Pheu Thai’s search for a leader

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Pheu Thai’s search for a leader

By The Nation

 

Quest for a party chief stumbles amid Sudarat uproar, and is tied to de facto patriarch

The biggest question involving Pheu Thai and the next general election may not be who will lead the biggest, yet trouble-plagued, party next, but how much support it will get from Thaksin Shinawatra. Recent political setbacks have made party members as well as political analysts wonder if his commitment to the party will remain as strong as before, which would have major repercussions either way.

 

The Thaksin factor will also determine who leads the party into the election, which the military government said could take place in November next year. Sudarat Keyuraphan has been fast off the block as a leading candidate, but her campaign on the back of a six-wheel truck for public involvement in honour of His Majesty the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej has backfired badly and she has had to tearfully deny being an opportunist.

 

Other candidates include Chaturon Chaisaeng, who can be projected as a human rights fighter, legal ace Bhokin Bhalakula, another legal expert Phonthep Thepkanjana, former justice minister Chaikasem Nitisiri and Monthathip Kovitcharoenkul, a businesswoman formerly known as Yaowaman Shinawatra. Monthathip has recently ruled out entering politics, but many people said politics had a funny way of engaging people proclaiming no interest in it.

 

The “leadership” situation, according to Pheu Thai insiders, is “unclear” at best, and what has happened to Sudarat will lead to greater caution among everybody concerned. It is agreed, though, that the new leader will reflect what Thaksin wants. For example, Sudarat’s selection would send a more “reconciliatory” message than some other candidates, while a leader with strong connections to the Shinawatras would signal continued belligerence.

 

It will be more than a year before the first election since the 2014 coup is held, giving the who’s who in Pheu Thai plenty of time for soul-searching. Many people, however, are asking whether anyone outside the Shinawatra circle is having any say. The party does not have a natural or democratic leadership transition structure, largely because it is virtually monopolised by the Shinawatras.

 

To Pheu Thai, the Shinawatras have been both a blessing and a liability. In late 2013, the party looked set to comfortably hold on to power in the years to come until the Amnesty Bill fiasco changed everything. Now, party members and the Shinawatras themselves will have to weigh that blessing against the apparent liability.

 

Pheu Thai has always deemed the middle-class uprising against it as a Democrat conspiracy. That may be as wrong as the Democrats’ assumption that Thaksin’s political party only bought its way to power. Mass protests in Bangkok were by no means a show of support for the Democrats, who were always snubbed by city voters themselves, but a genuine demonstration of discontent with how Pheu Thai implemented its policies and exercised its mandate.

 

In other words, while the Democrat Party will have to reconsider its rural policies, Pheu Thai must review, with a truly open mind, what has happened in Bangkok, which had rejected a Pheu Thai gubernatorial candidate in favour of a much-maligned incumbent city governor just before the coup. 

 

Unless Pheu Thai realises exactly why Bangkokians rallied against it, the party may face a very long, rough road ahead.

 

Pheu Thai can come back to power, although it might not be the kind of “power” it was looking for. With a new election looming, Pheu Thai has many key questions to ponder and one of them is how it would enter the race – for the nation’s and its own sake.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30329897

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-10-23

[Samui Bodoh]

19 minutes ago, webfact said:

Pheu Thai can come back to power, although it might not be the kind of “power” it was looking for. With a new election looming, Pheu Thai has many key questions to ponder and one of them is how it would enter the race – for the nation’s and its own sake.

While the selection of the leader will be a huge issue in Thailand's identity-based politics, I would argue that it is a secondary issue.

 

To me, the more valid question is whether or not PT should seek to form a government or not. And I say that it should not.

 

The next government will not be able to accomplish very much due to the provisions in the new constitution, especially with all the appointed Senators. Further, the next government is going to have to deal with the fallout of the military's spending spree. Finally, this 'new' system will inevitably have flaws (which will become apparent, they always do) and it would be better to allow others to work them out. If the PT were to do it, they would be handled in the most disadvantageous way possible to them.

 

The PT should run on an explicit promise to not form a government, but rather to be the Opposition. They should use that opposition to decry endlessly the flaws in the new system (they ARE there), the illegitimacy of the appointed Senators, the lack of transparency of what the military has done, especially with government money, and decry the collaborators.

 

The "rope-a-dope" approach would allow it to rebuild its base, create some new policies, and all around get its house in order. And sit on the sidelines criticizing the hell out of what comes next by the military.

 

Just a thought...

[Khun Han]

20 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

While the selection of the leader will be a huge issue in Thailand's identity-based politics, I would argue that it is a secondary issue.

 

To me, the more valid question is whether or not PT should seek to form a government or not. And I say that it should not.

 

The next government will not be able to accomplish very much due to the provisions in the new constitution, especially with all the appointed Senators. Further, the next government is going to have to deal with the fallout of the military's spending spree. Finally, this 'new' system will inevitably have flaws (which will become apparent, they always do) and it would be better to allow others to work them out. If the PT were to do it, they would be handled in the most disadvantageous way possible to them.

 

The PT should run on an explicit promise to not form a government, but rather to be the Opposition. They should use that opposition to decry endlessly the flaws in the new system (they ARE there), the illegitimacy of the appointed Senators, the lack of transparency of what the military has done, especially with government money, and decry the collaborators.

 

The "rope-a-dope" approach would allow it to rebuild its base, create some new policies, and all around get its house in order. And sit on the sidelines criticizing the hell out of what comes next by the military.

 

Just a thought...

 

Oh look: Father Christmas is buying the Fairy godmother a drink! Uh.....what were you saying?

[Ossy]

I'm convinced poster no.3 must be a mind-reader, its views mirroring mine so closely. As a strong yet respected voice, in opposition to the elected government - will they be labelled 'The Democrats', I wonder - I agree that this would be far better for PT than attempting - and probably failing - to govern, within the frenzied political climate that PT's last 3 years in office and, by election-time, five-and-a-half years of the junta juggernaut have created. I take the view that 'the others' - the elite or establishment backed Democratic party - having made their new constitutional bed, should be made to lie in it and to sort out a mess , largely of their own making . . . a monumental task for any government.

 

There will be so many difficulties to be handled by the new govt. that opportunity for a PT opposition to voice constructive, rather than merely controversial, criticism will be many and meaty. And, the best thing about such a scenario is that pretty well everything will need to be seen to done for the betterment of the country and with cross-party support on the many issues that will directly affect Thai people's lives. There might even be transparency in Thai politics . . . possibly for the first time since the political reforms of 1932 opened the door to government for the people, by the people. Or is that going to far?

Edited October 23, 2017 by Ossy
omission

[klauskunkel]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Pheu Thai has many key questions to ponder and one of them is how it would enter the race – for the nation’s and its own sake.

None of the parties needed to ponder such a moral dilemma for more than a second: publicly, it's always for the sake of the nation - privately, screw the nation

[yellowboat]

Choose to win.  The transportation secretary that turned down one of many panel seats the junta offered would be good.  He has a stamp of approval from both sides.  The so called Democrats are still being lead by somebody who seems to have only a casual relationship with his own voice. 

[Eric Loh]

Thaksin always surprise many with his last minute choice. Happened with Samak and Yingluck. Not much built up for both and caught the opposition by surprise. Think will be same and Sudarat may just be the decoy and distraction. 

 

With respect to Samui Boduh, I think the PTP should go all out and win the election with a majority or with coalition. I think the establishment and the military are fragmented and vulnerable and the highly skewed constitution can be re-written. When that happen, the military will be too weak to stage another coup. This time the peasants will not be passive. 

[seajae]

They need to remove thaksin for a start and change their name so that all association with him is removed. Didnt they make rules so that party members or leaders had to live in Thailand and not have criminal charges, would seem the further away the party gets the better for them. Trouble is that will remove all the financial benefits he bestows upon the ptp and as they have shown that is what drives them, the people are secondary to their own financial well being and in many cases only vote for them due to corrupt payments through one form or another

[Ossy]

1 hour ago, yellowboat said:

Choose to win.  The transportation secretary that turned down one of many panel seats the junta offered would be good.  He has a stamp of approval from both sides.  The so called Democrats are still being lead by somebody who seems to have only a casual relationship with his own voice. 

I'd like to know more about this guy . . . can you oblige? Tried Googling, along quite a few lines  but to no avail.

[Samui Bodoh]

10 minutes ago, seajae said:

They need to remove thaksin for a start and change their name so that all association with him is removed. Didnt they make rules so that party members or leaders had to live in Thailand and not have criminal charges, would seem the further away the party gets the better for them. Trouble is that will remove all the financial benefits he bestows upon the ptp and as they have shown that is what drives them, the people are secondary to their own financial well being and in many cases only vote for them due to corrupt payments through one form or another

I get tired of posts like this about money and the PT; It just impugns everyone with a wide brush while ignoring the fact that some might actually believe in the party.

 

So, if you want to talk about money in politics;

 

Who funds the Democrat party?

 

I am sure someone will come along and say that the Democrat MPs donate 10% of their salary to the party. That's true. It is also a mere token gesture; a good token gesture in my view, but still a token gesture. That would cover the costs of 1-2 low or mid-level staffers.

 

Who pays for Dem office space?

Who pays for Dem advertising?

Who pays for Dem travelling expenses?

Who pays for Dem research?

Who pays for Dem rallies?

Who pays for Dem vote-buying (yes, they do it as much as everyone else)?

Who pays for Dem staffers salaries?

( I could go on, but...)

 

Who funds the Democrat party?

 

And a bonus question; who funded Suthep and his mob?

 

If you want to talk about money and politics in Thailand, please answer the above and then we can talk.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you...

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Who funds the Democrat party?

Suthep was widely known as a big contributor and has much sway in the Dem policies. He probably is still a big financier and still has big influence as seen when ex MPs were allowed to waltz back to the fold of the party and Ahbisit inability to condemn and sideline him. Ahbisit is just a puppet for Suthep. In spite of his Phuket land scams that brought down Chuan’s government, he was still a powerful deputy of Ahbisit. If you talk about criminal Thaksin as the defacto leader of PTP, you can say the same for Suthep and the Dem. Only difference is that Suthep’s laundry list of corruptions have been protected and delayed by his masters.

[Samui Bodoh]

47 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Thaksin always surprise many with his last minute choice. Happened with Samak and Yingluck. Not much built up for both and caught the opposition by surprise. Think will be same and Sudarat may just be the decoy and distraction. 

 

With respect to Samui Boduh, I think the PTP should go all out and win the election with a majority or with coalition. I think the establishment and the military are fragmented and vulnerable and the highly skewed constitution can be re-written. When that happen, the military will be too weak to stage another coup. This time the peasants will not be passive. 

Its an interesting post. I can't say that you are wrong as I have no data, but I do disagree. It comes down to how you read the situation, and I think two (or more) people can look at it and come to different conclusions.

 

I don't really think that the PTP can win a majority under the new constitution; it was designed expressly to avoid that. And, in my view, I don't see a coalition partner who would go all in with them. To govern in coalition, yes. To fight to change the constitution to something more reasonable, no.

 

Even if there were a majority by the PTP, the process of altering the constitution is very difficult, and the process is tilted in such a way that I don't think it could be simply amended without the consent of the PTB. Alternatively, it could just be chucked out as so many previous one have been, but that seems to be the prerogative of the military. If the PTP tried to rip up the constitution as the military has done so often, it would be civil war.

 

I think the only way to change the constitution is from within when it has been demonstrated that it does not work very well; once you open it for one reason, then you can alter a lot of different things. And I don't think Thailand is at that point yet; the system has to be shown to not work first. 

 

Which brings me to the reason for going into opposition. Assuming an election is held next year (yes, I know...), the new government is going to have to figure out a lot of new details and systems, and I don't believe that will go smoothly. For example; the new government will have to produce a new budget, and that will have to be signed off on by... (I forget the official name, but the military stooges). One of two things will happen; if both the gov't and the watchdog agree, when it changes (as it always does) they are both wrong and the system does not work. If the gov't proposes a budget and the watchdog does NOT agree, the system will fail at one end or the other. Either way, the system fails. The drafters were too clever; they set up a system to make the PTP bear the blame, but if the PTP is not the government, it does not work.

 

In my view, it is better to let the new system fail a bit before challenging for power. It seems to me that the better position politically for the next while is to be the opposition.

 

Time will tell....

 

[Samui Bodoh]

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Suthep was widely known as a big contributor and has much sway in the Dem policies. He probably is still a big financier and still has big influence as seen when ex MPs were allowed to waltz back to the fold of the party and Ahbisit inability to condemn and sideline him. Ahbisit is just a puppet for Suthep. In spite of his Phuket land scams that brought down Chuan’s government, he was still a powerful deputy of Ahbisit. If you talk about criminal Thaksin as the defacto leader of PTP, you can say the same for Suthep and the Dem. Only difference is that Suthep’s laundry list of corruptions have been protected and delayed by his masters.

Thanks.

 

However, I was hoping some of the members who go on and on and on about Thaksin's money would provide an answer.

 

It would be nice just once...

 

[Ossy]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Thaksin always surprise many with his last minute choice. Happened with Samak and Yingluck. Not much built up for both and caught the opposition by surprise. Think will be same and Sudarat may just be the decoy and distraction. 

 

With respect to Samui Boduh, I think the PTP should go all out and win the election with a majority or with coalition. I think the establishment and the military are fragmented and vulnerable and the highly skewed constitution can be re-written. When that happen, the military will be too weak to stage another coup. This time the peasants will not be passive. 

Interesting, but be careful what you wish for. Would 'your' PTP be able to get on with constructive governance, if they got the nod? I fear not, in this so grudge-bearing country that Thailand now is - there'd be someone, somewhere in the House, either red or yellow, who simply couldn't let the new guys get about their business. There'd be an atmosphere you could literally cut with a knife. That's how I see things, anyway.

 

Until or unless a conventionally conceived constitution is written, either a PT or coalition govt, would have no proper voice and the present mockery of a set-up will make re-writing it a non-starter. As for the army being too weak, that big brute of a young feller that got the head of the armed forces (chief of joint staff) job, a couple of months back - General Ratchakrit Kanchanawat, I think - would be quick to respond if political mischief flared again and I reckon he'd do it - coup 13 (successful ones), that is - in a manner that Prayuth couldn't even have dreamt of. He's probably already drafted out his team of able men and how his junta may have to be accepted as the only means of governance possible in this daggers-drawn nation 'of ours'. I really do think we could be getting close to that tipping point, where, if an elected government fails to govern the nation peacefully, beyond Nov. 2018, an army bunch, much more able than the P1/P2 comedy act, will dig in . . . possibly leading to long-term army-control - dictatorship, no less - simply because Thais are too childish, too selfish and too irresponsible to make democratic government feasible. A damning indictment and that's why I say be careful what you wish for, from Nov. '18 on.

 

Edited October 23, 2017 by Ossy
punctuation

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

While the selection of the leader will be a huge issue in Thailand's identity-based politics, I would argue that it is a secondary issue.

 

To me, the more valid question is whether or not PT should seek to form a government or not. And I say that it should not.

 

The next government will not be able to accomplish very much due to the provisions in the new constitution, especially with all the appointed Senators. Further, the next government is going to have to deal with the fallout of the military's spending spree. Finally, this 'new' system will inevitably have flaws (which will become apparent, they always do) and it would be better to allow others to work them out. If the PT were to do it, they would be handled in the most disadvantageous way possible to them.

 

The PT should run on an explicit promise to not form a government, but rather to be the Opposition. They should use that opposition to decry endlessly the flaws in the new system (they ARE there), the illegitimacy of the appointed Senators, the lack of transparency of what the military has done, especially with government money, and decry the collaborators.

 

The "rope-a-dope" approach would allow it to rebuild its base, create some new policies, and all around get its house in order. And sit on the sidelines criticizing the hell out of what comes next by the military.

 

Just a thought...

 

Very nice strategy - but PTP aren't likely to be interested in being the opposition. That won't control the trough or bring the boss backed all nice and whitewashed.

 

"

 Many people, however, are asking whether anyone outside the Shinawatra circle is having any say. The party does not have a natural or democratic leadership transition structure, largely because it is virtually monopolised by the Shinawatras.

To Pheu Thai, the Shinawatras have been both a blessing and a liability. In late 2013, the party looked set to comfortably hold on to power in the years to come until the Amnesty Bill fiasco changed everything. Now, party members and the Shinawatras themselves will have to weigh that blessing against the apparent liability.

Pheu Thai has always deemed the middle-class uprising against it as a Democrat conspiracy. That may be as wrong as the Democrats’ assumption that Thaksin’s political party only bought its way to power. Mass protests in Bangkok were by no means a show of support for the Democrats, who were always snubbed by city voters themselves, but a genuine demonstration of discontent with how Pheu Thai implemented its policies and exercised its mandate."

 

Good points from the article. PTP is a political vehicle for the benefit of the Shiniwattra family. If it wants to progress it needs to change that. But based on the comments from the OP, not likely to happen. 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2017 by Baerboxer

[Baerboxer]

12 minutes ago, Ossy said:

Interesting, but be careful what you wish for. Would 'your' PTP be able to get on with constructive governance, if they got the nod? I fear not, in this so grudge-bearing country that Thailand now is - there'd be someone, somewhere in the House, either red or yellow, who simply couldn't let the new guys get about their business. There'd be an atmosphere you could literally cut with a knife. That's how I see things, anyway.

 

Until or unless a conventionally conceived constitution is written, either a PT or coalition govt, would have no proper voice and the present mockery of a set-up will make re-writing it a non-starter. As for the army being too weak, that big brute of a young feller that got the head of the armed forces (chief of joint staff) job, a couple of months back - General Ratchakrit Kanchanawat, I think - would be quick to respond if political mischief flared again and I reckon he'd do it - coup 13 (successful ones), that is - in a manner that Prayuth couldn't even have dreamt of. He's probably already drafted out his team of able men and how his junta may have to be accepted as the only means of governance possible in this daggers-drawn nation 'of ours'. I really do think we could be getting close to that tipping point, where, if an elected government fails to govern the nation peacefully, beyond Nov. 2018, an army bunch, much more able than the P1/P2 comedy act, will dig in . . . possibly leading to long-term army-control - dictatorship, no less - simply because Thais are too childish, too selfish and too irresponsible to make democratic government feasible. A damning indictment and that's why I say be careful what you wish for, from Nov. '18 on.

 

 

Fair points.

[Samui Bodoh]

13 minutes ago, Ossy said:

Interesting, but be careful what you wish for. Would 'your' PTP be able to get on with constructive governance, if they got the nod? I fear not, in this so grudge-bearing country that Thailand now is - there'd be someone, somewhere in the House, either red or yellow, who simply couldn't let the new guys get about their business. There'd be an atmosphere you could literally cut with a knife. That's how I see things, anyway.

 

Until or unless a conventionally conceived constitution is written, either a PT or coalition govt, would have no proper voice and the present mockery of a set-up will make re-writing it a non-starter. As for the army being too weak, that big brute of a young feller that got the head of the armed forces (chief of joint staff) job, a couple of months back - General Ratchakrit Kanchanawat, I think - would be quick to respond if political mischief flared again and I reckon he'd do it - coup 13 (successful ones), that is - in a manner that Prayuth couldn't even have dreamt of. He's probably already drafted out his team of able men and how his junta may have to be accepted as the only means of governance possible in this daggers-drawn nation 'of ours'. I really do think we could be getting close to that tipping point, where, if an elected government fails to govern the nation peacefully, beyond Nov. 2018, an army bunch, much more able than the P1/P2 comedy act, will dig in . . . possibly leading to long-term army-control - dictatorship, no less - simply because Thais are too childish, too selfish and too irresponsible to make democratic government feasible. A damning indictment and that's why I say be careful what you wish for, from Nov. '18 on.

 

Interesting post, but... 

 

It is a matter of opinion, but I don't accept the proposition that the military can govern long-term. In my view, we are at or near the end of its ability to do so.

 

The military needs to oppress to stay in power, but the more it oppresses, the worse the economy will do, leading to more discontent. I think there is a limit.

 

A "dug in" military, to use your phrase, would lead to a Burma situation, and I think the economic outcry would not let it get to that point. Thais LOVE their cash!

 

Good post, though...

 

[Get Real]

I guess it´s better to dissolve the party and start a new one without backing for the patriarch. 

[Samui Bodoh]

12 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Very nice strategy - but PTP aren't likely to be interested in being the opposition. That won't control the trough or bring the boss backed all nice and whitewashed.

 

"

 Many people, however, are asking whether anyone outside the Shinawatra circle is having any say. The party does not have a natural or democratic leadership transition structure, largely because it is virtually monopolised by the Shinawatras.

To Pheu Thai, the Shinawatras have been both a blessing and a liability. In late 2013, the party looked set to comfortably hold on to power in the years to come until the Amnesty Bill fiasco changed everything. Now, party members and the Shinawatras themselves will have to weigh that blessing against the apparent liability.

Pheu Thai has always deemed the middle-class uprising against it as a Democrat conspiracy. That may be as wrong as the Democrats’ assumption that Thaksin’s political party only bought its way to power. Mass protests in Bangkok were by no means a show of support for the Democrats, who were always snubbed by city voters themselves, but a genuine demonstration of discontent with how Pheu Thai implemented its policies and exercised its mandate."

 

Good points from the article. PTP is a political vehicle for the benefit of the Shiniwattra family. If it wants to progress it needs to change that. But based on the comments from the OP, not likely to happen. 

 

 

Oh, I agree very much that the PTP needs to implement a program of political renewal and get away from a 'pure' Shin system.

 

It'll take some time, but it has to happen or the party is dead.

 

Sometimes you can't/don't write out everything... 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I get tired of posts like this about money and the PT; It just impugns everyone with a wide brush while ignoring the fact that some might actually believe in the party.

 

So, if you want to talk about money in politics;

 

Who funds the Democrat party?

 

I am sure someone will come along and say that the Democrat MPs donate 10% of their salary to the party. That's true. It is also a mere token gesture; a good token gesture in my view, but still a token gesture. That would cover the costs of 1-2 low or mid-level staffers.

 

Who pays for Dem office space?

Who pays for Dem advertising?

Who pays for Dem travelling expenses?

Who pays for Dem research?

Who pays for Dem rallies?

Who pays for Dem vote-buying (yes, they do it as much as everyone else)?

Who pays for Dem staffers salaries?

( I could go on, but...)

 

Who funds the Democrat party?

 

And a bonus question; who funded Suthep and his mob?

 

If you want to talk about money and politics in Thailand, please answer the above and then we can talk.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you...

 

Very nice post - but this OP topic is about PTP.  I get tired of the boundless attempts to divert discussions away from anything that seems to be showing PTP and the family that own and control it in a bad light. But I have to live with it because I don't own this site, and neither do you.

 

PTP are nothing more than the lobby group and political vehicle for the extended Shiniwattra family and it's allies and cronies. When in office they govern first and foremost for the benefit of the owners. 

 

Other parties are the same but have different owners/sponsors. Whether that's the old established BKK elite or regional provincial power families, it's all the same.

 

If you want to discuss them then just start a new topic thread. Otherwise why not keep on topic. Which is the search for a new PTP leader given their lack of democratic structure and that it seems Thaksin will simply appoint who he wants.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Baerboxer

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Oh, I agree very much that the PTP needs to implement a program of political renewal and get away from a 'pure' Shin system.

 

It'll take some time, but it has to happen or the party is dead.

 

Sometimes you can't/don't write out everything... 

 

But it isn't a case of the Shins taking over PTP. They actually own it and MP's are salaried as "employees". There is no democracy or rival control group to the Shins in PTP.

 

Political parties in Thailand, as in some other parts of Asia and the third world are nothing like the Western political organizations.

[Samui Bodoh]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Very nice post - but this OP topic is about PTP.  I get tired of the boundless attempts to divert discussions away from anything that seems to be showing PTP and the family that own and control it in a bad light. But I have to live with it because I don't own this site, and neither do you.

 

PTP are nothing more than the lobby group and political vehicle for the extended Shiniwattra family and it's allies and cronies. When in office they govern first and foremost for the benefit of the owners. 

 

Other parties are the same but have different owners/sponsors. Whether that's the old established BKK elite or regional provincial power families, it's all the same.

 

If you want to discuss them then just start a new topic thread. Otherwise why not keep on topic. Which is the search for a new PTP leader given their lack of democratic structure and that it seems Thaksin will simply appoint who he wants.

Hmm... actually, I did not raise the topic of Shin money. Never do. I simply replied...

[Baerboxer]

8 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Interesting post, but... 

 

It is a matter of opinion, but I don't accept the proposition that the military can govern long-term. In my view, we are at or near the end of its ability to do so.

 

The military needs to oppress to stay in power, but the more it oppresses, the worse the economy will do, leading to more discontent. I think there is a limit.

 

A "dug in" military, to use your phrase, would lead to a Burma situation, and I think the economic outcry would not let it get to that point. Thais LOVE their cash!

 

Good post, though...

 

 

I can't recall any military Junta that has governed an economy well throughout history.

 

Franco was a long term military dictator but the Spanish economy and all aspects of development only improved after his death.

 

The issue is how much control will be exercised through the military to "regulate" elected government. The bigger question is how to get real political parties that have more limited direct 'family" control. And throughout Asia and Africa that's tricky. The parties springing up without "families control" tend to be controlled by religious or ethnic fanatics.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Hmm... actually, I did not raise the topic of Shin money. Never do. I simply replied...

 

No you criticized someone for mentioning Shin money and suggested discussing the Democrats instead - diversion.

 

It's a fact that the Shiniwattras paid PTP MP's a salary in excess of the one paid to sitting MP's. That really might explain why the MP's voted as instructed.

 

Now what arrangements other political parties may or may not have with their "sponsors" regarding payments to MP's I don't know. But it has nothing to do with PTP and who controls it.

[Samui Bodoh]

6 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

But it isn't a case of the Shins taking over PTP. They actually own it and MP's are salaried as "employees". There is no democracy or rival control group to the Shins in PTP.

 

Political parties in Thailand, as in some other parts of Asia and the third world are nothing like the Western political organizations.

I generally agree.

 

Golkar is essentially owned by the Suharto family in Indonesia. The other party is owned by the Soekarno family.

PAP is owned by the Lee family in Singapore.

The previous Democrat cabinet in Thailand was a collection of "son of/daughter of".

The Japanese government(s) are all family based to a large extent.

Every political party in Asia is "family-owned" to a certain extent.

 

What's your point? It is bad in Thailand only? That is politics in Asia. Deal with it.

 

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I generally agree.

 

Golkar is essentially owned by the Suharto family in Indonesia. The other party is owned by the Soekarno family.

PAP is owned by the Lee family in Singapore.

The previous Democrat cabinet in Thailand was a collection of "son of/daughter of".

The Japanese government(s) are all family based to a large extent.

Every political party in Asia is "family-owned" to a certain extent.

 

What's your point? It is bad in Thailand only? That is politics in Asia. Deal with it.

 

 

Indonesia - corrupt and now with growing Islamic pressure and intolerance.

Lee family - Singapore may be successful but it sure ain't democratic! Interesting the link between Thaksin and Lee. Some say Singapore paid big bucks, (maybe dressed up with the purchase of AIS) so that the Thai canal would never be built and threaten Singapore's shipping base.

Japan - not really to the extent of Thailand and Singapore.

 

In fact, you'd be surprised at how many UK politicians come from long standing political family dynasties and how many have of these families changed their names at some point.

 

My point - stop pretending that PTP are some sort of independent political party. They aren't. They are a vehicle for the promotion of one family - period. 

 

You obviously understand that from your comments above. Why try and pretend otherwise?

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Father Fintan Stack said:

Translation: I can't answer that. 

 

Ah, another feeble attempt at diverting the thread away from the topic.

 

You open a new thread, specifically about a the Democrat party and I'll answer. But this is about the Shiniwattra family and their ownership of a political party which they use to try and govern for their benefit.

 

Translation: you don't want to comment on the topic so best try and divert.

 

Or are you suggesting PTP is democratically structured?

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

It is only bad because it is controlled by the Shins. 

 

Yep. This thread is about PTP. Controlled by a corrupt family. But without them it doesn't exist.

 

Are you still trying to pretend it's anything else?

[Ossy]

20 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I can't recall any military Junta that has governed an economy well throughout history.

 

Franco was a long term military dictator but the Spanish economy and all aspects of development only improved after his death.

 

The issue is how much control will be exercised through the military to "regulate" elected government. The bigger question is how to get real political parties that have more limited direct 'family" control. And throughout Asia and Africa that's tricky. The parties springing up without "families control" tend to be controlled by religious or ethnic fanatics.

 

 

So, is there little chance, in your view, of Thai politics freeing itself from the shackles of so-called financial assistance? Good people of either or, rather, any persuasion don't need money to stand for election and, once a party becomes established, an organisation, it will use the 'normal' ways of generating funds. Is ideal-driven, as opposed to cash-driven politics a pipe dream in Thailand?

[Samui Bodoh]

7 minutes ago, Ossy said:

So, is there little chance, in your view, of Thai politics freeing itself from the shackles of so-called financial assistance? Good people of either or, rather, any persuasion don't need money to stand for election and, once a party becomes established, an organisation, it will use the 'normal' ways of generating funds. Is ideal-driven, as opposed to cash-driven politics a pipe dream in Thailand?

No, ideal-driven politics is very possible; it is part of the evolutionary political process.

 

But, the coups need to stop so that a system can develop. When a party is forced to re-build again and again, it is susceptible to outside cash.

 

The secret to Thailand's political development is how to stop the coups... 

 

Any ideas?