As election draws near, dissolution rumors grow

[ThailandRyan]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

"a barricade"? More like a hundred of them on many strategic points. But according to you that doesn't have to be planned, organized and financed. Think again!

 

Thaksin did some good things and he made sure everybody though that he is the messiahs who does all that.

Prayut and others also had many politics who help the poor in many ways. But he and his people are not good at presenting these politics to the people. And Thaksin's local henchmen have obviously no interest to let people believe that other politicians also use taxpayers' money to help the poor.

 

And coming back to the current situation: If Thaksin would come back to help the people and make life better for everybody that would be nice. But that is not what is happening. He wants more power for himself and his family and he wants revenge. He will divide the Thai people even more. And that is the last thing Thailand needs. 

Can you please show me where I can find the information which can corroborate your last 3 lines.  Finding it hard to find any links to verify your statements, or are the last 3 lines a personal view?  I mean I am truly interested to see the truth behind what you have written.  I am no fan of the man, but my view is that he did more for the country and moved it forward where the current folks have set it back at least a decade.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

"a barricade"? More like a hundred of them on many strategic points. But according to you that doesn't have to be planned, organized and financed. Think again!

 

Thaksin did some good things and he made sure everybody though that he is the messiahs who does all that.

Prayut and others also had many politics who help the poor in many ways. But he and his people are not good at presenting these politics to the people. And Thaksin's local henchmen have obviously no interest to let people believe that other politicians also use taxpayers' money to help the poor.

 

And coming back to the current situation: If Thaksin would come back to help the people and make life better for everybody that would be nice. But that is not what is happening. He wants more power for himself and his family and he wants revenge. He will divide the Thai people even more. And that is the last thing Thailand needs. 

So the all-knowing OneMoreFarang knows what Thaksin intends, why Prayut is better, and what is best for the Thai people.  Is that your argument against democracy and elections?

[BritManToo]

47 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So why don't Thais vote for honest and competent politicians?

Why do they again and again vote for the same crooks or their family and expect a good result.

That doesn't make any sense - at least it doesn't make sense if people think about it for at least a few seconds. 

Could the answer be that 'corrupt crooks' are the only choices offered on the ballot papers?

(and not only on Thai ballot papers)

Edited May 6, 2023 by BritManToo

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems to me every Thai has a mobile phone with Internet and they look constantly at those phones.

If they would only use 1% of their screen time to learn about the world outside corruption that would be a good start. 

How is your condescending opinion of the Thai people an argument for or against any candidate?

[bannork]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And let's not forget that at least some of these protests are well organized and well financed. Now who is doing that? The poor grassroot people? Or some rich people of groups with certain interests.

Personally I don't see that Thais have much interest in protest - unless they are paid to protest or maybe teenagers who like the thrill. 

You're wrong OMF.The Black May protests of 1992 were a genuine manifestation of the outrage of the Thai people at Sujinda becoming PM The protest movement cut across classes and city/ countryside differences.

Like you, I hate Thaksin and consider PT nothing more than a vehicle to return Thaksin.

Prayuth has survived all these years because the middle class hated Thaksin too so they put up with the coups.

However, many yearned for reform as seen in FF's popularity.

To my surprise, Pita seems to have carried that flame onwards with

 MF, though I'm not sure how well they will do in rural areas.

I think a dissolution of MF would spark mass protests, the young, the educated, are sick of living in the past. 

I don't think the authorities dare dissolve both PT and MF. If anything they'll go for the latter, hoping PT then team up with the old guard to form a government.

That would be a real test for PT. If they did that they would be permanently scorned by many but if they refused, demanded a new election or formed an alliance with the party/ parties that accepted MPs from the dissolved MF, then who knows? 

So much depends on the numbers post election.

 

[rabas]

10 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Can you please show me where I can find the information which can corroborate your last 3 lines.  Finding it hard to find any links to verify your statements, or are the last 3 lines a personal view?  I mean I am truly interested to see the truth behind what you have written.  I am no fan of the man, but my view is that he did more for the country and moved it forward where the current folks have set it back at least a decade.

All of history. Thaksin is world renowned as one of the great dividers. To be fair, Thaksin is like a double edge sword, a dichotomy. To accomplish his own greedy ambitions he used the rural people and they did benefit substantially. But that does not mean he is a good person.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/thailand-rural-urban-split

-- Thitinan Pongsudhirak (Executive Director, Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University)

 

"Thailand's farms became increasingly alienated from the urban elite. Thaksin recognised this urban-rural divide and shrewdly exploited it, ..."

 

"Thaksin's sins are voluminous, and became the basis of the rise of his yellow-shirted opponents,"

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

And yet Thaksin did enough for the neglected majority of Thais--roads, schools, clinics in the north and northeast--to be unstoppable in elections.  That's why the Bangkok elites resorted the coups to retain power.

There sure was a lot of scheming, cronyism, and vote buying for someone who was "unstoppable in elections"... 

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

As you rightly said, corrupt elected leaders can be voted out

If that is the case, why was the coup against Thaksin needed?  He was corrupt and elected, but no one voted him out?  Why?  Because he controlled the media to ensure that the voters didn't know how corrupt he was?  Because he paid them so they didn't care?

 

Corrupt leaders whose corruption is what allowed them to be elected and prevents them being voted out cannot be voted out.

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, rabas said:

All of history. Thaksin is world renowned as one of the great dividers. To be fair, Thaksin is like a double edge sword, a dichotomy. To accomplish his own greedy ambitions he used the rural people and they did benefit substantially. But that does not mean he is a good person.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/thailand-rural-urban-split

-- Thitinan Pongsudhirak (Executive Director, Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University)

 

"Thailand's farms became increasingly alienated from the urban elite. Thaksin recognised this urban-rural divide and shrewdly exploited it, ..."

 

"Thaksin's sins are voluminous, and became the basis of the rise of his yellow-shirted opponents,"

From your source:

 

"While the rural population had more than enough to eat, their economic opportunities and upward mobility were limited by a shoddy education system and docile state-run media that fed them soap operas and official messages. For a nobody to become a somebody, all roads led to Bangkok and its prestigious prep schools and universities. Thailand's farms became increasingly alienated from the urban elite. Thaksin recognised this urban-rural divide and shrewdly exploited it, upending the elite consensus that had long prevailed."

 

Of course the problem was more than just poor schools and television, and that the "prestigious prep schools and universities" were denied to the children who went to these poor schools.  While Bangkok was building a first world Sky Train there were children in the north dying of polio because their parents couldn't get them to a clinic for vaccinations.  Thailand was the Bangkok Empire, and the provinces existed solely for the glory of Bangkok. 

 

Bangkok was wealthy, the rest of the country was poor and denied the opportunity to improve their lot, and the Bangkok elite were content with this.  Thaksin's "crime" was in demonstrating that in a democracy the government could serve all the people, not just the elites.  The elites crime was and is in rejecting a democracy that serves the majority.

 

Yes, Thaksin was corrupt and enriched himself, but no more than the unelected autocrats that came before and after him.  However he actually improved the lot of the majority, while the autocrats were primarily concerned with keeping them in-line, using military force to accomplish this. 

 

The autocrats haven't changed.  Perhaps Thaksin hasn't changed either, but I don't presume to know.  However the voters are much better informed than before and eager to choose Thailand's leaders democratically.  If the elites continue to deny them this right, either by military force or using a compliant judiciary, the country will blow up. 

 

You seem primarily concerned with keeping the country peaceful.  If you want that, you should support democracy, not autocracy.

 

 

[heybruce]

21 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

There sure was a lot of scheming, cronyism, and vote buying for someone who was "unstoppable in elections"... 

So many people post that.   None of them give evidence of the vote buying.

 

Although even if you can prove that elections were decided by vote buying (you can't), that is still preferable to seizing power at gunpoint.

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

If that is the case, why was the coup against Thaksin needed?  He was corrupt and elected, but no one voted him out?  Why?  Because he controlled the media to ensure that the voters didn't know how corrupt he was?  Because he paid them so they didn't care?

 

Corrupt leaders whose corruption is what allowed them to be elected and prevents them being voted out cannot be voted out.

The post stated that corrupt leaders can be voted out.  Not that they will be voted out.  If the corrupt elected leaders manage to improve the lives of the majority they can be re-elected for so long as they continue to do so.

 

With the gross inequity in Thailand, especially before Thaksin, there were many ways to improve lives without making corruption a priority.  Since corruption needs to be rooted out starting at the top, and the corrupt elites are at the top and can stage coups, it makes sense to not emphasize corruption initially but instead to improve infrastructure and opportunities for the majority.  That is how democracy is sufficiently entrenched to make coups difficult.  That is what Thaksin did.

 

Now explain how corrupt coup leaders can be kicked out.

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The post stated that corrupt leaders can be voted out.

And I disagreed with that opinion in the case of Thaksin.

[Dogmatix]

22 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Indeed. My daughter 13 is telling her mum not to vote Phue Thai. Vote Orange. Vote 31. My friend I mentioned above is in his late 40's. Same thing. Get rid of the old guard.

Apart from all else, one of the MFP policies that really resonates across the country is the plan to abolish wasteful and pointless military conscription. Anyone with a young son, grandson or nephew should want abolition, would rather not worry about their loved one being murdered in hazing rituals by sadistic NCOs or killed by insurgents in the South, not to mention the waste of a couple of years of their life. The military would also benefit hugely from having a professional force of willing soldiers, rather than a constant turn over of unwilling conscripts who tie down NCOs in training for months and then quit. Volunteers who actually want to join the military would benefit from better pay and conditions. The only losers would be officers wives who would have to do their own housework and gardening.  

Edited May 6, 2023 by Dogmatix

[Dogmatix]

MFP’s resurgence from the ashes of its previous dissolution is nothing short of astonishing. In the last election FFP had a windfall due to the dissolution of Thai Raksa which left many seats undefended by Pheua Thai. That made them too much of a threat. Hence the dissolution of FFP and banning of Thanathorn on trumped up charges.  Many MPs were lured away and didn't join MFP.  The voting system in the constitution was amended restoring the dual ballots to favour Pheua Thai (obviously a nod to a hoped post electoral alliance between Prayut/Prawit and Thaksin) and to be a supposed disadvantage to MFP, since FFP had picked up many of its MPs from the party list due to the single ballot. Then there was bitter infighting between MFP leader Pita and external advisor Piyabutr.  

 

At least in the opinion polls MFP seems to have overcome all these setbacks by articulating a solid platform of much needed reform which is clearly anathema to the dinosaurs who no doubt will look to another dissolution to offset the risk.  But protests would be worse than last time without the excuse of COVID to declare emergency and, yes, another coup would be quite possible - not to maintain Prayut and Prawit in power but to elevate a new generation of army leaders. 

[Eric Loh]

58 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

If that is the case, why was the coup against Thaksin needed?  He was corrupt and elected, but no one voted him out?  Why?  Because he controlled the media to ensure that the voters didn't know how corrupt he was?  Because he paid them so they didn't care?

 

Corrupt leaders whose corruption is what allowed them to be elected and prevents them being voted out cannot be voted out.

You said Thaksin controlled and paid the media. Press was more free during those times than current. The Press Freedom Index ranking for Thailand has been falling since 1997 from 59 to 140 (2018). If you read the Thai papers during Thaksin’s tenure, there many negative news of him and there are newspapers that are fiercely pointing out his corruptions. Sondhi had his un-interrupted rallies to highlight Thaksin’s corruption at Lumpini Park and reported by all major press.. What you said is totally asinine.
 

The coups have made Thaksin more popular and his people’s policies resonate with the population and continued by current governments like the 30 B Medicare scheme and OTOP. The voters have a legit process to vote him out. If they vote for his parties, it is simply that they like his party vision and confident that the party leaders will provide good policies to lift their living standard something that the Bangkok centric government has never done for decades. 

 

[heybruce]

44 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

And I disagreed with that opinion in the case of Thaksin.

First and last warning:  Don't edit my post down to a single out-of-context sentence when replying.  Next time I will report you.

 

Obviously Thaksin could be voted out of office.  My full post explained why the voters might choose not to do so. 

 

You neglected to explain how coup leaders can be removed from office. 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You said Thaksin controlled and paid the media. Press was more free during those times than current. The Press Freedom Index ranking for Thailand has been falling since 1997 from 59 to 140 (2018). If you read the Thai papers during Thaksin’s tenure, there many negative news of him and there are newspapers that are fiercely pointing out his corruptions. Sondhi had his un-interrupted rallies to highlight Thaksin’s corruption at Lumpini Park and reported by all major press.. What you said is totally asinine.
 

The coups have made Thaksin more popular and his people’s policies resonate with the population and continued by current governments like the 30 B Medicare scheme and OTOP. The voters have a legit process to vote him out. If they vote for his parties, it is simply that they like his party vision and confident that the party leaders will provide good policies to lift their living standard something that the Bangkok centric government has never done for decades. 

 

Excellent point.  Had the election been allowed in 2014, when Yingluck, Thaksin and their party were at a low point in popularity, the Shinawatra influence would have been greatly reduced and possibly eliminated.  The coup served to make both of them martyrs for democracy.

[sqwakvfr]

I saw a sign today which stated:  No alcohol sales from 600PM on May 6 to 600 PM May 7.  Does this mean we can buy all the alcohol we can carry rom 500 PM to 600 PM on May 6th? Just wondering because the alcohol ban was for the election but why not just make from 500PM? 

[billd766]

15 hours ago, Adumbration said:

Thai politics is not about public service.  It is about dividing up the spoils.  Always has been and always will be.

Why will it always will be?

 

There is a force in the world called progress, and it changes things.

[Mavideol]

19 hours ago, BenStark said:

Because the senators, appointed by the 2 P's have 250 votes, and while they all went to Prayuth during the previous election, since he was the default choice, they will now be split between the two.

 

My money is on that it is Prawit's turn to be PM, unless the weed constructor pays them off enough, so he gets first seat at the trough

do you really mean "sleepy" has a chance.... God have mercy

[billd766]

3 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

But they're already free, independent and largely self-sufficient - and have been for quite some time. 

Observe their everyday lives and community and you'll witness this democracy [whatever that is] that you speak of.  

Tell that to the youths who are already in jail under the LM 112 section and see if they are already free and independent. Tell that to the 6 million voters of the FFP who were disenfranchised 4 years ago.

 

They may have a different answers than your flippant one, and there are far more of them.

[Mavideol]

15 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

In 1789 they solved the problems in a country...

u r mean 555 ..... and every year on July 14th we celebrate it 555

Edited May 6, 2023 by Mavideol

[billd766]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

If that is the case, why was the coup against Thaksin needed?  He was corrupt and elected, but no one voted him out?  Why?  Because he controlled the media to ensure that the voters didn't know how corrupt he was?  Because he paid them so they didn't care?

 

Corrupt leaders whose corruption is what allowed them to be elected and prevents them being voted out cannot be voted out.

And who controls the media in Thailand now?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media_in_Thailand

 

Television
Main article: Television in Thailand
Television is by far the most popular medium in Thailand. Almost 80 percent of Thais are estimated to rely on television as their primary source of news.[9] Major television stations are owned and controlled by the Royal Thai Army, MCOT and government.

 

Radio
Thailand has 204 AM stations, 334 FM stations, and six shortwave broadcasters (as of 2011). As is the case with television, radio broadcasting is supposed to be regulated by the Broadcasting Commission (NBC). However, because there were delays in establishing the NBC (now NBTC), radio frequencies had remained in the hands of several governmental agencies, including the military, police, state universities, The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, The Government Public Relations Department (PRD) (National Broadcasting Services of Thailand), and MCOT Public Company Limited. These agencies operate several stations directly while the remainder are leased out to private content providers

[rabas]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

From your source:

 

"While the rural population had more than enough to eat, their economic opportunities and upward mobility were limited by a shoddy education system and docile state-run media that fed them soap operas and official messages. For a nobody to become a somebody, all roads led to Bangkok and its prestigious prep schools and universities. Thailand's farms became increasingly alienated from the urban elite. Thaksin recognised this urban-rural divide and shrewdly exploited it, upending the elite consensus that had long prevailed."

 

Of course the problem was more than just poor schools and television, and that the "prestigious prep schools and universities" were denied to the children who went to these poor schools.  While Bangkok was building a first world Sky Train there were children in the north dying of polio because their parents couldn't get them to a clinic for vaccinations.  Thailand was the Bangkok Empire, and the provinces existed solely for the glory of Bangkok. 

 

Bangkok was wealthy, the rest of the country was poor and denied the opportunity to improve their lot, and the Bangkok elite were content with this.  Thaksin's "crime" was in demonstrating that in a democracy the government could serve all the people, not just the elites.  The elites crime was and is in rejecting a democracy that serves the majority.

 

Yes, Thaksin was corrupt and enriched himself, but no more than the unelected autocrats that came before and after him.  However he actually improved the lot of the majority, while the autocrats were primarily concerned with keeping them in-line, using military force to accomplish this. 

 

The autocrats haven't changed.  Perhaps Thaksin hasn't changed either, but I don't presume to know.  However the voters are much better informed than before and eager to choose Thailand's leaders democratically.  If the elites continue to deny them this right, either by military force or using a compliant judiciary, the country will blow up. 

 

You seem primarily concerned with keeping the country peaceful.  If you want that, you should support democracy, not autocracy.

"You seem primarily concerned ..." "you should support democracy"

 

Nothing in the article nor your post contradict the singular point I made. Nor did I express any concerns or wants, which you wrongly presume to know.

 

Interestingly, my extensive Thai family are from Issan and now split between Issan and Bangkok with a few down South and overseas. As they have learned more over the years, few now have any interest in either Thaksin or the ruling elite. Several younger ones liked the FFP. It is not surprising that Thai with hand phones can reason through these things better than we can.

 

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

"You seem primarily concerned ..." "you should support democracy"

 

Nothing in the article nor your post contradict the singular point I made. Nor did I express any concerns or wants, which you wrongly presume to know.

 

Interestingly, my extensive Thai family are from Issan and now split between Issan and Bangkok with a few down South and overseas. As they have learned more over the years, few now have any interest in either Thaksin or the ruling elite. Several younger ones liked the FFP. It is not surprising that Thai with hand phones can reason through these things better than we can.

 

My apologies.  I thought I was replying to another poster, one who seems to think that repressing protests is the greatest good a government can achieve.

 

However I do think my post provided context to yours.  Thaksin exploited a divide in Thailand, which is what politicians do.  However he was not responsible for the divide. 

 

Also, for all his many faults, Thaksin did a lot of good.  A former student of mine is the child of poor and barely literate parents.  She has a Masters degree in Chemistry from Chiang Mai University and a PhD from a university in South Korea.  I seriously doubt that her success, and the current success of many Thais her age, would have been possible had Thaksin not be elected.

 

I don't know which party would be best for Thailand's future.  I don't think it's Pheu Thai or the PPP.  I don't support Thaksin, I oppose those who use or approve of undemocratic methods to prevent the Thai people from choosing their government. 

 

BTW:  My former student and current friend posted a picture of herself on Facebook going to the Thai Embassy in Seoul to vote.  I don't know who she voted for (it's none of my business) but I'm pleased to see that she was excited to vote.  I hope many young Thais are also excited, and that their vote is respected.

[kingstonkid]

18 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

If you look closely at the rules governing creating and starting new political parties, tucked away deep in the 2017 constitution, you will see that the ultimate arbiter as to whether a party an be formed or not is the Electoral Commission. Not exactly a shining beacon of political impartiality!

 

If the establishment dissolve these two parties it is very likely to end up being resolved on the streets.

 

The Thai Army need to get cracking welding bedsteads to their new Strikers!

BUT the main focus is no matter if there is a party or not the house then has a ton of pissed-off independent members.

 

The people are not going to allow the military to take over after watching the Prayut prawit show.

 

 

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

And who controls the media in Thailand now?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media_in_Thailand

 

Television
Main article: Television in Thailand
Television is by far the most popular medium in Thailand. Almost 80 percent of Thais are estimated to rely on television as their primary source of news.[9] Major television stations are owned and controlled by the Royal Thai Army, MCOT and government.

 

Radio
Thailand has 204 AM stations, 334 FM stations, and six shortwave broadcasters (as of 2011). As is the case with television, radio broadcasting is supposed to be regulated by the Broadcasting Commission (NBC). However, because there were delays in establishing the NBC (now NBTC), radio frequencies had remained in the hands of several governmental agencies, including the military, police, state universities, The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, The Government Public Relations Department (PRD) (National Broadcasting Services of Thailand), and MCOT Public Company Limited. These agencies operate several stations directly while the remainder are leased out to private content providers

I don't see how that contradicts anything I have written.

[samtam]

On 5/5/2023 at 2:15 PM, dinsdale said:

This is exactly what my Thai friend told me. It won't happen before the election but after. People are watching. I said to him it's happened in Myanmar but no countries seem to care. Will it be the same here? Interesting question he said but nevertheless Thailand needs to move forward.

My conspiracy theory if you like is China is backing this all the way. They want Thailand to be a military dictatorship. Big call I know but not out of the realms of possibility.

I see what you did there????

 

 

19 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Times have changed. I have now had chats with several Thai friends today. If Prayut elects himself back in via his paid off lackeys expect this country to errupt. I get the feeling that some on here just don't know how dangerous these people are and how much the people hate them or just don't care or think about the possibilities. The possibility of a revolution be it a peoples revolution or an armed uprising is a real. Prayut etc. (I say etc because best not to mention others) know this. This country is on the brink. This election may be the biggest turning point in Thailand's history.

 

16 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

In 1789 they solved the problems in a country...

Any serious violence will be catastrophic for Thailand. The events in 1789 did not produce stability for many generations, and what immediately followed was chaos. Ditto the events of 1917.

[BangkokReady]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

First and last warning:  Don't edit my post down to a single out-of-context sentence when replying.  Next time I will report you.

How was it rendered out of context?

 

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Obviously Thaksin could be voted out of office.  My full post explained why the voters might choose not to do so. 

That's your opinion.  As I said, I disagree with that.

 

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

You neglected to explain how coup leaders can be removed from office. 

Why would I want to explain that?

[zzaa09]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I think it's the Laos and Central languages that really mark the divide in the Thai people.

(you could also add Arabic as the 3rd division)

Might add Chinese....