dbrenn

A friend of mine despite all the recent turmoil in Thailand decided to come to the LOS anyway. I had told him how nice it was, can you imagine my horror when he was separated from 20,000THB by the customs on arrival. His offence was bringing in 600 Regal kingsize for his 3 week stay as he wasnt sure he would get them here. I think this is a terrible way to treat tourists especially at a time when tourism is down. I also believe he isnt the only victim.

Did he declare them, or try to sneak them through the green 'nothing to declare' channel? If he was fined for attempting to smuggle more than his duty free allowance, then what can he expect?

Smoking is an expensive habit, and he would be well advised to call his local Quitline.

"Your position isn't that you don't want elections", and yet you cling to the idea of an unelected Prime Minister.

There is no such thing as an elected Prime Minister, just an elected party. Thought you would have known that.

Did your knickers get twisted when Somchai was foisted upon us as leader? They should have. Who elected him? Of course we all know the answer to that, and it wasn't the electorate, rather one man with a square face.

Boring old numbers on seats that were won in elections don't impress you?

No they don't, not when democracy isn't free, fair and open - obviously that means little to you.

I suspect that you can't vote anyway, so what does your position matter?

Think what you like, because it's the position of the general public that counts, not your position.

The fact is that most of us are insignificant nobodies in the general scheme of things - i'd hazard a guess you are too. You might think that denies us the right to an opinion, i don't. What a silly attitude you have.

Dunno what point you are trying to make, other than that you don't agree with me, which is fine. Somchai was from the same party as Samak, which to most people is very different from installing a PM from the opposition. Somchai only got to be PM because Samak had been expelled from his post by the yellow judiciary for appearing on a cookery program. You don't tell us know what your idea of a 'free and fair' democracy is, and how it would be implemented in the real world. By the army, perhaps? Even in the good old US of A, that bastion of free and fair democracy, pols spend cash to get elected, and lots of it too. They call it 'marketing' spend.

And yes, we are all insignificant nobodies, although I get to vote which is something that you probably aren't allowed to do. The democratic wish of the people is all that counts.

As a stupid question, what was the highest percentage that the Democrats of Thailand ever polled? 40% or more?

Last time the Dems were in power legitimately was Chuan Leekpai. He was ineffectual, uncharismatic, and achieved practically nothing. In both his stints as PM, the Dems were part of coalitions that spent all their time bickering and were incapable of making decisions. Just like now, in fact. Chuan was routed by Thaksin's lot in 2001.

What the Dems need to be successful is a strong leader who appeals to all sides. You can't say that about Abhisit, who is slick and urbane but looks stiff and uncomfortable with the rural folks. The other thing that would help the Dems need face down all the bickering factions in parliament is getting elected with an overall majority - something that they have never had. Looking back at all the hung parliaments in Thailand that could never make decisions bacause if factional infighting within various coalitions, a party, any party, that could get an overall mejority and with it the power to make decisions would be a very good thing. To their credit, only Thaksin's lot ever managed to do that - twice.

Being installed by the army dosn't quite measure up in the credibility stakes anymore.

I fear that the fact that he has been "given" the chance on a platter is the ultimate issue that Abhisit faces. He is severely hindered in his ability to govern by the fact that he and about 40mn other voters know that he didn't win any vote. We can all sit around and say it is the democratic way, look at the UK, Gordon Brown, bla bla bla. If Gordon Brown had had enough cojones 2 years ago to go to the polls, his Prime Ministership and leadership would have been completely different.

It doesn't mean that he isn't completely incompetent, but actually WINNING elections is quite an important part of politics. And why should he be "given" a chance anyway any more than anyone else? My local somtaam lady would love to have a go at running the country, she has all the answer. I know coz I listen to her talk every night.

Well said! Abhisit needs to walk the walk. All he is doing without a mandate is talking the talk, and the som tam lady is just as qualified to do that.

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

Just a minor point of fact, the army did not depose the TRT-government elected in 2005, that was their leader PM-Thaksin who resigned the government at the start of 2006 and called another election, later annulled by the E.C. for vote-rigging.

The military coup wasn't until September-2006, against Thaksin in his caretaker-PM role, long after the election in April 2006 referred to as your 3rd point.

And if you really wonder why the opposition parties boycotted the April-2006 election, you might try reading some of the past threads, which covered the reasons extensively.

Not that it matters much now, but people tend to forget how much Thaksin was on the nose back in late 2005. He really was starting to lose support and power. The democrats, though probably violating the spirit of the constitution, but within the law (and desperate to save money), didn't contest the April 06 elections to deal TRT a financial blow more than anything, so they could possibly hope to fight the subsequent election on what they would hope was more equal financial footing.

Thaksin stayed on as 'caretaker' PM for the next 6 months. There aren't too many places in the world where governments insited on remaining in 'caretaker' mode for the next 6 months, though, with the threat of a further opposition boycott, and a further repeat of the April 06 non-election result, I guess one could argue they had little choice. So to a very large extent the coup was a circuit breaker (from my perspective, disagree if you want) and as probably as genuine a 'coup' as you could get, given that power was handed back to the very people they ousted a year later.

We then had two very ineffectual PM's following (Samak and Somchai) and this current government was formed from the parliament which was elected in 2007.

Shenanigans from both sides through the whole process. I'd argue if they put in someone competent from the very start after the coup (rather than Samak), we wouldn't have a Democrat government today.

You are probably right that if someone competent was put there by the PPP, the Democrats wouldn't be in power today. Samak and Somchai weren't the only incompetent PMs though - we could add Surayudh to the list, and now Abhisit - whose tenures were a catalogue of nationalistic disaster in the former and are an incompetent disaster in the latter cases. What you say about Thaksin losing support may or may not be true, and should have been put to the test at the ballot box.

Coups as circuit breakers I don't understand how the country has benefitted. On the incompetent scale, the army has to beat them all. They belong in the barracks and have no idea about how to run a modern economy. From a system where people could vote a government out of office, we now have a system that is run by the army and who knows how to get rid of them if they turn nasty.

There is always going to be this overrriding question over his legitimacy, like in parliaent this week when all that happened was a slanging match.

The question over his legitimacy won't go away even if he does win an election. They'll still be those who say he's just a puppet.

As for citing a slanging match in parliament as being another reason for needing to go to the polls - i really do think comments like this belie your stated lack of affection for the reds.

You have already told us that you don't want elections, and that a man selected by military intervention is fit to rule the country, so it's clear where your affections lie.

My position isn't that i don't want elections. Rather that i don't see them as necessary right at this juncture. To have them now would be to serve the interests of the reds (assuming that they won which in my opinion is a big assumption), not the interests of the country.

As for your assertion that Abhisit is selected by military intervention - that's your opinion and not one i share.

My affections? I don't support Abhisit but i do favour giving him a chance. I did the same with Thaksin and certainly gave him more than a few months before i had written him off, as you have Abhisit.

Your affections? It's my feeling that you are a reds/Thaksin supporter despite claims to the contrary, but i understand that aligning yourself with that side makes arguing your corner impossible because of all that they have done in the past. Much easier to fight for the causes of democracy and pretend to be neutral.

Perhaps i might find your claims more believable if i knew that you had fought and argued against the way that Thaksin twisted democracy and blunted all the checks and balances to get a stranglehold on power, despite already being popular with the masses - to borrow one of your favourite phrases - in this case it would have actually been near the truth. At that time he did have massive support. He didn't need to corrupt democracy, but still did. Sad and stupid.

Anyway i guess i'll never know if you did argue and fight against Thaksin's corrupt methods - but by the way you have churned out all those numbers concerning Thaksin's election victories as if to impress i think clears up any doubt i might have had.

"Your position isn't that you don't want elections", and yet you cling to the idea of an unelected Prime Minister. Think what you like, because it's the position of the general public that counts, not your position. Boring old numbers on seats that were won in elections don't impress you? What does impress you? Tanks rolling down the streets? Corrupt this, corrupt that. I suspect that you can't vote anyway, so what does your position matter?

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

Just a minor point of fact, the army did not depose the TRT-government elected in 2005, that was their leader PM-Thaksin who resigned the government at the start of 2006 and called another election, later annulled by the E.C. for vote-rigging.

The military coup wasn't until September-2006, against Thaksin in his caretaker-PM role, long after the election in April 2006 referred to as your 3rd point.

And if you really wonder why the opposition parties boycotted the April-2006 election, you might try reading some of the past threads, which covered the reasons extensively.

Oh here we go again. Vote rigging? Tell me what politician doesn't buy votes, in Thailand or elsewhere? Show me a place where the pols don't buy votes, and I will show you Utopia. How much did Barack Obama spend on his way to the White House? Hillary nearly went bankrupt trying to stand in his way. In an ideal world, he wouldn't have needed to spend anything at all, and would have been elected on his merits

Vote buying, by hook or by crook, is universal.

36% is enough to get a party elected if other parties get each less than 36%. That's called democracy, and that what I was referring to when I said that the masses support the red side - the masses being the electorate.

Yes i do understand how democracy works thanks. I wasn't questioning the fact that 36% could be enough to get a party elected. I was questioning your refering to 36% as being "the masses". I think it's misleading and points to an agenda.

Well I'm glad you understand how democracy works, and why 36% of a population of 63 million can be described as a mass of people. If I recall correctly, before the military meddling and banning of politicians from just one side which took away the electorate's chosen representatives, the figure was higher than 36%, and was enough to give Thaksin's lot an overall majority. A point that you seem to ignore.

1) In 2001, Thaksin's lot won 248 out of 500 seats, making it the first government to win an overall majority in parliament, and the first to complete a full term in office

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

4) Later on, the PPP was winnig eections, until they were also kicked out, leaving Abhisit his chance to grab the top job unelected

Impressive numbers. You can see why Abhisit lacks the confidence to hold an election now. In any case, he doesn't need elections when he has the army to install him. Lucky man!

Which part of the report is bias?? exactly?

Every media outlet that describes the Red Shirts as human's with grievances instead of anarchistic, uneducated and bought by Thaksin is biased in the eyes of our yellow supporters. Even if it clearly is a report about the Red Shirts primarily.

Get used to it - on Thai politics reasonable debate is simply not possible.

Right - All reported material is coloured by the viewpoint, character, and values of the reporter. Moreover, we apply our own viewpoint when reading an article, putting our own bias on what may actually be a factual report.

When emotions run high, and in Thailand they are running ery high indeed, the colours become more vivid. It's important to earn as much as you can about both sides of the argument, directly if possible.

There is always going to be this overrriding question over his legitimacy, like in parliaent this week when all that happened was a slanging match.

The question over his legitimacy won't go away even if he does win an election. They'll still be those who say he's just a puppet.

As for citing a slanging match in parliament as being another reason for needing to go to the polls - i really do think comments like this belie your stated lack of affection for the reds.

As I have said numerous times - my affection is for democratic process, regardless of what colour shirts are worn. Now if you think that makes me a red, then that's your opinion. You have already told us that you don't want elections, and that a man selected by military intervention is fit to rule the country, so it's clear where your affections lie. It seems that there are a lot of people, in Thailand and abroad, who don't agree with you.

Allow me to explain futher - the slanging match would not a reason for going to the polls if that was the only problem that Abhisit's lot faced - in case you hadn't noticed there have been riots in the streets in Bangkok recently. The whole country is descending into a spiral of chaos, and the slanging match in parliament is just another page in a very sad story that was precipitated by the military interfering with Thailand's democratic process. If Abhisit were to go to the country for a mandate, at least he would be stronger than he is now, and may quieten the howls of protest that he is installed rather than chosen. What damage could it do him? Until he does it, he will always have an Achilles heel that thwarts his every move. He seems like a well intentioned man, but he comes across as powerless, lacking the power of the people's will that is so vital at this critical point in time.

Abhisit promised reconcilatilon, and he is not delivering it. Come to think of it, he is not delivering anything, and neither has any of the governments, red or yellow, that have followed the last coup. And you seem to think that's progress.

The army should stay in the barracks where it belongs. The tired old generals that keep pretending to know about what's best for the country are totally incompetent and completely out of touch with Thailand's economic and social development.

So why aren't these next elections called for immediately ?

Seconded. Most of the articles is the foreign media question his legitimacy and imply that it's time for Abhisit to put up or shut up by proving his popularity at the ballot box.

From your comments it seems that you strongly believe that were there an election tomorrow, Abhisit would not win. Supposing that he didn't, who then do you think we would have to lead the country? Chalerm perhaps? Or maybe someone from Thaksin's family? Do you think these people would do a better job of running the country and healing divides? Or do you not care about that because as far as you are concerned, they would be more legitimately elected and that's all that matters. Doesn't matter if they take the country backwards because in your eyes democracy has been restored and what happens after that is just one of those things we have to live with?

I think everyone agrees that Abhisit needs to go to the polls sooner rather than later, but anyone who is demanding it happen right this instant is i think not doing it for democracry and they are certainly not doing it for the country - they are doing it because they support the other side.

The country now needs order and stability. Calling an election does nothing for either of those things because it means we have a period of uncertainty before the election when decisions can't be made nor policies implemented, and then after it would we be left with something that is better than what we have now? Either a red side or a yellow side would have power as is the case now and the divisions would remain.

Would those people who have recently become the biggest champions for the causes of democracy be satisfied? If their side gets in power then my guess is they would. That's all this is about.

I agree that Thailand needs stability, but I can't see that happening under Abhisit until he holds an election. There is always going to be this overrriding question over his legitimacy, like in parliaent this week when all that happened was a slanging match.

If you are saying that people like Chalerm would be unsuitable, then I would agree with you, but it's not what you or I think that counts. It is what the electorate thinks. You seem to be saying that a select few should get to decide, because they are more 'enlightened'. That's what the PAD says and people aren't buying it.

DP25 said: "Except only 36% of them voted for his opponent. The vast majority of Thais voted for anti Thaksin parties, and will do so again in the next elections. "

So if he has so much support, bring on the elections then.

You don't seem to be disputing that only 36% of Thais voted for his opponent, so can you explain why you described 36% as being "the masses"?

I enjoy reading your comments dbrenn (if not agreeing with them), but there are times when it becomes hard to believe your claim that you support no particular side in all of this and your insistence that you have no particular affection for Mr Thaksin, when you continue to use language that paints things in favour of one side.

I ask again, why do you describe 36% as being "the masses"?

"The masses" i think to most people would suggest an overwhelming majority and use of such a term is misleading. Deliberately?

36% is enough to get a party elected if other parties get each less than 36%. That's called democracy, and that what I was referring to when I said that the masses support the red side - the masses being the electorate.

I think that we should also bear in mind that before the coup and all the militaty meddling banning politicians from just one side, Thaksin's party was the first ever party to win an overall majority in a Thai general election - more seats than the sum of all the other parties put together. His party was also the first to run a full term in office, and was returned to office in the following general election before being kicked out by the army.

The masses like Thaksin, and no amount of military intervention or posturing by Abhisit's lot is going to change that.

It's too late to go back, in spite of Abhisit's belated and hypocritical efforts to censor the media and expect the masses to believe that he represents them, when they voted for his opponent.

Except only 36% of them voted for his opponent. The vast majority of Thais voted for anti Thaksin parties, and will do so again in the next elections.

So why aren't these next elections called for immediately ?

Seconded. Most of the articles is the foreign media question his legitimacy and imply that it's time for Abhisit to put up or shut up by proving his popularity at the ballot box. The media on both sides reported that parliament this week was a slanging match with no hint of reconciliation. The media reported that Abhisit is now doing a u-turn by saying that now he can't rule out a house dissolution.

Many of the foreign media reports have pointed out that after being installed into his position of the promise of reconciliation, Abhisit has failed to reach out to the other side as evidenced by riots and a deepening divide.

I don't think that bias can make much difference - seems clear from both sides of the media camp that no progress is being made.

Just a thought.

Not defending the BBC here (and Jonathan Head esp), I'm just wondering, what if the BBC started filing reports that you and I would consider 'balanced'? My view is that the reds would shut up like clams, and cut off all access to the Beeb. No more creepy interviews with that Slimebag Jakaprop. No more incoherent crosses to Dr T in some 'unknown' location.

I mean, Thai politicians at the best of times are adverse to criticism. Dear Leader Thaksin as his cohorts took it to a new Singaporean level suing anyone in sight who got under their notoriously thin skins and gutting ITV. That the BBC is perhaps giving a bit more airtime to the reds cause than it otherwise would is perhaps understandable in this context?

Let's face it, both sides are guilty of censorship, the reds did it, then the PAD used that a reason d'etre when they stayted to rally at Suan Lum, then the yellows did it by shutting down red media.

On to your point, I don't follow your reasoning Samran. Thaksin's lot sues ITV ---> you feel that the BBC is favouring Thaksin for fear of getting sued ----> Why would the BBC worry about reprisals that may coulour its reporting red? You would think that, if the BBC is worried about censorship or getting sued, it would be reporting in favour of the yellow camp who now control the country.

It's rather early in the morning and I had a few beers last night so I may be misunderstanding you. Please explain further. Why would articles in the yellow's favour on the BBC cause the reds to shut up like clams? The BBC is not the only foreign media outlet to portray what is happening in Thailand a a double standard.

Why do you continue to say Abhisit is unelected? Do you even know how a parliamentary system works? In the last election no party received a majority of the vote...

This thread is about bias in the media, but I think even the most yellow publications agreed that many of Thaksin's clique were banned from politics. This left people no option but to cast their votes elsewhere. Even so, the PPP still won the election. Imagine that, if you can - a military coup, a new consitution, banning politicians from only one side, disbanding the party the won the previous election - all that and the other side still got more votes that any other single party, including the Democrats, which meant that the Thaksin's clique was returned to power. It then took a judicial coup to oust Samak, then the entire PPP - only after all this was it possible to install Abhisit's lot. Not much else was left! If you call that a democratic process, then that's your opinion, which doesn't matter anyway. Let's see what the people do next.

Rural economic system. I suspect that you have had no exposure to the rural socioeconomic system in place in Thailand... blah blah blah

Got years of exposure to both sides of the political spectrum, thanks, which is why I don't agree with you. I have people very close to me in both the red camp and in the yellow camp, so your excuses as to why Abhisit should be called a legal PM are nothing that I haven't heard hundreds of times already. I also read news that presents both sides of the argument, and still I come back to the same question on double standards, and how they appear to be splitting the country in half.

As I have said elsewhere, Thaksin is a Thai verison of Silvio Burlusconi - sleazy and unpleasant, while Abhisit is an ineffectual puppet who has been installed by the yelow clique. I don't like either of them - all I wish for is that the people who are in power are put there by democratic process, the current absence of this being the root cause of the riots and deepening division.

Exploitation and corruption are always rife in Thailand. Tell me something that is not totally obvious. I hold Thaksin and Abhisit in equal disdain. All you can say for Thaksin is that he was a democratically elected civilian PM who gave the people at least a faint glimmer of hope, like health care for 30 Baht, microcredit, ad the like. Not perfect, sure. Was he better than what had been seen previously from powerless coalitions who talked all the time and did nothing? A lot of people seem to think so.

All this leads up to my comment on democratic evolution. What is going on now is not the downtrodden groups standing up for themselves and claiming their rights against all odds. This is a group of wealthy, powerful families who were raking in the cash under Thaksin that have stirred up the people ...

And only the reds comprise wealthy people who rake it in and stir up a rabble. None of those in the yellow lot, right? Don't you read the newspapers? Try a passenger who was trying to get a plane out of Bangkok when the PAD had closed the airport down that only the reds can stir up a rabble. Fact is, one side was elected while the other side wasn't.

I think that you might be one of those people working for the government's new PR team. Are you on the Dem party payroll? I think that all we are doing is having a completely pointless circular discussion that will never go anywhere. Shutting down local radio stations is your idea of democracy, I guess, as is curtailing the voting rights of the 'ineducated'

Let's go back to the topic of this thread - bias in the media. Yes, I do agree that the BBC is a liberal outfit and is biased. Trouble is, it has a few more readers than the Nation. They are ALL biased, which is why we should draw on multiple sources of information before forming an opinion. Let's not hijack this thread and turn it into another boring Abhisit vs Thaksin debate.

Hate to admit it but I watch Bloomberg and Al Jahzeera these days.. Better reporting, less bias and most important.

I used to think Al Jazeera was ok, but they constantly criticise the west most notably America and never not once would criticise any Arab or Middle Eastern country or barbaric Muslim practice, at a guess and i dont mean this as an insult but your views are probably left of centre hence why you see it as impartial, as theyre representing your views.

You are aware that many journalists who helped set up this station are ex BBC workers, the BBC is institutionally left wing of that there is no doubt.

yes I agree they aren't certainly aren't perfect..And I was aware many of their staff are ex BBB and CNN. Actually my views are a long way right of center.. That's why I can't abide the BBC's leftist bias...In fact all the leftist and liberal wimpering about the disadvantaged and how we should all help the poor gets right on my tits... Me ? I'm just a bloke from a workng class background who got off his arse and worked... Thru perseverance, distance learning and luck I'm now a granduate engineer with a 6 figure income.... Nowt to do with class... just the mindset and willingness to 'better' myself and no need for a handout or pity from the liberals and apologists.. If you want something.. work for it.. simple really...

I couldn't agree more. The fact that you were born into a society that provided you with a fair day's pay for a fair days work, which meant that you were able to save money, travel the world, end up in Thailand, and post your political opinion on this newsgroup. You also have the freedom to criticise the BBC and CNN publicly without any fear of reprisal.

You don't see that kind of freedom everywhere, and it didn't come automatically in your home country either.

DP25 said: "Except only 36% of them voted for his opponent. The vast majority of Thais voted for anti Thaksin parties, and will do so again in the next elections. "

So if he has so much support, bring on the elections then. The very fact the Abhisit refuses to hold elections speaks volumes about his lack of confidence in his level of popular support. If he is so popular, you would expect him to jump at this golden opportunity to go to the people, get elected with a majority, then throw out the reds once and for all. All the people criticising him now, including me, would no longer have a leg to stand on. He would be the man of the moment in Thai politics!

On the BBC: I COMPLETELY agree with their analysis, though this article is not analysis, it shows insight in the view of the "Red" part of the country. This is a MUCH NEEDED balance that's severely lacking in the mainly Bangkok based English language Thai press. Seeing what those papers write, it's not surprising that a lot of people on this forum don't get the full picture, and as a result keep blurting out ridiculous viewpoints like a broken record. (Mostly related to the rural people having been 'bought' (best case) or that they're just uneducated monkies (also quite common). So overall you'd think that educated foreigners would at least manage to find some balance even when they don't get it from the Thai press, or yellow-leaning Thais.

BBC is therefore doing a stellar job, providing some much needed balance and insight into what drives 'Red' leaning people.

I live in Chiang Mai.

The leaders of the UDD are all from wealthy families that have almost absolute political and economic control of their home provinces/districts. They control the milling, transportation, and construction businesses. Virtually all the protestors are beholden to these families and to not say or do what they are told can be extremely detrimental. But notice that in other areas, that are just as poor, where the wealthy families are not supporting the UDD there are no protestors. If this is indeed a grass root uprising against the "Bangkok elite" why is it only coming from limited areas and not across the entire rural area?

Virtually every successful democracy in its early days limited voting rights and representation to included some sort of check against an elected governing body, usually be means of an appointed body with veto power. This veto power was controlled by the middle class, which in Thailand is unfortunately referred to as the urban elite. Why has no foreign reporter ever mentioned that democracy in Thailand is only about 75 years old, has been interrupted several times with military coups and has never had the chance to fully establish itself and then compare it to any other countries at that stage of development.? In every country where unlimited democracy was thrust onto the people, chaos has ensued in a very short time, for the very reasons you see in Thailand. Populist demagogues stirring up the lower classes into a frenzy against the "elites" with the resulting turmoil. Instead, they just report that the PAD wants to limit voting rights, have an appointed body with veto power, all true, but never the why.

These are all areas that could be investigated but yet, the foreign press just keeps churning out the TRT/PPP/UDD propaganda, I can only think it is because that is the easiest thing to do and does not require any real journalism and would give them an answer they really don't want to report.

TH

You have the yellow flag flying there! Not sure what your point is about the UDD having powerful people in milling, transportation and the like. So what? Lots of pols the world over have cash. Look at how Obama's lot spent their way to victory in the US election - Americans are beholden to Obama because he splashed out on an expensive and effective marketing job to get to be president. Hilary nearly went bankrupt trying to upstage him. In the US, not all grass roots supported Obama - some hicks are fiercely Republican,so your assertion that grass roots in Thailand does not universally support Thaksin's lot is typical of what you find in any democracy everywhere.

On to your paraphrase of the PAD manifesto, which implies that the people have no right to vote, and that they don't deserve to choose their representation. Yes, we heard at all the minority yellow rallies that only the PAD knows what's good for Thailand, and only the PAD should get to choose who runs the country. I think we have seen how that kind of insulting hubris goes down with the millions who voted for Thaksin's lot, with the descending spiral of resentment and violence. This arrogant attitude is thwarting Abhisit's forlorn attempts at reconciliation in parliament and elsewhere. Abhisit is out of his depth. He has snatched the top job unelected, but he can't connect with the masses that he will ultimately depend upon to keep him there, let alone get the ear of parliament as we saw today. It's the majority verdict that matters - nothing else. In America, not all people are politically enlightened. Should we take away their vote?

Turning to your commentary on the evolution of democracy, it's just like you say: all democratic systems evolved from a system of patronage, then limited voting rights where the people were kept in the dark for their 'own good', then full democracy as you know it in the west. There was always a struggle involved to claim these rights, and that's what we are seeing in Thailand now. By way of example, look at the way the Americans and the British treated the blacks as serfs in recent times, using tem as slaves until they stood up for themselves. The same applies to women's right's, gays rights, and all the other downtrodden groups who stood up for themselves and claimed their rights against all odds. That's what is happening in Thailand now. The problem that the yellows have is in this information age is that there are too many leaks in their worn out propaganda facade. People just don't buy their reasons why they should rule unchallened anymore. It is impractical to say that Thailand can go into reverse now, back to the 'good old days' when the peasants did as they were told in blissful ignorance - the Thai majority now have too many powerful people who are all too willing to represent them. Even if you lock up Thaksin's entire clique, there will be others who will tap into the sentiment and represent the people against the tired old generals who cling to power, and step up to the plate to take power.

It's too late to go back, in spite of Abhisit's belated and hypocritical efforts to censor the media and expect the masses to believe that he represents them, when they voted for his opponent. His efforts are futile.

Thank heavens you can't vote.

here are some more international reports and, OMG, they also seem to prefer red over yellow. Why is the internataional media all wrong, why can't they see clearly like srirachajohn, h90 and plus?

CNN

http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/tag/dan-rivers/

they[PAD] want nothing less than the overthrow of the entire political system. Their argument goes something like this: the vast majority of voters are poor, uneducated farmers who are susceptible to corruption by Thaksin and his allies, therefore we should abandon democracy to prevent this corruption

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/democracy...jectid=10531139

But the PAD has nothing to do with democracy. In fact, it claims that the ballot box gives too much weight to the ill-educated rural poor, whose votes can easily be "bought" (that is, won) with promises of government largesse.

The so-called People's Alliance for Democracy proposes an audaciously undemocratic "new politics" whereby most members of parliament would be appointed. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva

The insurgents still style themselves as the "People's Alliance for Democracy," but this time some of their leaders are explicit in calling for just the opposite: the restoration of a full monarchy or a military-backed autocracy. Washington Post

What his [samak's] opponents, who come under the misleading banner of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), want is a mandate on demand, by theft. Straits Times

Even though the PAD's very name includes the word democracy, many of its supporters are skeptical of electoral politics. Time

The rebel groups are trying to roll back the results of last December's general elections and reinstall rule by an urban elite traditionally backed by the Thai armed forces. Irish Times

An alliance of street protesters and a reactionary elite. Financial Times

The latest ideologue [sondhi] who promises to fix their country's democracy by -- once again -- breaking it. Wall Street Journal

What the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) did on August 26 … was a putsch. La Stampa

Authoritarian rabble … the woefully misnamed People's Alliance for Democracy … a gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats. Economist

The PAD leadership is no collection of spotless democrats. The Independent (London)

The group's[PAD} name appears to be a misnomer as it is neither populist nor does it want representative democracy. Al-Jazeera

Interesting research, and proves conclusively that the Bangkok Post and the Nation are the only sources of truth on what is happening in Thailand . The whole world is guilty of a shameful propaganda war. The majority of Thai citizens are wrong to vote for Thaksin's lot. Only Abhisit and the yellow democratic freedom fighters know what's really best for Thailand.

Speaking of bias, how about this gem, from, you guessed it, The Nation :

Whatever happened to unbiased reporting?

Published on April 23, 2009

I want to translate a part of an article written by Nation journalist Sopon Onkgara:

Yep - the Nation, and to a slightly lesser extent the Bangkok Post, are very obviously biased and (in the case of the Nation) unabashedly support the yellow movement. This has nothing to do with high moral standards - it's more to do with business and political alliances.

It's important to read news from a variety of sources on both sides, as well as talking to people from both sides, then forming your own opinion based on the validity of all the different angles. So many foreigners fall into the trap of believing that the bellicose propaganda churned out by the Bangkok Post and the Nation, an example of which you have provided above. Neither is impartial, and nor is practically any other publication that is financed by commercial or politcal interests. Having shrunk to mere shadows of their splendid former selves, the Bangkok Post and the Nation are quite obviously feeling the pinch, and the quality has taken a hit over the years. Judging by the grammatical errors that adorn the Nation's website, it looks like they can't even afford a proof reader.

Who is going to bite the hand that feeds them? This applies as much to the media as anywhere else.

I am returning to the US in 2 days for the first time in 4 years (I am only going for a month though). I am pretty nervous going back because I have heard that reverse culture shock is often worse than regular culture shock. Does anyone have experiences of returning home after a long stint in Thailand? Did anything really stick out? Was it difficult?

Only going back for a month? That's just a holiday. Catch up with your family and old mates and have a great time. Culture shock doesn't kick in for such a short time

Try going back for six months or more.

These are the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard about Thaksin and only reinforce my statement that you have overlaid a western liberal bias

I could just as easily say that your assumptions that my source of information is the BBC and that I am a liberal are ridiculous, but that wouldn't get us anywhere, would it? We all know what they say about assumptions, and I could retort to yours at a similarly valid level by declaring that your only source of information is the propaganda that you read in the Bangkok Post and the Nation, and that the brief history of Thailand that your pored over in the Lonely Planet guide book is how you formed your opinions on how the Thai society is structured. I could also speculate on your political bias and anti-Thaksin knee jerk stance by assuming that you are a Democrat, who isn't allowed to vote anyway. Those would be just as ridiculous assumptions as the ones that you made, or would they?

Let's agree to disagree. Time will tell anyway, and the topic of this thread was to call attention to a double standard, how the people seem to be resenting it, and how it has destabilised Thailand in a very obvious way. I think we have seen abundant evidence of this resentment around us. If you think that alll this is because of Thaksin, and that now Abhisit is here all will be resolved, then that's your opinion. You have a right to think what you think but a majority of Thai people did not agree with you on various recent elections.

This thread has gone on so long now that I doubt anyone is reading it anymore. I have had a pleasant discussion with most of the posters here, and I will see you all elsewhere in the forum.

You have done an excellent job of overlaying your western liberal values on the Thai socioeconomic and political situation and you articulate it well. I bet you read every BBC article on Thailand and get all bent out shape with the unfairness of it all.

It's not whether my nose is bent out of shape here that matters. All I am doing in this thread is making an observation that millions of noses seem to be have put out of shape, as is evidenced by a descending spiral of unrest, and I am suggesting that the reasons for this problem go far deeper than Thaksin. All Thaksin seems to have done is unleash a force that was already there in the first place. An earler poster highlighted this, when he pointed out that hatred of Thaksin is most likely a diversion to take attention away from the underlying problem. This is more a Thai concept than a Western one. My own political views, which are actually more conserative than liberal, are irrelevant to this discussion.

The Thai urban middle class are not the ones holding the rural poor down. It is their very own local leaders that are doing that. People like Somsak Thepsutin, Suriya Jungrungreangkit, Sanoh Thienthong, Phinij Jarusombat, Suwat Liptapanlop, Pongsak Raktapongpisak, and most notorious, the famous Newin Chidchob. All these people have absolute political and economic control of the their home provinces and districts. People vote how they tell them to do so, often this is accompanied with a small fee for doing so. To do otherwise or to challenge their power can be extremely detrimental to your health. Everyone of these people have serially switched sides to whichever coalition can give them the most. Thaksin bought them all to form the TRT. Ideology had nothing to do with it. If you have not seen this, then however long you have lived in Thailand, you have had blinders on the whole time.

I don't think I have claimed that the Thai urban middle class are holding the poor down all by themselves. They just want the status quo to be maintained, where they own the poor, perhaps without even realising it. It is this whole system of patronage that the rural folk are growing tired of, and is the very same system to which other sectors of the Thai population support - the urban people being part, but let's not forget the army, the bureacrats, and all the local leaders that you mentioned.

Thaksin, probably without even realising it, gave the poor an unprecedented level of representation - he made them feel that they had control of their destiny in a way that they had never enjoyed before, and that they no longer had to passively and blindly submit to whoever was placed above them by the system. This change was subtle at first, but it has ended up challenging the whole way that things are done in Thailand, threatening to destabilise the system of patronage and crossing a line that can not be redrawn. How do we know this? There are now two groups fighting each other, and there appears to be no referee that can stop them as was always the case until now. People now seem to have a mind of their own, and are questioning why they have to submit to authority and whatever leaders it places above them while ignoring their democratic choice - albeit a flawed one. People are demanding leaders that actually help them, not just talk about it.

Let's look at some real examples:

Education – ...

Infrastructure Projects- ...

SME Loans- ...

This is not struggle between the poor and rich. This is a struggle between the upcountry feudal lords that have been raping the country for the past 8 years and the urban middle class that is fed up with it.

TH

The feudal lords that make it so hard for people to access inadequate and poor quality public services are all part of the system of patronage that Thaksin unwittingly started to unwind by providing a greater level of support from the central government. Although he bypassed the feudal lords at the local level, he recognised them and recruited a lot of them into his government, as is normal in Thai politics, and politics everywhere. You can't govern until you control the local councils.

Change will not be immediate, but it is difficult to see how it will be reversed, now that the people have had a taste of direct control over the central government and have enjoyed the feeling of discarding their unwanted owners at the ballot box, and choosing their masters instead. The urban people couldn't care less about the feudal lords per se, so long as the status quo is maintained. It was Thaksin who triggered the yellow people, not the feudal lords who have been around for years.

On a completely different topic, and I'm not saying that this applies to you, but I suppose that there are many foreigners who benefit from patronage too - it's what keeps Thailand such a cheap place to live, provides the servants, the girls, and so on.

I disagree. There are a lot of very bright people in Thailand, who are prevented from succeeding by governments that couldn't care less about their plight.

Could you please explain to me what the government is doing to prevent these people from succeeding?

First let's take a look at what successive governments were seen to be not doing:

1) Educating the majority of its people, leaving it up to them to provide even the most basic schooling for their children, and

2) Offering financial assistance to those who fall on hard times, so that their kids can stay in school, and

3) Offering financial assistance to people with good ideas, who want to start a businees and fend for themselves, and

4) Providing a basic level of health care

And here is what the powers that be are seen to be doing:

1) Expelling governments that are elected by the people on the basis that they provide these basic necessities, and

2) Calling the masses 'uneducated' and not deserving of their vote

I think it's fair to say that the traditionalists are not doing enough to progress the lives of the Thai general public, and that Thaksin's lot had made at least some concrete steps in the right direction. If the yellow lot were seen as representing a better life for the masses, then we wouldn't be seeing growing discontent and riots that are looking more and more like a class war. If you haven't noticed this, then I suspect that you haven't been in Thailand for very long.