jayboy

I have no idea who these 'elites' you think are running the country, but suffice to say that the people that matter - the big business families, the military, the senior people of influence - nothing they could offer would be something Thaksin would take based on the decisions taken to date, unless they involve a pardon, forgiveness and returning all his cash.

Since that is not possible in a functioning democracy then Thaksin has a problem. This the driving reason to try to force a way to reject a constitution agreed to by more than 50% of the population, to try to remove a coalition government voted for by the majority and instead to try to get a pardon signed by less than 10% of the population that contradicts practise and rule of law that is supposed to be observed by 100% of the population.

The trouble is that Thaksin and the strong feelings he inspires on all sides so often tends to cloud the picture.The occasional contributions you make are always interesting but I must take issue with you on a few points.Actually on the question of the "elite" it's partly true all discussion is rather unproductive unless terms are defined.Personally I have never believed the elite (your definition is as good as any) had some Machiavellian plan to thwart Thaksin and his followers.What I do believe is that powerful sections of the ruling class have not yet come to terms with the fact that in a constitutional democracy the majority ultimately has substantial political power.In Thailand the court, aristocrats, many Sino-Thai businesses, senior bureaucrats and military officers have controlled the levers of power, wealth and influence for as long as anyone remebers.Nothing too unusual about this but Thailand has not kept up with the spirit of the age.Critically there is an alarming lack of a sense of self preservation -although I think Abhisit understands.To the hardliners it's a zero sum game in which the alternatives are a nonsensical and repressive magical mystery Siam or -in the event of defeat- some wretched Asian version of Chavez's Venezuela.I don't want either of these alternatives nor do I believe do most Thais.

In Thailand matters are additionally complicated by the disdain the urban elite holds for the rural majority, compounded now by fear as the political power of the latter has been unleashed (yes,Thaksin was a critical catalyst).The quasi fascist PAD movement, the stormtroopers for the elite, spoke of the rural majority at their rallies spoke of the rural majority in the most disgusting and racist terms.Oddly enough the language used was very reminiscent of that used by the English and the lowland Scots of the Highlanders in the early nineteenth century.

The last past of you post isn't really worthy of you and the comment on the constitution was particularly absurd.If you wish to be taken seriously (as opposed to mouthing the silliness of fat old Chinese ladies taking tea in the Dusit Thani) I would reflect very hard on that entire last paragraph.

I agree however with Hammered that it's just a game and don't see any prospect of Thaksin actually receiving a pardon.If he was serious he would do it it himself and that means admitting guilt.If the elite had any imagination or motivation other than a bone headed hatred of Thaksin it might conclude there was an interesting opportunity here but of course the Neanderthal tendency will prevail.

You mean they should support this "pardon" despite Thaskin showing absolutely no remorse whatsoever? Or you mean they would stubbornly reject it if he came forward with apologies?

Plus,

I think they should bargain cleverly and hard to establish a middle way between national reconciliation and as far as possible neutralising Thaksin as a future political force.I agree that Thaksin must accept a measure of guilt but not to the insane extent some of his more deranged haters suggest (see message to SRJ below).It probably entails some of his assets.From the elite's point of vieew it would mean grasping the initiative rather than just reacting to events.But as I said earlier I doubt whether they have the political savvy or cunning.

SRJ,

Do your own research.It's not as though you don't have the time.There's plenty of evidence out there to the effect that the government states it is just providing the public with the facts, including a similar comment directly from Abhisit.

In a related development, Jatuporn Promphan, one of the red-shirt leaders, said yesterday that more people had joined the petition drive after it was closed last Friday and that now "some 10 million people" had put their names down.

Wow, the lies some people spout...

Lie big enough and people will believe it - or atleast that the truth is atleast at the 50% mark (giving them with this latest fantasy number added in) a 5 million man count - which is in itself just pure fantasy.

Besides Jatuporn, Thaksin's other favorite liar, Noppadope, has his say...

I think if one is looking at blatant lies in this pardon scenario one would have to include the government's assertion that it isn't trying to obstruct the pardon (which is of course in a long and normally accepted tradition) but simply trying to present the public with the facts.By any standards that is a big fat porkie.

I agree however with Hammered that it's just a game and don't see any prospect of Thaksin actually receiving a pardon.If he was serious he would do it it himself and that means admitting guilt.If the elite had any imagination or motivation other than a bone headed hatred of Thaksin it might conclude there was an interesting opportunity here but of course the Neanderthal tendency will prevail.

As I expected, by way of interim response, no adequate description of Thaksin's alleged lottery charge.The sloppy and confused response above is more or less what I expected.It doesn't even mention the underground lottery which was at the heart of the problem.I suspect the poster hasn't even done his research and believes anti -Thaksin fervour is a substitute for intellectual rigour and a respect for the facts.Well I don't like Thaksin either but I equally don't like lies, propaganda and dishonesty.

Who cares? If Thaksin would be sentenced with just 50% of the charges, that would be enough for the rope. Anyhow, Thaksin is a criminal and this is not going to change, even if he wins that "lottery case", or comes back with a propaganda channel on TV.

He had been sentenced, he skipped bail, and if we look back a couple of years: Who ordered the "no mercy" war against drugs in Thailand, with around 2.500 possibly innocent people killed? Thaksin is dangerous and morally completely degenerated. If some people here in this forum can't see this, they do have my condolences.

As expected, at least on the lottery case, the charges just collapse when subjected to scrutiny.The line is usually, as in this case," ....I don't really understand the charges, can't be bothered or don't have the capacity to do any research...but the man's evil so must be guilty of something."Again the usual response in the absence of understanding or being able to make the case for the thin charges actually brought aginst him is to seek certain proof in Thaksin's drug war activities.But these charges have never been raised aginst him by the Thaksin hating elite possibly for the reasons that are known to every politically aware Thai.

Issuance of two and three-digit lottery tickets by the Government Lottery Bureau.

Damage to state: 37.790 billion baht. +

Care to explain exactly how the state was damaged here? I challenge you or anyone else to produce an articulate argued case.

Imagine this:

1. a nationwide lottery generating tens of billions of baht, with a relative pittance paid out to winners (happened in Thailand)

2. the proceeds from the lottery designated to pay for social needs, schools, etc. (happened in Thailand)

3. a three person troika assigned to oversee the lottery proceeds (happened in Thailand)

4. As it all happened during T's time as PM, guess who got himself appointed head of the 3-person committee? Yes, good guess. It was T himself.

If you connect the dots, you see how easy it was for T (who at that time had total grip on power) could take those tens of billions and spend them as he pleased. Perhaps there was some oversight in the sense that the money had to be spent on gov't projects. Who is someone like T going to spend it on if he can't put the dough into one of his numbered accounts overseas? Simple, he makes splashy payments to the constituencies that most support him. He even said as much publicly. So that's part of the equation why so many Issan residents, and those in C.Mai and the north still support him. They've seen how eager he is to rain money on them. They don't care where the money originated from or whether it was earmarked for other purposes. They see T handing them money, and they think he's the greatest.

Incidentally, I have a sneaking suspicion that T himself reads and may even contribute to this forum. Don't get me wrong, I think that would be capital if he did so - and I fully believe in the open exchange of ideas. I would be v. surprised if some of his closest people don't follow and contribute to T.Visa discussions. In lieu of that, I challenge Mr. T or any of his associates to refute charges of illegally meddling with the lottery proceeds. Up to you, gang.

As I expected, by way of interim response, no adequate description of Thaksin's alleged lottery charge.The sloppy and confused response above is more or less what I expected.It doesn't even mention the underground lottery which was at the heart of the problem.I suspect the poster hasn't even done his research and believes anti -Thaksin fervour is a substitute for intellectual rigour and a respect for the facts.Well I don't like Thaksin either but I equally don't like lies, propaganda and dishonesty.

Issuance of two and three-digit lottery tickets by the Government Lottery Bureau.

Damage to state: 37.790 billion baht. +

Care to explain exactly how the state was damaged here? I challenge you or anyone else to produce an articulate argued case.

Most reasonable observers felt on the lottery charge there was no damage at all, indeed the opposite.Nor was there any evidence of corruption.The offence was essentially one of illegal procedure, though not of course yet proved.I'm not condoning sloppy procedural practice by the way.

Of course if one takes one opinions from the Nation or Bangkok Post in a lazy uncritical way, I suppose it doesn't much matter.But to those who wonder about the list of charges consider this.If an outright lie such as the lottery charge is passed around as fact how unreliable might be the other charges.The reality is that the charges against Thaksin are rather thin.

There will be elections, Ferwert, don't worry about it.

It's not a kind of thing you do on a dare. Unlike you or me, or reds, for that matter, Abhisit has a country to take care of.

Besides, don't you want consitution to be amended first? Reds don't accept the current, "junta", version, right?

Abhisit mentioned another problem - reds do no allow free political campaigning and resort to violence and intimidation of political opponents. That's not an environment conducive to free and fair elections.

Learn to behave yourselves like citizens first.

Yeah, yeah..... all quite sensible.But when all is said and done, after the rigged constitution is fixed and the various coloured factions have promised to behave, Abhisit will have to face the Thai public in an election and for obvious reasons he will like Gordon Brown want to delay this as long as possible.Why? Because they are going to lose.But I'd better back up.At least in the UK the government and the vested interests that back it can't cheat, lie and manipulate.In Thailand however......

PS Bush's coddling of his big business buddies,

and unconscionable quid pro quo to his oil buddies,

trebling the price of oil artificially in the last year in office,

is what has bankrupted the economy and nearly the world.

Yes quite right Bush was the instigator of the current economic crisis!

I don't normally bother reading Animatic not so much because of the content but because the distracting way he posts, a kind of blank verse.But this inane postscript caught my atention.

Interesting that action is demanded against undemocratic Burma while the elected president of Honduras overthrown in a coup is chided when he tries to return home.

Doubt any of this is about democracy really

I thought the Americans have given support to to the overthrown president of Honduras.Obama certainly condemned the coup.

Lip service to democracy and human rights.

Yes, Obama is well accepted, but he is accepted for his image, not for his actions or achievements (of which there are none, btw, internationally). He has yet to walk the talk.

Yes, Clinton was well accepted in Asean, a big hit. She sold them the new US image.

What I am saying is that when it comes to actually doing something that image needs to be backed up by real commitment, and I don't see anything specific from Americans yet. They might come up with something in the future, there's still time, but so far it's nothing.

She'd be happy to see Asean expelling Burma. Is she nuts? That would be a fuc_king revolution, it's just not going to happen no matter what. Clinton expressing this desire publicly just shows she has no clue how these things work here. It's either that or she is playing some very clever game.

Of course if any changes are to happen, they must happen in the mind first. The US got that far. But after that there are two scenarios - it either works or you realise you've been conned. I don't know if it's 50/50 now. The things we've been promised are just too good to be true. As much as I want to see Asean getting tough on Burma, I'm weary it won't work out. It's the US last chance, their credility will be destroyed forever if they don't back up their promises.

OK thanks I understand your position - with which I mostly agree.

That Burma remark of hers was a gaffe, though not I think that serious.She may have thought it (I think it!) but it was inappropriate to say it out loud at ASEAN.

On a different topic altogether isn't Indonesia the elephant in ASEAN's front room? If that country gets it act together - which it looks like doing - it's going to want to punch its weight diplomatically.It just isn't realistic to think Indonesia is always going to accept parameters set by the likes of Brunei, Laos, Cambodia,Singapore and Burma.Vietnam has a heft because of population and history but is politically immature.Malaysia is a permanent balancing act.When you look at it I wouldn't be surprised if Indonesia and Thailand take a stronger leadership role in ASEAN in the future.

Back to Clinton. There's second part of her interview published today. She answered a few questions about China as well.

The way I see her - she simply carries the american torch that was given to her - make all the necessary noises about human rights, Tibet, defence of Taiwan etc but move on trying to cooperate in all the other areas.

In short - pay lip service, bank on Obama's popularity.

Eventually it's going to backfire on the US image abroad, perhaps even worse than Bush' years - at least he was straight about what he wanted.

Don't understand this I'm afraid.Pay lip service to what? What's going to backfire on the US image abroad (which recent polls show have improved enormously)?

I suspect you may have got it the wrong way round.Obama/Clinton championship of human rights and democracy - which are universal values rather than purely American values by the way - are surely going to enhance American influence as the world's only super power.

But as I say I may not have fully understood your point.

October 7 crackdown probe ends

A panel of the National Anti-Corruption Commission has finished questioning witnesses in the police crackdown on People's Alliance for Democracy protesters in front of parliament which left many people killed and injured on October 7 last year, said Commission member Wichai Wiwitsewi on Thursday.

Mr Wichai, who is in charge of the investigation, said his panel will hold a meeting in a few days to go through the investigation report to make sure it is completed. A full report recommending action on the seven people accused of being responsible for the crackdown is expected to be forwarded to the NACC early next month, he added.

The seven accused are former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, former deputy prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, Police Chief Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan, Pol Gen Viroj Paholvej, Pol Lt-Gen Suchart Muankaew, Pol Maj-Gen Likit Klin-uan, and Pol Maj-Gen Ekarat Meepreecha.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/1...down-probe-ends

-- Bangkok Post 2009-07-23

Let's remind ourselves that the PAD mob parked in front of parliament would have been cleared by force (if they refused to move) in any civilised (or for that matter non civilised country).The police action was inefficient and unnecessarily violent but not in itself wrong.The PAD was desparate for bloodshed and the emergence of victims, even if the "victims" - in another case - carrying explosives blew themselves up.

A part quote from an article in todays Nation that is relevant to the EJK,s

Part quote only

The extrajudicial killings carried out systematically against drug traffickers a few years ago claimed the lives of thousands of alleged small-time dealers, but the kingpins have never been brought before the courts. And we forgave those who gave orders. Drugs are horrific, and those who deal in them are bad people - and so goes the mindset that the bad people should be taken out by all and any means, legal or illegal, legitimately or illegitimately. Two wrongs can make it right, so many of us think.

But two wrongs never make it right.

-- The Nation 23-07-09

For the complete article which also comments on other equally important issues that would be considered OT please go to

Ref url :- http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/07/23/opi...on_30108106.php

marshbags

A key point in the article you mention is the pervasive culture of impunity in Thailand, and in the drugs war just as in Sondhi's attempted murder this is very much on topic.

It's unfortunate BBC's Jonathan Head (with a well documented axe to grind against Thailand) ....

It's also unfortunate that some people are either so ignorant or prejudiced that a first class reporter who unusually sets out the multi faceted aspects of the political crisis is described as having " a well documented axe to grind against Thailand."Says more about the poster than JH.

Firstly, noted.

Secondly, for the umpteenth time ++, neither of us dispute Kasit's competency. No need to keep repeating it. However, you have made the comment questioning whether Kasit is respected in the diplomatic community (this is different from competency) and I responded to this. As to the definition of Western Europe, according to the UN there only 9 countries in W. Europe. When I said an Amb. of a major western European country, I meant exactly what I said.

Lastly, your have commented: "What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible." Certainly "innocent until proven guilty" is defensible. It is a fundamental principal of a democracy. You may not believe in democracy, but that does not mean one of its most fundamental principals is not defensible.

My point was that the overseas government view of Kasit has many more aspects than what one ambassador in Bangkok might think. (I'm still not clear whether your source was from the big three or one of the others, never mind).

It's my strong belief in democracy that informs everything I say on this forum.Again rather wearily I must point out that of course Kasit legally is innocent until proven guilty.But my case against him is not a legal one.

I think this exchange has run its course.Thank you for remaining civil and by all means comment further if you want to, but no more from me.

P.S I see Visit has been absolved of insider dealing at GPF.I'm pleased.

Hammered

Don't disagree.My presumption is that these terrorist charges against PAD including Kasit will come to nothing and nobody will be punished.I suppose on Kasit - who I know is a decent man - my irritation is simply the lack of honour among so many Thai politicians, and specifically the denial of Kasit that he's done anything wrong.My ideal would be Lord Carrington who in 1982 after the invasion of the Falklands simply took the blame on the chin and resigned immediately without being pushed.In my heart of hearts I hold Abhisit,Kasit etc to higher standards to the likes of the opposition but to date have been disappointed.

Wow you've nailed your colours to the mast here.I had better explain to you a few facts, firstly that a FM's duties are to relate Thailand's case to the wider world not just the cosy little Bangkok diplomatic community with its tendency to swoon in the presence of Thai upperclass culture.Secondly the fact that you allegedly spoke to an Ambassador of a major Western country (in practice there are only three and I know for a fact one holds a completely different view) who saw no problem does not mean Kasit is "well respected by the diplomatic community".Thirdly, nobody in this dialogue has ever questioned Kasit's competence.Fourthly the coming and going of ministers has very little to do with bilateral agreements.As Plus has been telling us on and off for a long time bureaucrats do the real work anyway.

What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible.He's toast and it's just a question of when he goes.

Firstly, "swoon at the presence of Thai upper class culture"? Obviously one of these guys has pissed you off. Try not to make it personal.

Secondly, we can go round and round as to whether Kasit is respected in the diplomatic community. My understanding is yes (Grand Cordon - Japan, Grand Cross Germany etc.) but you think no. Whatever. I do think it interesting that you have narrowed western Europe down to just three countries. It must have made European history easy for you.

Thirdly - noted.

Fourthly, your comment on bilateral agreements is wrong. Major agreements have to be constantly resubmitted and renegotiated as governments change. It is a major reason why things take so long to be put in place in Thailand. Bureaucrats may do the legwork, but it is the MP's that make the decisions and with the ministerial revolving door, waiting for new ministers to present their views is a constant delay.

Lastly, I am lost as to what you think I am defending. I maintain that Kasit should not resign. Where I come from a person is innocent until proven guilty. What is indefensible about this? Note, I never said anything about whether Kasit would be forced out or not. On this, you must be confusing me with someone else.

Firstly.You misunderstand me.My facetious comment was to reflect the reality that many diplomats and others are seduced by the charm and manners of Thailands's upper class elite.I am to an extent as well.That's why many foreign residents (I'm talking about highly educated successful people, not the hoi polloi) find it difficult to go against the Thai current.

Secondly.For the umpteenth time I don't dispute Kasit was a very competent professional diplomat.A Foreign Minister requires different qualities as I would have thought obvious.As to the definition of Western Europe it was you that mentioned "major" powers.In diplomatic terms there are only three countries that really count.That's just a fact, and to make it rather specific nobody gives a toss what the Belgians, Austrians or Portugese think about Kasit or anything else.To be fair in addition to the major powers, one should probably mention the Scandinavian countries which have had a longstanding special relationship with Thailand.

Thirdly, noted

Fourthly, I'm not sure you're right here (most bilateral agreements aren't contentious in nature, and bureaucrats do the work anyway.) but prepared to concede the point as I don't think it makes any impact on the argument one way or the other.

Lastly again for the umpteenth time my case against Kasit doesn't depend on the current legal charges.I don't understand your point on Kasit being forced out.

You say Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM you can think of? I have no desire to debate this. All I will do is remind you of Surayud. It wasn't that long ago.

I'm sure you don't want to debate this because you don't have much of a case.Surayud was a willing participant in the military grab for power so it's not a very good example.

I thought you were referring to a PM who was not the choice of the people, in which case Surayud would be an excellent example. Since this isn't what you meant, please clarify.

Pressure from upstairs

You say Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM you can think of? I have no desire to debate this. All I will do is remind you of Surayud. It wasn't that long ago.

I'm sure you don't want to debate this because you don't have much of a case.Surayud was a willing participant in the military grab for power so it's not a very good example.

Why did Abhisit ever choose Kasit? I never understood that.

Thirty plus years of experience. Held senior positions and is well known in diplomatic circles AND he was willing to take the job. The bio is not up to date, but helpful.

http://www.ustbc.org/events/kasitbio.html

It is impressive and I guess there arent too many technocrats who want to take the risk of getting involved in the power games these days. However, it still seems like an error politcally.

I had the opportunity to discuss Kasit with an Ambassador to Thailand from a major western European country recently. I asked him whether the accusations against Kasit would negatively impact his ability to do his job with the diplomatic community. He said no way, that Kasit was very well respected by the diplomatic community and the accusations are all politics (and they all understand politics).

He then added that the biggest problem the diplomatic community have with Thailand is getting anything accomplished with a different Foreign Minister every few months.

Hence, with Kasit being fully qualified for this position and well respected by the diplomatic community, forcing him to resign will only negatively impact Thailand. Why make any agreements with Thailand when you will only have to re-do it again a few months later and then again a few months after that. It is a bit of a joke.

Wow you've nailed your colours to the mast here.I had better explain to you a few facts, firstly that a FM's duties are to relate Thailand's case to the wider world not just the cosy little Bangkok diplomatic community with its tendency to swoon in the presence of Thai upperclass culture.Secondly the fact that you allegedly spoke to an Ambassador of a major Western country (in practice there are only three and I know for a fact one holds a completely different view) who saw no problem does not mean Kasit is "well respected by the diplomatic community".Thirdly, nobody in this dialogue has ever questioned Kasit's competence.Fourthly the coming and going of ministers has very little to do with bilateral agreements.As Plus has been telling us on and off for a long time bureaucrats do the real work anyway.

What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible.He's toast and it's just a question of when he goes.

Interesting to note from the New York Times that Hilary Clinton is about to make her first visit to Thailand as Secretary of State.One would have thought that Kasit and his supporters would have trumpeted this around...but no, a deafening silence.Could perhaps the State Department have sent a signal it doesn't want substantive contact with the little fellow? Just a thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/polit...clinton.html?hp

Reneging on a Policy - Kasit made these comments before he was Foreign Minister. He is simply an individual changing his mind. It happens. You have done it.

Abhisit as a free agent - No politician in the world is a free agent.

Lack of Judgment - I have never agreed with Kasit's position on the PAD and I have never said this. Knock yourself out. Show me where I have.

1.Changing his mind.So you apparently believe any politician can just ignore past statements which conflict with current actions.Of course politicians can change their minds but some form of explanation is needed and I don't think Kasit has provided this yet

2.Free agent.I have dealt with this point in another post.It's a question of degree and Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM I can think of.

3.Lack of judgement.So we agree on Kasit's shocking lack of judgement.I don't think I commented on your position one way or another.

Hahaha. Name any politican in any democracy who is a free agent. Lobbyists, corporations, vested interests, unions, mafia, blackmailers, people with money etc all have the ear of various poltiicans in various places around the world including the most adavnced democracies. Polticians worldwide have also shown they are not such an honourable or honest group too There are whole debates going on about the future of democracy and it failings right now, which hopefully will lead to a betterment of it.

It's a question of degree.Even a properly elected leader like Obama is not a free agent.Abhisit is in a totally different category. It's just not realistic to see Abhisit as other than permanently kowtowing to the elite groups that guided his way to power.

The most interesting thing will be what Sondhi says.

Well perhaps.Others may believe the most interesting thing will be whether the investigation will be allowed to pursue the high level backers of the assasination attempt.Don't hold your breath.

Oh wait I almost forgot that blowhard Kasit told the Asia Society in New York that Thaksin was the culprit.To be fair I doubt whether even Kasit believes it now.

The surreal aspect to all this is that most educated Thais have their very clear ideas who is responsible and why.

Do you know how Thaksin came to power?

After failing badly with Palang Tham who were trying to create a party of clean politicians, he bought the whole of Kwam Wang Mai, 80 or 90 MPs, with the exception of one MP. He then bought Chart Pattana, Seri Tham and a few others.

Big money bought those greedy MPs, Chavalit couldn't afford them.

Then Thaksin realised he had enough MPs to gain power, and to his credit was the first to propose policies.

But he was never a democrat.

Once he won the election that was the end of democracy.

He prevented further decentralisation, MPs had no freedom to vote, appointments were based purely on quotas.

Have you ever seen film of a cabinet meeting with Thaksin as chairman?

No one dare oppose the emperor.

All TV programmes questioning the government were removed.

All newspapers that published anti government sentiment had advertising withdrawn, both from government offices and from AIS.

Thaksin realised the votes of the poor in Isaan and the north were enough to keep him in power indefinitely- if only there were no checks and balances.

But there are and he ran away- a man with a lot to hide.

On the whole your portrayal of Thaksin's time in office is fair.However the cure (the criminal coup) was far worse than the disease.Furthermore the elite's hatred of Thaksin was based as much as their fear of vested interests being threatened as any love of democracy.The checks and balances you mention were in many cases as fraudulent as Thaksin.Finally whether you like it or not in a democratic system the North and the North East are going to dominate Thai politics.Get used to it.