New Political Party Ready To Launch

[sriracha john]

Comments all meant to drum up fear. Yes there will be problems if the PPP falls, but they fall by their own hand.

There will also be trouble if PPP are seen to win the election by underhand means with the EC not doing anything about it. That is the hard position the authorites find themselves particularly over the massive VCD dump which has been admitted to by various people at various times. Do nothing and PPP maybe wins helped by the dump, which is by the way totally unfair on all th eother parties playing by the rules. Do something and PPP are disbanded disenfranchising many. There really is no middle ground.

One also wonders how the EC could give a validatiopn of election results as required iof a potential disolution were hanging over a party. It may be that results could not be declared until after the case. Then if a party is disolved does that mean that the runners up are declared winners or that a whole swathe of byelections are required? This is starting to get messy.

Do you think the EC lost any credibility with its exoneration of the CNS over the secret plan to swing the vote away from PPP?

Which is more dangerous- that the PPP gets away with some shenanigans- (or the Dems or any other party for that matter) which, due to absence of proof are not prosecuted- or that a party- could be the Dems- any party- is prosecuted without evidence? (as every advertizer/PR guy knows- the power of association is a lot stronger than appeals to objective reasoning- and just hearing PPP- many hear "criminal').

By making public every allegation against the PPP that crosses their desk- to a press that is only too ready to seize on each of these allegations as further proof of the nefarious nature of the party- is it even plausible to think that enemies of the PPP are going to accept a PPP victory as legitimate?

Or that, should real evidence come to light that warrants serious action taken, the friends of the PPP will accept an EC ruling against the PPP?

As Hammered says- it's lose lose right now- for everybody I fear.

This election i feel will not solve anything. For a start people are now just voting based on Thaksin or coup. The country is still divided and will remain so. Whoeever loses will not accept it. If PPP wins its opponents will see it as cheating and inaction of the EC. If PPP loses they will see it as a rigged ballot. If PPP is disbanded they will se it as unwarranted. If PPP is not disbanded it will be sen as a dodgy deal or weakness by itys opponents. There really is no easy way out of this.

I cant see the EC addressing the issues before it personally. It really is a lot to ask of a small group of people to make decisons that could hand an election to one side or the other bearing in mind these are not normal times in the democratic process.

Very true- and the EC in some circles anyway (my circle) has certainly not done itself any favors either- from the battle with PNet- to one of the commissionaires bragging in a Post interview about his close personal ties to Sarayuth.

Then this morning we get the first concrete conviction for vote buying (a democrat by the by) -but this didn't come from the EC- but the Supreme Court. To the unititiated (like me) this almost conjours up a picture where the EC is only involved if there is suspicion of PPP shenanigans. (I know of course that this particular case occurred and was being investigated long before the current EC took power- but it would be nice if just for appearances sake- the EC was seen through more than platitudes to be genuinely committed to ensuring that ALL parties get a fair shake. Including the PPP. And sometimes my gut feeling- I doubt I'm alone- is that the EC exists for the single purpose of finding fault with the PPP.

They may very well be very honorable people- I have no idea- and to a certain extent I blame the media for seizing on every little complaint that the EC gets across its desk- providing the complaint singles out a party that the media is not supportive of. The EC would do better to give out NO information of allegations till something close to hard evidence is submitted.

Justice must not only be done - but seen to be done- politics is about perceptions- and the perceptions are going to be, after the 23d, very polarized methinks.

I'm afraid it's lose-lose.

It's only been 2 weeks or so since the Samak interview wherein he praised the Election Commission and thought they were honorable men doing honorable work. Now if someone of his ilk doesn't fault the EC.

The Democrat case this morning indeed was 6 years old and pre-dates even the last EC who escaped prison because it was uncomfortable and stressful. The current EC had nothing to do with the case and thus no comment need be made. It was a Court decision.

Has the EC reason to find fault with the PPP? It would certainly appear so. What is so far-fetched about a notion that perhaps, just perhaps, the PPP is the party committing the majority of infractions? Are other parties not above committing improper acts? Of course not. The 2001 Democrat candidate's bribing is a prime example... but it seems that PPP really is the group pushing the envelope. Has there been too much hype over any particular case? That remains to be seen as more evidence is revealed, but on the surface as it stands now, there are several cases that seem to have quite a bit of evidence.

Has the EC made other mistakes? Certainly... but I wouldn't say any more so then other ones and absolutely fewer than the last batch that wound up with criminal convictions and prison time.

At the end of the day, you can add me as well to the Concerned List for post Dec. 23 Thailand.

Edited December 14, 2007 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

Well, at least Abhisit is ready.... and provides the logical reason if his counterpart isn't....

Democrat Leader Calls for Debate with People Power Counterpart

The Democrat leader believes the People Power Party leader's concern over questions on his controversial background could be the main reason he would refuse to join a debate.

Leader of Democrat Party, Abhist Vejjajiva states the country's new leader should have four qualifications including transparency, economic expertise, the intention to develop democracy, and the intention to restore social harmony.

The Democrat leader says he is ready to join the debate held by People's Network for Election in Thailand (PNET) on December 20, but that his People Power Party counterpart, Samak Sundaravej, may refuse the invitation for fear of questions about his flawed background, lack of experience in economy, his relations with previous military rulers, and his aggressive behavior against the country's well-respected figures.

Abhisit states that a debate will provide the people with more information and a vision of the politicians, so they can make an informed decision when selecting the country's leader.

- Thailand Outlook

[Tony Clifton]

I believe ASTV is showing different parties this week, all invited at the Foreign Correspondents Club I believe.

First, I saw part of Prachai's presentation, who resembled a drowning man when answering questions with lengthy answers mostly drifting off onto unrelated matters.

Tonight I missed most of PPP's presentation but Jakaprob Penkair could be heard saying the railway link to the airport was delayed because of the coup ( actually, the contractor could not complete the job on time and did ask for 600 or so more days for completion ) and the PPP is also planning on spending "200, 000 billion baht" ( yes, two hundred thousand billion... ) on some other projects.

Do they actually think that local foreign correspondents are that stupid?

Noticed total lack of professionalism from one of ASTV's cameramen when he zoomed in on a correspondent's note book where you could clearly see what he had written down, could very well be a matter of personal security in this country. Same goes for posting caricatures of ex-PMs on forums I guess.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Tony Clifton

[sriracha john]

Jakaprob Penkair... and the PPP is also planning on spending "200, 000 billion baht" ( yes, two hundred thousand billion... ) on some other projects.

He's been warned previously that tying that headband too tight would have adverse side effects...

[hammered]

Comments all meant to drum up fear. Yes there will be problems if the PPP falls, but they fall by their own hand.

There will also be trouble if PPP are seen to win the election by underhand means with the EC not doing anything about it. That is the hard position the authorites find themselves particularly over the massive VCD dump which has been admitted to by various people at various times. Do nothing and PPP maybe wins helped by the dump, which is by the way totally unfair on all th eother parties playing by the rules. Do something and PPP are disbanded disenfranchising many. There really is no middle ground.

One also wonders how the EC could give a validatiopn of election results as required iof a potential disolution were hanging over a party. It may be that results could not be declared until after the case. Then if a party is disolved does that mean that the runners up are declared winners or that a whole swathe of byelections are required? This is starting to get messy.

Do you think the EC lost any credibility with its exoneration of the CNS over the secret plan to swing the vote away from PPP?

Which is more dangerous- that the PPP gets away with some shenanigans- (or the Dems or any other party for that matter) which, due to absence of proof are not prosecuted- or that a party- could be the Dems- any party- is prosecuted without evidence? (as every advertizer/PR guy knows- the power of association is a lot stronger than appeals to objective reasoning- and just hearing PPP- many hear "criminal').

By making public every allegation against the PPP that crosses their desk- to a press that is only too ready to seize on each of these allegations as further proof of the nefarious nature of the party- is it even plausible to think that enemies of the PPP are going to accept a PPP victory as legitimate?

Or that, should real evidence come to light that warrants serious action taken, the friends of the PPP will accept an EC ruling against the PPP?

As Hammered says- it's lose lose right now- for everybody I fear.

This election i feel will not solve anything. For a start people are now just voting based on Thaksin or coup. The country is still divided and will remain so. Whoeever loses will not accept it. If PPP wins its opponents will see it as cheating and inaction of the EC. If PPP loses they will see it as a rigged ballot. If PPP is disbanded they will se it as unwarranted. If PPP is not disbanded it will be sen as a dodgy deal or weakness by itys opponents. There really is no easy way out of this.

I cant see the EC addressing the issues before it personally. It really is a lot to ask of a small group of people to make decisons that could hand an election to one side or the other bearing in mind these are not normal times in the democratic process.

Very true- and the EC in some circles anyway (my circle) has certainly not done itself any favors either- from the battle with PNet- to one of the commissionaires bragging in a Post interview about his close personal ties to Sarayuth.

Then this morning we get the first concrete conviction for vote buying (a democrat by the by) -but this didn't come from the EC- but the Supreme Court. To the unititiated (like me) this almost conjours up a picture where the EC is only involved if there is suspicion of PPP shenanigans. (I know of course that this particular case occurred and was being investigated long before the current EC took power- but it would be nice if just for appearances sake- the EC was seen through more than platitudes to be genuinely committed to ensuring that ALL parties get a fair shake. Including the PPP. And sometimes my gut feeling- I doubt I'm alone- is that the EC exists for the single purpose of finding fault with the PPP.

They may very well be very honorable people- I have no idea- and to a certain extent I blame the media for seizing on every little complaint that the EC gets across its desk- providing the complaint singles out a party that the media is not supportive of. The EC would do better to give out NO information of allegations till something close to hard evidence is submitted.

Justice must not only be done - but seen to be done- politics is about perceptions- and the perceptions are going to be, after the 23d, very polarized methinks.

I'm afraid it's lose-lose.

It's only been 2 weeks or so since the Samak interview wherein he praised the Election Commission and thought they were honorable men doing honorable work. Now if someone of his ilk doesn't fault the EC.

The Democrat case this morning indeed was 6 years old and pre-dates even the last EC who escaped prison because it was uncomfortable and stressful. The current EC had nothing to do with the case and thus no comment need be made. It was a Court decision.

Has the EC reason to find fault with the PPP? It would certainly appear so. What is so far-fetched about a notion that perhaps, just perhaps, the PPP is the party committing the majority of infractions? Are other parties not above committing improper acts? Of course not. The 2001 Democrat candidate's bribing is a prime example... but it seems that PPP really is the group pushing the envelope. Has there been too much hype over any particular case? That remains to be seen as more evidence is revealed, but on the surface as it stands now, there are several cases that seem to have quite a bit of evidence.

Has the EC made other mistakes? Certainly... but I wouldn't say any more so then other ones and absolutely fewer than the last batch that wound up with criminal convictions and prison time.

At the end of the day, you can add me as well to the Concerned List for post Dec. 23 Thailand.

For the 2005 election. over 80% of all copmplaints received by the EC and poll net were about TRT. Th eonly red cards issued were to a Dem and a Mahachon. Admittedly that EC was politically aligned as we now know but it gives an indication of where the cheating lies. A call to my wifes village exposed only one party buying the votes. Any guess which one?

Those claiming that the PPP are not indulging themselves in elctoral shenanigans including vote buying and MP buying amongst other stuff are just deluding themselves. Unfortunately even one, admittedly poor, australian website that claims to be an academic one specialising in SE Asian affairs seems to indulge itself in this kind of shrillishly pro-Thaksin propoganda, so other lesser mortals claiming the same are in good or should that be poor company. Whether PPP can get away with all th egamesmanship remains to bhe sen but lets not forget their source who has ben in several newspaper artuicles claimed we are not worried about legal action because it will take a long time and by then we will be in power and it will be over. He didnt bother denying they were abusing the system which is telling although difficult when several others from within the party have already admitted to it. In short they no longer care or fear.

[blaze]

Comments all meant to drum up fear. Yes there will be problems if the PPP falls, but they fall by their own hand.

There will also be trouble if PPP are seen to win the election by underhand means with the EC not doing anything about it. That is the hard position the authorites find themselves particularly over the massive VCD dump which has been admitted to by various people at various times. Do nothing and PPP maybe wins helped by the dump, which is by the way totally unfair on all th eother parties playing by the rules. Do something and PPP are disbanded disenfranchising many. There really is no middle ground.

One also wonders how the EC could give a validatiopn of election results as required iof a potential disolution were hanging over a party. It may be that results could not be declared until after the case. Then if a party is disolved does that mean that the runners up are declared winners or that a whole swathe of byelections are required? This is starting to get messy.

Do you think the EC lost any credibility with its exoneration of the CNS over the secret plan to swing the vote away from PPP?

Which is more dangerous- that the PPP gets away with some shenanigans- (or the Dems or any other party for that matter) which, due to absence of proof are not prosecuted- or that a party- could be the Dems- any party- is prosecuted without evidence? (as every advertizer/PR guy knows- the power of association is a lot stronger than appeals to objective reasoning- and just hearing PPP- many hear "criminal').

By making public every allegation against the PPP that crosses their desk- to a press that is only too ready to seize on each of these allegations as further proof of the nefarious nature of the party- is it even plausible to think that enemies of the PPP are going to accept a PPP victory as legitimate?

Or that, should real evidence come to light that warrants serious action taken, the friends of the PPP will accept an EC ruling against the PPP?

As Hammered says- it's lose lose right now- for everybody I fear.

This election i feel will not solve anything. For a start people are now just voting based on Thaksin or coup. The country is still divided and will remain so. Whoeever loses will not accept it. If PPP wins its opponents will see it as cheating and inaction of the EC. If PPP loses they will see it as a rigged ballot. If PPP is disbanded they will se it as unwarranted. If PPP is not disbanded it will be sen as a dodgy deal or weakness by itys opponents. There really is no easy way out of this.

I cant see the EC addressing the issues before it personally. It really is a lot to ask of a small group of people to make decisons that could hand an election to one side or the other bearing in mind these are not normal times in the democratic process.

Very true- and the EC in some circles anyway (my circle) has certainly not done itself any favors either- from the battle with PNet- to one of the commissionaires bragging in a Post interview about his close personal ties to Sarayuth.

Then this morning we get the first concrete conviction for vote buying (a democrat by the by) -but this didn't come from the EC- but the Supreme Court. To the unititiated (like me) this almost conjours up a picture where the EC is only involved if there is suspicion of PPP shenanigans. (I know of course that this particular case occurred and was being investigated long before the current EC took power- but it would be nice if just for appearances sake- the EC was seen through more than platitudes to be genuinely committed to ensuring that ALL parties get a fair shake. Including the PPP. And sometimes my gut feeling- I doubt I'm alone- is that the EC exists for the single purpose of finding fault with the PPP.

They may very well be very honorable people- I have no idea- and to a certain extent I blame the media for seizing on every little complaint that the EC gets across its desk- providing the complaint singles out a party that the media is not supportive of. The EC would do better to give out NO information of allegations till something close to hard evidence is submitted.

Justice must not only be done - but seen to be done- politics is about perceptions- and the perceptions are going to be, after the 23d, very polarized methinks.

I'm afraid it's lose-lose.

It's only been 2 weeks or so since the Samak interview wherein he praised the Election Commission and thought they were honorable men doing honorable work. Now if someone of his ilk doesn't fault the EC.

The Democrat case this morning indeed was 6 years old and pre-dates even the last EC who escaped prison because it was uncomfortable and stressful. The current EC had nothing to do with the case and thus no comment need be made. It was a Court decision.

Has the EC reason to find fault with the PPP? It would certainly appear so. What is so far-fetched about a notion that perhaps, just perhaps, the PPP is the party committing the majority of infractions? Are other parties not above committing improper acts? Of course not. The 2001 Democrat candidate's bribing is a prime example... but it seems that PPP really is the group pushing the envelope. Has there been too much hype over any particular case? That remains to be seen as more evidence is revealed, but on the surface as it stands now, there are several cases that seem to have quite a bit of evidence.

Has the EC made other mistakes? Certainly... but I wouldn't say any more so then other ones and absolutely fewer than the last batch that wound up with criminal convictions and prison time.

At the end of the day, you can add me as well to the Concerned List for post Dec. 23 Thailand.

For the 2005 election. over 80% of all copmplaints received by the EC and poll net were about TRT. Th eonly red cards issued were to a Dem and a Mahachon. Admittedly that EC was politically aligned as we now know but it gives an indication of where the cheating lies. A call to my wifes village exposed only one party buying the votes. Any guess which one?

Those claiming that the PPP are not indulging themselves in elctoral shenanigans including vote buying and MP buying amongst other stuff are just deluding themselves. Unfortunately even one, admittedly poor, australian website that claims to be an academic one specialising in SE Asian affairs seems to indulge itself in this kind of shrillishly pro-Thaksin propoganda, so other lesser mortals claiming the same are in good or should that be poor company. Whether PPP can get away with all th egamesmanship remains to bhe sen but lets not forget their source who has ben in several newspaper artuicles claimed we are not worried about legal action because it will take a long time and by then we will be in power and it will be over. He didnt bother denying they were abusing the system which is telling although difficult when several others from within the party have already admitted to it. In short they no longer care or fear.

I think my earlier post was somewhat misunderstood by both you and John- NEVER did I say that the PPP has NOT engaged in shenanigans- only that everyone- including political party execs, are innocent until proven guilty and the trust that people put in law is based on that perception. And that anyone in a judicial capacity (which the EC has to some degree) to be seen as prejudging a case before fully reviewing the evidence, that perception is put at risk- EVEN if that body didn't create the perception...however... we'll just have to wait and see. But I suspect that already, even if the EC says we can find no evidence of culpability on the part of the PPP, this will not be acceptable to many.

And similarly, if they DO find evidence that is not iron clad- many others will accuse it of bias. Hence it's lose lose.

Edited December 14, 2007 by blaze

[Plus]

innocent until proven guilty

They are guilty the moment they commit the crime, they need to be treated as innocent only legally, which what the media and opposition does. Media can say all they want about alleged vote-buying as long as they stay within legal bounds. There's an easy check - have the the all suing eye of Mordor spotted them yet?

[hammered]

Comments all meant to drum up fear. Yes there will be problems if the PPP falls, but they fall by their own hand.

There will also be trouble if PPP are seen to win the election by underhand means with the EC not doing anything about it. That is the hard position the authorites find themselves particularly over the massive VCD dump which has been admitted to by various people at various times. Do nothing and PPP maybe wins helped by the dump, which is by the way totally unfair on all th eother parties playing by the rules. Do something and PPP are disbanded disenfranchising many. There really is no middle ground.

One also wonders how the EC could give a validatiopn of election results as required iof a potential disolution were hanging over a party. It may be that results could not be declared until after the case. Then if a party is disolved does that mean that the runners up are declared winners or that a whole swathe of byelections are required? This is starting to get messy.

Do you think the EC lost any credibility with its exoneration of the CNS over the secret plan to swing the vote away from PPP?

Which is more dangerous- that the PPP gets away with some shenanigans- (or the Dems or any other party for that matter) which, due to absence of proof are not prosecuted- or that a party- could be the Dems- any party- is prosecuted without evidence? (as every advertizer/PR guy knows- the power of association is a lot stronger than appeals to objective reasoning- and just hearing PPP- many hear "criminal').

By making public every allegation against the PPP that crosses their desk- to a press that is only too ready to seize on each of these allegations as further proof of the nefarious nature of the party- is it even plausible to think that enemies of the PPP are going to accept a PPP victory as legitimate?

Or that, should real evidence come to light that warrants serious action taken, the friends of the PPP will accept an EC ruling against the PPP?

As Hammered says- it's lose lose right now- for everybody I fear.

This election i feel will not solve anything. For a start people are now just voting based on Thaksin or coup. The country is still divided and will remain so. Whoeever loses will not accept it. If PPP wins its opponents will see it as cheating and inaction of the EC. If PPP loses they will see it as a rigged ballot. If PPP is disbanded they will se it as unwarranted. If PPP is not disbanded it will be sen as a dodgy deal or weakness by itys opponents. There really is no easy way out of this.

I cant see the EC addressing the issues before it personally. It really is a lot to ask of a small group of people to make decisons that could hand an election to one side or the other bearing in mind these are not normal times in the democratic process.

Very true- and the EC in some circles anyway (my circle) has certainly not done itself any favors either- from the battle with PNet- to one of the commissionaires bragging in a Post interview about his close personal ties to Sarayuth.

Then this morning we get the first concrete conviction for vote buying (a democrat by the by) -but this didn't come from the EC- but the Supreme Court. To the unititiated (like me) this almost conjours up a picture where the EC is only involved if there is suspicion of PPP shenanigans. (I know of course that this particular case occurred and was being investigated long before the current EC took power- but it would be nice if just for appearances sake- the EC was seen through more than platitudes to be genuinely committed to ensuring that ALL parties get a fair shake. Including the PPP. And sometimes my gut feeling- I doubt I'm alone- is that the EC exists for the single purpose of finding fault with the PPP.

They may very well be very honorable people- I have no idea- and to a certain extent I blame the media for seizing on every little complaint that the EC gets across its desk- providing the complaint singles out a party that the media is not supportive of. The EC would do better to give out NO information of allegations till something close to hard evidence is submitted.

Justice must not only be done - but seen to be done- politics is about perceptions- and the perceptions are going to be, after the 23d, very polarized methinks.

I'm afraid it's lose-lose.

It's only been 2 weeks or so since the Samak interview wherein he praised the Election Commission and thought they were honorable men doing honorable work. Now if someone of his ilk doesn't fault the EC.

The Democrat case this morning indeed was 6 years old and pre-dates even the last EC who escaped prison because it was uncomfortable and stressful. The current EC had nothing to do with the case and thus no comment need be made. It was a Court decision.

Has the EC reason to find fault with the PPP? It would certainly appear so. What is so far-fetched about a notion that perhaps, just perhaps, the PPP is the party committing the majority of infractions? Are other parties not above committing improper acts? Of course not. The 2001 Democrat candidate's bribing is a prime example... but it seems that PPP really is the group pushing the envelope. Has there been too much hype over any particular case? That remains to be seen as more evidence is revealed, but on the surface as it stands now, there are several cases that seem to have quite a bit of evidence.

Has the EC made other mistakes? Certainly... but I wouldn't say any more so then other ones and absolutely fewer than the last batch that wound up with criminal convictions and prison time.

At the end of the day, you can add me as well to the Concerned List for post Dec. 23 Thailand.

For the 2005 election. over 80% of all copmplaints received by the EC and poll net were about TRT. Th eonly red cards issued were to a Dem and a Mahachon. Admittedly that EC was politically aligned as we now know but it gives an indication of where the cheating lies. A call to my wifes village exposed only one party buying the votes. Any guess which one?

Those claiming that the PPP are not indulging themselves in elctoral shenanigans including vote buying and MP buying amongst other stuff are just deluding themselves. Unfortunately even one, admittedly poor, australian website that claims to be an academic one specialising in SE Asian affairs seems to indulge itself in this kind of shrillishly pro-Thaksin propoganda, so other lesser mortals claiming the same are in good or should that be poor company. Whether PPP can get away with all th egamesmanship remains to bhe sen but lets not forget their source who has ben in several newspaper artuicles claimed we are not worried about legal action because it will take a long time and by then we will be in power and it will be over. He didnt bother denying they were abusing the system which is telling although difficult when several others from within the party have already admitted to it. In short they no longer care or fear.

I think my earlier post was somewhat misunderstood by both you and John- NEVER did I say that the PPP has NOT engaged in shenanigans- only that everyone- including political party execs, are innocent until proven guilty and the trust that people put in law is based on that perception. And that anyone in a judicial capacity (which the EC has to some degree) to be seen as prejudging a case before fully reviewing the evidence, that perception is put at risk- EVEN if that body didn't create the perception...however... we'll just have to wait and see. But I suspect that already, even if the EC says we can find no evidence of culpability on the part of the PPP, this will not be acceptable to many.

And similarly, if they DO find evidence that is not iron clad- many others will accuse it of bias. Hence it's lose lose.

Agree it is all lose lose.

I dont think personally it has anyhting to with democracy, law, fairness, what is right. It is just about power and screw anybody who gets in the way. Of the two main protagonists anything goes to win, which means there will be no winner.

[blaze]

innocent until proven guilty

They are guilty the moment they commit the crime, they need to be treated as innocent only legally, which what the media and opposition does. Media can say all they want about alleged vote-buying as long as they stay within legal bounds. There's an easy check - have the the all suing eye of Mordor spotted them yet?

The media can and should- pursue every allegation it becomes aware of. The important thing is that judicial bodies do not involve themselves publicly in that aspect of investigation. To do so is to risk appearance of impartiality.

The emphasis on PPP jiggerypokery in the press has reminded me of the right wing US obsession with Clinton's jiggerypokery (pre Monica) which included shady financial deals and murder.

Eventually- and thanks to the IR-responsible press- and some overly mouthy prosecutors, the gullible were so convinced of the reality of his evil nature that the Star commission - one of the most expensive and totally useless to ever come about- was initiated to 'prove' what 'every body knew'. To the lasting shame of the Republicans.

Some of the media used the EC as it used the Democrats to some extent, in its all consuming drive to discredit the PPP and legitimize the CNS/NLA. The Dems will pay the price for that at the polls I fear- and so will the EC.

The EC particularly should have imitated the higher courts and never spoken publicly about cases under consideration. There are too many opportunisitic vultures around waiting to pounce on every word they say and spin their pronouncements in such a way as to serve their own agendas.

And when you hear EC-PPP-corruption in enough articles for long enough- in the public mind that reads: EC equates PPP with corruption. That is not the mark of a responsible press.

But I know that some think the media (especially that on which this forum seems to rely) is impartial and objective- in which case- nothing to add. We just have to agree to disagree.

[sriracha john]

Abhisit again dares Samak to debate him

Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday renewed his challenge to People Power Party Leader Samak Sundaravej to join him in a public debate on their election platforms, saying Samak should not be afraid of facing him before a live audience. Abhisit made his fresh challenge after P-Net invited the two party leaders to join a policy debate to be broadcast live on television Channels 9 and 11. Abhisit has already accepted the invitation and said he is looking forward to facing Samak on stage. The debate would touch on the true essence of the election and allow members of the public to compare his calibre to Samak's, said Abhisit. Samak, however, was reported to have turned down P-Net's invitation. ''I learned today that the heavyweight boxer [Mr Samak] is afraid of the lightweight one,'' said Abhisit. Analysts said Samak was probably avoiding a live debate because he feared he could easily lose his cool.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/15Dec2007_news13.php

---------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh yes, the ever-present "loose cannon on a tossing ship's decks" factor.

If he, heavens forbid, ever does become Prime Minister, it'll be an interesting time whenever he's on the international stage's "ship."

[sriracha john]

I just heard that almost 2 million people have registerd to vote away form their "home". This is massively up on 2005 when it was only a few hundred thousand. Could skew a few races.

Post the story or the link if you can.

more than a 5 time increase with this election....

Big jump in registration

The registration deadline was on Thursday. Election Commission Secretary-General Sutthipol Thaweechaikarn said 1,891,715 voters had registered to vote outside their constituencies, 844,305 of them in Bangkok.

Overseas, 78,586 people registered. The commission will send ballot papers to 88 embassies and consular offices in 65 countries.

- The Nation

Record number of expat Thais vote in advance

Turnout much higher than in past elections

Almost 80% of Thai voters in 20 countries have cast their ballots in the advance voting, which ends tomorrow. The turnout is far higher than in the previous election in which only 30% of expatriate Thais voted in advance. Election Commissioner Prapan Naiyakowit yesterday said the commission has received confirmation from 20 countries that 78% of expat Thais who registered to vote outside the country had cast their ballots as of Dec 12. They were among those living in 65 countries who registered to cast their ballots for advance voting scheduled between Dec 3 and tomorrow. The turnout figures from another 45 countries was not available yesterday. In some of the 20 countries, there was a 100% voter turnout, said Mr Prapan. The commissioner said the high expat voter turnout showed people wanted to see democracy restored in the country. The EC also expected a high advance voter turnout in Thailand as well.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/15Dec2007_news09.php

Edited December 15, 2007 by sriracha john

[John K]

I would say the fear more closely resembles a cockroache's fear of the light.

[sriracha john]

The loose cannon has been tethered down.... for now...

Samak 'too busy' for Abhisit debate

People Power Party Leader Samak Sundaravej yesterday turned down a debate with Democrat Party chief Abhisit Vejjajiva.

The party may instead send Mingkwan Sangsuwan to the People's Network for Elections-arranged debate.

"I am always ready to face Samak. He had better sit here [in a debate]," Abhisit said, adding Samak had been electioneering without challenge. He said if Samak wanted to be leader of the country, he had to be ready to confront intellectual challenge. That is the way to true democracy, he said.

A debate would allow voters to really see the vision, stance and thoughts of those who want to be prime minister. "I realise Samak and his party do not want to debate with me because they do not want to discuss the real substance of the election - the direction and future of the country after the election," he said.

Meanwhile, People Power Secretary-General Surapong Suebwonglee said Samak was too busy with the election campaign to attend the debate.

Mingkwan might represent the party. He heads its economic team. Key members Yongyuth Tiyapairat or Chalerm Yoobamrung could represent it, too, he said.

P-Net Secretary-General Somchai Srisutthiyakorn told Samak that voters needed to see the competence of Samak and Abhisit because they were the top contenders for prime minister.

- The Nation

---------------------------------------------------------------

By being "too busy," the electorate can see his competence.

Yongyuth might be an interesting debate... provided that attendees are provided with flak jackets or at least a refrigerator to hide behind.

Chalerm, too, so long as a metal detector for handguns is in place and the debate site isn't at a nightclub.

Edited December 15, 2007 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

I just heard that almost 2 million people have registerd to vote away form their "home". This is massively up on 2005 when it was only a few hundred thousand. Could skew a few races.

Post the story or the link if you can.

more than a 5 time increase with this election....

Big jump in registration

The registration deadline was on Thursday. Election Commission Secretary-General Sutthipol Thaweechaikarn said 1,891,715 voters had registered to vote outside their constituencies, 844,305 of them in Bangkok.

- The Nation

The already record-high numbers are even higher now....

Advance voting days

Today and tomorrow are advance voting days for those who will not be in their constituency to vote on December 23. Meanwhile, ballots being cast overseas by Thai expatriates must reach Thailand by Wednesday.

Ballots will be sent to election centres in the voters' constituencies, where they will be counted at the same time as those cast on December 23.

The number of people registered for advance voting is 2,095,410, according to the Election Commission.

The 10 provinces with the most advance voters are: Bangkok (903,899), Samut Prakan (163,512), Chon Buri (155,962), Pathum Thani (114,392), Samut Sakhon (79,786), Nonthaburi (69,849), Ayutthaya (60,514), Rayong (60,155), Chiang Mai (34,045) and Nakhon Pathom (33,806).

- The Nation

Edited December 15, 2007 by sriracha john

[Ricardo]

Abhisit states that a debate will provide the people with more information and a vision of the politicians, so they can make an informed decision when selecting the country's leader.

- Thailand Outlook

Always assuming that Samak wants an informed decision, rather than blind-loyalty, from the electorate.

"I am always ready to face Samak. He had better sit here [in a debate]," Abhisit said, adding Samak had been electioneering without challenge. He said if Samak wanted to be leader of the country, he had to be ready to confront intellectual challenge. That is the way to true democracy, he said.

Unfortunately Thaksin/TRT/PPP have a poor record on this sort of thing - now where DID they put those 'good question' / 'bad question' signs which made DL's news conferences so entertaining ?

Meanwhile, People Power Secretary-General Surapong Suebwonglee said Samak was too busy with the election campaign to attend the debate.

Too busy to attend a televised debate, with his main opponent, perhaps he's still got a lot of those VCDs or calendars which still need handing out ?

Or he was told that there wouldn't be any young female reporters present, to question about their previous night's sexual-activities, and so he just lost interest ?

[Plus]

..some think the media (especially that on which this forum seems to rely) is impartial and objective- in which case- nothing to add. We just have to agree to disagree.

I was expecting a lot more vehement critisism of PPP from the Nation and I expected much wider coverage of Democrat's campaign. That didn't happen either.

Maybe your perception is different but they appear rather impartial. They made their stance known thorugh editorials and personal columns of their senior journalists, as they should, imo, but I just don't see the kind of witchhunt you alluding to.

I also don't recall any corruption allegations against PPP or directly linking PPP to VCD distribution, for example. They are clever enough to present facts in such a way that people form their "own" opinions.

Besides none of the Nation/BP readers are going to vote for Thaksin, it's a different demographic.

[blaze]

..some think the media (especially that on which this forum seems to rely) is impartial and objective- in which case- nothing to add. We just have to agree to disagree.

I was expecting a lot more vehement critisism of PPP from the Nation and I expected much wider coverage of Democrat's campaign. That didn't happen either.

Maybe your perception is different but they appear rather impartial. They made their stance known thorugh editorials and personal columns of their senior journalists, as they should, imo, but I just don't see the kind of witchhunt you alluding to.

I also don't recall any corruption allegations against PPP or directly linking PPP to VCD distribution, for example. They are clever enough to present facts in such a way that people form their "own" opinions.

Besides none of the Nation/BP readers are going to vote for Thaksin, it's a different demographic.

Maybe. But I like what you say here: "They are clever enough to present facts in such a way that people form their "own" opinions."

And on that- I am in total agreement.

[hammered]

My wife said it was busy down the advance voting station in Chonburi and that it was easy to find the numbers for the candidates you wanted in you r own constituency. The advance voting for those that cannot go home has been a big imrovement this election over any other one and in this the authorities deserve praise. It maybe the only good thing about the election!

[marshbags]

My wife said it was busy down the advance voting station in Chonburi and that it was easy to find the numbers for the candidates you wanted in you r own constituency. The advance voting for those that cannot go home has been a big imrovement this election over any other one and in this the authorities deserve praise. It maybe the only good thing about the election!

I would hope there isn,t a similar scenario as to what happened in the U.K. regarding those Thai overseas who are / have been given voting rights

Ref.url :- http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/12/13...cs_30058961.php

As when the Tories did a similar thing and opened it up there for U.K. expats to increase their chances of winning the election that year.

The majority of these had / have lived / worked overseas to avoid paying U.K. taxes and in doing so haven,t give a dam_n about those who live there on a permanent basis.

The Tories of course were their best bet to keep and enhance their earnings and investments while conveniently giving them both gains, one monetary wise and the other more votes.

A win win situation for all of them.

The expats of this era were selfish, self interested citizens who didn,t give a sod about the ordinary hard working citizens who were being stung for taxes ect. and suffered this insult, while the expats had the best of both worlds.

Non of the more important issues, eg, education, health, employment with fair rates of pay, pensions and infrastructure ect. ect. had any effect on them as they had tax free finance and high income to pay for alternatives courteous of the Co.,s they worked for ect. while we as a nation indirectly subsidised them.

In summing up i hope the Thai expats who are like wise not effected by the deterioration in living standards among the poorer, needy and more deserving members of Thai society do not vote for the money making objectives of the wealthier members...... who have the means to be in the

'I,m all right Jack mode " and couldn,t care less about those who are not

The PPP and their fellow expat leader in exile Thaksin fit the selfish scenario and the greed for monetary gains while not giving a sod about the less well off who toil 24 / 7 to eek out a living and ultimately pay taxes when gainfully employed.

Many middle class citizens pay taxes as well of course and willingly do so to support their beloved country.

marshbags

Edited December 15, 2007 by marshbags

[sriracha john]

The loose cannon has been tethered down.... for now...

Samak 'too busy' for Abhisit debate

Meanwhile, People Power Secretary-General Surapong Suebwonglee said Samak was too busy with the election campaign to attend the debate.

Mingkwan might represent the party. He heads its economic team. Key members Yongyuth Tiyapairat or Chalerm Yoobamrung could represent it, too, he said.

- The Nation

---------------------------------------------------------------

By being "too busy," the electorate can see his competence.

Yongyuth might be an interesting debate... provided that attendees are provided with flak jackets or at least a refrigerator to hide behind.

Chalerm, too, so long as a metal detector for handguns is in place and the debate site isn't at a nightclub.

My goodness... they BOTH might go to the debates.... take cover...

Democrat spokesperson Thepatai Sesanapong today urged People Power Party's Leader Samak Sundaravej to accept the People Network for elections or PNET's invitation to join a political debate on sharing his party's vision by himself.

Earlier, Samak assigned People Power Party's leading members Police Captain Chalerm Yubamroong and PPP Deputy Leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat to join PNET's debate.

Thepatai stated that if Samak sent his representatives to join in the debate on behalf of himself, he should ask his representatives to take responsibility for the party leader post as well.

- Thailand Outlook

[sriracha john]

Abhisit Vejjajiva: a new generation of Thai politician

BANGKOK - Just a few months ago, Abhisit Vejjajiva -- the photogenic, Oxford-educated leader of Thailand's Democrat Party -- seemed like a sure bet to become the Kingdom's next prime minister.

The military ousted the elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a coup, a court shattered his political legacy by dissolving his once-dominant party, banning the billionaire from politics and later accusing him of corruption -- something he denies.

That left Abhisit's Democrats as the only major party in the country, and put the 43-year-old on a seemingly certain path to the premiership.

But with Thaksin's political allies reunited under the banner of the People Power Party, and led by tough veteran politician Samak Sundaravej, Abhisit's party is now trailing in the polls ahead of the December 23 elections.

Some surveys indicate that more than half of voters are still undecided, and most predict that neither party will win a clear majority.

Even though Thaksin is living in exile in Britain, Abhisit is in many ways still campaigning against the man who crushed him in 2005 elections.

Abhisit has tried to turn the focus of the campaign away from Thaksin and the junta that ousted him -- no easy task in a nation still sharply divided among supporters and opponents of the controversial ex-premier.

"What we are concerned with is that we really should make these elections about the people, not about Thaksin, not about the CNS," he told AFP in an interview, referring the junta's official name, the Council for National Security.

"Thaksin should be given the same rights as any other Thai citizen. He should be back here fighting charges in court. It shouldn't matter who's in government about how these things play out. It's all a matter for the judiciary to decide."

Abhisit has also avoided much direct criticism of the junta, which leaves him in a delicate situation within a party that has a long history of staunch opposition to military governments.

He insists that the elections will be free and fair, even with a third of the country still under martial since the coup. "We have not heard of any concrete evidence, or incidents that suggest that martial law is actually a restriction at the moment," he said.

Abhisit also bills himself as a new generation of Thai politician -- especially compared to his main adversary, PPP's Samak Sundaravej, who is nearly 30 years his senior.

Although he's young, Abhisit has already had a long political career. He stormed into the political arena in 1992 when, at the age of 27, he became the youngest person ever to win a seat in parliament.

He rapidly climbed the ranks in Thailand's oldest political party with a reputation for clean politics and an idealism that's rarely seen in the the murky world of Thai politics.

His party has tried to expand its traditional base in Bangkok and southern Thailand to reach out to voters in impoverished parts of Thailand's rural north and northeast.

Abhisit has adopted many of Thaksin's most popular social and economic programmes, although critics say the Britain-born scion of an influential Thai family lacks the common touch to sell that message to voters.

His party is running on a "people's agenda" that includes boosting the economy by raising foreign investment and halting rising prices for electricity and cooking gas.

He also insists that running a clean government would ward off future coups.

"We would be a government that respects the law, that upholds the true principles of democracy, which allows the opposition to participate," he said.

"We'd be answering questions in parliament, we'd allow them to use the media so that political conflict doesn't have to spill into the streets.

"In fact, we think that we should provide a good example of how a country like us should be developing politically and economically."

- AFP

[hammered]

Abhisit Vejjajiva: a new generation of Thai politician

BANGKOK - Just a few months ago, Abhisit Vejjajiva -- the photogenic, Oxford-educated leader of Thailand's Democrat Party -- seemed like a sure bet to become the Kingdom's next prime minister.

The military ousted the elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a coup, a court shattered his political legacy by dissolving his once-dominant party, banning the billionaire from politics and later accusing him of corruption -- something he denies.

That left Abhisit's Democrats as the only major party in the country, and put the 43-year-old on a seemingly certain path to the premiership.

But with Thaksin's political allies reunited under the banner of the People Power Party, and led by tough veteran politician Samak Sundaravej, Abhisit's party is now trailing in the polls ahead of the December 23 elections.

Some surveys indicate that more than half of voters are still undecided, and most predict that neither party will win a clear majority.

Even though Thaksin is living in exile in Britain, Abhisit is in many ways still campaigning against the man who crushed him in 2005 elections.

Abhisit has tried to turn the focus of the campaign away from Thaksin and the junta that ousted him -- no easy task in a nation still sharply divided among supporters and opponents of the controversial ex-premier.

"What we are concerned with is that we really should make these elections about the people, not about Thaksin, not about the CNS," he told AFP in an interview, referring the junta's official name, the Council for National Security.

"Thaksin should be given the same rights as any other Thai citizen. He should be back here fighting charges in court. It shouldn't matter who's in government about how these things play out. It's all a matter for the judiciary to decide."

Abhisit has also avoided much direct criticism of the junta, which leaves him in a delicate situation within a party that has a long history of staunch opposition to military governments.

He insists that the elections will be free and fair, even with a third of the country still under martial since the coup. "We have not heard of any concrete evidence, or incidents that suggest that martial law is actually a restriction at the moment," he said.

Abhisit also bills himself as a new generation of Thai politician -- especially compared to his main adversary, PPP's Samak Sundaravej, who is nearly 30 years his senior.

Although he's young, Abhisit has already had a long political career. He stormed into the political arena in 1992 when, at the age of 27, he became the youngest person ever to win a seat in parliament.

He rapidly climbed the ranks in Thailand's oldest political party with a reputation for clean politics and an idealism that's rarely seen in the the murky world of Thai politics.

His party has tried to expand its traditional base in Bangkok and southern Thailand to reach out to voters in impoverished parts of Thailand's rural north and northeast.

Abhisit has adopted many of Thaksin's most popular social and economic programmes, although critics say the Britain-born scion of an influential Thai family lacks the common touch to sell that message to voters.

His party is running on a "people's agenda" that includes boosting the economy by raising foreign investment and halting rising prices for electricity and cooking gas.

He also insists that running a clean government would ward off future coups.

"We would be a government that respects the law, that upholds the true principles of democracy, which allows the opposition to participate," he said.

"We'd be answering questions in parliament, we'd allow them to use the media so that political conflict doesn't have to spill into the streets.

"In fact, we think that we should provide a good example of how a country like us should be developing politically and economically."

- AFP

Shame Thaksin ansd the boys couldnt have followed a few of these democratic principles. Maybe then we wouldnt be where we are today.

[blaze]

Abhisit Vejjajiva: a new generation of Thai politician

BANGKOK - Just a few months ago, Abhisit Vejjajiva -- the photogenic, Oxford-educated leader of Thailand's Democrat Party -- seemed like a sure bet to become the Kingdom's next prime minister.

The military ousted the elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a coup, a court shattered his political legacy by dissolving his once-dominant party, banning the billionaire from politics and later accusing him of corruption -- something he denies.

That left Abhisit's Democrats as the only major party in the country, and put the 43-year-old on a seemingly certain path to the premiership.

But with Thaksin's political allies reunited under the banner of the People Power Party, and led by tough veteran politician Samak Sundaravej, Abhisit's party is now trailing in the polls ahead of the December 23 elections.

Some surveys indicate that more than half of voters are still undecided, and most predict that neither party will win a clear majority.

Even though Thaksin is living in exile in Britain, Abhisit is in many ways still campaigning against the man who crushed him in 2005 elections.

Abhisit has tried to turn the focus of the campaign away from Thaksin and the junta that ousted him -- no easy task in a nation still sharply divided among supporters and opponents of the controversial ex-premier.

"What we are concerned with is that we really should make these elections about the people, not about Thaksin, not about the CNS," he told AFP in an interview, referring the junta's official name, the Council for National Security.

"Thaksin should be given the same rights as any other Thai citizen. He should be back here fighting charges in court. It shouldn't matter who's in government about how these things play out. It's all a matter for the judiciary to decide."

Abhisit has also avoided much direct criticism of the junta, which leaves him in a delicate situation within a party that has a long history of staunch opposition to military governments.

He insists that the elections will be free and fair, even with a third of the country still under martial since the coup. "We have not heard of any concrete evidence, or incidents that suggest that martial law is actually a restriction at the moment," he said. [i](and this from the man who will bring modern democracy and civil rights to the land? Probably not the best way to win votes in non-southern districts under marital law either.i]

Abhisit also bills himself as a new generation of Thai politician -- especially compared to his main adversary, PPP's Samak Sundaravej, who is nearly 30 years his senior.

Although he's young, Abhisit has already had a long political career. He stormed into the political arena in 1992 when, at the age of 27, he became the youngest person ever to win a seat in parliament.

He rapidly climbed the ranks in Thailand's oldest political party with a reputation for clean politics and an idealism that's rarely seen in the the murky world of Thai politics.

His party has tried to expand its traditional base in Bangkok and southern Thailand to reach out to voters in impoverished parts of Thailand's rural north and northeast.

Abhisit has adopted many of Thaksin's most popular social and economic programmes, although critics say the Britain-born scion of an influential Thai family lacks the common touch to sell that message to voters.

His party is running on a "people's agenda" that includes boosting the economy by raising foreign investment and halting rising prices for electricity and cooking gas.

He also insists that running a clean government would ward off future coups.

"We would be a government that respects the law, that upholds the true principles of democracy, which allows the opposition to participate," he said.

"We'd be answering questions in parliament, we'd allow them to use the media so that political conflict doesn't have to spill into the streets.

"In fact, we think that we should provide a good example of how a country like us should be developing politically and economically."

- AFP

Shame Thaksin ansd the boys couldnt have followed a few of these democratic principles. Maybe then we wouldnt be where we are today.

Maybe- if you believe that democratic principles are all that important to those who are directly responsible for where we are today.

Not many people nowadays would say that the tragic events in Europe, 1939-45 were because of the corruption and inefficacy of the Weimark Republic.

Edited December 16, 2007 by blaze

[sriracha john]

PPP caught out by Democrats in policy fib

The People Power party (PPP) has been accused of misleading the public through its election campaign by the Democrat party. The Democrat party's deputy secretary-general, Mr Korn Chatikavanit, today held a press conference slamming the PPP for making the reduction of household debts one of its main "selling points". "I'm calling on the PPP to stop distorting the truth about the economy. The party's election campaign involves a promise to reduce household debts. People could easily be mislead into thinking that voting for the PPP is their only hope to seeing their debts decrease, which isn't true," Mr Korn said. To back his claim, Mr Korn said between 2002-2006 under the Thaksin Shinawatra administration, household debts increased by 40 percent - a figure he described as "a historic high".

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=124468

[sriracha john]

Here's a party policy statement that will be difficult to top...

In other developments, the PPP is moving ahead with election campaigning, making more promises to the people in the hope of winning more votes with just days left before the election. The PPP vowed to make tourism a top priority, promising to boost the tourism sector with a major cash injection as well as to set up a Tourism Bank for business operators. "The coastline between Trat to Surat Thani provinces will be transformed into major tourist destinations comparable to the likes of Nice in France," said PPP member Plodprasop Suraswadi.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=124469

============================================================================

The PPP has also earlier stated that one of their policies is the goal to increase tourist arrivals to 45 million people per year... or a 4 fold increase from current levels...

[Tony Clifton]

Here's a party policy statement that will be difficult to top...

In other developments, the PPP is moving ahead with election campaigning, making more promises to the people in the hope of winning more votes with just days left before the election. The PPP vowed to make tourism a top priority, promising to boost the tourism sector with a major cash injection as well as to set up a Tourism Bank for business operators. "The coastline between Trat to Surat Thani provinces will be transformed into major tourist destinations comparable to the likes of Nice in France," said PPP member Plodprasop Suraswadi.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=124469

============================================================================

The PPP has also earlier stated that one of their policies is the goal to increase tourist arrivals to 45 million people per year... or a 4 fold increase from current levels...

More body bags please!

[John K]

Never let the truth and logistics reality get in the way of a good campaign promise particularly when so little effort has been spent on a good education system.

[sriracha john]

PPP candidates booed by traders in Klong Toei

People Power Party candidates in Bangkok's Klong Toei constituency met with resistance from market vendors during a campaign rally Sunday.

Candidates told traders the country was being jeopardised by a dictatorial government and added that if people voted for People Power, they would not get dictators but former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

But they fled the scene after hearing explosions, which turned out to be firecrackers, as traders and motorcycle taxi drivers shouted at them.

Vendors said they were annoyed because the candidates were attacking other parties.

"Do they know they are the cause of the rift in the country? They should change the way they rally by stopping mudslinging and campaigning more constructively,'' a vendor said.

- The Nation

[hammered]

Abhisit Vejjajiva: a new generation of Thai politician

BANGKOK - Just a few months ago, Abhisit Vejjajiva -- the photogenic, Oxford-educated leader of Thailand's Democrat Party -- seemed like a sure bet to become the Kingdom's next prime minister.

The military ousted the elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a coup, a court shattered his political legacy by dissolving his once-dominant party, banning the billionaire from politics and later accusing him of corruption -- something he denies.

That left Abhisit's Democrats as the only major party in the country, and put the 43-year-old on a seemingly certain path to the premiership.

But with Thaksin's political allies reunited under the banner of the People Power Party, and led by tough veteran politician Samak Sundaravej, Abhisit's party is now trailing in the polls ahead of the December 23 elections.

Some surveys indicate that more than half of voters are still undecided, and most predict that neither party will win a clear majority.

Even though Thaksin is living in exile in Britain, Abhisit is in many ways still campaigning against the man who crushed him in 2005 elections.

Abhisit has tried to turn the focus of the campaign away from Thaksin and the junta that ousted him -- no easy task in a nation still sharply divided among supporters and opponents of the controversial ex-premier.

"What we are concerned with is that we really should make these elections about the people, not about Thaksin, not about the CNS," he told AFP in an interview, referring the junta's official name, the Council for National Security.

"Thaksin should be given the same rights as any other Thai citizen. He should be back here fighting charges in court. It shouldn't matter who's in government about how these things play out. It's all a matter for the judiciary to decide."

Abhisit has also avoided much direct criticism of the junta, which leaves him in a delicate situation within a party that has a long history of staunch opposition to military governments.

He insists that the elections will be free and fair, even with a third of the country still under martial since the coup. "We have not heard of any concrete evidence, or incidents that suggest that martial law is actually a restriction at the moment," he said. [i](and this from the man who will bring modern democracy and civil rights to the land? Probably not the best way to win votes in non-southern districts under marital law either.i]

Abhisit also bills himself as a new generation of Thai politician -- especially compared to his main adversary, PPP's Samak Sundaravej, who is nearly 30 years his senior.

Although he's young, Abhisit has already had a long political career. He stormed into the political arena in 1992 when, at the age of 27, he became the youngest person ever to win a seat in parliament.

He rapidly climbed the ranks in Thailand's oldest political party with a reputation for clean politics and an idealism that's rarely seen in the the murky world of Thai politics.

His party has tried to expand its traditional base in Bangkok and southern Thailand to reach out to voters in impoverished parts of Thailand's rural north and northeast.

Abhisit has adopted many of Thaksin's most popular social and economic programmes, although critics say the Britain-born scion of an influential Thai family lacks the common touch to sell that message to voters.

His party is running on a "people's agenda" that includes boosting the economy by raising foreign investment and halting rising prices for electricity and cooking gas.

He also insists that running a clean government would ward off future coups.

"We would be a government that respects the law, that upholds the true principles of democracy, which allows the opposition to participate," he said.

"We'd be answering questions in parliament, we'd allow them to use the media so that political conflict doesn't have to spill into the streets.

"In fact, we think that we should provide a good example of how a country like us should be developing politically and economically."

- AFP

Shame Thaksin ansd the boys couldnt have followed a few of these democratic principles. Maybe then we wouldnt be where we are today.

Maybe- if you believe that democratic principles are all that important to those who are directly responsible for where we are today.

Not many people nowadays would say that the tragic events in Europe, 1939-45 were because of the corruption and inefficacy of the Weimark Republic.

Yes interesting that a democratically elected leader caused the events of 39-45. Personally I dont think where we are today in Thailand has anythign to with democracy. It is a powwer struggle between groups who undermine democracy in different ways but who certainly dont want any really free or fair elections where people make choices on informed decisions or where there are truly independent democratiic instittions. Shame really, and as my wife said after voting: it really doesnt matter who wins or loses because these elections wont solve anything and the fighting next year will be worse. Well there is pessimism for you.

[hammered]

Never let the truth and logistics reality get in the way of a good campaign promise particularly when so little effort has been spent on a good education system.

The delusional statements that come out of some politicos mouths and that they dont just get lambasted as ridiculous in the press does show both the need for a vastly improved education system in Thailand and also exactly why the politcos will on the whole not want to change a system that allows them to be believed or taken seriously in some of the insane things they say. Shame really. Maybe the media should get some cojones and do the country a favour by openly ridiculing the more outlandish statements made by soem of these fools.