jayboy

Does the Brit Army provide Kate Adie with an armoured vehicle? Don't the US media go along with the troops every time they invade somewhere? Don't these intrepid reporters know that they are standing into danger? In a boxing or wrestling ring the referee at times gets in the way with consequences for themselves. Perhaps old age has made me over cynical but I have some difficulty in thinking that the media reporters were imbued with the thought that they were supporting justice and truth by putting themselves in harm's way. I suggest that other motives, maybe selfish ones, were at work

... rest of Bagwan's post removed

Leaving aside your dishonest and unpleasant slur in the first paragraph, I don't think anyone reasonable is accusing anyone of deliberately ordering the death of the reporters.

... end removed

It's probably me, but I see no 'dishonest and unpleasant slur' in Bagwan's post.

It's not just you, but a day without a flame is like a day without sunshine for some.

The slur is obvious and needs no explanation.

What was the particular point of your post? Careful now, SJ.

The past 4 elections have been monitored by Asia Network for Free Election (ANFREL) in conjunction with the Poll Watch Foundation and the People’s Network for Elections in Thailand (P-NET).

The Election Commission of Thailand has fully supported this monitoring.

What Thailand has not allowed is western NGO's to monitor the elections.

TH

I actually have some sympathy for the Thais position on this.Best stick with reputable regional organisations and local NGOS

ANFREL is indeed an excellent organisation and its report on the 2006 election is well worth reading.

Does the Brit Army provide Kate Adie with an armoured vehicle? Don't the US media go along with the troops every time they invade somewhere? Don't these intrepid reporters know that they are standing into danger? In a boxing or wrestling ring the referee at times gets in the way with consequences for themselves. Perhaps old age has made me over cynical but I have some difficulty in thinking that the media reporters were imbued with the thought that they were supporting justice and truth by putting themselves in harm's way. I suggest that other motives, maybe selfish ones, were at work

RWB may profess to support libertarian causes but to some they appear to support organisations that lean towards the left of the political spectrum and their stance may not be seen as impartial. What sort of protection were the Thai authorities supposed to provide? Keeping the media folk behind barriers at a safe distance would lead to accusations of 'suppression of 'the truth'. Wouldn't the Thai attitude as in many things be 'up to you' or to paraphrase an expression that the Reds might remember, "I am not any reporter's father'. Playing the blame game is just pointless hot air since nobody will tell the truth and the process achieves nothing. Does anybody believe that anybody from a 2nd Lieutenant right up to Abhisit ordered Pte. Somjai to deliberately kill a reporter? I would hope that none of the Red leaders would give such an order either. In armed conflicts casualties occur and any realistic verdict of a Coroner's Court would record death by misadventure.

Leaving aside your dishonest and unpleasant slur in the first paragraph, I don't think anyone reasonable is accusing anyone of deliberately ordering the death of the reporters.

All that is being asked for is a proper accounting.We have not seen this and as we know from the recent earthquake tragedy the Japanese will generally keep their concerns to themselves.But they will not forget.

We know the Thai military's reputation for lying and cover ups.That's fact not speculation.

How can you possibly know one way or the other that the world isn't controlled by a race of giant lizards?

I suppose by experience, knowledge and common sense.

Fact(s) actually.

Something your confident assertion lacked. Sorry for noticing.

No it's equally at least a matter of subjective judgement in an area where "facts" are often elusive.I suggest you study carefully the Asia Foundation Report recently linked to by Hammered.This would give you some useful background.

What I was replying to was YOUR post about military being involved in politics "That a Thai general might be aligned to Democrat and elite interests", I find it strange that you don't see the relevance of Seh Daeng (a serving Thai general) ) being openly aligned with the REDS and Thaksin's interests. It might suggest a bias on your part to not see that you mentioned Thai Army generals aligning with one set of elites while failing to regard the open alignment of a Thai army general with another set of elites

So you are saying that no conclusions can be drawn because there are generals like Seh Daeng (before he was killed) aligned with the reds as well as those aligned with the ruling elite?

You really do need to start studying the background of the army in Thai politics.To attempt to equate one rogue general with the whole apparatus of the Thai army involved with repression over many years is just laughable.

Again you are practicing cherry picking or being deliberately obtuse as I pointed out in the initial post that you responded to that the "elite" are not only on one side of this divide in the country and both sides have some backing in the military.

Nobody that I know would deny that

1) There are elements of the military up to and including general staff members that lean heavily to one group of elite OR the other group of elite currently pushing the boundaries in Thailand.

2) There are retired general officers in almost every party leadership and that they are still involved in many ways with active duty general officers.

3) That people currently or in the past that are aligned with PTP/Reds are some of the same people that have practiced the suppression you are attempting to lay at the feet of just one side.

To quote another poster "You really do need to start studying the background of the army in Thai politics"

I am content to leave this for forum members to consider.My own view is that while there are factions and differences the policy of the Thai army has been quite clear over the decades.

It is vote recommendation rather than vote buying that affects outcome form what I have seen although the sophisticated village buying with the second tranche coming after the required percent vote is achieved has a very strong peer pressure affect as do the the more urban aimed gambling techniques. Vote buying of individuals is a waste of money really in affecting outcome imho. It works best when people have an interest and even better a group interest in voting a particular way.

Quite how much an election is affecte dby vot ebuying who knows but the asia foundation survey of a few years ago found almost 60% of respondents thought the vote of people in their area could be bought. By the way the whole survey is worth a read as it is the only extensive and neutrally produced one on a whole variety of subjects poltically related.

Link: http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/ThaiConstitutionReportenglish.pdf

There was an election not so long ago in Europe where people were offering their votes on e-bay.

I have seen this report before.If anything as you suggest it doesn't considered vote buying is particularly significant.Money quote

"The single greatest factor influencing voters’ choice of candidate is the candidate’s availability and accessibility, with fully half (50%) of all respondents selecting this option. Other important factors include candidates’ education (17%) and personal achievements (10%). In choosing a party, 57% say the past history or accomplishments of the party were most important, 22% said, the current plans of the party, and 19% would choose based on the character and accomplishments of the party’s leaders.

Although it is commonly asserted that local leaders have strong influence over voters, our findings suggest the opposite, with just 16% agreeing that following the recommendations of local leaders makes sense. Similarly, just ten percent felt family members choice should be influenced by the opinion of the head of household. Religion has little influence on voter choice: 90% say religious leaders should avoid politics, and 91% say the political recommendations of religious leaders would have little or no influence on their candidate or party choice."

Incidentally although not relevant to this solid report, the Asia Foundation's James Klein is far from being a non partisan observer.Nothing wrong with well informed partisan views - helps the debate along.

Because there has never been such an event, and it's even less likely now given the scrutiny and stiff penalties.Doesn't mean we won't see it on a significant scale, but that's not the point.

I'm sure you understand what it is you are saying here.

Can you point to a Thai election where the result has been decided by vote buying?

I'm not pointing to anything, just asking a question: how can you possibly know one way or the other, how affected an election is by vote buying?

How can you possibly know one way or the other that the world isn't controlled by a race of giant lizards?

I suppose by experience, knowledge and common sense.

Obviously vote buying should be discouraged but it doesn't affect overall outcome.

And this you know to be fact because...?

Because there has never been such an event, and it's even less likely now given the scrutiny and stiff penalties.Doesn't mean we won't see it on a significant scale, but that's not the point.

Can you point to a Thai election where the result has been decided by vote buying?

I would go further and say that, vote buying apart which involved all parties, even the hysterical government propaganda, army interference and the junta's rigged constitution didn't really affect the overall result of the last election.

She turned this down once already because she prefers her business interests. She either gives up her business interests and goes for it, hides her business interests, which won't work, gives up business which I sure she doesn't want to do, or turns it down again. I suspect she is being pressurised to take this rather than doing it through her own choice. I can understand her; who wants to become a slippery Thai politician?

I hope most Thais can see the PT shenanigans for what they are. Anyone who votes for them serious has given up any ethics and wants more same same Thai corrupt politics rather than the slow but improving politics, which is what is happening at the moment. One could easily criticize Abhisit for his performance, but with so many powerful figures in the shadows manoeuvring for control over various things, being a Thai PM must be a very difficult balancing act (and a dangerous one at that).

Agree with all your points, but I still see strong danger that PT can win the election through massive vote buying, and I suggest they won't hesitate to buy votes on a massive scale. And their scaly mentor still has plenty of funds.

One 'theory' I've heard is that they will go all out on vote buying, win with a landslide to give them enough votes to very quickly change the election laws so that they can't be scrutinized at all for vote buying, and quickly railroad legislation through parliament to overturn t's conviction and overturn the current bans on hundreds of their former party members.

Further, Khun Sodsri (not sure which way to asess her, she seems to be at both ends of gthe story) just saud that the EC cannot make any progress to find / stop a lot of the vote buying.

Nobody with any genuine knowledge believes the election can be won by massive vote buying.Obviously vote buying should be discouraged but it doesn't affect overall outcome.

You really do need to start studying the background of the army in Thai politics.To attempt to equate one rogue general with the whole apparatus of the Thai army involved with repression over many years is just laughable.

You mean it's not the generals at all, it's just the Thai Army apparatus? It would be the same without any generals?

Poorly expressed I agree.No of course its about the generals.

Probably but many have a distaste for the scumbag tabloid newspaper mentality.

The slight puzzle to me is who these muckrakers believe is their audience, indeed why they bother.

Many love the tabloid newspaper mentality too. Especially if it's about someone they already don't like.

Most people that don't like it happening to Yingluck, would love it if happened to Abhisit.

Interesting, at least to me, is that for the past decade or so it is the tabloids who get most stories right and it is the mainstream media who ignores important news altogether as it does not serve their corporate interest.

Good point.Take for example The Sun in the UK, best selling tabloid but fiercely independent and prints stories the corporate dominated mainstream media won't touch.Its owner is some obscure American-Australian called R.Murdoch.

Is she prepared for the public scrutiny of public officials? She is not married, but is a mother of a child the public never sees and is not photographed.

A personal slur from the usual source.

You don't think other people will scrutinize those facts?

Probably but many have a distaste for the scumbag tabloid newspaper mentality.

The slight puzzle to me is who these muckrakers believe is their audience, indeed why they bother.

Is she prepared for the public scrutiny of public officials? She is not married, but is a mother of a child the public never sees and is not photographed.

A personal slur from the usual source.

What I was replying to was YOUR post about military being involved in politics "That a Thai general might be aligned to Democrat and elite interests", I find it strange that you don't see the relevance of Seh Daeng (a serving Thai general) ) being openly aligned with the REDS and Thaksin's interests. It might suggest a bias on your part to not see that you mentioned Thai Army generals aligning with one set of elites while failing to regard the open alignment of a Thai army general with another set of elites

So you are saying that no conclusions can be drawn because there are generals like Seh Daeng (before he was killed) aligned with the reds as well as those aligned with the ruling elite?

You really do need to start studying the background of the army in Thai politics.To attempt to equate one rogue general with the whole apparatus of the Thai army involved with repression over many years is just laughable.

Good to know that.For a moment I thought there was a suggestion that a Thai General might be politically aligned to Democrat and elite interests.Silly of me to have even considered it.

I'm sure you're not the only one thinking that. Every other red shirt supporter will have the same opinion.

Not even the the most brazen reactionary bothers to pretend the top brass is neutral in Thai politics.

That's not even an interesting observation.The interesting observation is whether when push comes to shove which way will the intelligent officers jump, particularly when (how to express it delicately ) the environment has changed.

Here's a clue.There are some very intelligent Egyptian generals.

A Thai Army general officer openly aligned with a particular group (other than the Army itself?), hasn't happened since May 13th 2010 when Sae Daeng was killed. At least that goes for active duty generals, all groups seem to have retired generals in their ranks many of whom still have people that show loyalty to them that are active duty!

elections offered before they started tossing petrol bombs last April!)

I'm not sure why the murder date of Sae Daeng is relevant.He was aligned with the redshirts.Is that your point?

The AFP article refers to Prayuth's Democrat links which is why the matter is being discussed.

If your key point that Thai generals are not political, thank you for providing the forum with a giggle.

Let's hope the comment that the General is a key ally of the Democrat party is not as straightforward as it sounds.His political views are a matter for himself but his confidence he will still be army chief if the Democrats'political opponents legally obtain power might be open to question.

In most countries he would be quickly sacked for aligning himself so openly, if indeed that is what he has done.

The reporter said he "is considered a key ally of the Democrat party", mostly by the red shirts.

That wasn't something that Prayut said ... at least not "so openly".

Good to know that.For a moment I thought there was a suggestion that a Thai General might be politically aligned to Democrat and elite interests.Silly of me to have even considered it.

Thai army chief vows to stay out of election

Thailand's powerful army chief on Tuesday vowed not to meddle in the kingdom's elections and stressed his neutrality following coup rumours and increased street protests this year.[/b]

General Prayut Chan-O-Cha, who is considered a key ally of the ruling Democrat party, said the army would help "steer our country back to democracy" and would abide by the results of a poll due in June or July.

"It is up to the people to decide which party will form a government. Whichever it is I am still the army chief," he told reporters.

The mili

Let's hope the comment that the General is a key ally of the Democrat party is not as straightforward as it sounds.His political views are a matter for himself but his confidence he will still be army chief if the Democrats'political opponents legally obtain power might be open to question.

In most countries he would be quickly sacked for aligning himself so openly, if indeed that is what he has done.

Alluding to alleged allusion?

The OP title should more aptly read

Stage set for devisive election

As long as party list system and non-runoff elections are used,

the playing field will always be jiggered to let ;

• The larger parties install their cronies and operatives with no reference to the public will,

• The little parties retain corrupting control over the larger viable parties,

causing rotating cabinets, so all players get a piece of the pie,

• Make controlling graft infinitely harder because political survival calculation must come into busting graft.

I think you haven't grasped my point.This seems to be a response to another set of problems.

Before the last election a military poll predicted almost the exact outcome that actually occurred. Other polls were way off. No doubt the army are looking at their own polls very carefully right now.

Both sides will also pile in the complaints and fraud cases to every body that can receive them in the hope of dissolutions, yellow and red cards. Lets hope the EC arent also threatened with death again. This will be a totally filthy election filled with lies, money, inuendo, threats and no doubt death as nobody can afford to lose and yet nobody is positioned to win ie no party will in all likelihood get an overall majority

I have to agree this will be a nasty one.

That this election will accurately reflect the freely offered views of the Thai electorate as to the direction for the country, remains a remote but unlikely possibility. It will reflect Thai political classes as they really are. And that is a sad prospect.

In case you're alluding to my comments, nobody seriously would argue that the election "will accurately reflect the freely offered views of the electorate".The point is that it will provide a reasonable guide that's better than the other alternatives.Yes the political classes will dominate but to one extent or the other that's true in every country.

The concern is that the less successful parties will complain the process wasn't fair and I think that must be squarely resisted.So if the PTP lose out as I expect them to they don't have this excuse.Their task therafter will be to be a loyal opposition to the presumably Abhisit headed government.

Increasingly I'm getting the feeling that some of those (a minority I agree) who bang on about "corrupt politicians" are in fact talking in code.They actually don't want democracy at all or a very constrained version of it in which the wishes of the elite or "the powers that be" are always paramount.Democracy is a rough and tumble business and always has had its share of charletans.

Before the last election a military poll predicted almost the exact outcome that actually occurred. Other polls were way off. No doubt the army are looking at their own polls very carefully right now.

Both sides will also pile in the complaints and fraud cases to every body that can receive them in the hope of dissolutions, yellow and red cards. Lets hope the EC arent also threatened with death again. This will be a totally filthy election filled with lies, money, inuendo, threats and no doubt death as nobody can afford to lose and yet nobody is positioned to win ie no party will in all likelihood get an overall majority

All true enough though whether it is any filthier than others remains to be seen.However in the distaste for the process of elections let's be quite clear that for all the associated nonsense surrounding them Thai elections in recent years have provided a reasonable , actually better then reasonable, assessment of the Thai peoples views.I say this in advance in a scenario where the PTP seems to have weakened and the Democrats correspondingly strengthened.Therefore although there is need for vigilance I won't buy it if the Thaksinites complain afterwards the process was not fair.Elections always provide the ruling party with some advantages and yes there has been some clever steps taken by the government.So what? That's politics.

Correspondingly if the PTP against the odds does better than expected the Democrats should accept it (as should the military)

You just parrot the tired rhetoric of military controlled banana republics.They were swept away elsewhere and eventually will be in Thailand.

Had Thaksin had his way, he would have swept them aside here (to your great satisfaction) and would that have led to a greater, fairer and stronger democracy in the end? You clearly think so. Anyone who doesn't, you promptly label.

Actually what you say doesn't make much sense.There's no real evidence that Thaksin would have sought to diminish the military's position.He would rather have sought to increase his control over it, and there's lots of evidence to support that including the promotion of his allies and relatives.The challenge in Thailand is to clip the wings of the military so that it cannot be exploited politically by powerful interests, whether Thaksin or the current oligarchy.This is separate of course from the need to cut away at the military's greed, corruption, lack of accountability and cruelty.The appalling generals who run the military claim they are motivated by love of country.This is patently a lie.They are motivated by business interests, greed and support for reaction.

Some of their disgusting behaviour would be bearable if they were at least competent, but this is hardly ever the case whether in the South or elsewhere.

The military is out of control in Thailand.

Actually the military is very well controlled in Thailand, it's just that it is not controlled by corrupt politicians. Perhaps the day when politicians actually start acting responsibly and on behalf of their fellow countrymen who voted them in, and not just for themselves, their mates and their family, the military might take a step back and allow democracy to freely function without interference.

Until then, their interference will be by many well informed people, not only accepted, but applauded, as the military is all that stands in Thailand between politicians and the totalitarian state so many of them hunger.

You just parrot the tired rhetoric of military controlled banana republics.They were swept away elsewhere and eventually will be in Thailand.

Tombkk is right. If you are determined to put in a moderate amount of hard work and time, it can be easily done without a lawyer if you are familiar with written and spoken thai.

But what Tombkk actually said was:

"The lawyer can't take any time off your schedule, as all they can do is tell you which documents are needed, and it is you who has to provide them."

You are saying the opposite, that a lawyer can save you hard work and time.

Anyway we are all I think saying that it is perfectly possible to do it oneself.

Blaming the military is like blaming the judiciary. They are simply an unelected part of Thai government that must be viewed in context. You may agree with their agenda or disagree, but they aren't going anywhere, and they aren't trying to be all powerful. Stay out of their sandbox, and they stay out of yours.

The military influence is tolerable. There are checks and balances against them.

Many many well informed people would completely disagree with you.The military is out of control in Thailand.They don't take orders from anyone (not a criticism one could levy against the judiciary)

What are these checks and balances you speak of anyway?