65% Of Voters Ready To Sell Votes

[John K]

What I am trying to say Blaze is I can and have shown you. Unless you have been taught to read between the lines it becomes difficult to see. I am sorry I can’t be more specific than that. If you have ever taken and classes in psychology you would be able to see it more easily.

[John K]

I don’t have much time to get into this today as I have other things to do, however on the two items you have listed, Popularly elected seems to go completely against the topic of this thread. Popularly purchased would be a more accurate description.

As for the human rights issue, continuing implies this was going on before the coup so hence no change there from your so called popularly elected government. As for worsening, for that you need to be more specific. Remember we are right next door to Burma so there is significant contrast. What you have to say better have some punch in it or it will come up looking DOA.

Please realist or PM me the specific questions and I will do my best to answer them tomorrow when I have a bit more time.

[Plus]

I find it incredulous that you really trying to argue that he or his government was not genuinely popular amongst the rural poor

That popularity was based on all sorts of bribery and brainwashing among the less educated sectors of society, openly pitching them against the rest of the country where Thaksin was the most hated figure in recent Thai history.

Under Thaksin Thailand didn't have a democracy at all. It was a failing state on the road to totalitarism. At best it would have been like Malaysia or Singapore.

"It's not the man personally I am trying to discredit, it's the whole junta and the machinations behind it."

There are no machinations so far, nothing beyond the stated purpose to destroy Thaksin's regime and reestablish democracy.

[John K]

Popularly elected seems to go completely against the topic of this thread. Popularly purchased would be a more accurate description.

Not according to international and impartial observers to the elections.

In fact, the Thaksin Government was elected in 2001 in the least corrupt elections ever in Thai history. And he was re-elected in another landslide victory.

I find it incredulous that you really trying to argue that he or his government was not genuinely popular amongst the rural poor?

In fact, I find this continuing nonsense spouted by the coup supporters that everyone who voted for Thaksin was paid for to be extremely offensive to the Thai electorate in general.

It does however mirror the opinion and contempt for the electorate that the Thai elite have.

You are just as out of touch with the rural poor as those people that instigated the coup in the first place.

As for the human rights issue, continuing implies this was going on before the coup so hence no change there from your so called popularly elected government. As for worsening, for that you need to be more specific

Human rights violations under the current military Junta:

Military control and censorship of broadcast television.

Military control and censorship of community radio.

Military control and censorship of other media, including, but not limited to; live performances, plays and even opera.

Worsening censorship of the internet. Pre-coup, the government blocked 2,475 websites, while as of January 2007, the government blocked 13,435 websites - an increase of a shade under 443%.

Banning all political parties, gatherings and meetings (certain groups are still banned from attending anti-Junta protests and other meetings).

14,000 strong 'special operations force' to monitor and control anti-Junta protests.

Arresting, detaining and impeding alleged anti-coup/anti-junta protesters.

Martial Law (still not lifted in certain parts of the country least favourable to Junta rule).

The some 700,000 strong network of junta supporters to prevent anti-junta demonstrators from allegedly inciting violence.

Ok lets have a go at this, but I am still a bit rushed for time so if there are long delays in replies that is why.

First of it looks like you are going after the word junta. As I said, this junta is a good guy with a bad name.

First you must agree the country was divided between pro and anti Thaksin groups. So being anti junta meant being pro Thaksin. This was the types of censorship that was being applied, so it is you choice of words here.

There is a thread from about November last year that talks about censorship. The number of blocked sites has been reduced to just a very few from what I can see. Sites that were blocked under Thaksin are now available. Not just a few but nearly all. So that is opposite of what you said.

Second, the 2001 elections and that government severed its term and a new government was elected. Thaksin dissolved that government in 2006 and a caretaker government was in place. The elections 2 months later were so corrupt that it caused the TRT to be dissolved and Thaksin banned for 5 years. That process started before the coup so you can’t put the blame on them for that. That is a far cry from what you describe.

I could go on but for the moment I have run out of time, but I will continue later but it sounds like your facts are wrong.

[hammered]

I find it incredulous that you really trying to argue that he or his government was not genuinely popular amongst the rural poor

That popularity was based on all sorts of bribery and brainwashing among the less educated sectors of society, openly pitching them against the rest of the country where Thaksin was the most hated figure in recent Thai history.

Under Thaksin Thailand didn't have a democracy at all. It was a failing state on the road to totalitarism. At best it would have been like Malaysia or Singapore.

"It's not the man personally I am trying to discredit, it's the whole junta and the machinations behind it."

There are no machinations so far, nothing beyond the stated purpose to destroy Thaksin's regime and reestablish democracy.

The way I have seen it happen in the rural constituencies is not exactly out and out vote buying. It goes more like this: an election comes along. People who are working hard in the farms are not totally sure so they go to the village headman and ask for advice on who is best for the village and they themself. The village headman, who is nearly always linked to a candidate through some arcane chain or other, then tells them of all the good polices of party X or candidate X for the village and for them as farmers, then there is mention that candidate X will also be passing on a couple of bottels of fish sauce and a few notes as a gesture. In most cases this delivers the reuqired votes to the candidate/party X. Maybe some would argue this is just someone asking an elder for advice. However, what it does is filter out all the policies of party Y/Z or all the advatages to the voter that may come from them.

In the upcoming election a village headman could say: Well the PPP are going to realunch the drug war, which we know was a good thing and we will have OTOP which helps the village and canduidate PPPman will resurface our village road, or he could say Well the Dems are going top improve education for your kids and forgive all your debt and thier candidate will dig a new well etc etc However, the one thing that is sure is that the village headman will not present the arguements for more than one of the parties and will usually demean all others. That is that way I have seen it personally and it is very effective.

[John K]

To continue,

Banning all political party gatherings and meetings. I will give you this one, but now that seems to have been lifted. Earlier the meetings in question, were they in fact political or just anti junta pro Thaksin? Seeing is up until just recently there was no charter I can’t see that the word politics can apply. All they ever wanted to do is make trouble and destabilize the government to get back what they lost. Why should they lift martial law if that is the only significant change. Would you want to let a bunch of 2 year old children loose in your house unattended knowing that the outcome would be not something in the best interest of all?

Every rally the former TRT had simply had nothing to do with politics but more to divide the country. They managed to even get themselves arrested for breaking laws that had nothing to do with politics. That is in particular the assault on Prem’s house. I hope that is not what you are talking about because if it is you are reading the wrong book.

Also when the pay did not come the next scheduled rally there were only a handful of people. So is that a rally or a bunch of Thaksin employees?

The rest I should not need to cover.

[Jai Dee]

Former Election Commissioner denies being approached as advisor to committee against vote buying

Former Election Commissioner Sawat Chotipanich (สวัสดิ์ โชติพานิช) denies that he has been approached to be advisor to the government’s committee against vote buying.

Mr Sawat gave an interview after meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Gen.Sonthi Boonyaratglin, saying that Gen.Sonthi did not ask him to be advisor of the committee. He said that he had been invited to meet the deputy premier to discuss election laws.

The former election commissioner stated that he was not sure whether the problem of vote buying would be severe this year but admitted that it would be more complicated. As for the Election Commission’s strict election rules, Mr Sawat said that he did not have much knowledge about them. However, he said the organic laws of the constitution are more stringent than the previous ones.

Mr Sawat also said he was confident that the five election commissioners have fairness and called on people to cooperate with EC to prevent vote buying.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 29 October 2007

[blaze]

Popularly elected seems to go completely against the topic of this thread. Popularly purchased would be a more accurate description.

Not according to international and impartial observers to the elections.

In fact, the Thaksin Government was elected in 2001 in the least corrupt elections ever in Thai history. And he was re-elected in another landslide victory.

I find it incredulous that you really trying to argue that he or his government was not genuinely popular amongst the rural poor?

In fact, I find this continuing nonsense spouted by the coup supporters that everyone who voted for Thaksin was paid for to be extremely offensive to the Thai electorate in general.

It does however mirror the opinion and contempt for the electorate that the Thai elite have.

You are just as out of touch with the rural poor as those people that instigated the coup in the first place.

As for the human rights issue, continuing implies this was going on before the coup so hence no change there from your so called popularly elected government. As for worsening, for that you need to be more specific

Human rights violations under the current military Junta:

Military control and censorship of broadcast television.

Military control and censorship of community radio.

Military control and censorship of other media, including, but not limited to; live performances, plays and even opera.

Worsening censorship of the internet. Pre-coup, the government blocked 2,475 websites, while as of January 2007, the government blocked 13,435 websites - an increase of a shade under 443%.

Banning all political parties, gatherings and meetings (certain groups are still banned from attending anti-Junta protests and other meetings).

14,000 strong 'special operations force' to monitor and control anti-Junta protests.

Arresting, detaining and impeding alleged anti-coup/anti-junta protesters.

Martial Law (still not lifted in certain parts of the country least favourable to Junta rule).

The some 700,000 strong network of junta supporters to prevent anti-junta demonstrators from allegedly inciting violence.

First you must agree the country was divided between pro and anti Thaksin groups. So being anti junta meant being pro Thaksin.

And by the same token, any American who would oppose a coup against the current (US) government must be pro Bush?

[blaze]

To continue,

Banning all political party gatherings and meetings. I will give you this one, but now that seems to have been lifted. Earlier the meetings in question, were they in fact political or just anti junta pro Thaksin? Seeing is up until just recently there was no charter I can’t see that the word politics can apply. All they ever wanted to do is make trouble and destabilize the government to get back what they lost. Why should they lift martial law if that is the only significant change. Would you want to let a bunch of 2 year old children loose in your house unattended knowing that the outcome would be not something in the best interest of all?

Every rally the former TRT had simply had nothing to do with politics but more to divide the country. They managed to even get themselves arrested for breaking laws that had nothing to do with politics. That is in particular the assault on Prem’s house. I hope that is not what you are talking about because if it is you are reading the wrong book.

Also when the pay did not come the next scheduled rally there were only a handful of people. So is that a rally or a bunch of Thaksin employees?

The rest I should not need to cover.

"Would you want to let a bunch of 2 year old children loose in your house unattended knowing that the outcome would be not something in the best interest of all?"

And who determines just which groups are the adults and which are the children? You? Me?

More important, who decides what is in 'the best interest of all?'

Academics who opposed the coup? Academics who supported it?

People who share your (or my) views?

Or the people with the biggest guns and snazziest uniforms?

[blaze]

Popularly elected seems to go completely against the topic of this thread. Popularly purchased would be a more accurate description.

Not according to international and impartial observers to the elections.

In fact, the Thaksin Government was elected in 2001 in the least corrupt elections ever in Thai history. And he was re-elected in another landslide victory.

I find it incredulous that you really trying to argue that he or his government was not genuinely popular amongst the rural poor?

In fact, I find this continuing nonsense spouted by the coup supporters that everyone who voted for Thaksin was paid for to be extremely offensive to the Thai electorate in general.

It does however mirror the opinion and contempt for the electorate that the Thai elite have.

You are just as out of touch with the rural poor as those people that instigated the coup in the first place.

As for the human rights issue, continuing implies this was going on before the coup so hence no change there from your so called popularly elected government. As for worsening, for that you need to be more specific

Human rights violations under the current military Junta:

Military control and censorship of broadcast television.

Military control and censorship of community radio.

Military control and censorship of other media, including, but not limited to; live performances, plays and even opera.

Worsening censorship of the internet. Pre-coup, the government blocked 2,475 websites, while as of January 2007, the government blocked 13,435 websites - an increase of a shade under 443%.

Banning all political parties, gatherings and meetings (certain groups are still banned from attending anti-Junta protests and other meetings).

14,000 strong 'special operations force' to monitor and control anti-Junta protests.

Arresting, detaining and impeding alleged anti-coup/anti-junta protesters.

Martial Law (still not lifted in certain parts of the country least favourable to Junta rule).

The some 700,000 strong network of junta supporters to prevent anti-junta demonstrators from allegedly inciting violence.

Ok lets have a go at this, but I am still a bit rushed for time so if there are long delays in replies that is why.

First of it looks like you are going after the word junta. As I said, this junta is a good guy with a bad name.

First you must agree the country was divided between pro and anti Thaksin groups. So being anti junta meant being pro Thaksin. This was the types of censorship that was being applied, so it is you choice of words here.

There is a thread from about November last year that talks about censorship. The number of blocked sites has been reduced to just a very few from what I can see. Sites that were blocked under Thaksin are now available. Not just a few but nearly all. So that is opposite of what you said.

Second, the 2001 elections and that government severed its term and a new government was elected. Thaksin dissolved that government in 2006 and a caretaker government was in place. The elections 2 months later were so corrupt that it caused the TRT to be dissolved and Thaksin banned for 5 years. That process started before the coup so you can’t put the blame on them for that. That is a far cry from what you describe.

I could go on but for the moment I have run out of time, but I will continue later but it sounds like your facts are wrong.

Your time line's not bad - except that between the caretaker government (and new elections scheduled for later in the year) and the dissolution of the TRT- you forgot to mention that the army illegally launched a coup d'etat with the avowed aim of destroying the TRT from the head down.

Edited October 29, 2007 by blaze

[blaze]

I find it incredulous that you really trying to argue that he or his government was not genuinely popular amongst the rural poor

That popularity was based on all sorts of bribery and brainwashing among the less educated sectors of society, openly pitching them against the rest of the country where Thaksin was the most hated figure in recent Thai history.

Under Thaksin Thailand didn't have a democracy at all. It was a failing state on the road to totalitarism. At best it would have been like Malaysia or Singapore.

"It's not the man personally I am trying to discredit, it's the whole junta and the machinations behind it."

There are no machinations so far, nothing beyond the stated purpose to destroy Thaksin's regime and reestablish democracy.

Thailand was NOT a failing state. There were no riots on the streets comparable to what happens in 'failed states'= the economy was not in tatters or showing any sings of breaking down. The TRT was losing power and, if we are going to predict 'what would have happened', its very likely that internal disputes would have curtailed Thaksin's grip on the party.

You have heard the same thing said about various partys in the west- that they will bankrupt the nation- they will set democracy back irrepairably- they will bring ruin and the God's wrath upon us all- but a bunch of people's saying it's so- don't make it so.

[Plus]

We are not in the West and the third world country like Thailand can easily slip into failed state chaos and become ungovernable. On the eve of the coup it didn't have a parlament or a senate, no government budget for the next year, and divisions between pro and anti Thaksin camps were irreconcilable.

The crisis was deep and frightening.

As Anand said, in this case it doesn't matter who has 19-16 million advantage, no one is going to win.

Thaksin was not going to lose a grip on his party and TRT popularity didn't come from "advice of the elders" alone. If those two conditions were true, your reasons would be acceptable, Blaze.

[blaze]

We are not in the West and the third world country like Thailand can easily slip into failed state chaos and become ungovernable. On the eve of the coup it didn't have a parlament or a senate, no government budget for the next year, and divisions between pro and anti Thaksin camps were irreconcilable.

The crisis was deep and frightening.

As Anand said, in this case it doesn't matter who has 19-16 million advantage, no one is going to win.

Thaksin was not going to lose a grip on his party and TRT popularity didn't come from "advice of the elders" alone. If those two conditions were true, your reasons would be acceptable, Blaze.

AND elections were scheduled.

Here is a definition of a failed state as submitted by Bhoutros Ghali a few years ago:

"'A feature of such conflicts is the collapse of state institutions, especially the police and judiciary, with resulting paralysis of governance, a breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and chaos. Not only are the functions of government suspended, but its assets are destroyed or looted and experienced officials are killed or flee the country. This is rarely the case in inter-state wars. It means that international intervention must extend beyond military and humanitarian tasks and must include the promotion of international reconciliation and the re-establishment of effective government.'"

Bear in mind re judiciary break down, that prior to the coup, three EC officials had just been imprisoned by the courts. The courts had nullified the election- and the government of the time had accepted that decision. The level of banditry and chaos was no more than it usually is in Thailand. And (until the coup) nobody was fleeing the country- friend of foe of the government.

All there was was some relatively peaceful street protests. And as I said, elections were sheduled- elections which ALL parties claimed to welcome.

To compare Thailand, 2006 to 'real' failed states- Iraq , Kosovo a few years earlier, Sudan, Congo, Somalia, - it simply doesn't wash. Yes I suppose Thailand COULD become a failed state- and it still COULD- but it wasn't showing the signs at the time- and that is born out by international ratings of states at risk. (Thailand in 2006 was as 'at risk' as - India. Or Mexico.

I doubt a single international analyst observing Thailand at the time- and with a reference of 'real' failed states- such as those I mentioned above-would have taken Anands quip with more than a grain of salt.

My God- at the time an old man was roughed up in a high end shopping mall in Thailand, Nepal was experiencing a full blown Maoist insurrection complete with urban riots- Argentina was racked with food riots (ok- two or three years previous)-

Was there a crisis? Yes. But nothing compared to the crisis of, say, France in '68. And to compare it to states the UN had 'alerts' out for- like Congo- no.

The question that I think analysts will demand to know is why weren't the scheduled elections permitted.

Edited October 29, 2007 by blaze

[TAWP]

If you really have forgotten why the elections proposed last year wasn't going to change anything, I suggest you surf back in this news-section...

[IMA_FARANG]

ABAC poll: 65% of respondents ready to sell votes

BANGKOK: -- Attempts by interim Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont to eliminate vote-buying during Thailand's upcoming general election are likely to be fruitless as a recent survey shows that two out of three Thais -- 64.6 per cent of the respondents in a new survey -- are quite ready to accept gifts or money in exchange for their votes.

Assumption University ABAC Poll director Noppadol Kannikar said the poll conducted among 3,758 eligible voters aged above 18 in 14 provinces nationwide between October 15 -20 showed that almost 65 per cent of all respondents were willing to accept bribes in exchange for their votes in the December 23 election.

Only of 35.4 per cent of the respondents said they would not accept bribes or favours in exchange for their votes.

Also, the most worrisome result obtained from the survey was that 83 per cent of the respondents said they would not inform the Election Commission or concerned officials on any vote-buying practices even if they had evidence.

Two-thirds -- 66.7 per cent -- said vote-buying in Thailand is now reaching its most critical point ever.

Only 51.9 per cent of the respondents said they would consider both political party policies and the qualifications and personalities of the candidates before casting their ballots, while 28 per cent said they would give preferential attention to the candidates themselves and only 20.1 per cent indicated they would make their decision based on party policy platforms.

--TNA 2007-10-21

I posted this above rgarding the elections.....so I'll post it here again.

About Vote selling

.....I recall an election some years ago where a headman of a village actually advertised in a Thai newspaper that he had a number of votes from his villagers available, and would those political parties who wished these votes please contact him with details of the price that would be paid. Of course, someone in BKK wrote to the Bangkok Post saying how terrible that was, and it was evidence again that Thai's were too stupid to know what real democracy was. Well somehow that response got back to the village headman who responded as follows....... I know perfectly well that it is a sad thing to do to sell our votes, but the politicians only pay attention to us at election time, and all their promises are soon forgotten. So I think that if I manage to get enough money for our votes, we can have enough money to pay for a doctor and a clinic in our village ourselves. That is why I am selling our votes, so we can get a clinic for our village and our children.

You know, when I read his reply, I realized that headman knew more about how democracy actually works in practice than most of the so-called experts that criticised him.

[Plus]

AND elections were scheduled.

If Thaksin didn't honor his word and ran in those elections all hel_l would have broken lose.

"A feature of such conflicts is the collapse of state institutions, especially the police and judiciary, with resulting paralysis of governance, a breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and chaos. Not only are the functions of government suspended, but its assets are destroyed or looted and experienced officials are killed or flee the country."

It was all just around the corner - the crackdown on Thaksin's opponents would have plunged the country in chaos and it would have easily complied with your definition.

Suchinda broke a similar promise in 1992 and we know how it ended. This time the opposition was spread all over the country, not just Bangkok.

[younghusband]

AND elections were scheduled.

If Thaksin didn't honor his word and ran in those elections all hel_l would have broken lose.

"A feature of such conflicts is the collapse of state institutions, especially the police and judiciary, with resulting paralysis of governance, a breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and chaos. Not only are the functions of government suspended, but its assets are destroyed or looted and experienced officials are killed or flee the country."

It was all just around the corner - the crackdown on Thaksin's opponents would have plunged the country in chaos and it would have easily complied with your definition.

Suchinda broke a similar promise in 1992 and we know how it ended. This time the opposition was spread all over the country, not just Bangkok.

Come off it.I know that this kind of fantasy was broadcast around by some of the wilder elements at the time of the coup to justify the junta takeover.No serious political commentator would argue that Thailand was on the verge of becoming a failed state.Granted there was a serious political crisis as for that matter there is now, but that is very far from your, if you don't mind me saying, rathere fevered contention.

[Siripon]

AND elections were scheduled.

If Thaksin didn't honor his word and ran in those elections all hel_l would have broken lose.

"A feature of such conflicts is the collapse of state institutions, especially the police and judiciary, with resulting paralysis of governance, a breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and chaos. Not only are the functions of government suspended, but its assets are destroyed or looted and experienced officials are killed or flee the country."

It was all just around the corner - the crackdown on Thaksin's opponents would have plunged the country in chaos and it would have easily complied with your definition.

Suchinda broke a similar promise in 1992 and we know how it ended. This time the opposition was spread all over the country, not just Bangkok.

Come off it.I know that this kind of fantasy was broadcast around by some of the wilder elements at the time of the coup to justify the junta takeover.No serious political commentator would argue that Thailand was on the verge of becoming a failed state.Granted there was a serious political crisis as for that matter there is now, but that is very far from your, if you don't mind me saying, rathere fevered contention.

It was becoming a failed state in the sense that all the legal checks and balances had failed, why do you think the middle class were so outraged by Thaksin, his ruse of claiming democracy only meant gaining a majority vote and to heck with any transparency or explanations for one's actions had been rumbled, they weren't happy campers.

Why do you think the people went out with their families to be photographed on the tanks? Because they were very relieved no bloodshed had occurred.

Elections are coming and the EC have got an insurmountable job on their hands trying to stop MPs prostituting themselves for money, never mind the voters and their peanuts.

2 weeks ago a 'skylab', Issan tuktuk, stopped outside my neighbour's house, the driver called her name but I knew she wasn't in so I asked him what he wanted, there were a few people in the samlor. He said he was taking people down to register as members of Palang Prachachorn, he was paying them 100 baht each to register, courtesy of the canvasser.

I asked the people in the skylab who was the leader of Palang Prachachorn. There was a long silence.That's democracy in Thailand today.

[John K]

AND elections were scheduled.

If Thaksin didn't honor his word and ran in those elections all hel_l would have broken lose.

"A feature of such conflicts is the collapse of state institutions, especially the police and judiciary, with resulting paralysis of governance, a breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and chaos. Not only are the functions of government suspended, but its assets are destroyed or looted and experienced officials are killed or flee the country."

It was all just around the corner - the crackdown on Thaksin's opponents would have plunged the country in chaos and it would have easily complied with your definition.

Suchinda broke a similar promise in 1992 and we know how it ended. This time the opposition was spread all over the country, not just Bangkok.

Come off it.I know that this kind of fantasy was broadcast around by some of the wilder elements at the time of the coup to justify the junta takeover.No serious political commentator would argue that Thailand was on the verge of becoming a failed state.Granted there was a serious political crisis as for that matter there is now, but that is very far from your, if you don't mind me saying, rathere fevered contention.

Younghusband, I know your opinion differs a lot, but my question is how can you make this claim when virtually 9 out of 10 indicators along with virtually all of the scholaris said just what plus posted? What basis of logic do you draw your conclusion from? Knowing Thaksin’s personality traits you seem to me making the claim venomous snakes don’t bite their prey to kill it.

[younghusband]

AND elections were scheduled.

If Thaksin didn't honor his word and ran in those elections all hel_l would have broken lose.

"A feature of such conflicts is the collapse of state institutions, especially the police and judiciary, with resulting paralysis of governance, a breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and chaos. Not only are the functions of government suspended, but its assets are destroyed or looted and experienced officials are killed or flee the country."

It was all just around the corner - the crackdown on Thaksin's opponents would have plunged the country in chaos and it would have easily complied with your definition.

Suchinda broke a similar promise in 1992 and we know how it ended. This time the opposition was spread all over the country, not just Bangkok.

Come off it.I know that this kind of fantasy was broadcast around by some of the wilder elements at the time of the coup to justify the junta takeover.No serious political commentator would argue that Thailand was on the verge of becoming a failed state.Granted there was a serious political crisis as for that matter there is now, but that is very far from your, if you don't mind me saying, rathere fevered contention.

Younghusband, I know your opinion differs a lot, but my question is how can you make this claim when virtually 9 out of 10 indicators along with virtually all of the scholaris said just what plus posted? What basis of logic do you draw your conclusion from? Knowing Thaksin’s personality traits you seem to me making the claim venomous snakes don’t bite their prey to kill it.

The suggestion that Thailand was about to become a failed state is in my view sheer nonsense, but if you are to be taken seriously why don't you list out the criteria and then carefully summarise why you think Thailand qualified.Then at least a decent debate could ensue, preferably free of tired biting snake metaphors.Your comment about scholars is however just plain wrong and the consensus of most reputable commentators is that the junta made a bad situation much worse.( I await someone to point out that unlike every other country on earth the esoteric mysteries and nuances of Thai political culture are uncapable of being understood by even intelligent and well informed "outsiders")

For what it's worth, my own view was that the Bangkok middle class copped out when what was needed was an organised but peaceful political campaign which would have weakened and perhaps even eventually ousted TRT at the polls.The quid pro quo would probably have been a recognition that the Thai majority would be a real political force and policies adjusted accordingly, actually what Abhisit in private anyway feels is necessary now.What seems hard for the middle class to accept is that they hold no political veto and that, with suitable checks and balances, the views of the majority should prevail.Siripon's post correctly outlines the feelings of middle class outrage, but the great mistake was to accept the coup as a legitimate means of change.

Basically the syndrome of equating Thaksin with evil incarnate and the destruction of the Thai kingdom is the same mixture of propaganda and dishonesty as interestingly exposed in Mom Nattakorn's piece in the Bangkok Post this morning.

Edited November 1, 2007 by younghusband

[Dissolution]

I'm an eligible voter back home; wish someone would buy my vote.

All we get are empty promises and delusions of grandeur.

[jumnien]

It's so sad that in my home country voters are often manipulated to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars to the campaigns of media-made fools chosen behind closed doors by political party mobsters. It's refreshing to see that in some parts of the world the voters at least receive a few baht for their efforts!

[John K]

I see it simply as Thais taking their country back from a man who wanted it for himself.

Thais taking their country back?

The whole point that I made earlier in this thread is that the reason so many of them want to sell their votes now is because they feel so disenfranchised after the coup.

You are so out of touch with what rural Thai people think and want it is unbelievable, yet you have the audacity to sit there and pontificate what is best for the Thai people, Thailand and what needed to be done.

You should go out and actually talk to some of them. They will tell you a different story than the constant pro-coup nonsense regurgitated in nearly all of your posts.

My comment was past tense in that remark, not present tense.

[endure]

A number of posts have been deleted. I'd remind you gentlemen (again) of the forum rules:

No disrespect of the King of Thailand or The Thai Royal Family! Discussion of topics concerning the King or other current or deceased members of the Thai Royal Family is forbidden.

[blaze]

AND elections were scheduled.

If Thaksin didn't honor his word and ran in those elections all hel_l would have broken lose.

"A feature of such conflicts is the collapse of state institutions, especially the police and judiciary, with resulting paralysis of governance, a breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and chaos. Not only are the functions of government suspended, but its assets are destroyed or looted and experienced officials are killed or flee the country."

It was all just around the corner - the crackdown on Thaksin's opponents would have plunged the country in chaos and it would have easily complied with your definition.

Suchinda broke a similar promise in 1992 and we know how it ended. This time the opposition was spread all over the country, not just Bangkok.

Come off it.I know that this kind of fantasy was broadcast around by some of the wilder elements at the time of the coup to justify the junta takeover.No serious political commentator would argue that Thailand was on the verge of becoming a failed state.Granted there was a serious political crisis as for that matter there is now, but that is very far from your, if you don't mind me saying, rathere fevered contention.

Younghusband, I know your opinion differs a lot, but my question is how can you make this claim when virtually 9 out of 10 indicators along with virtually all of the scholaris said just what plus posted? What basis of logic do you draw your conclusion from? Knowing Thaksin’s personality traits you seem to me making the claim venomous snakes don’t bite their prey to kill it.

Indicators huh?

Here is another set of descriptors not too different from but a bit more precise than the one I earlier posted:

"Failed states can no longer perform basic functions such as education, security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty. Within this power vacuum, people fall victim to competing factions and crime, and sometimes the United Nations or neighboring states intervene to prevent a humanitarian disaster. However, states fail not only because of internal factors. Foreign governments can also knowingly destabilize a state by fueling ethnic warfare or supporting rebel forces, causing it to collapse."

World Bank place Thailand in 2006 (the year of the coup) at about the 65th percentile among all nations in terms of govenment effectiveness. The year before the coup, It was a few percentile points higher. In 1998 it was about the 60th percentile.

In terms of regulatory ability, Thailand rated slightly lower in 2006 than in 2005- but still well above the 50th percentile. And in both years, slightly higher than in 1998.

Rule of Law- diminished slightly each year from 1998 on- but never did it get lower than the 55th percentile.

Even with the coup- political stability was rated at over thirty five percent in 2006.

Bear in mind that these numbers are relative to the effectiveness of other states at the time. The fact that Thailand went up one year and down another could be attributed to what was happening in some other countries (five African countries get involved in a war and Thailand's numbers will rise- even though the gov't at the time may have less ability to provide stable government than in the preceeding year. so it is a bit premature to use these stats to compare the degree of say, government regulatory power over several years.

But at no time was Thailand, according to these stats even close to becoming a failed state.

Control of corruption was at its second highest level in 2005 (from 1996) and in 2006 was only a few percentile points lower.

Voice and accountablity (understandably) took a real hit in 2006. But in 2005 was still above the 50th percentile.

(stats from http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi20..._countries.asp)

These are not stats that would suggest an imminent danger of becoming a failed state- such as Congo- or Iraq. Or Somalia. At it's worst- and that was in terms of political stability (the year of the coup) Thailand was still more politically stable than one third of the world's nations.

In 2006, the Fund for Peace and the magazine Foreign Policy puts Thailand at number 86 of 177 nations in terms of risk for becoming a failed state. (table reprinted in the Wiki article on failed states).

And this was in a year that saw large urban demonstrations, a government dissolved, election Commision officials imprisoned, a a coup, torching of schools in several provinces, increased violence in the South, ... oh yeah- and an old man get smacked upside the head.

I'd be interested to see the virtual 9 or 10 indicators that you claim show Thailand was on its way to becoming a failed state. .

Edited November 1, 2007 by blaze

[John K]

Getting into future tense speculation on what would be is just that speculation. I Saw Thaksin taking complete control and removing the remaining checks and balances he did not get to yet so that money could flow untethered into his pocket. As it never got to that stage and the coup happened you can only speculate.

Looking at Thaksin today trying to get back in power one way or the other, ignoring or deceptively bypassing the ruling he was and is banned for 5 years, just imagine if that was not in his way. He does not even seemed concerned that the new charter limits the time a PM can sit in office. He just does not care about any law, anyone or anything except his wealth.

Extrapolating where things would go based on 2006 prior to the coup, I can clearly see the civil war that some were predicting. That alone would destroy Thailand as a tourist destination and a place where business would want to go. That is enough to match the descriptors with the domino effect fallout. It was not the next step but the step after that was being looked at. Look at the south and see that all over. Perhaps not as gruesome as cutting peoples heads off, but bad enough.

[hammered]

Getting into future tense speculation on what would be is just that speculation. I Saw Thaksin taking complete control and removing the remaining checks and balances he did not get to yet so that money could flow untethered into his pocket. As it never got to that stage and the coup happened you can only speculate.

Looking at Thaksin today trying to get back in power one way or the other, ignoring or deceptively bypassing the ruling he was and is banned for 5 years, just imagine if that was not in his way. He does not even seemed concerned that the new charter limits the time a PM can sit in office. He just does not care about any law, anyone or anything except his wealth.

Extrapolating where things would go based on 2006 prior to the coup, I can clearly see the civil war that some were predicting. That alone would destroy Thailand as a tourist destination and a place where business would want to go. That is enough to match the descriptors with the domino effect fallout. It was not the next step but the step after that was being looked at. Look at the south and see that all over. Perhaps not as gruesome as cutting peoples heads off, but bad enough.

If his proxy party wins the election we should get to see an interesting time to say the least. A few laws will be changed, a bunch of amnesties given and bunch of vendettas settled and probably not in th half hearted manner of the current buch of geriatrics. It could be interesting. Not just payback but there is also going to be one hel_l of a lot of rewards to be dished out to those loyalists to Master. Put on top of this a weakening economy and a weak looking world economy and it could be relatively unstable if the PPP win. Mind you another coup would probably also result in as much or more instability. Personally I hope for no more coups and an elected non-PPP government as the best and most stable coutcome right now. However, with the non-PPP parties ripping each other and defecting in and out it is just possible PPP may benefit enough from others infighting and lack of trust to actually reap the reward of winning the election. They remain relatively stable so far and have transferred in almost enough unbeatable ones to be fairly close.

[John K]

Hammered, although the first part of your reply looks negative, I know that is the best possible spin you could put on it. If the PPP get in, reality will be far worse. What has happened in the last 2 years will just have been the budding.

[Plus]

Just how do you think anti-Thaksin demonstration could have been stopped? And it wasn't jsut a few Bangkokians, unlike 1992, half the country couldn't stand the government.

If Thaksin returned to run in the elections he wouldn't be able to govern. Period.

All those statistics were fine unless there was political stability, which was there even after parlament dissolution. However all what it did was to postpone the inevitable showdown with protesters. The fact that Thaskin managed to dissolve the tensions in February did great for the stats, if only in the short term. I doubt they had any idea what would have happened if Thaksin returned and crushed the opposition.

Do you? I don't. It would have been very, very ugly.

[blaze]

Just how do you think anti-Thaksin demonstration could have been stopped? And it wasn't jsut a few Bangkokians, unlike 1992, half the country couldn't stand the government.

If Thaksin returned to run in the elections he wouldn't be able to govern. Period.

All those statistics were fine unless there was political stability, which was there even after parlament dissolution. However all what it did was to postpone the inevitable showdown with protesters. The fact that Thaskin managed to dissolve the tensions in February did great for the stats, if only in the short term. I doubt they had any idea what would have happened if Thaksin returned and crushed the opposition.

Do you? I don't. It would have been very, very ugly.

I think that for the PAD supporters, the refusal of the Democrats to participate in the elections lent a certain credibility to their outrage. The hope lingered on that with only one major party running in the election, there would be an appointed PM.

Had the Nov election gone through as scheduled, with the Democrats taking part (and taking part means graciously, if need be, conceding that whoever wins the highest number of votes has a moral, legal and political responsibility to form the new government)- the wind would have been taken out of the PAD sails.

Now this, for the more zealous anti-Thaksin people, would not be to their liking. But they would find it difficult to demand democracy on the one hand and reject it because it didn't yield as they would have wanted on the other.

So I suspect that had the elections gone as scheduled, the TRT would have lost seats- this would have emboldened the opposition to dedicate itself to getting rid of the TRT through normal (electoral) channels. And the whole thing would have fizzled out.

The army knew that. That's why they didn't dare wait for elections. Their plan was to use the middle class outrage to justify a coup. Were the middle class placated by the elections- there could have been no coup. (the support for a coup would not have been there). This is affirmed by voices as disparate as Sonthi L (who certainly understood the situation at the time) and Giles U.

Edited November 2, 2007 by blaze