jayboy

A former British PM spoke of the " winds of change blowing through the corridors of power " but to change Thailand it will take a couple of super typhoons.

No.Harold Macmilan spoke of a wind of change blowing through a continent (Africa): there was no reference to "corridors of power".

Was wondering how this got from the reds actions against a rally and crossed over to the credit ratings, another thread.

Oh yes, the reds trying to divert from something undefendable.

Well said. Been there, done that. Nice to see nothing changes. Why defend the indefensible when you can distract the discussion.

Is there any Red contribution to the thread, or perhaps the mods can stop the posts here and ask the guilty people to repost

Yes, it's been pointed out before in this thread. The usual red brigade supporters (or is that participants) tactic is the 'but, but.....' syndrome with Abhisit, Suthep, PAD, Isan, Cambodia, the army & the Dems being some of the usual suffixes to the 'but'.

It doesn't always work however as they sometimes shoot themselves in the foot or, as Yoshiwara says, fall on their swords, whereupon the guessing game starts about who a new poster was previously.

I think you have a point.By this I mean it should be possible on many occasions to justify or explain Government/PTP/redshirt action on its own terms without reference to perceived crimes/mistakes/weaknesses of those who oppose them (essentially the parties mentioned in your post).Obviously there will be occasions when a comparison will be very relevant but the constant kindergarden approach of "your lot are just as bad if not worse " makes discussion sterile and uninteresting.It works the other way as well of course.It should be possible to criticise the Government/PTP/redshirts without boringly harping on about the many abuses by Thaksin.Equally there should be recognition that one can be a general supporter of this government without being a "Thaksin lickspittle" as one member recently charmingly referred to me.

But how to be constructive? My modest and I trust helpful contribution is to have instituted the Sriracha Memorial Prize for the most boneheaded and fatuous introduction of Thaksin into a thread where he is not relevant.

Why don't you defend the quote from Fitch concerning Yingluck stability which you regard as the gospel ?

Come show us you can answer questions rather than play with smoke and mirrors .

Four words come to mind regarding Thailand, Puppet Master, Yingluck, Stability

The markets are for the moment happier with Yingluck representing stability for the Thai economy. While the red dogs are kept on a reasonably short leash and Thaksin stays out of the country the Thai establishment will settle for this deal, but uncertainty remains on two counts: first the possibility of a VIP event and second Thaksin's tendency to shoot himself in the foot in an effort to regain his return. Also it is nice to know that our friendly fake left red apologists are so excited at the rating agencies' assessment of Thailand.

As earlier mentioned, I'm not sure there is as much connection as often claimed in Thailand between the performance of the government of the day and rating agencies findings.Apart from the debacle in the late 1990's (from which the right lessons were learnt) I believe all who have Thailand's interests at heart should be grateful to the senior bureaucrats responsible for economic management.

Turning to your post I don't disagree with your basic analysis.My question is however if the uneasy accomodation breaks down whether for the reasons you mention or another cause, what exactly is the Thai establishment going to do to sort the matter out given that past "solutions" didn't work out, and are even less likely to work out in the future.

Abhisit, the military, the entrenched elite, PAD, political opportunists, speculators and some others.

No Gerry your defense of the reds and PT has led you to get it all wrong again.

It was caused in the main by the red shirt riots which made it necessary for Abhisit to call out the military to clear them out before they did any more damage.

I do however agree about Thaksin and his entrenched elite having to take most of the blame.

Hay and consider;

Given that the red shirt riots instigated by Thaksin were the prime reason for a downgrade and that there has been no violent disruption caused by an opposition party in the term of the present Govt.

It could well be said that the reason for the stability and therefore the upgrade is that the present opposition parties have chosen to do things in a responsible and lawful manner rather than anything Yingluck and her Govt have done.

Your post doesn't make much sense, not even an intelligent effort to disagree.Still I am aware of the poor quality of your posting record, so will just move along....

Though I don't normally respond to this kind of substance free post, nevertheless one point is worth mentioning for the benefit of those who have a genuine interest in understanding the dynamics.Thailand's strong ratings are remarkably resistant to political instability.This reflects the strength of the private sector, robust banking system and the generally excellent economic management of the country.These positive aspects transcend political divisions.Overall Thailand seems more vulnerable to the vicissitudes of world and regional economic dislocation than the country's internal divisions.Quite why this should be so is interesting to speculate and I doubt whether it would be the case if political divisions deteriorated to the level of 2010 again or (even worse) if military criminals again overthrew the elected government.Having said that the legitimacy of the current government is a definite plus.Looking forward what I would like to see is a genuinely strong opposition, perhaps led by Korn which would allow the Democrats to regroup,discard its corrupt element,loosen their ties with the corrupt unelected elites and win power fairly at a general election.It is not healthy in a democracy for one party to hold power consistently - even if won legitimately.

Nicely worded try to diminish scorecards well stated points,

but no sale, and no successful obsfucation of the points made.

But I have not even begun dismantling his extremely misleading summary point by point.I simply made a general statement.By all means start another thread because this is now off topic.But your record of bluster and extreme right wing views does not suggest you will have much of value to contribute.

Utter absurdity, but this is the lengths at which the DSI is tasked with disrupting the Democratic Party at every possible juncture. If any agency of the government deserves dismantling, it is NOT the Administrative Court,

but IS the Department Of Special Investigations ( Partisan Witch Hunt Division)

That's more like it.Aways enjoyable when the usual suspects live up to the stereotype.

I don't normally do hypotheticals but it is really a stretch to suggest that if PTP politicians were being investigated by the DSI, the usual suspects would not be swarming like horseflies over the subject.</p>

Probably no more of a stretch than it is to suggest that all those here who have taken the "the law is the law, it must be followed" line, would be saying the same thing were it a PTP politician.

But as far as I can see most forum members generally sympathetic to the government aren't saying that.On the contrary most have agreed this is nothing more than a technical charge.

Suggest your read the thread again then.

I can see one member made comments supporting your contention.Are there any others? Perhaps a rather sterile area of inquiry.

The main point surely is that in the application of the law views should be consistent regardless of which party is involved.On this forum this hardly ever happens where the usual suspects are concerned.When the politicians associated with the PTP or its predecessors are concerned the law must take its course however silly the pretext.Where their favoured politicians are accused, that's a political vendetta.The dishonesty and hypocrisy are palpable.But that is perhaps a matter for another discussion.

I don't normally do hypotheticals but it is really a stretch to suggest that if PTP politicians were being investigated by the DSI, the usual suspects would not be swarming like horseflies over the subject.</p>

But as far as I can see most forum members generally sympathetic to the government aren't saying that.On the contrary most have agreed this is nothing more than a technical charge.

But here's the question for those who leap to Sukhumband et al's defence.Would you also apply the same standards to other politicians (incl PTP) if they were being investigated on the same charge, or would the usual suspects argue that ignorance of the law is no excuse and if found guilty the culprits should suffer the full penalty of the law inculding prison and/or a 5 year political ban.Based on past standard of intellectual honesty I think I already know the answer.

The problem with your post JB is that only specific people are being targeted.

If indeed there was a general investigation into who, from any party, had broken this law and all those discovered to have broken it were all treated equally regardless of which party they belonged to then I would agree with you.

But as we can all see it is just another part of a witch hunt against those of one party

Er, no.It seems to be aimed at specific individuals.But my question remains - if the same charge had been applied to specific PTP politicians would you be leaping to their defence?

Bangkok governor-elect Sukhumbhand Paribatra to hear the charge

of breaking the law in the manner of his donation of his salary to the

Democrat Party.

How long will this DSI Democrat witch hunt go on for? If their going to waste recourse's , can they at least find something more exciting, than the Dems donating money to themselves.

I agree this does not seem like a very serious breach of the law, if indeed it is more than a technical breach.I believe it is quite normal for politicians in the West to make donations from their salaries to political parties.Indeed for many years ordinary citizens in the UK were compelled to make compulsory contributions to the Labour Party if their unions had "opted in".In this Thai story there are also some oddities, not least how DSI became aware of these payments given they were privately made between individuals and the Democrat party.Are they tax deductible? In short much less here than meets the eye if the only issue was that the payments were made by deduction of salary rather than by non-transferable cheque.So for any reasonable person this seems like a non event.

But here's the question for those who leap to Sukhumband et al's defence.Would you also apply the same standards to other politicians (incl PTP) if they were being investigated on the same charge, or would the usual suspects argue that ignorance of the law is no excuse and if found guilty the culprits should suffer the full penalty of the law inculding prison and/or a 5 year political ban.Based on past standard of intellectual honesty I think I already know the answer.

I don't always agree with you jb but you make a good point. I had to think twice about it.

Thank you.I appreciate your honesty.

When a weakened candidate manages to poll a record number of votes, I would think it's pretty obvious that a fair number were voting negatively (not a Thaksin man, thank you very much). But, of course, logical thinking doesn't count.

Logical thinking doesn't count for some certainly, though I suspect a few may be so prejudiced that it's just beyond them.And one or two appear to be plain thick.The high turnout was of course because Bangkokians knew there was a real contest, hence the very high numbers for both leading candidates and the marginalisation of the independents.

Well, Pheu Thai seems to think that the negative vote played a part:

The Pheu Thai Party's spokesman said the Democrats had won because of

the "atmosphere of fear" the party had spawned during the campaign. The

Democrats were telling voters that, if they picked Pongsapat, they were

choosing the side of those who had resorted to violence in the city -

and that the central government under Premier Yingluck Shinawatra would

"monopolise" power if the Pheu Thai candidate became the next Bangkok

governor.

But, of course, those with a contrary view are prejudiced or thick. Such arrogance.

Personally I don't buy everything the PTP leadership puts out and it is surprising you seem to (when it suits your purpose).Of course negative voting played a part:it does in every election - the question is to what extent.The same scare tactics were tried by Abhisit at the general election which I seem to remember didn't work out so well for him.You also keep overlooking the fact that Pongsapat won a huge following.It's not surprising PTP are casting around for excuses for a defeat it didn't expect.Didn't they also complain to the EC about malpractice on the part of their opponents? The fact is you have got yourself into a muddle because you are determined to draw some major conclusion for the PTP government and Thsaksin's position.Problem is the facts don't support you.

When a weakened candidate manages to poll a record number of votes, I would think it's pretty obvious that a fair number were voting negatively (not a Thaksin man, thank you very much). But, of course, logical thinking doesn't count.

Logical thinking doesn't count for some certainly, though I suspect a few may be so prejudiced that it's just beyond them.And one or two appear to be plain thick.The high turnout was of course because Bangkokians knew there was a real contest, hence the very high numbers for both leading candidates and the marginalisation of the independents.

Looks like both parties made up ground at the expense of the independants, with the PTP taking around 12% and the Democrats around 4% of the 16% (when the figures are rounded)lost by them. What can we conclude from that though? Will it continue at the next election? Will the independant vote dwindle away to zero, or will a popular independant candidate sweep the board? If you had used this data prior to the recent elections, would you have predicted a continuing fall in Democrats and rise in PTP popularity? As the pre-election polls suggested, it's very difficult to make any predictions on upcoming elections in the near future, let alone ones not scheduled for another 4 years,and who knows what the political situation will be like here by then? I guess I'm just not feeble minded enough to make a definite prediction based on this data. With your obviously better qualifications, perhaps you could enlighten us?

Your comments are sensible and I generally agree with them.I think the charts show the major parties are now level pegging wuth the independents having faded away but as far as I can see the Democrats have and will continue to have the advantage.Frankly my real point in showing these numbers was to refute the suggestion that the people are sending some kind of very clear message.They aren't.

The number game. Democrats loose majority in Bangkok. Right.

Bangkok Governor and votes received
2000	Samak S.	TRT	1,016,096
2004	Apirak K.	Dems	911,441
2008	Apirak K.	Dems	991,018		45.93
2009	MR Sukhumbhant	Dems	934,602		45.47
2013	MR Sukhumbhant	Dems	1,256,231	46.25

Thanks for these numbers whuch are useful up to a point but a chart (from Bangkok Pundit) showing numbers of votes and % of votes may be more enlightening:

Seems to be a trend here in the progress of PTP (and its predecessors) that even the feeble minded can detect.Can you spot it?

NOTE: Ind = Independent; Dem = Democrat Party candidate; and TS =

candidate of the pro-Thaksin party whether it is Thai Rak Thai, PPP, or

Puea Thai. This also includes Pavena who was an independent in 2004, but

was unofficially backed by Thai Rak Thai. Sources for 2013 are as

above. For previous elections, all figures from Wikipedia.

When I hear the word haven applied to the business/financial world, I immediately think of tax haven, which actually has negative connotations abroad.

.

It's not negative if you're moving billions in Ample Rich stock through the tax haven of the British Virgin Islands.

.

Congratulations.You are the first winner in 2013 of the forum prize (The Sriracha Trophy) for introducing Thaksin to a thread where he is entirely irrelevant.

.

What are you babbling about? There's been hundreds of threads since the year began and countless threads with other posters (both pro and anti) bringing him into threads. Besides, I didn't actually name him, you did. Well done.

Bucking for Worst Stalker Award 2013, are you?

.

Oh you weren't talking about Thaksin? Who else moved stock through Ample Rich in the BVI? Please don't fib.

Yes there have been some other contenders but you win the grand prize for monumental irrelevance

When I hear the word haven applied to the business/financial world, I immediately think of tax haven, which actually has negative connotations abroad.

.

It's not negative if you're moving billions in Ample Rich stock through the tax haven of the British Virgin Islands.

.

Congratulations.You are the first winner in 2013 of the forum prize (The Sriracha Trophy) for introducing Thaksin to a thread where he is entirely irrelevant.

When one considers the lack of appeal the incumbent MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra had with the Bangkok electrate then we can truely see the magnitude of the negative impact Thaksin and maybe Jatuporn Promphan had on the PTP campaign. Like durian the unpleasant odour of Thaksin and his policies overpowered Yingluck's appeal and the lethargy of voters to send a clear message to the PTP and that message is "get rid of Thaksin".

Er right.Message sent "get rid of Thaksin" through huge PTP vote short of victory by less than 200,000 in a traditional Democrat stronghold.Dream on.

But I guess that the little ray of hope the Thaksin's lickspittles cling to. I prefer the big picture this is the PTPs 5th electral defeat in a row, the other 4 being in Thaksin heartlands.

PS: Use your stella intellect and read between the lines and you will understand you missed the point again.

Earlier he referred to the fact that this was the first time the PT had ever got over 1,000,000 conveniently omitting it was the biggest turn out ever and it was a 7% rout for the Dems.

Normally I would not say 7% rout but the National party called a 4% margin a landslide so as long as we are talking drivel I through that in.

"Thaksin lickspittle" and other insulting language,some of it barely literate, for pointing out a few salient and undeniable facts!

The position is this.Sukhumband won a good victory.The PTP demonstrated it has a solid foothold on Bangkok.It was a disappointment for the government but the overall significance for national politics was limited.There was no resounding message for Thaksin (or anybody else to be honest).

When one considers the lack of appeal the incumbent MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra had with the Bangkok electrate then we can truely see the magnitude of the negative impact Thaksin and maybe Jatuporn Promphan had on the PTP campaign. Like durian the unpleasant odour of Thaksin and his policies overpowered Yingluck's appeal and the lethargy of voters to send a clear message to the PTP and that message is "get rid of Thaksin".

Er right.Message sent "get rid of Thaksin" through huge PTP vote short of victory by less than 200,000 in a traditional Democrat stronghold.Dream on.

I believe that Sukhumband would have been unelectable if it wasn't for the Thaksin factor. Soon the PTP will desert him just like Amsterdam and the redshirts and one day if you come to your senses so will you.

One strategy Thaksin will have to think twice about now is the marching again of his troops to Bangkok. Unless he wants to make a declaration of all-out civil war. The election loss isn't just a setback for his return, it is a loss for the fabled story of army brutality against the 'peaceful' red demonstrators. The people of Bangkok have said 'we are not with you'. Now what are we left with? Red villages raging against Bangkok indifference? Burning down of regional town halls? Been there, done that.

If Pongsapat had won and Sukhumband had lost, somehow I doubt you would be making such extravagant claims for the winner.There were only 200,000 votes between them.Personally I doubt there is as much significance as many pundits believe.What do we know now that we didn't know before?

Having said that, some leading Democrats are scratching their heads as to why they didn't win with a larger margin.After if all the red devil propaganda line (which you have swallowed hook line and sinker) was believed there would be nobody voting for Pongsapat at all.As it was Sukhumband was given a run for his money.

You clearly haven't been reading my posts (or possibly reading them but without adequate comprehension).

You state you dont support Thaksin, you even through in a few anti Thaksin remarks, but your voluminous post are all pro Thaksin, Actions speak louder than words.......

I don't wish to be patronising but you really need to concentrate a little harder.My position was succinctly covered in an earlier post:

"Whether Thaksin returns or remains in exile has become less and less

important.It was never mainly about him anyway.His significance lay in

his role as a catalyst.Personally he is a rather poor strategist and in

no way an admirable man.But the hatred he inspires among some can't

change the reality that he has already won, by which I mean changed the

political landscape of Thailand and destroyed the status quo dominated

by unelected elites.Parties controlled by him have won time after time

at the polls, and it is the old order that has had to adapt."

It surely does not require a massive intellectual effort to distinguish between being pro Thaksin and recognising his huge catalytic significance.

One strategy Thaksin will have to think twice about now is the marching again of his troops to Bangkok. Unless he wants to make a declaration of all-out civil war. The election loss isn't just a setback for his return, it is a loss for the fabled story of army brutality against the 'peaceful' red demonstrators. The people of Bangkok have said 'we are not with you'. Now what are we left with? Red villages raging against Bangkok indifference? Burning down of regional town halls? Been there, done that.

If Pongsapat had won and Sukhumband had lost, somehow I doubt you would be making such extravagant claims for the winner.There were only 200,000 votes between them.Personally I doubt there is as much significance as many pundits believe.What do we know now that we didn't know before?

Having said that, some leading Democrats are scratching their heads as to why they didn't win with a larger margin.After if all the red devil propaganda line (which you have swallowed hook line and sinker) was believed there would be nobody voting for Pongsapat at all.As it was Sukhumband was given a run for his money.

I believe that Sukhumband would have been unelectable if it wasn't for the Thaksin factor. Soon the PTP will desert him just like Amsterdam and the redshirts and one day if you come to your senses so will you.

You clearly haven't been reading my posts (or possibly reading them but without adequate comprehension).

Vote result reveals a divided nation

REVEALS???? What rock has this reporter been under for the last 8 years?

Agreed.The election result told us nothing new.But the writer is correct to remind us that the Bangkok election should be primarily about city issues not national politics.

I don't really follow the Jatuporn argument.Surely the vast majority of those who dislike the idea of his possible appointment were Democrat voters anyway?

Is Thaksin really like durian - love him or hate him.I would have thought there are quite a few (in the aspiring middle class) that don't much like him but are equally unimpressed by Thailand's starchy elites.

Interesting quote:

"... red-sympathiser @methawinner tweeted to

me after the election that calling for people to "defend the city from

reds demonstrated that we're already people of different races"."

since the ethnic dimension to Thailand's political divide is rarely referred to. (though it was of course often brought up in the PAD demonstrations).

It always amuses me to read that educated people oppose Thaksin and uneducated people don't.There's obviously an element of truth to this though numerous (in the millions) exceptions.But the fallacy is to believe that educated people take a position because they are educated.No, they take a position because they are at the top of the heap and want to preserve and increase what they have.The urban mantra that populism is dangerous ignores the fact that the cities particularly Bangkok already greatly benefit from superior faciliries - infrastructure, hospitals, schools etc.That is simply another kind of populism.

I don't buy the notion that posh toffs can't reate to the masses - Churchill, FDR,Gladstone come to mind.Abhisit obviously can't but Korn could I think.Perhaps that's why Abhisit wanted him to take on the Bangkok governorship - safely out of circulation!

Although it's probably a bit too early to say so, this may become a very good year for wine vinegar.

Instead of asking why the Democrats candidate didn't get more votes, it might be good to wonder about why the Pheu Thai candidate didn't get more. Various possibilities there:

- it rained heavely for a while, first time since weeks (very suspect!)

- polls led people to believe their vote was not needed (dark influence suspected!)

- there aren't more Pheu Thai supporters in Bangkok (obviously this can't be true!)

- lots of voters didn't like the PM and some Amply Rich elite surrounding Pongsapat (obviously nonsense!)

- someone kept the UDD and their members from participating (BTW where were they?)

- it's not important as the government still controls over 75% of the BMA budget (so much for seamless co-operation)

Of course one may wonder why such an unimportant event as the election of the Bangkok governor required such high-level, frequent support of our PM? What did people think about the promise of the PM to work well with her candidate when elected? What did people think about involvement of Thaksin and his kids? Why did we have such enormous number of pickups driving around promoting the Pheu Thai candidate?

There is of course an easy, obvious answer to why Pheu Thai put such effort and money into this:

because it's not important

It seems the reaction of PTP to defeat has disoriented you.Obviously the polls were generally very misleading.I haven't seen many signs of sour grapes nationally (or much less importantly on this forum) and in fact all sides post election have acted quite reasonably.I'm sure PTP is very disappointed but the party still dominates nationsal politics, and in any event only lost Bangkok by 200,000 votes.

As I posted before the election Bangkok is home territory for the Democrats and I predicted their win.You say the question is why the PTP didn't get more votes -really? Over a million.The Democrat leadership take a different view and wants to know why PTP made inroads in the way it did.So I'm afraid you are making a set of assumptions that don't really stand up at all.

Well, first step is saying not to be involved in (Thai) politics, following with a skype session with the executive committee in Pheu Thai HQ (aka closed cabinet session). Next young Oak will discover yet another assassination complot on his father and/or Democrat MP's trying to steal rice from government stock.

While this takes place a few more groups stuffed with learned members will provide various good reasons for an amnesty of political prisoners and other well meaning people, with UDD leaders vehement on including the sentence "except for Abhisit/Suthep of course". Furthermore there is a distinct possibility that coming Songkhran our most popular fugitive will be in Laos and Cambodia again to give all people the chance to adore him, with free transport arranged including free (rice) meals.

IMHO, of course

A man like Thaksin can't possibly survive without heaps of publicity,he's getting older now,and no doubt losing his drive,and getting more and more desperate to come back to Thailand a winner. Lets all relish in the thought the longer he is away the less chance he has of returning at all,never mind a winner!

Whether Thaksin returns or remains in exile has become less and less important.It was never mainly about him anyway.His significance lay in his role as a catalyst.Personally he is a rather poor strategist and in no way an admirable man.But the hatred he inspires among some can't change the reality that he has already won, by which I mean changed the political landscape of Thailand and destroyed the status quo dominated by unelected elites.Parties controlled by him have won time after time at the polls, and it is the old order that has had to adapt.