jayboy

You talked about "policy content difference". Is returning Thaksin not policy content?

If "ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties", does that mean the that the red shirts are part of the "crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on."

You can't have it both ways.

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.

The Democrats may be the favoured party of the elite, but it is much more than that with some first class key people.It's certainly not organically part of the corrupt feudal military establishment.

Which so neatly encapsulates PTP, and the Red Shirt legions.

Explain further please, otherwise it's just meaningless.

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

Except for a particular policy of "We'll bring Thaksin back and whitewash his criminal charges".

That's not ideology, that's politics.

For ideology in Thailand one has to look ato the crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on.

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

The key word you used is "coalition". The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) even though they "lost badly" because they have a coalition to give them a majority.

The Democrats are in power because they got a majority of MPs to support them. It doesn't matter that they "lost so badly", because the PTP couldn't get the support of the majority.

Labour are the government

Learn to read. It's not that hard. "The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) ".

The Liberals have also been in power nationally without getting the most seats because they have formed a coalition with the Nationals. Labor got the most seats but not a majority, so couldn't form government.

The point being, that's how the Westminster system works. It's not about getting the most seats. It's about getting a majority.

Agreed but there is a further important point which needs consideration, namely that if a party achieves the largest number of seats (but not a majority) that is a factor which smaller parties should take into account when considering forming part of a coalition.Thus in the last British election although the LibDems talked to both major parties, they in the end joined the Conservatives who had won the largest number of seats (but falling short of a majority).The LibDem leadership subsequently confirmed its view that most British people would have seen it as unfair if it had made a pact with Labour.

Now I'm not suggesting that this translates directly into Thai politics but there are some legitimate comparisons.I also accept that if the PTP and Dems come out level pegging (or just a few seats separating them) the minority parties are not really under any moral pressure to do a deal with the majority party.However if the PTP has a very clear lead but not a majority, and the Dems stitch up a partnership again with the smaller parties (which let's admit it would again be based on money politics), there will continue to be that sense of betrayal which has brought Thailand to its current dilemma.

The trouble with the agitated responses from the Thai army's cheerleaders is that there is nothing in the Malayasian Deputy Foreign Ministers comments which is not true, though perhaps in the context of Asean (that feeble and gutless organisation) he was rather bold in saying so.To ask why the Foreign Minister isn't making the statement is like asking why Abhisit isn't making the statement if Suthep has something to say.The Thais did renege on the deal and there's no point in hiding it.The appalling behaviour of the Thai army can't be overlooked, especially as its leadership essentially told Abhisit and little Kasit to get lost on this issue.The world knows the Thai army is primarily responsible for stirring up this border trouble, and why it wants to prolong it.A great shame for Thailand that these wicked bunglers are exposed to the world

In many ways I would actually like to see the Pheu Thai gain control for the next election. As long as there is someone to make sure the square faced demagogue stays truly away from the feeding trough, and the court keeps a tight reign on his machinations, I think a Pheu Thai led coalition government would be ideal. That way, people could finally see such disillusioned sentiments like Pheu Thai is more "democratic" are simply egregious misconceptions with no basis in reality.

In any case, the economy during the next government is almost guaranteed to be a disaster. Whichever side wins is going to be tarred and feathered. Much better that it be Thaksin supporters who have to bear the brunt of this onslaught.

We will see, but a Pheu Thai led government could be a blessing in disguise. Their certain failure to fix what ills Thailand could finally mark the end of Thaksin's reign of terror.

Sadly that won't work because they will so control the message getting back up country that all their malfeasances will go unnoticed, till trials are finished to convict them one at a time. Then the chants of biased judiciary will start up again.

Not biased, directed.

and, of course, it's utterly ridiculous.

Giving anyone at any time carte blanche to say whatever foggy notion enters their mind, with a quip... "read the newspapers" as justification.

The "foggy notion" you refer to - that the the present government's populist measures go far beyond what Thaksin's administration envisaged is hardly something I dreamed up.It has been a topic of discussion for months.

The reason why I said read the newspapers is simply because there has been so much extensive coverage recently.Sutichai Yoon's piece is typical:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/12/23/opinion/Populism-then-and-now-The-pot-calls-the-kettle-bla-30144991.html

As well as being anonymous, the forum is public, not private, and therefore replies given aren't directed individually, but to the sorry group as a whole - they likely include those whom you consider to have shoddy records and those with shining ones alike.

As a by the by, quite why you consider Rubl as of poor record and not worthy of your time and effort i really don't know. Always found him/her myself to be a polite and respectful contributer.

Not sure you're right about the individual/public distinction.Depends on the circumstances - let that pass however.

I have nothing against any member of the forum, and certainly not Rubi.I do however resist somewhat (being in any event of a somewhat indolent disposition despite my Mekon like brain) at being asked - sometimes aggressively - to do research or provide "links" on a subject that would be clear from reading the newspapers.The subject at hand was I think whether the populist measures of the current government were much more costly than those of Thaksin.Do I really have to spoon feed on subjects like these which have had so much recent coverage?

What a peculiar and sensitive chap you are. State something as fact and then when asked for where said information was derived from, become touchy and fussy about just exactly how the request was made, whom it was made from, how you were addressed, did they doff their hat, were they smartly dressed, were they well read, were they educated highly enough...

Out in the real world, "put up or shut up" is how the game is usually played.

It's not the real world.It's an anonymous internet forum for expatriates with time to waste.On the basis of some members record I'm prepared to spend time and effort.With others, again based on their record, I'm not.Simple really.

You didn't take long to whip it out.

As the actress said to the bishop.

You can interpret my motivation not as a policy to provide links any way you like.The matter that puzzles you so much has been discussed in detail in the English language press for months.

Quite recently various military cheerleaders were strangely exercised by my unwillingness to provide a HRW link on the crimes of the Thai army.I had a polite and sensible private request to provide the link, which I immediately did.If I have a genuine and intelligent request to engage (no matter whether the interlocutor holds very different views,) I will including the provision of background documents.In your case I would just advise read the papers.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

The 'hugely greater' cost and the 'astronomical' expenses are your opinion only I assume, or just an 'enormous exaggeration' of quantifying amounts

No it's not my opinion only.It's documented fact.Read the newspapers and no (see my earlier post) I am not going to provide you with "links".

Why wait for the country to be ruined, the ousting of a (too much care) taking PM via a coup and new elections after a year seems to have worked.

Well that's the dilemma neatly phrased.I happen to believe that the coup was a mistake and failure, with disastrous consequences actual and potential for the country, and the "seems to have worked" assumption is premature.If I understand you correctly however the proposition is that the coup was a short cut which spared Thailand further rule by a Thaksin government.I personally question this and suggest that the elite and their supporters must learn to live with messy democracy, even it means living with a popular verdict they don't like.Same goes for the Thakin/PTP/Red side - if the forthcoming election produces another Democrat led government, the Reds must live with it and improve their appeal until they can persuade the Thai people they are an alternative.

As to your most recent post I think you should look more carefully at voting numbers.It's a bit outdated now to think of PTP support as rural Isaan and the North only.There is massive resentment across class and region at the elite stranglehold on politics and the economy, and PTP is the beneficiary of this.And don't forget the welcome the Redshirts got last year from ordinary Bangkokians,not all working class by any means.

It's not a bad article at all and as you say quite balanced. It doesn't actually say much about the coup,nor why the elite was and remains so obsessively hostile to Thaksin.

...

Possibly because that's not the case.

Show me a link immediately then to prove it. Just kidding!!

Subjective matter I agree, but my opinion is that the elite found Thaksin so threatening from so many points of view that compromise is impossible.

And yet there is that puzzling report from Shawn Crispin that a compromise may already being negotiated.Go figure.

In my search I found this (http://www.thailandguru.com/thaksin-shinawatra-military-coup.html) which I think gives quite a balanced view of Thaksin and the coup.

A couple of notable quotes:

Then there were things like the notorious quick auctioning of government property to his wife whereby she was allegedly the only serious bidder, and it was prime location property for an allegedly very low price. This also wantonly violated the law as regards government employees' families' participation in buying auctioned government property. The way he rigged that was so overt yet the anticorruption checks and balances system wasn't dealing with the issue because it had allegedly already been hijacked.

Other countries have had a leader hijack democracy and become essentially a dictatorship, too. The process was the same, the hijacking of the judiciary and checks & balances system. So many leaders have said they will step down at crisis points, but later not actually do so, or at least try their best to circumvent stepping down.

It's not a bad article at all and as you say quite balanced.It doesn't actually say much about the coup,nor why the elite was and remains so obsessively hostile to Thaksin.

Incidentally when future historians write the account of these times, there will certainly be discussion of how the judiciary was hijacked (and I don't think Thaksin will be other than a footnote in that process)

There are many references to "appointing relatives and friends to civil service and independent commissions", but I haven't found any specifics yet.

Also, this

Thus between 2002 and 2003, Thaksin named to key positions of the army more than 35 of his relatives and friends, the majority coming from “class 10”, from which he himself had emerged.

Still investigating.

To save you time googling I accept your premise, namely that in the military Thaksin pushed his own people/relatives.

Incidentally this might be the time that I don't believe it's always necessary to provide "links" in discussing Thai politics.In the first place on many subjects there are no "links" other than commentaries, and these in the nature of things are subjective.In the second place my experience on the forum is that those who angrily demand "links" are those who have just lost an argument, and in some cases seem to experience difficult in a constructive dialogue.In the third place "links" are often seen to be a substitute for hard thought and analysis - which they are not.In the fourth place I quite often just can't be bothered given the unwillingness of some my interlocutors to give and take, or even admit they might have got something wrong.

However if the discussion is intelligent and civilised - preferably with good humour - I will always do my best to provide background information.

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

Maybe they were at greater cost because Thaksin didn't actually fund them ... the 30-baht card being a good example.

It's easy to say "It won't cost you anything", but if it's not funded by someone then the service just falls into a heap.

The Democrats reduced the 30-baht card to nothing (because it cost more to administer than the amount they collected), and funded the hospitals so that they could provide some service to the extra people using the hospitals.

Sorry this doesn't address the point.In the context of populist spending and promises by the present government, the 30 baht card scheme is neither here nor there.Thaksin's expenditure on populist measures is dwarfed by what is now proposed.

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

Thai army: well which one is worse:

Current govt pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services (as you claim), or promoting numerous members of your family into high ranking positions totally ignoring and trampling on established protocols, in many cases shinawatra family members jumping several ranks in one promotion, result expected being army controlled by the shinatwra clan.

So which one is worse?

The abuses of the Thai army of course.The question of promotions, cliques and graduation class solidarity is worth studying.Thaksin was also in hock to the Thai armed forces, though not quite in the trussed bound up way of the present government.

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

Thailand was divided because of Thaksin, not because of the coup.

The problem with voting Thaksin out was that Thaksin had control of the everything. He wanted to rule for 20 years, and he was well on the way to making sure that happened.

In a way your first sentence is correct, namely that Thaksin politicised the rural majority which began the process of ending traditional Thai deference.To that extent Thailand became fully aware of its divisions. But the unity shattered was a false one based on a hierachy of selfishness and greed.I'm not suggesting there was much high minded here on Thaksin's part, just a politician who saw an opportunity.

As to second sentence, I have heard this before from Thai friends.But I have never understood why Thaksin could not have been voted out.Most of the arguments have heard are based on action that he might have taken.Can you be a bit more precise.I'm open to reason on this one.

Thaksin was a legally elected PM taken out by force by the army. Then he was "banned". No offense, but given the circumstances, he is perfectly within his rights to continue campaigning. He didn't give up and he ought to get some credit for that.

He was caretaker PM at the time of his ousting and following that he was found to have broken the law during his time in office. Had he not eroded away all the checks and balances, the judiciary would have brought his time in power to an end long before the coup. The army pushed the restart button. Unfortunate it had to come to that. Thank Thaksin that it did.

You ignore the reality that the cure was worse than the disease, and has brought Thailand to its current divided state.Thaksin could have been voted out by the Thai people: his inadequacies were widely known and this was reflected in electoral performance.Eventually he would have been ousted by the Thai people, not by a bunch of military criminals and their highly placed supporters in the elite..It is the Thai army that needs the reset button pushed but the damage it has done is irreparable.

[quote name='jdinasia' timestamp='1304690606' post='4405618

1) I am neither agitated

2) nor uncomfortable

Please do not characterize the person responding to your posts. You completely skip over the untruth in your post that I responded to -- "there is no evidence" and "I had seen no evidence" are not the same thing.

If you cannot follow thought processes of other posters it would seem appropriate to ask direct questions about them OR not respond .. your response was simply baiting.

The report citing a single source that cannot be verified and without a disclaimer gives the single source weight it does not merit. It shouldn't have been included.

I think the position is fairly clear to most intelligent people.

If I cannot follow someone's thought processes it is either means I am a bit thick or alternatively ....well no need to spell it out.

Further discussion on this aspect would be superfluously redundant AKA bickering.

I take it that's your way of conceding defeat, having had your position demolished by the HRW report.

Incidentally you did misread (I am being charitable) my earlier post which you have just truncated so the meaning was obscured.To refresh your memory:

"Sorry that's a lie propagated by the military, nor is there any evidence of public complaints.There are hundreds of unlicensed community radio stations in Thailand but only those sympathetic to the Red shirts were shut down."

In other words the lie was the manafactured excuse to close down stations the military doesn't like.As to the public complaints, I simply said I had seen no evidence.

"There is no evidence" is obviously not the same as "I had seen no evidence". One is an absolute statement of fact. The other is an opinion that many would see as originating out of bias. I am sure that the HRW report can't make someone who blames the military for everything very happy. It nicely does away with any claim of a "massacre" and justly points to the reds. There are some glaringly biased sections in the report where they state they draw a conclusion from single sources etc ... but as I said in another post in response to Pi Sek ... overall THIS report isn't nearly as biased or slanted as some people would wish.

For admissions of losses ... I suggest looking back into other threads like the one about the radio stations being shut down

The HRW report is even handed giving no comfort to extremists from either side, whether from the far left or miltary cheerleaders.The thought processes behind your post are so obscure that it's difficult to respond.I gather however from your agitation that you are uncomfortable with some home truths being addressed.That is what I would have expected.However on a point of detail you are completely wrong namely that while the report quotes a single source it does not draw general conclusions from it.

Next step I suppose is to accuse the HRW of being in the pay of Thaksin!

However, I will try my best to get it this year by having people pester the Ministry on my behalf on a regular basis.

That will work.

I see the same old idiots every time decrying everything good to do with red shirts, even after they win the upcoming election these same people will still be denying it, and then rejoicing when the army stage yet another coup as they don't want the reds running the country, democracy my arse.

The polls are generally showing that it will be a reasonably close race between PTP and Dems with PTP probably getting the most MPs, but not a majority.

That leaves the smaller parties to decide who will form government, with the likely hood, IMO, that the coalitions will stay the same, putting the Dems back in government.

If the PTP get enough support and are able to form government, once again IMO, the military won't step in until the PTP start trying to change laws to whitewash Thaksin's crimes.

If you think democracy is about ignoring crimes that have been committed, up to you.

Where does one begin with this?

First off , I agree with the sensible summary in the first two sentences.

Then it becomes problematic,though are we are in a subjective area.My view is that if the PTP is able to form a government the elite will be looking for a way to overthrow it.There is a track record here which has to be taken seriously,namely the willingness to take action and the contempt for democracy.Within the army there are those who would achieve this through a coup, but I'm guessing that the hotheads will be held in check by wiser counsel given the horrific damage done to the country by the last coup..There's no need to rehearse alternative strategies because there's already a body of evidence what these might be.Let's just say the judicialisation of Thai politics would continue apace.

There are many crimes that have been committed which have not been punished, most notably the criminal military coup where the ringleaders awarded themselves a post facto pardon, the killing of unarmed civilians in Bangkok last year, Tak Bai massacre etc.PTP can't change laws but if hypothetically Thaksin was awarded a legal pardon or partial pardon, it's none of the Thai army's business.It would be better employed investigating and dealing with its own crimes mentioned above.