Pheu Thai Party unveils its three prime ministerial candidates

[snoop1130]

 

The Pheu Thai party officially submitted its list of three prime ministerial candidates to the Election Commission today (Wednesday) at Bangkok City Hall.

 

They are Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the party’s advisory chief and head of the Pheu Thai “family”, former real estate tycoon and advisor to Paetongtarn, Srettha Thavisin, and Chaikasem Nitisiri, the party’s chief of strategy and political direction.

 

The list was submitted to the EC by Prasert Chanthararuangthong, the party’s secretary-general.

 

Full Story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/pheu-thai-party-unveils-its-three-prime-ministerial-candidates/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2023-04-05

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

The most versatile and flexible rental investment and holiday home solution in Thailand - click for more information.

[pegman]

How long before some kangaroo court disqualifies them?

[OneMoreFarang]

55 minutes ago, pegman said:

How long before some kangaroo court disqualifies them?

Hopefully a court will disqualify them. Why? Because they are clearly under control from the wanted criminal from outside of Thailand. And the party clearly concentrates on what he wants and not what is best for Thailand. Disqualifies them, best about a day before the election. 

[pegman]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Hopefully a court will disqualify them. Why? Because they are clearly under control from the wanted criminal from outside of Thailand. And the party clearly concentrates on what he wants and not what is best for Thailand. Disqualifies them, best about a day before the election. 

you really hate democracy don't you?

[still kicking]

6 minutes ago, pegman said:

you really hate democracy don't you?

supporter of little p 

[OneMoreFarang]

52 minutes ago, pegman said:

you really hate democracy don't you?

No, not really.

I hate when people vote for criminals who obviously want power for themselves to get richer and more influential and to do what they personally want.

 

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, democracy is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” 

 

That's what democracy should be. We should look for leaders who care about the country and all the people in the country. We should not look for individuals who want to be PM to have power and get rich, or even richer.

 

What is more obviously wrong then a wanted criminal trying to influence Thai politics so that he can get back into Thailand without going to jail? And he wants more power, and he wants revenge. What of that will make Thailand a better place for Thais?

Many Thais love Thaksin because he did at least something to the people. But should we really aim for leaders who want everything and are willing to give a few crumbs to the rest?

[OneMoreFarang]

55 minutes ago, still kicking said:

supporter of little p 

What is so difficult to understand that if you don't want A that doesn't mean you are a supporter from B?

There is C and D and a lot more out there. But as long as people only look at A and B it's no surprise that they end up with A or B.

[still kicking]

12 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What is so difficult to understand that if you don't want A that doesn't mean you are a supporter from B?

There is C and D and a lot more out there. But as long as people only look at A and B it's no surprise that they end up with A or B.

There will be only A, B and C and D will be banned 

[hotchilli]

8 hours ago, pegman said:

How long before some kangaroo court disqualifies them?

The clock starts now... 

The courts is already working on Chuwit, others will follow.

[zzaa09]

Notice they all have common similarities and backgrounds of wealth and deep influence. 

Just saying...

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

No, not really.

I hate when people vote for criminals who obviously want power for themselves to get richer and more influential and to do what they personally want.

 

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, democracy is “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” 

 

That's what democracy should be. We should look for leaders who care about the country and all the people in the country. We should not look for individuals who want to be PM to have power and get rich, or even richer.

 

What is more obviously wrong then a wanted criminal trying to influence Thai politics so that he can get back into Thailand without going to jail? And he wants more power, and he wants revenge. What of that will make Thailand a better place for Thais?

Many Thais love Thaksin because he did at least something to the people. But should we really aim for leaders who want everything and are willing to give a few crumbs to the rest?

"What is more obviously wrong then a wanted criminal trying to influence Thai politics so that he can get back into Thailand without going to jail?"

 

A military that stages coups so often that democracy can never get a firm foothold in the country.

Edited April 6, 2023 by heybruce

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What is so difficult to understand that if you don't want A that doesn't mean you are a supporter from B?

There is C and D and a lot more out there. But as long as people only look at A and B it's no surprise that they end up with A or B.

Really?  I though you approved of the 2014 coup.  You know, the one that prevented elections that might have democratically removed Pheu Thai from power.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Really?  I though you approved of the 2014 coup.  You know, the one that prevented elections that might have democratically removed Pheu Thai from power.

Yes, I liked that Thaksin was removed. It would have been better if the courts would have removed him, but obviously they didn't dare to do that.

And the fact that I liked that the military removed Thaksin and his little sister doesn't mean that I support everything they do.

It would be great to have honest and competent politicians in this country. And it would be even better if Thais would vote for honest and competent politicians. But it seems most Thais prefer corrupt and often incompetent politicians. There is not much I can do about that.

[NoshowJones]

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Hopefully a court will disqualify them. Why? Because they are clearly under control from the wanted criminal from outside of Thailand. And the party clearly concentrates on what he wants and not what is best for Thailand. Disqualifies them, best about a day before the election. 

No offense OneMoreFarang, but I would rather see The Pheu Thai party win the election than any party who has soldiers involved with it.

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yes, I liked that Thaksin was removed. It would have been better if the courts would have removed him, but obviously they didn't dare to do that.

And the fact that I liked that the military removed Thaksin and his little sister doesn't mean that I support everything they do.

It would be great to have honest and competent politicians in this country. And it would be even better if Thais would vote for honest and competent politicians. But it seems most Thais prefer corrupt and often incompetent politicians. There is not much I can do about that.

I cheered as I watched the man who the Thai overwhelmingly elected get deposed by the military whom nobody has ever voluntarily elected in a fair contest, knowing full well that this meant they would keep power indefinitely and without a shred of transparency. This I find preferable to a person actually chosen by the people who live here and speak the language and who understand that every Thai politician and senior military person is likely corrupt. I am completely unaware that Thaksin, while corrupt like every other one of them, actually gave away serious money and power to the people in Isarn and the North who have been systematically excluded from it for decades by the A-mart in Bangkok. So in my ignorance, I blindly support the Military to continue to usurp power and prevent any democracy from ever gaining any hold here. My intellectual position is "Shin bad, so anyone else good".

Did I summarize your position well?

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, JCauto said:

I cheered as I watched the man who the Thai overwhelmingly elected get deposed by the military whom nobody has ever voluntarily elected in a fair contest, knowing full well that this meant they would keep power indefinitely and without a shred of transparency. This I find preferable to a person actually chosen by the people who live here and speak the language and who understand that every Thai politician and senior military person is likely corrupt. I am completely unaware that Thaksin, while corrupt like every other one of them, actually gave away serious money and power to the people in Isarn and the North who have been systematically excluded from it for decades by the A-mart in Bangkok. So in my ignorance, I blindly support the Military to continue to usurp power and prevent any democracy from ever gaining any hold here. My intellectual position is "Shin bad, so anyone else good".

Did I summarize your position well?

Let me try to explain it in another way: There is another politician on this earth, he has about 70 million supporters. He was already president and maybe he will become again president.

Do I like that? No. Even if 100 million people would elect him, I would still think he is a maniac - to use a nice word.

It seems the fact that many people, maybe even a majority of people, support one person does not mean this person is suitable for the job.

IMHO it is sad to see how many idiots vote for crooks and expect to have a decent government. 

[JCauto]

14 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Let me try to explain it in another way: There is another politician on this earth, he has about 70 million supporters. He was already president and maybe he will become again president.

Do I like that? No. Even if 100 million people would elect him, I would still think he is a maniac - to use a nice word.

It seems the fact that many people, maybe even a majority of people, support one person does not mean this person is suitable for the job.

IMHO it is sad to see how many idiots vote for crooks and expect to have a decent government. 

Let me try to do the same because you are missing the basic point.

The person you described is indeed a maniac, and has some hardcore support from around 20% of the US population or so. Thaksin is also a bit of a maniac but has hardcore support from over half of the population. Trump would almost certainly lose another election if he ran, and if he won, it would be through the narrowest of margins. Thaksin would win any reasonably fair election in a landslide again. Therefore we can say that while the personalities of Trump and Thaksin are similar in some ways, their popularity is not. Thaksin appeals to far more people in Thailand.

The major mistake you are making in your thinking is that there would be some alternative politician one might elect here who would be not corrupt or would be able to otherwise be effective as Prime Minister - say what you will about Thaksin, he was probably the most significant PM in the country's history in terms of the changes he was able to make in the short time he was able to remain in power. You can elect non-corrupt people like Chuan Leekpai - they're utter disasters as PM due to their inability to manage their own caucus and are soon displaced by the scumbags in their own party who quickly return to business as usual (see Thaugsuban, Suthep). The other parties are the same-olds and never-weres who have never demonstrated any ability other than parochialism and the ability to steal money. So your dream of an ideal person who will somehow be suitable for AND end up as PM is just that.

If you need a reminder, there was such a person recently who appeared on the scene whose name began with 'T'. The Military Government made sure he and his party were duly disqualified and disallowed to run again for several years. This was so obviously what was going to happen when lil' P and his cronies weaseled their way into indefinite power. You don't appear to understand that this is what has happened for almost one hundred years now. At what point do you reckon you're okay with the person the people elected actually retaining power and putting the military permanently in their barracks? Another hundred years?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yes, I liked that Thaksin was removed. It would have been better if the courts would have removed him, but obviously they didn't dare to do that.

And the fact that I liked that the military removed Thaksin and his little sister doesn't mean that I support everything they do.

It would be great to have honest and competent politicians in this country. And it would be even better if Thais would vote for honest and competent politicians. But it seems most Thais prefer corrupt and often incompetent politicians. There is not much I can do about that.

Just to be very clear:  You are OK with a coup that prevented an election in 2014.  The year in which the Thaksin backed party was at perhaps its lowest level in popularity this century.  Is that correct?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Let me try to explain it in another way: There is another politician on this earth, he has about 70 million supporters. He was already president and maybe he will become again president.

Do I like that? No. Even if 100 million people would elect him, I would still think he is a maniac - to use a nice word.

It seems the fact that many people, maybe even a majority of people, support one person does not mean this person is suitable for the job.

IMHO it is sad to see how many idiots vote for crooks and expect to have a decent government. 

Democracy makes mistakes.  In a democracy, mistakes can be corrected by elections.

 

Do you have an alternative to democracy other than authoritarianism?  If so, please share it.  If not, please explain how an authoritarian government can be removed if it doesn't want to go.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

Let me try to do the same because you are missing the basic point.

The person you described is indeed a maniac, and has some hardcore support from around 20% of the US population or so. Thaksin is also a bit of a maniac but has hardcore support from over half of the population. Trump would almost certainly lose another election if he ran, and if he won, it would be through the narrowest of margins. Thaksin would win any reasonably fair election in a landslide again. Therefore we can say that while the personalities of Trump and Thaksin are similar in some ways, their popularity is not. Thaksin appeals to far more people in Thailand.

The major mistake you are making in your thinking is that there would be some alternative politician one might elect here who would be not corrupt or would be able to otherwise be effective as Prime Minister - say what you will about Thaksin, he was probably the most significant PM in the country's history in terms of the changes he was able to make in the short time he was able to remain in power. You can elect non-corrupt people like Chuan Leekpai - they're utter disasters as PM due to their inability to manage their own caucus and are soon displaced by the scumbags in their own party who quickly return to business as usual (see Thaugsuban, Suthep). The other parties are the same-olds and never-weres who have never demonstrated any ability other than parochialism and the ability to steal money. So your dream of an ideal person who will somehow be suitable for AND end up as PM is just that.

If you need a reminder, there was such a person recently who appeared on the scene whose name began with 'T'. The Military Government made sure he and his party were duly disqualified and disallowed to run again for several years. This was so obviously what was going to happen when lil' P and his cronies weaseled their way into indefinite power. You don't appear to understand that this is what has happened for almost one hundred years now. At what point do you reckon you're okay with the person the people elected actually retaining power and putting the military permanently in their barracks? Another hundred years?

I understand your point.

And I am sure it is difficult to change Thailand. But I don't think it is impossible.

I still have hope that one day Thais will be fed up with corrupt leaders. I don't know if that will happen in the next 100 years.

 

And then there is another point which, IMHO, is important. We can agree that all of them are more or less corrupt. But some are better in hiding this and others do it plainly in the open and brag about it.

I prefer the guys who take their envelopes and are quiet about it. Thaksin became famous for his blatant show that he could do whatever he wanted. He rubbed it in the face of everybody that he is above the law - at least that is what he thought. That is definitely part of the reason why he is my least favorite.

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Just to be very clear:  You are OK with a coup that prevented an election in 2014.  The year in which the Thaksin backed party was at perhaps its lowest level in popularity this century.  Is that correct?

To be clear: I, together with many others, welcomed the last two coups which removed Thaksin and his clone. I also gave soft drinks to those friendly soldiers on the street.

 

 

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Democracy makes mistakes.  In a democracy, mistakes can be corrected by elections.

 

Do you have an alternative to democracy other than authoritarianism?  If so, please share it.  If not, please explain how an authoritarian government can be removed if it doesn't want to go.

I would prefer a democracy which does not allow serial liars to stand for any election.

And I would prefer a democracy in which only informed people can vote.

The problem in many countries in this world is that too many uniformed idiots vote for too many liars.

Obviously it would be very difficult to solve this problem. But this is what I think.

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

To be clear: I, together with many others, welcomed the last two coups which removed Thaksin and his clone. I also gave soft drinks to those friendly soldiers on the street.

 

 

 

 

A simple "yes" would have sufficed, but at least you have made it clear:  Until the Thai people are "smart" enough to vote for candidates you think are acceptable, Thailand is not ready for democracy and you are ok with military rule.  Correct?

 

It is a yes/no question.  Don't obfuscate, just answer.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I would prefer a democracy which does not allow serial liars to stand for any election.

And I would prefer a democracy in which only informed people can vote.

The problem in many countries in this world is that too many uniformed idiots vote for too many liars.

Obviously it would be very difficult to solve this problem. But this is what I think.

And, once again, if "democracy" doesn't meet your standards, military rule is preferable.

[zzaa09]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

"What is more obviously wrong then a wanted criminal trying to influence Thai politics so that he can get back into Thailand without going to jail?"

 

A military that stages coups so often that democracy can never get a firm foothold in the country.

Almost impossible to break away from hard-wired and accepted tradition.....

One has to sit back and reasonably ask [rhetorically] why these military coups take place. 

Take a good look behind the curtain.

[phetphet]

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What is so difficult to understand that if you don't want A that doesn't mean you are a supporter from B?

There is C and D and a lot more out there. But as long as people only look at A and B it's no surprise that they end up with A or B.

Three candidates for the same job in the same party? How does that work?

[OneMoreFarang]

43 minutes ago, heybruce said:

A simple "yes" would have sufficed, but at least you have made it clear:  Until the Thai people are "smart" enough to vote for candidates you think are acceptable, Thailand is not ready for democracy and you are ok with military rule.  Correct?

 

It is a yes/no question.  Don't obfuscate, just answer.

How often do I have to repeat it: If lots of uniformed idiots decide then don't expect a decent result.

That's why rocket scientist study and write exams. They are not elected by the masses. 

[OneMoreFarang]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

And, once again, if "democracy" doesn't meet your standards, military rule is preferable.

I am not the one who repeatedly votes for the same corrupt politicians. 

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How often do I have to repeat it: If lots of uniformed idiots decide then don't expect a decent result.

That's why rocket scientist study and write exams. They are not elected by the masses. 

 

14 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am not the one who repeatedly votes for the same corrupt politicians. 

OK, we're almost there.  You make it very clear that you don't trust the people of Thailand to decide who should lead Thailand.  However you still won't admit the obvious:  You are OK with military rule if it ends democracy in Thailand.

 

Any idiot can take a stand against something.  The hard part is defending an alternative.  Your stand is against Thaksin.  What is your alternative?

[DJ54]

The winner may be someone or party … literally… passing the Buck….