Steve2UK

Former (1982-91) Democrat party leader Bhichai Rattakul commented on the Abhisit government and other Thai political matters in an interview he gave on 24 December to "Voice" TV - an internet/cable TV channel aimed mainly at a younger audience and launched by Panthongtae and sister Pinthongta Shinawatra. He gives the present government 5/10 for its overall performance while singling out the education minister to score 7/10.

Tumbler summarises some of Bhichai's key comments (reconciliation, relations with Cambodia, EC & party dissolution, Abhisit as a leader etc) and the full programme (in Thai) can be viewed at:

http://www.tumblerblog.com/2010/01/former-...of-10/#comments

and who would want to visit RED Central HQ in the current political climate?

Simple question: have you ever even set foot in Chiang Mai?

So much pedantry...... to such little purpose. Even in your own choice of a dictionary of LAW, I see they too perceive a distinction in the usage:

There is a difference between what is "legal" and what is perceived as "legitimate"

<snip>

Legal adjective

1 : of or relating to law or the processes of law legal question> legal action>

2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law legal tariff rate> legal government>

b : fulfilling the requirements of law legal voter>

c : having a status derived from law : recognized as such by law legal certainty>

d : created by operation of esp. statutory law <legal incompetence> legal presumption>

—compare CONVENTIONAL 1, JUDICIAL 2 e : established by law legal test for mental capacity>

3 : conforming to or permitted by law : LAWFUL legal>

4 : recognized or made effective under principles of law as distinguished from principles of equity :

deriving from or existing or valid in law as distinguished from equity

—see also EQUITY —compare EQUITABLE

Legitimate

adjective

<snip>

4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards legitimate claim of entitlement>

<snip>

"the definitions, which are so close this parsing is rather moot"? For you, maybe; from your own evidence clearly not identical or fully interchangeable. In passing, I suggest you look up "equity" as juxtaposed in "Legal" definition #4.

Like the rest of your tired jibes....... not close - and no cigar.

Your creative editing doesn't win you the point, that your attempts

at word twisting didn't win you before.

Game, set, match, retired your side.

If that guff gets you through your day, fine by me.

Yes the Thai military is overbearing and at times overactive but Thailand over the long term has both bananas and democracy. Given time it will have more of the latter, especially if the banana Himself finally at long last gets out of the way.

Please do not refer to General Prem in that disrespectful way, and the choice of fruit makes it that much worse.

Ok some allege he may have interfered with democratic politics and supported an illegal coup but on the other hand he is a respected statesman.Please no more then of this kind of scurrilous talk and remember Khun Prem's outstanding service to the nation..

Naughty.......

TVF's favourite quotable source (other than The Nation) Wikipedia offers some thoughts about "banana republics" which, taken overall, seem to make it clear that the term isn't 100% applicable to Thailand - much as IMO referring to all wearers of a shirt colour as goons/thugs/morons/zombies/rent-a-crowd etc isn't. The preamble to the entry is specific:

"Banana republic is a pejorative term for a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique. The first known use of the term banana republic was by American author O. Henry in his 1904 book of linked short stories, Cabbages and Kings. The book is based on Henry's 1896-97 stay in Honduras..... The term was originally invented as a very direct reference to a "servile dictatorship" which abetted (or directly supported in return for kickbacks) the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture (usually banana cultivation).....

Features of a banana republic

1. A collusion between the overweening state and certain favored monopolistic concerns, whereby the profits can be privatized and the debts socialized.

2. Devalued paper currency in the international community.

3. Kleptocracy -- those in positions of influence use their time in office to maximize their own gains, always ensuring that any shortfall is made up by those unfortunates whose daily life involves earning money rather than making it.

4. There must be no principle of accountability within the government so that the political corruption by which the Banana Republic operates is left unchecked. The members of the national legislature will be [a] largely for sale and consulted only for ceremonial and rubber-stamp purposes some time after all the truly important decisions have already been made elsewhere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

Relating the term to Thailand? Item 1 - looks promising. Item 2 - not really (even looking back to 1997 and its aftermath). Item 3 looks to be a runner. Item 4[a] - say no more. Item 4 - IMO to varying degrees could be said of many legislatures.

On balance - it's a too-sweeping term I will continue to avoid using about Thailand.

And again: In Thailand people don't elect a government. Neither this nor the previous. You vote either for parties or for people in your area and to recall: most of the coalition partners told before the election that they won't support Thaksin. Now they don't support him....

PPP and Democrats had the same amount of popular votes in the last election.

BTW, in addition to my earlier post about the inaccuracy of your final sentence, I'm also interested in what you said before that. Allowing that PPP was recognised as a self-declared surrogate for Thaksin/TRT, could you please clarify your statement "most of the coalition partners told before the election that they won't support Thaksin"? Can you cite any evidence in support of that? Can you also explain how it was that all of them were invited to join the PPP (surrogate for Thaksin) government coalition - and did so - leaving the Democrats as sole opposition party?

EDITORIAL

Thai children deserve a much better education

By The Nation

Published on December 31, 2009

Our schools still practise thoughtless rote learning; it's time to change the system

Education Minister Jurin Laksanawisit seemed to pass the test in his first year's performance. Education experts gave him a good rating but noted that he could have done better. They said that although the 15-year free schooling system was implemented, real educational reform has not started yet, as the development of teachers is still a fundamental problem

Some commentators say that the free schooling system may not mean much to children, especially those in rural areas where education services are not up to city standards. The extra-curricular tutor channel reflects the fact that additional lessons are needed because students aren't taught well in general classrooms. But the tutoring channel far from fully addresses the problem of low standards of education.

Thai students are taught to remember textbooks verbatim, without much analytical input. Thais read less than students in other countries, and they are not required to read good books such as literary classics, which should provide them with a good foundation for reading and writing.

Tutoring courses offer quick tips for students to pass tests, most of which are multiple choice. Thai students are rarely required to write essays. This is despite the fact that writing helps students to organise their thoughts, and essay writing is essential for students to excel in higher education.

Focusing on the quality of teachers has proved to be an effective method to kick-start educational reform elsewhere. For instance, in the US, the "Teach for America" programme provides an opportunity for new graduates from top US colleges to teach public school students for at least a few years. This has been successful in improving teaching quality, as dynamic teachers enter the public school system with a fresh attitude.

The salaries of Thai teachers are so miserably low that many have to find sideline jobs to survive, instead of focusing their energy on teaching their students well.

Aside from parents, teachers are the most important mentors in shaping the next generation of Thais, but the payment they receive is so low that it fails to attract quality graduate students to the profession. It's no surprise that teachers dedicated their energy to their privately paid tutoring classes after school hours.

Jurin has said many times he wants to reform the education system by, for instance, turning Thailand into an international education centre by setting up study centres in colleges. Ideas like this are admirable, but the focus on educational reform has so far been on the physical side of colleges. But reform will only produce results when it focuses on the students' enthusiasm to study.

The Education Ministry plans to launch tutor channels with exceptional teachers to reach out to more students. But the tutor channel does not address the requirements of young students who need classroom contact with teachers so they can interact and seek guidance. The presence of good teachers is also essential in instilling moral values in students, as well as the benefits of learning.

The ministry must also try to reduce class sizes in our schools. The average size of classes in Thai schools is 50 students. Under such circumstances, teachers cannot possibly give proper attention to all students. Smaller classes would bring more energy to the learning environment and encourage the active participation of students, as opposed to being left out in the slow pace of learning in big classrooms.

Thai kids are entitled to good and equitable education, but it will be a huge challenge for the government to accomplish this goal. The New Year marks a symbolic start of a brighter future. Let the efforts start in schools, as our children deserve much better than what they have now.

-- The Nation December 31, 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/12/31...on_30119503.php

<snip>

PPP and Democrats had the same amount of popular votes in the last election.

Bizarre how this one keeps doing the rounds again and again........ so here, for the nth time, are the actual results. The above statement is true only for proportional votes (Democrats actually got 0.03% more proportional votes than PPP) - and clearly untrue for constituency votes (PPP got 6.33% more than Democrats).

Totals

PPP - 40,365,255

Dem - 35,829,961

After two years since the last election it is probably a good idea to have a re-cap of what the actual situation is at present:

Members of Parliament

The Constitution states that there will be 480 members of Parliament. Consisting of 400 constituency MP's and 80 Party list MP's. Whenever a Constituency MP leaves office, either through legal means, death or resignation then a bi-election is held to fill the vacancy. When a Party List MP leaves office, then the next candidate on the list automatically takes the position.

With three political Parties being dissolved (People Power, Chart Thai and Matchima), it has resulted in the number of MP's dropping down to 469 with just 69 Party list MP's. Peau Thai, Chart Thai Pattana, Bhum Jai Thai, Social Action and Ratsadorn Parties didn't contest in the 2007 General election and therefore have no Party list members of their own to use in case of a vacancy.

There are two bi-elections scheduled for this month. Both of these elections are being contested by Bhum Jai Thai and Peau Thai. They are in Prachin Buri (Formerly Democrat MP) and Maha Sarakham (Formerly Peau Thai MP).

At the moment the breakdown of Political Parties is:

Democrat.......171 (19)

Peau Thai.......185

Chart Thai.......24 (3)

Bhum Jai Thai..31 (7)

Peau Pandin.....31 (4)

Ratsadorn.........3

Pracharaj..........8

Social Action.....5 (1)

Ruam Jai Thai....9 (2)

Total 467 MP's (with 2 still to be contested)

The figures in brackets are the number of cabinet seats which have been assigned to each Party in the coalition Government.

Source: http://www.parliament.go.th/main01.php

Slimdog, thanks for that breakdown of MPs v. Cabinet seats - I hadn't seen the figures collated this way before. Interesting to note that BJT's 31 MPs gets them 7 ministerial posts whereas Puea Pandin's 31 MPs gets them just 4 ministers. This being Thai politics, it's as well to also note which ministries go where - so we see more of the more significant (read lucrative) ministries going to BJT e.g.

Transport (all those juicy construction contracts) - Minister + Deputy Minister

Commerce (say no more....) - Minister

Interior (budgets for provincial administrations) - Minister + Deputy Minister

Public Health (the nation's hospital budgets) - Deputy Minister [but probably not for much longer]

Agriculture and Cooperatives - Deputy Minster

What did "pro-business" Puea Pandin get?

Finance - Deputy Minister

ICT - Minister (the appalling 1st Lt. Ranongruk Suwanchawee - too busy with website-blocking to have sorted out any contracts yet)

Education - Deputy Minister

Industry (potentially lucrative) - Minister

Not difficult to see the value necessarily placed by Abhisit on the BJT's propping-up of his coalition - though, plainly, there's more to the votes arithmetic than that.

So much pedantry...... to such little purpose. Even in your own choice of a dictionary of LAW, I see they too perceive a distinction in the usage:

There is a difference between what is "legal" and what is perceived as "legitimate"

<snip>

Legal adjective

1 : of or relating to law or the processes of law legal question> legal action>

2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law legal tariff rate> legal government>

b : fulfilling the requirements of law legal voter>

c : having a status derived from law : recognized as such by law legal certainty>

d : created by operation of esp. statutory law <legal incompetence> legal presumption>

—compare CONVENTIONAL 1, JUDICIAL 2 e : established by law legal test for mental capacity>

3 : conforming to or permitted by law : LAWFUL legal>

4 : recognized or made effective under principles of law as distinguished from principles of equity :

deriving from or existing or valid in law as distinguished from equity

—see also EQUITY —compare EQUITABLE

Legitimate

adjective

<snip>

4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards legitimate claim of entitlement>

<snip>

"the definitions, which are so close this parsing is rather moot"? For you, maybe; from your own evidence clearly not identical or fully interchangeable. In passing, I suggest you look up "equity" as juxtaposed in "Legal" definition #4.

Like the rest of your tired jibes....... not close - and no cigar.

I wonder if anyone could cite a source for that oft stated phrase that the junta passed a law forbidding criticism of the charter draft. I don't recall reading about that - ever, and would apprecaite a source to satisfy my curiosity.

It's a complicated business, but the following may prove helpful:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/06...cs_30039559.php

http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...ft-charter.html

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/71

At the time of their writing, The Nation, Bangkok Pundit and Prachatai were expressing concerns about the proposals contained in the bill - before it was passed. It then was passed and promulgated on August 2nd:

"Act on Orderly Conduct of Referendum on Draft Constitution, B.E 2550 (2007)

Section 10

Any person commits the following acts:

...........

(3) To deceive, coerce, threaten, or influence eligible voters not to exercise their voting rights, to vote one way or another, or to abstain from voting;

...........

Any person committing offence as in..... (3)...... shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of not exceeding 10 years and a fine of 200,000 baht......... The court may also order disfranchisement for a period of not exceeding 5 years."

[my bold emphasis]

http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0415.pdf

<snip.

The posts in this thread that keep hightlighting Abhasit's illegal attainment of political power is comforting.

How can he uphold the law from an illegal position of power ?

<snip>

There are plenty here who will again recite (usually with much groaning about having to do it yet again) the constitutional provisions and (at least some of) the sequence of events which led to Abhisit's taking office as a PM legally elected by a majority in parliament - and, again, they will be right in asserting the legality of it. There is a difference between what is "legal" and what is perceived as "legitimate" - it's that last part which is IMO more relevant..... and has itself been discussed many times here.

PS i have not read their respective online editions either. Indeed Thaivisa is my main source of news

Yes, Thaivisa is pretty good, isn't it? I never considered it, but it's my main source of news also. I often find that 'Breaking news' banner useful and I often read things on TV that I've seen on the TV or in Thai newspapers, but can't understand (I'm still very much in the process of learning Thai!)

I think the decline in BKPost's readership is reflective of what's going on everywhere. But in the case of this newspaper, I feel fleeced whenever I buy it as it's so low on content and seems to just reprint stories from other newspapers. I'm better off reading online content.

However, for how much longer will online news be free? not long I think.

I think I'm fairly typical of foreigners in Thailand, as I read Western-based online news and rely on it. I'd be willing to pay for continued access service. It's on the horizon...

Well, that praise will be music to George's ears but I'm going to to take the liberty of posting a slightly critical but (I hope) constructive comment to both the above members - and to anyone else who sees it as relevant to them. On ThaiVisa, in terms of news articles, you will generally see only what a very few (occasionally including myself) select to post - and even that from a restricted list of available options. To put it mildly, that can only provide a view not much better (i.e. broader, more varied) than squinting through a letter-box slit rather than opening the door and looking outside. I'll freely admit to being something of a news junkie - for more years than I care to admit - and don't delude myself by thinking that my interests (let alone views) would/should be adopted by others. But, for those interested to see rather more than just that ThaiVisa restricted "view through the letter-box", there are many options out there. Tastes and readiness to explore will vary, but I listed some of them previously at: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3178813

I used to subscribe to the Bangkok Post - having been cajoled by a salesman into signing up for a promotion. In practice, I didn't regularly read enough of it to justify the expense or the accumulation of so much waste paper. I now go out to buy it only on Wednesdays for the "Database" IT/computing section (not fully reproduced online). Here in Chiang Mai, it arrives late morning/lunchtime - and it's something of a lottery as to getting to an outlet to find it either hasn't arrived yet or is already sold out.

Buying a mandate is not the same as earning one.

Or acting for all citizens, above and beyond the demographic limits of an alleged mandate.

If in the first sentence you are saying that Thaksin's mandate wasn't genuine (just vote buying on a massive scale) you have just lost complete credibility.Thaksin was and probably is still the most popular Thai politician, and therein lies the problem.

<snip>

"Suan Dusit has a new poll surveying 9,050 people throughout the country from December 10-29 mainly focusing on the most liked persons in different categories in 2009. No other details of the survey data are available, but this is a much larger than usual sample size..........

Q3. What male politician do you like the most?

A. [Prime Minister] Abhisit Vejjajiva, 52.04%

B. [Former Prime Minister] Thaksin Shinawatra, 47.96%"

http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...ian-in-thailand

Complete poll report (in Thai) at: http://www.ryt9.com/s/sdp/772431

<snip>

They just requested repeatedly and loudly that he quit the government..

much too forcefully towards the end of course.

<snip>

"They" including the heads of the army, navy, air force and police on national TV. I'd say that qualifies as quite a lot of force(s) - and forcing. Agreed, no threats of physical violence to Somchai........

Manit 'likely to remain in cabinet'

By Pongphon Sarnsamak

Piyanart Srivalo

The Nation

Published on January 1, 2010

Bhum Jai Thai will try to get move to another post if swap agreed: source

Deputy Public Health Minister Manit Nop-amornbodi, accused of involvement in a procurement scandal, is likely to stay on in the Cabinet if his Bhum Jai Thai Party manages to negotiate a swap of ministerial positions, a source said yesterday.

Bhum Jai Thai will propose that Manit take a Cabinet position in another ministry following accusations he had intervened in the ministry's dubious procurement plans under the Bt86-billion Thai Khemkhaeng stimulus package, according to a high-level source from the coalition party.

"The party does not think Manit is guilty or corrupt, so it will consider moving him from the Public Health Ministry to a ministerial position in another ministry instead of having him resign," the source said.

Manit has been under pressure to quit his post after Witthaya Kaewparadai, who is from the Democrat Party, resigned as public health minister earlier this week to take responsibility after an investigation committee found evidence of irregularities.

Democrat Party secretary-general and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban favours Chinnaworn Boonyakiet, currently the coalition chief whip, to replace Witthaya as health minister, a Democrat source said yesterday.

Theptai Senpong, spokesman for Democrat Party leader and Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, said yesterday that Abhisit would have the final say about who should be the party's new public health minister.

The government-appointed fact-finding panel chaired by Dr Banlu Siripanich on Monday named Witthaya, Manit and 10 other persons - two politicians and eight senior health officials - in the report as being negligent in implementing the ministry's massive procurement plans.

Manit allegedly intervened in administering the budget by exerting pressure on bureaucrats to allocate more money to certain provinces, such as Ratchaburi, which he represents as an MP. He also was incriminated in an agreement to purchase 800 ambulances at an excessive price.

Previously, Manit said he had not yet decided whether to quit his ministerial position. He said he needed to consult with his party and the outcome would emerge next Tuesday.

"The head of the Bhum Jai Thai Party and its executive will discuss this burning issue after the New Year festivities, as most are now abroad or have gone back to their hometowns," Manit said.

He added that he could not quit at this time because Witthaya had told him to oversee operations to cope with road accidents during the holiday festivities and the New Year countdown.

However, the same source from Bhum Jai Thai blamed Suthep for attempting to pressure Manit to show spirit and resign from the ministerial position.

"Suthep's reaction in pressuring Manit to resign [was a challenge to] Manit's dignity," the source said.

Bhum Jai Thai never pressured the Democrat Party to ask its MPs to quit after they were named for involvement in the sufficiency-community project scandal. Even a minister from the Democrats was moved to another position instead of resigning, he said.

Recently, Public Health Ministry permanent secretary Dr Paijit Warachit said he would ask Abhisit to set up an advisory committee to oversee the ministry's Thai Khemkhaeng stimulus package. He is collecting a list of acceptable persons to be members of the panel for Abhisit's consideration.

On Monday, he will call on all ministry executives to detail the progress of the stimulus package following the PM's request to revise the project.

-- The Nation January 1, 2010

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/01/01...cs_30119565.php

Gosh... who could have imagined. The PR machine churned out a lie. That's never happened before.

Welcome perceptive newbie!

Seems that this "newbie" wasn't quite as new as you........ thought.

Have to agree with most of that. The problem as I see it with LOS is the majority of PMs either prioritize taking care of the folks who put them in their seat first or spend their time having to fight elements who consider a ballot box and elections only acceptable if their boy wins. All the time looking over their shoulders to see if the tanks are warming up in the barracks. The needs of the country and it's people come way down the list.

Agreed. If so few good leaders emerge (and if the ones that are rated as good or above the poor average all have in common that they were military-approved/tolerated), then it seems sensible to also look elsewhere for the causes - e.g. what I'll have to settle for calling "the constitutional environment". Just blaming the Thai political gene-pool for the poor quality and performance doesn't seem to cut it.

If the parties want to truly have reconcilliation talks they should meet with no pre-conditions on both sides imho. Right now both main sides in their power struggle put forward pre-conditions they know full well the other side wont accept.

Interesting advice from House Speaker (and Newin's dad) Chai Chidchob reported today by Bangkok Post - to the effect that Thaksin should be playing it cool because BJT will support passing an amnesty law to pardon all politicians - to include Thaksin not going to jail and also clearing the PAD leaders of charges relating to the airport occupations. I couldn't find any mention of this in The Nation, but Bangkok Pundit has picked up on it and raises some questions about the motives for the comments and compares them with BJT's previous stance. Could just be kite-flying or delaying tactics - we'll see.....

http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pundit-blog/an-amnesty

Some thoughts about this piece - which is IMO about as fair/balanced as any single article can be (and each of us will presumably feel that something significant was left out or over/underplayed).....

Interesting to see the comment about reluctance/delay in issuing an "emergency decree" at the Pattaya ASEAN summit (maybe failure to have the necessary approvals in place?). From pictures at the time, there seemed to be no shortage of readied troops on the scene (not to mention the "Blues") - but they did appear to cave in without much that much effort from the protesters. Not the right troops? No clear orders about how much resistance/force they could employ?

Particularly now that we're looking at a year of this government, the question of "what they have achieved" naturally comes to the fore. Those who say "nothing except survive 8 months longer than predicted" are missing the point - there have been good things done..... but I suspect we English-speaking "guests" are not alone in thinking that they have been largely submerged by all the attention paid to conflict issues.

The criticism relating to foreign affairs (i.e. aimed squarely at Kasit - but noting "that sometimes the prime minister went along with the unfriendly approach and emphasised what the minister had said") seems apposite. It being a hobby-horse of mine, I still find it hard to agree with the writer's IMO sweeping comment that "The handling of the Rohingya matter was quite proper and straightforward". Hands up anyone who thinks that ISOC's mistreatment of the Rohingya (which happened largely pre-Abhisit tenure and following a policy initiated under Samak) was anything like properly investigated and followed up to hold those responsible to account. Credit to Abhisit for putting a stop to it - but, in terms of investigating, acknowledging and responding to what had been going on, "whitewash" seems closer to the mark.

[OPINION]

GOOD I PRAISE ... DOUBTFUL I RAISE

Reflecting on a year flawed by some indecision at the top

By Pridiyathorn Devakula

Published on December 28, 2009

TODAY IS THE LAST MONDAY of the year 2009. I, therefore, would like to highlight the government's performance this year as a guide for further improvement in the coming year.

At the time when this government came into power, the political turmoil subsided as the yellow-shirts stopped protesting. The Thai public were at ease for a while until April when there was an Asean Summit at the Royal Cliff Hotel in Pattaya and the red-shirt protestors successfully penetrated the meeting venue. When the protestors started their movement, I thought the authorities would be able to secure the hotel accesses which are not many, while the street leading to them is narrow. Finally, however, the protestors broke through and caused a loss of confidence in the security measures and practices of Thai authorities. Immediately after that incident, the government empowered the military to clear the mob gathering on the streets in Bangkok. The time the military took to do this was only two days. Normally, clearing a protesting mob is much more difficult than blocking protestors meandering down a narrow street. Why did the protestors successfully break into the meeting place?

I was informed that it was simply because the government did not dare to announce the emergency decree and empower the military to block the protestors at the meeting venue.

Only after the situation got out of hand did the prime minister announce an emergency decree empowering the military to take charge of clearing the mobs on various streets. It can be concluded that it was the reluctance of the prime minister in announcing the emergency decree in the first instance that put off effective handling of the protestors in Pattaya.

Later on, when there was another Asean Summit in Cha-am in October, the emergency decree was introduced right from the beginning and the authorities were able to effectively protect the meeting venue.

Even with the successful action at this Asean meeting, uncertainty still exists in security in general as protests against the government have been on and off and could reappear anytime. The public still fears that such protests could one fine day lead to a clash and catastrophe. The government is not supposed to be blamed for this.

However, the government has to admit that talkative ministers and some MP's of the leading party in the government and their provocative manners fuelled the conflict with the protestors and were partly the reason for more protest.

In the social area where the leading party is known to have talent, the public is not aware of what has been happening. They have not heard about the performance of the Ministry of Social and Human Resource Development and of the Ministry of Science. The only programme the public heard about in the labour issue was the Tonkla Archeep project which was not rated as effective at all.

In education, worthy of praise is the introduction of 15 year free education, starting at kindergarten level. However, nothing has been heard about the efforts to solve the quality of teachers and on the liberal choice of books, which created a major setback for education in remote areas, as well as the lack of adequate teaching equipment and materials.

The performance of the Ministry of Health started well with the efficient handling of the type-A (H1N1) flu but was later compromised by the irregularity of medical equipment purchases which is now under investigation.

As for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, the slowness of the government in handling the issue of health impact assessments for pending projects at Map Ta Phut led finally to the unfortunate suspension of a large number of new investments which severely affected investor confidence in a unprecedented manner.

Foreign affairs seems to be the area where the government is most criticised by the opposition. Let us look at this issue without any prejudice. It can be seen that, without the mishandling of security issues in the first Asean Summit, the outcomes of various international meetings were relatively good. The handling of the Rohingya matter was quite proper and straightforward.

The weak point lay in the personality of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who uttered improper words about neighbouring countries and has not tried to correct the situation or improve his attitude. Worse was that sometimes the prime minister went along with the unfriendly approach and emphasised what the minister had said, which effectively closed the door for the possible change of our position to improve future relationships with neighbours.

In the area of economics, I used to criticise the early task of the government in introducing the first stimulus package as wasteful, since most package were made up of one time expenditure, most of which were not effective stimulants, while the investment project that created jobs was as minimal as Bt7,000 million out of the total package of Bt116,000 million. However, the second stimulus package of Bt1.34 trillion, recently introduced, contains more effective items for stimulation including various government projects that are necessary for the economy and construction projects that create jobs in all parts of the country. If due care is given to prevent corruption in the utilisation of this huge budget, the country should benefit a great deal. The weak point of this government in the economic area seems to be in its inability to put things into practice. First of all, this government engaged in a rice pledging scheme for the second crop at an unnecessary high amount of 6-million tonnes of paddy. This has reduced the amount of rice available for private exporters and led to the reduction of rice exports as compared to last year, even though the world wants to buy more. The government was not able to sell much white rice processed from the pledged rice due to internal conflict and the indecisiveness of the leader. At this moment, the total remaining white rice in state agencies' stocks is more than 6 million tonnes, the equivalent of 11-12 million tonnes of paddy, the highest ever accumulated by state agencies in history. I simply hope that the said stocks would not be kept too long and become rotten as occurred when an ex-leader of the Democrat Party was Minister of Commerce and reluctant to sell the then pledged stock with a value of Bt 7,000 million until all stock became useless and had to be destroyed.

Another matter resulting from the reluctance in decision-making is the 3-G telecommunication system which is still pending, even though we are now far behind our neighbours.

The problem which had the worst effect on the economy and resulted from the slowness and indecisiveness of the leader was the issue of a health impact assessment for big industries in Map Ta Phut. I wrote in this column many times proposing necessary action for the government but, unfortunately, no such action was taken.

In November, when the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment proposed the health impact assessment criteria and procedure for Cabinet's endorsement before announcing implementation of the required assessment, the prime minister froze the issue and in turn appointed a new committee to draft another regulation on health impact assessments.

In the world of democracy, people and parliament have entrusted and empowered the prime minister to run the country and to solve its problems. It was surprising to see the PM not daring to exercise such power and in turn delegate it to another group.

It seems to me that he does not want to tackle the situation, which confirms many beliefs that he is indecisive. This indecisiveness has caused a delay in many important issues explained above.

Last time when the Democrat Party was a leading party in the government, they were remembered as Chor Chor Chor government. I very much hope that, this time, they do not end up as Or Or Or government.

Until next Monday.

-- The Nation December 28, 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/12/28...on_30119314.php

some will have more right-wing/authoritarian leanings and some more liberal/democratic leanings

I would just like to point out that any equation where you put right-wing and authoritarian on one side and liberal (left wing?) and democratic on the other is going to be inheritable flawed and down right incorrect.

Right and left-wing are economical stances, authoritarian and libertarian are opposites in the other axis of the political chart.

A great deal many left-wing governments have been very authoritarian throughout our current and past history.

Stalin? Castro? The Guy in Venezuela ?

Point taken chaps (and one considered when I wrote what I did) when one compares regimes past and present outside Thailand........ but the "some" in the extracted quote refers to "'camps' in the Thai military" in the preceding sentence. I could/should have made that more explicit. Castro and Chavez certainly qualify as authoritarians in my book; likewise Stalin - but I wouldn't group him with the others; why I wouldn't is a whole other (off-) topic.....

TAWP - if I meant "left-wing" rather than "liberal" I would have said it. Also, I only mentioned two "sides" (your term, not mine) - IMO there are plainly more flavours than that.

<snip>

There are scientific polls of sufficent size and cultural breadth to have general validity

as barometers of public sentiment or future voting patterns. All designed with clear results,

and empirically viable results as the main end product. This is scientific polling.

But there are more often putative polls used with purposely bias causing techniques

and purposely low numerical values, and subjectively chosen locations AND questions,

that successfully back up a point of view and LOGICLY only that point of view,

as backing it up was the intent of the faux polling event.

These same techniques are taught in tandem in scientific polling courses as things to AVOID.

And acknowledged as techniques that can sway an argument if used in a intentionally biased manner.

There are yet others, who's methods were so un-clearly drawn that multiple views

can be drawn just by massaging the numbers to suit multiple divergent clients aims.

This is a profit making art in itself, and seems the more typical polling device in Thailand's political spheres.

Also leaving out some datum while accentuating others can also warp the general picture to suit a pre-existing perspective,

and thus generate profit from a client looking to sway an argument, or fool the people into their point of view,

by making the few think they actual are 'with the many' and thus 'group more together psychologically'

rather than think for themselves as individuals.

Admirably put - IMO all should take note when looking at these polls, let alone selected/abbreviated reporting of them. Consistent with an earlier post about a different ABAC poll that purported to show Abhisit trailing Thaksin in popularity:

Demographics based polls are totally location and numbers driven.

They can be easily manipulated, especially this 'typical' ABAC polls of 2,500 persons or less.

Any sampling below 1% of the populace,

evenly divided numerically between all population segments,

relative to their individual size at a location,

across the whole area represented is given from 3-5-10% margin of error

for lack of sample weight. 3-5% of totally group (65mil.) is best for any valid sampling of sentiment.

Even at 3% error Abhisit is well within the margin of error caused by a far too small sampling area.

The fact they don't state where, how large a sample, and the EXACT questions in order asked,

indicates it has rather small validity in the bigger picture.

What ISN'T anywhere near in dispute is the 53+% who didn't want to commit to either.

A glaring indictment of the Thai political class.

"numbers and formulas such as least regression squares and laws of probability and all of that" actually for?]

When I first saw the NNT OP, I went to the ABAC website to find the information missing from the selective reporting - details of sample size, breakdown by age, education, income, location etc...... and, of course, wording and order of questions (which include subjects not mentioned in the NNT report). It's all in Thai, so I enlisted the help of a Thai friend. Sad to say, we couldn't find any mention of the crucial details about sampling - so who knows what the methodology was? Perhaps a diligent Thai-reading member could look and see if they can find what we couldn't: http://www.abacpoll.au.edu/flash/2552/hotpoll121952_g.swf

I've commented before: lies, damned lies, statistics - and opinion polls (even ones termed a "public opinion scientific research survey").....

I think few at this point would dispute that "the" military is in fact 350,000 or so soldiers, sailors, air personnel in uniform and under the flag but subdivided sociopolitically into competing camps.

One camp consists of traditional loyalists, another follows the money especially closely and other camps range from the indifferent to the weathermen who watch which way the wind blows.

While I agree the military is divided I would suggest that what actually drives the so called traditional loyalists is in fact the prospect of their snouts being dislodged from the money trough (or having to share it) with other questing snouts.

I think the same drive for self-advancement up the pecking order for the usual motive (inherent in any hierarchy) as well as for the prospect of a growing slice of the pie is common to all "camps" in the Thai military - the so-called traditional loyalists are certainly not immune to it. In common with various camps in most countries, some will have more right-wing/authoritarian leanings and some more liberal/democratic leanings. I'd like to see any evidence of "sociopolitical" orientation having any bearing on the degree to which any of the camps "follows the money" - thus far I've seen none. That said, according to research by Pasuk Phongphaichit and Sungsidh Piriyarangsan published in "Corruption & Democracy in Thailand" (1996), military governments here have been significantly more corrupt than civilian ones - though I stress it's a matter of degree.

Using uTorrent on a 3Mb TOT connection, I used to see a plunge to zero of both download and upload speeds every hour or so.... and then slowly recovering after about 3-4 minutes - which I have interpreted as something happening at the TOT end. On a friend's recommendation, I tried "cfosSpeed". Not only have those plunges stopped, overall download speeds seem to have increased. Take a look:

http://www.cfos.de/speed/cfosspeed_e.htm

<snip>

which the eye-winking Bangkok government allowed Thaksin to attend while in the midst of the judicial procedings against him.

<snip

The attempts to discredit the judiciary to make Thaksin look better get more vacuous with each repetitive and boring post.

Not repetitive enough for some, apparently :

Earlier, there had been speculation as to whether the couple would return to report themselves to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, which has granted them permission to leave the country on a case-by-case basis."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/rea...newsid=30080169

All here are free to skip posts that bore them.