "dictator", when really, he was just behaving like any normal PM with a big majority in Parliament, setting out to implement his agenda to take better care of his voter base (the poor majority), again like any normal politician, and to whittle away at the power base of his opponents. He probably had a big ego and was brash about his power and this probably annoyed the old elite even more.

 

If one insists on seeing him as a dictator one will never understand why he had and still has such wide support.

 

In any case, the issue has moved beyond Thaksin. It is a social revolution. The idea of social justice and political equity is now at the core of the struggle, not about just one man.

[Guest RichLB]

Thank you so much Macaroni21 and cdnmatt. Your explanations were helpful beyond belief. I know it is a complicated issue and you both managed to give perspective and analysis at a level I, as a political imbecile, can understand. I really appreciate it and I'm sure others do as well. Thank you.

[Guest cdnmatt]

If one insists on seeing him as a dictator one will never understand why he had and still has such wide support.

 

Agreed. You have people out there calling Obama a dictator nowadays though, hence why I said it depends on what you mean by "dictator". When it comes to an ACTUAL Pol-Pot like dictator, then no, that will never happen, and Thaksin has never given any indication he wants that kind of power.

 

But yes, Thaksin is one of those "spread the wealth" guys. When he was in power, he paid off Thailand's debt to the IMF before it was due, instituted social health care, and spread the wealth around to the villages. Most villages seen some money due to his policies. For example, my BFs younger brother got a bicycle for free from the government, to help him get to and from school.

 

That's a prime example of why all the Issan folk love Thaksin, and not so much him, but his ideology. Years ago they got a taste of what's possible, which was taken away from them under the new government. So now they're not only hungry, but hungry and pissed off. They want what they used to have, plus more, because they now know it's a possibility.

[bkkguy]

Fact: Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party was the first ever in modern Thai history to win an absolute majority at an election, therefore he was the first ever PM to govern without a need for a coalition government.

 

it is not how big the majority was, but how the election was run and won - history is full of large election majorities in tin pot "democracies" and banana republics. The fact is that every party that has won an election recently has been disbanded soon after by the Election Commission and while you may claim that this just represents the power struggle between the new and the old factions it does little to support the "legitimacy" of any of these governments

 

and it is also what was done with the power gained - what percentage of the rural poor are significantly better off now than they were at the start Taksin's rise to power? an how does this compare with the profits made by Taksin, his family, his cronies and other members of the TRT and the other parties that rose phoenix-like from its ashes? if this is a grass roots social revolution then the grass roots have been fairly easily been sold a dud deal, but that is hardly surprising - they have been sold dud deals for as long as anyone can remember!

 

and if it is not a cult of personality around Taksin why does he keep doing phone-ins and video links at all the major red shirt rallies?

 

bkkguy

[Guest RichLB]

what percentage of the rural poor are significantly better off now than they were at the start Thaksin's rise to power?

 

Again, I preface this by confessing that I am most probably the most politically naive of the posters on the board. But, I have wondered about this myself. I remember when I first came to Thailand, a guy I was seeing yearned for a mobile phone and I weakened and bought him one - although hardly anyone else had one and it was therefore relatively useless AND outrageously expensive. Now, there are hardly any Thais that don't have one and inexplicably many have more than one. Same goes for TV's. Many years ago I gifted my boyfriend's parents with a TV. It was the wonder of the village. Now, everyone has one and some have big screen ones. Motorcycles and cars almost fall into the same category (although hardly as universal). Then I throw in the 30 baht hospital care and educational assistance. In short, life for poor Thais seems to have gotten a lot better since I arrived in Thailand 11 years ago.

 

Of course, this could all be due to factors besides Thaksin. But, I compare the change in the quality of life in Thailand with the change for the poor in the US. In Thailand things have gotten better and in the US, worse. I know there are some desperately poor people here, but I rarely see anyone sleeping in the streets like I do in large US cities where there are virtual villages of street people. No one really goes hungry here like in many "advanced" countries.

 

Anyway, those are some of the things I think about while wondering why almost all expat farangs oppose Thaksin. Like I said, they could very well be right, but let's hand it to him. During his time, some things did get better here.

[macaroni21]

Bkkguy - I sense that you are applying a moral judgement to decide whether Thaksin is "good" or "bad". Many westerners, particularly Americans, expect morality from politicians. Or from sportsmen like Tiger Woods. It's a peculiarly Western hang-up.

 

But Thais see it differently: All politicians are corrupt. When they get to office, they feather their own beds. All buy votes at election time. It's been like that for decades, since before Thaksin even appeared. Thaksin may be no different.

 

A Westerner would use these indictments to see Thaksin as "bad".

 

But from the Thai villager's, or the urban working stiff's (e.g. taxi drivers in Bangkok) point of view, there is a huge difference. Other party politicians are corrupt, buy votes, and after winning the election ignore us the little people. Thaksin may be corrupt, may have bought votes, but after the election continued to pay attention to us little people. Who do you think the little people will support in their hearts?

[Gaybutton]

us little people. Who do you think the little people will support in their hearts?

I get the impression that you are Thai, fluent in English, and a Thaksin supporter. Am I right?

[macaroni21]

I get the impression that you are Thai, fluent in English, and a Thaksin supporter. Am I right?

 

I'm not Thai and I don't think very highly of Thaksin. But I have a political science background, have been a political watcher of various countries for a long time (I dare say I can read trends) and I have sympathy for the downtrodden. In the US, I'd be cussed a pinky leftist liberal.

 

I used the word "us" as a rhetorical device in order to plant the reader into the shoes of the "little people".

[Guest RichLB]

I'm not Thai and I don't think very highly of Thaksin. But I have a political science background, have been a political watcher of various countries for a long time (I dare say I can read trends) and I have sympathy for the downtrodden. In the US, I'd be cussed a pinky leftist liberal.

 

I sure hope you keep coming up with more and more analysis. I'm pretty much an iconoclast and tend to look for the most convuluted in things political. Your inputs are helping me sort through my confusion about what is happening in Thailand and I'm really looking forward to hearing your reactions to the Feb 26 decision and what you think it portends.

[Guest Max]

This is a lengthy article but for me clarified the background to all the recent upheavals in Thailand.

 

 

Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand

 

 

This article argues that widely used ideas such as bureaucratic polity, constitutional monarchy, transitional democracy and political reform fail to characterize accurately the recent politics of Thailand. Instead, Thai politics are best understood in terms of political networks. The leading network of the period 1973-2001 was centred on the palace, and is here termed 'network monarchy'. Network monarchy involved active interventions in the political process by the Thai King and his proxies, notably former prime minister Prem Tinsulanond. Network monarchy developed considerable influence, but never achieved the conditions for domination. Instead, the palace was obliged to work with and through other political institutions, primarily the elected parliament. Although essentially conservative, network monarchy also took on liberal forms during the 1990s. Thailand experienced three major legitimacy crises after 1992; in each case, Prem acted on behalf of the palace to restore political equilibrium. However, these interventions reflected the growing weakness of the monarchy, especially following the landslide election victories of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2001 and 2005. Thaksin sought to displace network monarchy with new networks of his own devising. This article suggests that conventional understandings of the power of the monarchy need to be rethought.

Keywords: Thailand; monarchy; networks; reform; Prem Tinsulanond; Thaksin Shinawatra

 

 

Network monarchy and legitima...

[pong]

khop khun, macaroni and the others-helped me a lot in writing. Slowly, slowly I am getting some idea as to what khun macaroni is actually working for.

What OP=the 1st Q forgot were the PINK shirts-has nothing to do with our bentness-but they replaced the old yellow shirts, worn on monday (yellow=see hluang=the colour of the king), when the yellow movement took the airport and that colour got a bad rep.

No shirts-thats what I guess are go-go boys for.

Now-I happen to stay in the old part of BKK where the yellows have their HQ (Pra Athit House-with ASTV) and often walk the Sanam luang-where the reds have all their propaganda. Ive seen and walked in 5 ''mobs'' (thats just a neutral Thai word for demonstration-remember those of you in the days against the VN war??-just the same).

The yellows are not as such just pro-current govmt-but support it more by lack of any better. Their filosofy is a bit weird-they want a big part of parliament to be appointed by the king and other high-ranks, and in the meantine the masses can be educated-to not vote for the reds (I guess).

I know this may offend some Brits (as I am not from there-so assume I can make some sweeping statement)-it does have some similarity to the Brit class divide and ''them versus us'' beliefs.

Why the reds supprot the capital gains of Taksin? By lack of any better-there is currently no real leader able to replace him. Taksin still ''feeds'' them with undercover payments of safety guards etc. It is often rumoured (from the other side) that all their demonstrators get paid and bussed in from Buriram and those places. So they also fear their own money might get confiscated as next step.

Taksin is a very shrewd fox, able to do strategical thinking ways ahead. This is something most Thai completely lack. He must have various scenario's ready for whatever the judges will rule on friday.

What I wonder myself is how that shrewd fox did not foresee (he must have known his enemies at the time) that the fall of him-he gained billions of baht -legally-by selling his Mobuy shares to Singapore. And still he needed to also gain the few million in due taxes?? Most think that his over-greedy wife, Potjamarn, was the reason behind it. But I guess we will never know.

And-further again to khun macaroni-I myself hope that some workable coalition between the 2 ''parties'' might be best. Lets hope for the best of both worlds.

[bkkguy]

Now, there are hardly any Thais that don't have [a mobile phone] ... Same goes for TV's. ... Motorcycles and cars ... 30 baht hospital care and educational assistance. In short, life for poor Thais seems to have gotten a lot better since I arrived in Thailand 11 years ago.

 

while rampant consumerism has certainly increased, most of it financed by increased personal debt, the level of house or land ownership amongst the rural (and urban) poor has decreased and while access to health services and education may have theoretically increased the quality of service in both sectors has declined in real terms - not really my idea of an improved life for poor Thais, and the "benefits" of rampant consumerism don't really seem to make the daily grind that much better!

 

 

Bkkguy - I sense that you are applying a moral judgement to decide whether Thaksin is "good" or "bad".

 

it is a pleasant change to be accused of making moral judgments - I am usually dismissed as a cynic!

 

But from the Thai villager's, or the urban working stiff's (e.g. taxi drivers in Bangkok) point of view, there is a huge difference. Other party politicians are corrupt, buy votes, and after winning the election ignore us the little people. Thaksin may be corrupt, may have bought votes, but after the election continued to pay attention to us little people. Who do you think the little people will support in their hearts?

 

this is the bit I don't understand - "continued to pull a swifty and fooled us into thinking they were interested in improving the lot of us little people" is more like it and if they want to continue to lust in their little hearts for such "attention" then I think there is little hope for them and for Thailand

 

of course the palace and the old elite are no more interested in improving the lot of the rural poor than Taksin and his cronies but as I say I'm just a cynic - and even worse a falung and a "guest in this country" and thus not really entitled to an opinion according to some Thais (and foreigners)!

 

bkkguy

[macaroni21]

I don't think it is helpful to understanding a complex situation by adopting a position that dismisses the views of a huge number of people, in bkkguy's case, the views of the Red Shirt supporters. To suggest that they are no more than fools duped by Thaksin is to adopt a condescending attitude to their native intelligence.

 

Firstly, I find it hard to see how so many can be fooled. Secondly, I'd say if we set the bar high and judge the Thais to be easily fooled by politicians, then it is no more so than Americans or Australians by theirs.

 

To understand the dynamics of a political situation requires us to divorce our own personal judgements from our observations. We don't have to like any leader, we don't have to think highly of him, but we have to be able to see when others do. Our opinions (least of all, moral judgements) are not useful starting points for understanding. Looking objectively at the chess pieces on the ground and their relative strengths is what is needed.

[Gaybutton]

Firstly, I find it hard to see how so many can be fooled.

"You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

- Abraham Lincoln

[bkkguy]

Firstly, I find it hard to see how so many can be fooled.

 

you obviously don't read a lot of history or news

 

bkkguy

[Guest mauRICE]

I don't think it is helpful to understanding a complex situation by adopting a position that dismisses the views of a huge number of people, in bkkguy's case, the views of the Red Shirt supporters. To suggest that they are no more than fools duped by Thaksin is to adopt a condescending attitude to their native intelligence.

 

Firstly, I find it hard to see how so many can be fooled. Secondly, I'd say if we set the bar high and judge the Thais to be easily fooled by politicians, then it is no more so than Americans or Australians by theirs.

 

It's the white man's burden; some of these old schoolers are still hung up on Orientalist notions of superiority in the guise of pity, sympathy or even kindness. These brown-skinned natives can't think for themselves and therefore don't know any better.

[Guest mauRICE]

But yes, Thaksin is one of those "spread the wealth" guys. When he was in power, he paid off Thailand's debt to the IMF before it was due, instituted social health care, and spread the wealth around to the villages. Most villages seen some money due to his policies. For example, my BFs younger brother got a bicycle for free from the government, to help him get to and from school.

 

That's a prime example of why all the Issan folk love Thaksin, and not so much him, but his ideology.

 

What was Thaksin's "ideology"? What reforms or economic plans did he institute for the long term development of the rural poor? He was in power for six years but his government did not implement a single change in the most important area of all - education. Thai kids today are still learning the same antiquated rubbish that was taught in Thai schools fifty years ago. He didn't have to go far for inspiration; all he had to do was to look at neigbouring Singapore, Malaysia or even Vietnam and the successes they are enjoying largely due to excellent education systems that combine the best of East and West.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think Thaksin was the 'best' of the political crooks that the Thais have had. Even though he was as greedy as the worst of them, he did try to make life easier for the poor, at least in the short term, by giving them depreciating assets like bicycles and handouts. Now, the cynics might say he did it to buy votes. I don't know; I think the man was motivated by a sliver of altruism but true to the culture of his people, was too selfish to effect real social change.

 

Thaksin reminded of the Thai slave masters of old albeit a kind one. When the slaves were behaving or doing their chores dutifully, they were rewarded with some fish with their rice and if the master was feeling particularly generous, a slice of cured pork. But the slaves won't be allowed to learn any new skills bar the essential ones they need to perform their tasks. And the slaves are never, ever allowed to sleep in the main house lest they become privy to their masters's secrets and start to plot against them. If you look at Thai socio-economic structures today, particularly in the north and the north-east, you'll find that very little has changed in the Land of Smiles. Thaksin gave his people fish and fed them for a day but he wouldn't teach them how to fish and thus feed them for life.

[Guest cdnmatt]

He was in power for six years but his government did not implement a single change in the most important area of all - education.

 

Yes, he did. Or at least tried, but was met with stiff opposition, as should be in any good governed nation.

 

Thaksin implemented major educational reforms, chief among them school decentralization, as mandated by the 1997 Constitution. It was to delegate school management from the over-centralized and bureaucratized Ministry of Education to Tambon Administrative Organizations (TAOs) but met with massive widespread opposition from Thailand's 700,000 teachers, who would be deprived of their status as civil servants.

 

To increase access to universities for lower income people, Thaksin initiated the Student Loan Fund (SLF) and Income Contingency Loan (ICL) programs. The ICL granted loans regardless of financial status, and required recipients to start repayments when their salaries reached 16,000 baht a month, with interest equivalent to inflation from the day the loan was granted. The SLF had an eligibility limit on family income but interest was 1 per cent starting a year after graduation. The programs were merged and the income limit modified after Thaksin's government was overthrown.

 

Thaksin Shinawatra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Or how about near universal health care? Another nice thing he did for the Thai people. Under those policies, there was no more selling half your buffalos because little Somchai ended up with dangue fever.

[Guest mauRICE]

Decentralising the education system would have led to uncontrolled corruption a the regional and sub-regional levels, which Thaksin's henchmen in the north-east would have benefitted from. I volunteer for an organisation that seeks to help disadvantaged but capable Thai children reach their highest academic potential. As it is, we have to jump through hoops and yes, sometimes have to grease palms to get these bright kids to complete their supposedly compulsory education and to sit for the national tests that would get them into the better schools and universities, usually in the bigger towns. They then get to do meaningful courses like science, engineering, medicine and law which would actually give them a fighting chance in the job market, not the kind of useless piffle like tourism, business communication and public administration that the sons of farmers often end up doing at Rajabhats and dubious commercial colleges. We are able to do this largely because the MOE is in control and acts as a check-and-balance against corrupt teachers, school administrators and district officers. If the system is decentralised, you can bet Somchai's little farm that his tiny village school won't see any of the money and support that's coming from the government. Perhaps if Thaksin had tried to raise teachers' salaries they would have been more amenable to his ideas.

 

No, the focus should have been on content and as I said, the templates are available from neighbouring countries. When I was in school, I was always reminded by my teachers that the sky was the limit if we armed ourselves with knowledge; to respect our elders but only if they've earned it; and to be loyal to our leaders but only if they were just. The West was not an enemy but an intellectual buffet and to be very selective when feeding on it so as to get only the healthiest elements for our cerebral nourishment. That way, we would never again be colonised either physically or mentally. Most importantly, nothing comes without hard work and enterprise. These ideas were repeated in our textbooks, by our parents, religious leaders as well as in numerous public campaigns. I don't see this happening in Thailand. Instead, Thai kids are told from day one to be grateful for their lot and to be loyal to Elvis and his band, regardless of how scandalous Priscilla and their little rockers may be. Thai education is a circle jerk of irredentist masturbation of a time long gone by - it feels great but has little relevance on the modern world stage that Thailand has to be compete on.

[macaroni21]

Like MauRICE, I have a somewhat skeptical view of Thaksin's "achievements", and in my opinion they were driven more by short-term political advantage to himself and his party than long-term benefit to the country. Particularly in education, an area where results take a generation to show,it is hard to assess, given only six years in office, what good he actually did.

 

Yet this veering of the thread shows exactly what is holding up our ability to understand Thailand. We're still debating the past and the man, when frankly, I don't see Thaksin returning to office. I don't see him as any more than an influential side figure now, in a long struggle by bigger forces for power and ascendancy. It's the forces that matter.

[pong]

For example, my BFs younger brother got a bicycle for free from the government, to help him get to and from school.

That's a prime example of why all the Issan folk love Thaksin,

This scheme still exists-and is not as such govmt run. Though it very well may have been fed a lot by Taksin in his time. Most people in such positions hardly distinguish between institution 1-2-3: its all the ''rattaban''=govmt.

A more sensiuble rule to all those schools might have been to scrap the numerous uniforms the pupils have to buy-would not 1 or 2 sets be enough? Now often they seem to need a differentone for all days of the week. The rumor has it that the teachers run those shops.....(but that was the case before Taksin came and is still so).

And here in BKK there were still the hyper-critcs who pretold that as soon as the tires got flat-the bikes would be abandoned or sold on. There would need to be extra money for maintanenance.