Political parties come back to life as four-year freeze on activities ends

[webfact]

Political parties come back to life as four-year freeze on activities ends

By JINTANA PANYAARVUDH 
THE NATION 

 

 

VETERAN politicians appear to be increasingly excited now that they are able to resume official contact with their supporters nationwide after almost four years of the so-called “political freeze”.
 

Life began returning to normal yesterday as longstanding political parties were allowed by the junta to update their party membership roles.

 

The parties had been forced to refrain from contacting their members since the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) issued its order banning political activities shortly after the coup in May 2014.

 

According to the NCPO No 53/2560 issued last December, existing political parties must ensure members confirm their party memberships between yesterday and April 30. Members who do not confirm their places during that short window will lose their status as party members. 

 

The day was indeed eventful. Yesterday, the Democrat Party began the membership reaffirmation process at its headquarters with hundreds of the party’s former MPs and supporters flocking to outdoor tents stationed in the party office’s parking lot.

 

 

The day began with party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva reaffirming his membership via the mobile application D-Connect and paying a Bt2,000 lifetime party fee. Other members can pay as little as Bt100 to maintain their membership on an annual basis.

 

At least 556 people paid for lifetime fees while another 752 people paid the annual amount, reaching Abhisit’s goal of collecting at least Bt1-million in seed funding on the first day.

 

The country’s oldest party, which has about 2.5 million members according to the roles late last year, invited members to confirm their membership by showing up with required documents in hand at more than 300 party offices across the country, including at the party headquarters in Bangkok. 

 

In remote areas and for elderly supporters, the party will send staff to visit members and collect the necessary documents, Democrat deputy leader Ongart Klampaiboon said. 

 

The Election Commission (EC) requires confirmations to include a copy of members’ personal IDs and household registrations, along with a letter of confirmations with signatures on three copies and receipts for the membership fees. 

 

“The process is complicated, especially with the EC requiring all the documents be in a paper format. I wonder if we will have to carry a photocopying machine while we are visiting members? We are living in Thailand 4.0, aren’t we?” Ongart asked rhetorically, referring to the government’s initiative promoting technology in the economy.

 

 

Logistical issues

 

For its part, Pheu Thai Party is inviting former MPs and members to appear at its headquarters on Wednesday, coinciding with the party’s tradition of early celebrating the Thai New Year on that day. Members will pour water over the hands of senior figures and ask for a blessing, said Phumtham Wechayachai, acting secretary-general of Pheu Thai.

 

Phumtham Wechayachai

 

“It should not be regarded as a political gathering, which is still banned by the junta,” he said. 

 

Pheu Thai has about 120,000 current members, with Phumtham voicing concern that parties would lose a large portion of their membership given the short period of time allowed for membership confirmation. 

 

Bhum Jai Thai Party’s merit-making ceremony yesterday was held to bless its 10th anniversary as well as provide an opportunity for former MPs and members to reaffirm their status. The party currently has about 150,000 members nationwide.

 

Big parties’ call for members to confirm their status at party offices will not be expensive, but for a smaller party like Chart Thai Pattana, the cost of the operation will be higher. 

 

Bhum Jai Tai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul (left) receives a bouquet from Chart Thai Pattana Party adviser Varawut Silpa-archa (right) yesterday

 

With about 25,000 current members, Chart Thai Pattana has chosen to have its volunteers canvass door to door at targeted members’ residences in their main area of support, asking them to fill in a letter of confirmation, including paying the Bt100 fee, party adviser Varawut Silpa-archa said.

 

That approach will be used to target members in Suphan Buri, the party’s stronghold, where Varawut said he expected to get confirmation from all 4,000 members in the province. 

 

For members in other areas, Varawut said Chart Thai Pattana would send letters by the mail, incurring high postal expenses. 

 

The party has not figured out how members receiving the letter will pay the membership fee. The party will also be responsible for high costs incurred in sending receipts or other evidence of payments, Varawut added. The approach could cost the party Bt500,000 in total, he added.

 

“Simply speaking, from the Bt100 fee, we may get only Bt5 to Bt20 after deducting the operational costs,” he said. 

 

The burden remains to convince members to pay the Bt100 fee as well as institute a workable mechanism for paying it, Varawut said, adding that especially for people living in provinces, Bt100 would be a considerable expense.

 

Such methods use new technology to transfer money on the Internet or mobile banking, which could be a barrier for some party supporters.

Varawut said he was concerned that most of his party’s supporters lived in the provinces and would find it too inconvenient to go to banks or lacked smartphones to transfer money via PromptPay. 

 

The Democrat Party recently launched a new mobile phone application that allows existing members to confirm their membership electronically, including transferring the membership fees through banks. However, the EC has yet to allow the use of the app. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30342231

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-04-02

[Samui Bodoh]

5 minutes ago, webfact said:

The country’s oldest party, which has about 2.5 million members according to the roles late last year, invited members to confirm their membership by showing up with required documents in hand at more than 300 party offices across the country, including at the party headquarters in Bangkok. 

 

In remote areas and for elderly supporters, the party will send staff to visit members and collect the necessary documents, Democrat deputy leader Ongart Klampaiboon said. 

"...More than 300 party offices across the country..."

 

Who pays for this? Who pays for the Democrat party?

 

I have asked the question on this Forum numerous times and never received a good answer;

 

Who pays for the costs of running the party?

Who pays for the rent at all these offices?

Who pays for travel expenses of all the members/MPs?

Who pays for party staff? They seem to have a lot of salaries on the payroll.

Who pays for the rallies?

Who pays for the vote-buying (Yes, the Dems pay for votes)

Who pays for all the transportation mentioned?

Who pays for all this?

 

In the past, MPs have donated 10% of their salary to party costs which is merely a gesture. I think it is both a nice gesture and a good gesture, but it doesn't cover much. The idea that this has covered costs for the party is ludicrous.

 

Who are the secret financiers of the Dem Party? And what do they get for their money?

 

People should know this...

 

[halloween]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...More than 300 party offices across the country..."

 

Who pays for this? Who pays for the Democrat party?

 

I have asked the question on this Forum numerous times and never received a good answer;

 

Who pays for the costs of running the party?

Who pays for the rent at all these offices?

Who pays for travel expenses of all the members/MPs?

Who pays for party staff? They seem to have a lot of salaries on the payroll.

Who pays for the rallies?

Who pays for the vote-buying (Yes, the Dems pay for votes)

Who pays for all the transportation mentioned?

Who pays for all this?

 

In the past, MPs have donated 10% of their salary to party costs which is merely a gesture. I think it is both a nice gesture and a good gesture, but it doesn't cover much. The idea that this has covered costs for the party is ludicrous.

 

Who are the secret financiers of the Dem Party? And what do they get for their money?

 

People should know this...

 

The same questions might be asked about PTP, with a few added, such as

Who pays their MPs a second salary (aka bribe), illegal in most democracies?

Who pays for their propaganda machine and private militia, the UDD?

Who gets access to cabinet meetings, and is allowed to set policy?

Who gets a proposed amnesty for their multiple past crimes?

 

They aren't often asked because the people DO know the answers.

 

BTW the PTP version of that "nice gesture" requires 2 hands, the left hand out palm upwards,  the right hand clenched at shoulder height with one extended middle digit.

Edited April 1, 2018 by halloween

[Wang Lalker]

cant decide if they look like snakes or sharks

[coulson]

[grumbleweed]

1 hour ago, Wang Lalker said:

cant decide if they look like snakes or sharks

What a callous comparison.

On behalf of the more friendly, trustworthy and lovable snakes and sharks. I protest the association. 

Such creatures would only rip you to bits or inflict you with a deadly poison. Those pictured would do much worse

 

[Denim]

Life began returning to normal yesterday as longstanding political parties were allowed by the junta to update their party membership roles.

 

Allowed nothing. They have been forced to do this.

[Eric Loh]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...More than 300 party offices across the country..."

 

Who pays for this? Who pays for the Democrat party?

 

I have asked the question on this Forum numerous times and never received a good answer;

 

Who pays for the costs of running the party?

Who pays for the rent at all these offices?

Who pays for travel expenses of all the members/MPs?

Who pays for party staff? They seem to have a lot of salaries on the payroll.

Who pays for the rallies?

Who pays for the vote-buying (Yes, the Dems pay for votes)

Who pays for all the transportation mentioned?

Who pays for all this?

 

In the past, MPs have donated 10% of their salary to party costs which is merely a gesture. I think it is both a nice gesture and a good gesture, but it doesn't cover much. The idea that this has covered costs for the party is ludicrous.

 

Who are the secret financiers of the Dem Party? And what do they get for their money?

 

People should know this...

 

It is a well know fact that Suthep is one of the main financier which explain his dominating influence on party policies in the last decade. With him leaving the party, I hope the Dem Party will steer back to their democratic values and get back to their old anti-military position.  

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

They aren't often asked because the people DO know the answers.

They know enough to keep voting them back. 

[halloween]

17 minutes ago, Denim said:

Life began returning to normal yesterday as longstanding political parties were allowed by the junta to update their party membership roles.

 

Allowed nothing. They have been forced to do this.

If your memory stretches back to the April 2006 election you would understand why.

[Samui Bodoh]

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

It is a well know fact that Suthep is one of the main financier which explain his dominating influence on party policies in the last decade. With him leaving the party, I hope the Dem Party will steer back to their democratic values and get back to their old anti-military position.  

Thanks for that, but my question was more rhetorical; I assume that people know that Suthep (The Lizard King!) is one of the biggest money men behind the Dems. How else does he stay out of jail?

 

What I am curious about is the other swamp creatures who might crawl out of the murky mire...

 

Any ideas?

 

[Lupatria]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Political parties come back to life as four-year freeze on activities ends

I think this comes closer to the truth:

Nurtured Political parties come back to pettiness after four years of nonexistence.

[Eric Loh]

15 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Thanks for that, but my question was more rhetorical; I assume that people know that Suthep (The Lizard King!) is one of the biggest money men behind the Dems. How else does he stay out of jail?

 

What I am curious about is the other swamp creatures who might crawl out of the murky mire...

 

Any ideas?

 

The Political Party organic act requires full accountability of party funding donations. Should be accessible as an open document if anyone wishes to check. One thing for certain, Thaksin is not a financier as it is illegal by the Act to have someone convicted as a donor. Not that he can't finance indirectly.  

[Anak Nakal]

The Dems 2.5 million.

How many are goats and chickens? 

 

[candide]

22 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Thanks for that, but my question was more rhetorical; I assume that people know that Suthep (The Lizard King!) is one of the biggest money men behind the Dems. How else does he stay out of jail?

 

What I am curious about is the other swamp creatures who might crawl out of the murky mire...

 

Any ideas?

 

Then comes the question of who finances Suthep?

Anyway, through Suthep or directly, there must be some money flowing in.

Thaksin is a small player in the list of Thailand's big fortunes, and is supposedly able to finance one of the two main parties. What about the others? I don't know of any country in which the big economic powers are not trying to control politics. In the land of scams, would they stay away from it? 

[Samui Bodoh]

22 minutes ago, candide said:

Then comes the question of who finances Suthep?

Anyway, through Suthep or directly, there must be some money flowing in.

Thaksin is a small player in the list of Thailand's big fortunes, and is supposedly able to finance one of the two main parties. What about the others? I don't know of any country in which the big economic powers are not trying to control politics. In the land of scams, would they stay away from it? 

C'est bien, Monsieur! I have often wondered the same thing.

 

While I believe that money certainly does play a role in politics, it doesn't help much if you are trying to sell something that smells bad (like the Dems and/or Abhisit). 

 

That said, I always wondered why there wasn't much more money in Thai politics; there easily could have been more rallies, more big name stars, more handouts, more votes bought at a higher rate, more freebies, more...whatever on the part of the people who didn't like Thaksin, but they didn't really do it. Is it possible that they realized that it was a losing proposition? I can see a businessman thinking that "I'll put some cash in, but until I see results I will limit my exposure.." or thoughts to that effect.

 

The simple fact is that there is MUCH more money against the 'red' side than there is for it, but it isn't attempted. 

 

Any thoughts? Do they know it would be wasted?

 

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[candide]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

C'est bien, Monsieur! I have often wondered the same thing.

 

While I believe that money certainly does play a role in politics, it doesn't help much if you are trying to sell something that smells bad (like the Dems and/or Abhisit). 

 

That said, I always wondered why there wasn't much more money in Thai politics; there easily could have been more rallies, more big name stars, more handouts, more votes bought at a higher rate, more freebies, more...whatever on the part of the people who didn't like Thaksin, but they didn't really do it. Is it possible that they realized that it was a losing proposition? I can see a businessman thinking that "I'll put some cash in, but until I see results I will limit my exposure.." or thoughts to that effect.

 

The simple fact is that there is MUCH more money against the 'red' side than there is for it, but it isn't attempted. 

 

Any thoughts? Do they know it would be wasted?

 

 

That's quite an interesting and relevant remark.

 

One can only formulate assumptions. If they are rational, they should invest more where the return on investment is higher and more predictable. It may well be that it is better to invest in the non-elected components of the political system than in the elected ones. The non-elected part of the system is wider and more powerfull (it includes the army, the judiciary and independent organisations, the protest-makers, the high-level bureaucrats, not to mention another component). It is also more stable, as it does not depend on changes in voters' preferences, so the return on investment would be more predictable.

[Samui Bodoh]

37 minutes ago, candide said:

That's quite an interesting and relevant remark.

 

One can only formulate assumptions. If they are rational, they should invest more where the return on investment is higher and more predictable. It may well be that it is better to invest in the non-elected components of the political system than in the elected ones. The non-elected part of the system is wider and more powerfull (it includes the army, the judiciary and independent organisations, the protest-makers, the high-level bureaucrats, not to mention another component). It is also more stable, as it does not depend on changes in voters' preferences, so the return on investment would be more predictable.

"Great minds think alike... but fools seldom differ..."

 

I have wondered the same thing; rich people usually have the 'businessman' gene which focus' on Return on Investment (RoI). The stability of the 'appointed' must be seen as quite attractive in terms of a conservative investment, far more so than a fickle politician. Assuming that is the case, it is worth a thought or two on how to enhance the direct role of the elected over the appointed... Hmm... 

 

I wonder why the proverbial (and actual) power of the purse hasn't evolved the right of appointment to a larger extent? There is an obvious reason, but there should have been, in the course of normal development, a slow but steady shift in that direction; if you control the budget, you have influence and people are policy. I wonder if in past governments there was a sense of what might develop and so that particular power was guarded jealously? Or did it happen by chance in a society/culture that wasn't colonized and so did not have certain principles/institutions forced on them? Or just a case of T.I.T?

 

The rain just started; time to give this more thought...

 

 

[holy cow cm]

Who cares. All is stacked in the Junta Big P and sidekick P's favor. Nothing changes.