Exit Poll Results Show PPP Wins

[hammered]

ELECTION

EC ruling may start meltdown for PPP

Party deputy Yongyuth facing fraud charges fears outcome

The Election Commission is expected to rule today on an electoral fraud case involving People Power Party deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat as a party-list candidate for Zone 1, EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond said yesterday.

A ruling against him could spark a series of events that could end with the PPP being disbanded, he said.

Should Yongyuth be found to have committed wrongdoing in his capacity as deputy party leader, the case could trigger litigation in the Constitution Court, he said.

In such a scenario, the EC may be "obliged to petition for the party to be disbanded", he said.

He spoke following yesterday's hearing where Yongyuth called 10 witnesses to testify in his defence.

The EC has allowed the defence to examine evidence relating to fraud charges and will hear the testimony of a final defence witness before passing judgement.

The gist of the charges concerns Yongyuth's involvement in offering monetary rewards to village headmen and kamnans in Chiang Rai to sway votes for him and his party.

Under new electoral rules, a political party is accountable for any electoral offence involving party executives.

A group of 20 Yongyuth supporters held a rally in front of EC headquarters to provide him with moral support during a three-hour hearing.

Emerging from the session, Yongyuth said he would not make any comment on the outcome of the case to avoid pressuring the EC.

He did say, however, that his defence holds high stakes as the fate of the PPP could hang in the balance.

"I suspect foul play as the complaint against me was filed on December 21, although the alleged incident happened on October28," he said.

He said the mastermind behind the complaint might be the same invisible hand that is trying to form an alternative coalition.

The Nation

This is the big one. If the evidence is compelling Yuth is finished and it goes to constitutional court for a disolution hearing. Obviously when a complaint is made and by whom is utterly irrelevent and whether the complaint has substance or not is the issue. My guess is that the evidence is strong and clear cut and Yuths defence is "if I am found guilty the inevitable process will result in a disolution hearing that will result in anarchy" (he seems to hint at something like this), which is politcially a strong defence but legally isnt a defence at all. Once again we get into the murky waters of politcs/law overlaps. Legally it seems to be bad for Yuth and hence also PPP as an entity. However, that outcome would ratchet up the current level of divisons to a ver unstable level. On the other hand to completely ignore the law if there is evidence would also be wrong. The EC and courts certainly see themselves between a rock and a hard place. Is there a deal that can prevent the now imminent looking collision and all that will ensue from it from happening?

[hammered]

Democracy is the best system only if you agree on what is actually good. If members of society have starkly different views of what is good for the country, democracy will only create unresolvable mess. In Thailand we have one side of the divide giving no thoughts to the good of the whole country whatsoever. I can't predict how this conflict will play out when they actually start thinking about it sometime in the future. Maybe it will mature into left-right, socialism capitalism, or it could be right wing nazists vs libertarians.

I agree it is hard to see how it will evolve, but then again that is for the Thai people. I think personally now that it is just aquestion of whether it will play out within the structures of a democratic system - elections, parliament, courts and media etc - or whether it will play out outside of this in a more dangerous way. Plenty of societies have seen and continue to see the kind of struggles we see in Thailand right now. Some of these have been/are being resolved within the wider democratic process while others take different routes. It is highly unpredictable.

I personally think that those on both sides think they are doing what is right for the country and the other is not. There arer wrongs on both sides. Sadly neither side is willing to admit them. That to my mind is the dangerous impasse. Personally I would like to see a third alternative or some kind of compromise government formed to put national interest first and get democracy and the legal system back on track to where it is trusted by all. However, that doesnt seem a realistic hope right now as we seem to see the abyss looming ever closer.

[Jai Dee]

EC calls on witnesses to confirm red carding of Mr. Yongyuth

Chairman of the Election Commission (EC) Apichart Sukakanont commented on the present issuance of a red card to People’s Power Party MP candidate in the Party-list system Group 1 Yongyuth Tiyaphairat (ยงยุทธ ติยะไพรัช) that the EC has interrogated 9 witnesses involved in the case. Mr. Apichart revealed that there is only 1 more witness left to question.

The EC Chairman stated that until all witnesses are questioned the EC will not yet be able to decipher whether Mr. Yongyuth’s action merit a yellow or red card. Mr. Apichart said that as Mr. Yongyuth’s case involves defamatory comments made in campaign speeches its issue has two circumstances. The first is that his actions were of his own personal fault, while the other is that it was part of his party agenda. If the EC feels the MP candidate’s actions were indicative of a party agenda, it may result in the dissolution of the entire party.

The EC will meet today to mull over 10 more cases as well as discuss and review evidence in the currently contested Buriram province cases.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 January 2008

[Jai Dee]

Chart Thai calls meeting to discuss disqualification of MP candidates

The Chart Thai party calls a meeting to discuss the disqualification of its MP candidates in Chai Nat province.

The Election Commission (EC) voted four to one yesterday for the disqualification of the party’s two winning candidates including Nanthana Songpracha (นันทนา สงฆ์ประชา) and Monthien Songpracha (มณเฑียร สงฆ์ประชา). Sources say the party is concerned that the issuance of two red cards by EC will affect the formation of a coalition government led by the People Power party.

The Chart Thai party had temporarily suspended all forms of political activities for seven days to express regret for the passing of Her Royal Highness Princess Galyani Vadhana.

Meanwhile, Secretary-general of the Matchima Thipataya party, Anongwan Thepsuthin (อนงค์วรรณ เทพสุทิน), will be traveling to EC’s office today to clarify the status of Prachai Leophairatana (ประชัย เลี่ยวไพรัตน์) who resigned and was later reappointed as party leader before the election.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 January 2008

[younghusband]

Democracy is the best system only if you agree on what is actually good. If members of society have starkly different views of what is good for the country, democracy will only create unresolvable mess. In Thailand we have one side of the divide giving no thoughts to the good of the whole country whatsoever. I can't predict how this conflict will play out when they actually start thinking about it sometime in the future. Maybe it will mature into left-right, socialism capitalism, or it could be right wing nazists vs libertarians.

Could you clarify which side of the divide you think gives no thought to the good of the whole country.There might be radically different views on this.

My own perception is that the feudal/military/protectionist corporate elite is a selfish corrupt and greedy oligarchy which should be swept away - and would have been already in some countries.I appreciate this isn't on the near term agenda in Thailand.

As we go forward expect to hear more sanctimonious and half baked claptrap about the shortcomings of democracy.

Edited January 9, 2008 by younghusband

[hammered]

Chart Thai calls meeting to discuss disqualification of MP candidates

The Chart Thai party calls a meeting to discuss the disqualification of its MP candidates in Chai Nat province.

The Election Commission (EC) voted four to one yesterday for the disqualification of the party’s two winning candidates including Nanthana Songpracha (นันทนา สงฆ์ประชา) and Monthien Songpracha (มณเฑียร สงฆ์ประชา). Sources say the party is concerned that the issuance of two red cards by EC will affect the formation of a coalition government led by the People Power party.

The Chart Thai party had temporarily suspended all forms of political activities for seven days to express regret for the passing of Her Royal Highness Princess Galyani Vadhana.

Meanwhile, Secretary-general of the Matchima Thipataya party, Anongwan Thepsuthin (อนงค์วรรณ เทพสุทิน), will be traveling to EC’s office today to clarify the status of Prachai Leophairatana (ประชัย เลี่ยวไพรัตน์) who resigned and was later reappointed as party leader before the election.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 January 2008

So Mr. Banharn isnt worried about vote buying being caught on video (classic) but about his chances of giving head to whoever can give him and his party the agricultural ministry or some other money spinner so he can continue the singaporeisation of Banharnburi (go take a look at the town sometime). If the PPP gets just 3-10 red cards and as expected wins 99% of its yellow card races and actually picks up seats where Chart Thai are banned it wont need Chart Thais two vote buyers. Banharn truly shows his dinosaur side in this. He is starting to make Samak look like a true man of democracy (forgetting 76 and 92 for a few minutes that is).

[Prakanong]

Democracy is the best system only if you agree on what is actually good. If members of society have starkly different views of what is good for the country, democracy will only create unresolvable mess. In Thailand we have one side of the divide giving no thoughts to the good of the whole country whatsoever. I can't predict how this conflict will play out when they actually start thinking about it sometime in the future. Maybe it will mature into left-right, socialism capitalism, or it could be right wing nazists vs libertarians.

Could you clarify which side of the divide you think gives no thought to the good of the whole country.There might be radically different views on this.

My own perception is that the feudal/military/protectionist corporate elite is a selfish corrupt and greedy oligarchy which should be swept away - and would have been already in some countries.I appreciate this isn't on the near term agenda in Thailand.

As we go forward expect to hear more sanctimonious and half baked claptrap about the shortcomings of democracy.

Yes to hear these farang members of the Thai feudal military complex these natives and peasants ought not to be allowed near democracy unless they vote for who these guy's want.

Are these guy's as interested in politics in their own countries?

Does the hypnotist follow the US primaries with such obsesion bordering on the paranoia?

[hammered]

Democracy is the best system only if you agree on what is actually good. If members of society have starkly different views of what is good for the country, democracy will only create unresolvable mess. In Thailand we have one side of the divide giving no thoughts to the good of the whole country whatsoever. I can't predict how this conflict will play out when they actually start thinking about it sometime in the future. Maybe it will mature into left-right, socialism capitalism, or it could be right wing nazists vs libertarians.

Could you clarify which side of the divide you think gives no thought to the good of the whole country.There might be radically different views on this.

My own perception is that the feudal/military/protectionist corporate elite is a selfish corrupt and greedy oligarchy which should be swept away - and would have been already in some countries.I appreciate this isn't on the near term agenda in Thailand.

As we go forward expect to hear more sanctimonious and half baked claptrap about the shortcomings of democracy.

Yes to hear these farang members of the Thai feudal military complex these natives and peasants ought not to be allowed near democracy unless they vote for who these guy's want.

Are these guy's as interested in politics in their own countries?

Does the hypnotist follow the US primaries with such obsesion bordering on the paranoia?

Sadly we all get little choice but to follow the US primaries and the mostly sad bunch of aging meglomaniacs contesting them ad infinitum in our attempts to occasionally pick up a snippet of world news To discuss politics with the average Thai peasant on their farm is to raise politcal debate far beyond the sound bite/meme/what fits with polls garbage that comes out of the mouths of most of the US presidential candidates. imho

[Plus]

Could you clarify which side of the divide you think gives no thought to the good of the whole country.There might be radically different views on this.

My own perception is that the feudal/military/protectionist corporate elite is a selfish corrupt and greedy oligarchy which should be swept away - and would have been already in some countries.I appreciate this isn't on the near term agenda in Thailand.

Good for the whole country.

You are questioning whether it's "good" or not, I'm saying that rural voters don't think in "whole country" terms at all.

Military, elite, businessmen, middle classes, urban workers, farmers - someone has to think about it, then we can see if they agree or disagree.

So far no political party talked to the voters, rural or otherwise, how are they going to solve real problems - appreciating baht, squeesed exporters, rising oil prices, stagnant stock market, weak consumer sentiment, business competiteveness etc etc.

Rural voters aren't even aware of most of these issues but the success of populist policies they voted for depends entirely on how they are going to be addressed.

[Prakanong]

Could you clarify which side of the divide you think gives no thought to the good of the whole country.There might be radically different views on this.

My own perception is that the feudal/military/protectionist corporate elite is a selfish corrupt and greedy oligarchy which should be swept away - and would have been already in some countries.I appreciate this isn't on the near term agenda in Thailand.

Good for the whole country.

You are questioning whether it's "good" or not, I'm saying that rural voters don't think in "whole country" terms at all.

Military, elite, businessmen, middle classes, urban workers, farmers - someone has to think about it, then we can see if they agree or disagree.

So far no political party talked to the voters, rural or otherwise, how are they going to solve real problems - appreciating baht, squeesed exporters, rising oil prices, stagnant stock market, weak consumer sentiment, business competiteveness etc etc.

Rural voters aren't even aware of most of these issues but the success of populist policies they voted for depends entirely on how they are going to be addressed.

Have you studied voting patterns and motivation in say the USA. Europe or UK?

Do all voters think in whole country terms or are they voting for their own special nterest.

Please show the research as to the difference between Thai rural voters and voting patterns in the west or elsewhere?

[Plus]

Have you studied voting patterns and motivation in say the USA. Europe or UK?

Do all voters think in whole country terms or are they voting for their own special nterest.

Please show the research as to the difference between Thai rural voters and voting patterns in the west or elsewhere?

If you want to talk about rural voters - they account for 4% of the US electorate vs. about 60% in Thailand.

SET listed companies, in the meantime, produce about 90% of Thai GDP, so it's far more important what the government will do for them rather than what farmers will get as spoils.

Back in 2000 the main problem was Non Performing Loans and TRT and Democrats proposed two very different solutions. TRT used public money to buy the debts of companies bankrupted in 1997. These companies immediately started posting profits, profits means taxes, profits means we got a blast on the Stock Exchange.

These time no one knows how any party is going to finance its "policies". Why? Not important, their voters don't care and don't think about it.

[hammered]

Could you clarify which side of the divide you think gives no thought to the good of the whole country.There might be radically different views on this.

My own perception is that the feudal/military/protectionist corporate elite is a selfish corrupt and greedy oligarchy which should be swept away - and would have been already in some countries.I appreciate this isn't on the near term agenda in Thailand.

Good for the whole country.

You are questioning whether it's "good" or not, I'm saying that rural voters don't think in "whole country" terms at all.

Military, elite, businessmen, middle classes, urban workers, farmers - someone has to think about it, then we can see if they agree or disagree.

So far no political party talked to the voters, rural or otherwise, how are they going to solve real problems - appreciating baht, squeesed exporters, rising oil prices, stagnant stock market, weak consumer sentiment, business competiteveness etc etc.

Rural voters aren't even aware of most of these issues but the success of populist policies they voted for depends entirely on how they are going to be addressed.

The Thai rural people I talk to -admittedly mostly family through marriage - have their own concerns. These seem to be for those 35+: The price of crops and particulalry profit (or loss) that can be made from a crop. Health care. Debt. Education for their kids as nobody wants their kid to be a farmer and have to live the hard life for no money that they have had to live (it is surprising how many people 40+ actually cannot read or write as that wasnt considerd necessary for farmers when they went to school for a few years) Nationalism and traditionalism - there's always a bit of that but it comes after crop price, eduaction and debt for sure.

The concerns of those under 35 and who basically dont live or work in the rural areas anymore seem to be: Money and how can I make a reasonable amount with my education without being forced back to the farms. Education inequality as in why are the village schools so utterrly useless so that when I finally went to a town school apart from suffering the racism of being dark and having splayed toes why did I go from top in every subject at my local school to bottom to such a degree I didnt know what was going on? Anti-traditionalism as in I like to wear fashionable clothes and dont accept the gender norms and generally tradition doesnt mean much in my life. Freedom to do more as in I like the limited freedom I have being away from from the village.

Obviously there are more but these people young and old have their own politcal thoughts, which is where parties can work on them to vote for an agenda, or better still but we are a long way from this parties can listen to and introduce as their agendas to support eh people (botom up as opposed to the very top down now). My main crticism of how democracy works in the more rural areas is that the people often have the ideas of one party repeatedly presented to them while the ideas of others are not or are presented in a negative and usually false way - for many year Thai politcs has worked on an angel-devil axis.

[hammered]

Have you studied voting patterns and motivation in say the USA. Europe or UK?

Do all voters think in whole country terms or are they voting for their own special nterest.

Please show the research as to the difference between Thai rural voters and voting patterns in the west or elsewhere?

If you want to talk about rural voters - they account for 4% of the US electorate vs. about 60% in Thailand.

SET listed companies, in the meantime, produce about 90% of Thai GDP, so it's far more important what the government will do for them rather than what farmers will get as spoils.

Back in 2000 the main problem was Non Performing Loans and TRT and Democrats proposed two very different solutions. TRT used public money to buy the debts of companies bankrupted in 1997. These companies immediately started posting profits, profits means taxes, profits means we got a blast on the Stock Exchange.

These time no one knows how any party is going to finance its "policies". Why? Not important, their voters don't care and don't think about it.

And what percentage of US voters are going to vote based on a candidates stance on guns, gays, god, abortion, tax cuts, health care increases, or even some half baked notion of oh this party seem better on the economy? Voters worldwide dont carefully analyse which party will better for big business as that means bigger GDP which may possibly be better for the country, and actually not necessarily for the individual voter as distribution of GDP needs to be examined. It can be argued that a party can be harder on business and share a slightly smaller pie more equitably to the majority of the voters, so even taking that line it is not necessary that the best informed voters would support a totally business minded gov over one more people friendly. imho

[sriracha john]

EC ruling may start meltdown for PPP

Party deputy Yongyuth facing fraud charges fears outcome

The Election Commission is expected to rule today on an electoral fraud case involving People Power Party deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat as a party-list candidate for Zone 1, EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond said yesterday.

A ruling against him could spark a series of events that could end with the PPP being disbanded, he said.

Should Yongyuth be found to have committed wrongdoing in his capacity as deputy party leader, the case could trigger litigation in the Constitution Court, he said.

In such a scenario, the EC may be "obliged to petition for the party to be disbanded", he said.

The gist of the charges concerns Yongyuth's involvement in offering monetary rewards to village headmen and kamnans in Chiang Rai to sway votes for him and his party.

Under new electoral rules, a political party is accountable for any electoral offence involving party executives.

He did say, however, that his defence holds high stakes as the fate of the PPP could hang in the balance.

Based upon the apparently very solid evidence they have on him, things might not go well for him and the PPP...

This will have an implication or two (or three) for PPP as he is one of their key leaders...

Yongyuth may face red card

EC source says poll fraud evidence strong

The Election Commission (EC) has solid evidence that may lead to People Power Party executive Yongyuth Tiyapirat being disqualified from the election for alleged vote-buying in the Dec 23 polls, a highly-placed source said. The EC summoned Yongyuth for questioning yesterday afternoon. The veteran politician sent his lawyer, but did not appear in person. Yongyuth, who ran in the proportional representation vote in the North, is among the latest batch of 12 PPP candidates accused of poll fraud. In the case against Yongyuth, the poll agency is working on an investigation by police and EC officials which centres around payment of air fares and distribution of cash to a group of Chiang Rai-based tambon chiefs at a hotel in Bangkok in October, said the source. According to the source, the local leaders, assisted by a Chiang Rai-based mayor, met up with Yongyuth at the SC Park hotel on Oct 28 for 30 minutes. They were reportedly urged to help campaign for votes for the PPP. Each was reportedly handed an envelope containing 20,000 baht at the end of the meeting and one of the local leaders who coordinated the meeting reportedly received 38,300 baht for reimbursement of air fares for the group. According to the source, poll fraud investigators also submitted a CD recording of the trip, a list of the local leaders, receipts for plane tickets and other related documents. The source said the evidence was strong enough for the EC to red-card the PPP executive and hand yellow cards to other PPP candidates in Chiang Rai.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/30Dec2007_news01.php

[Prakanong]

Have you studied voting patterns and motivation in say the USA. Europe or UK?

Do all voters think in whole country terms or are they voting for their own special nterest.

Please show the research as to the difference between Thai rural voters and voting patterns in the west or elsewhere?

If you want to talk about rural voters - they account for 4% of the US electorate vs. about 60% in Thailand.

SET listed companies, in the meantime, produce about 90% of Thai GDP, so it's far more important what the government will do for them rather than what farmers will get as spoils.

Back in 2000 the main problem was Non Performing Loans and TRT and Democrats proposed two very different solutions. TRT used public money to buy the debts of companies bankrupted in 1997. These companies immediately started posting profits, profits means taxes, profits means we got a blast on the Stock Exchange.

These time no one knows how any party is going to finance its "policies". Why? Not important, their voters don't care and don't think about it.

Forget about rural voters in the US but what drives the majority of voters - is it the whole country issue or theior own interests?

Thai rural voters are voting rationallly - I take it you have not studied politics to a uni level?

As for SET companies and GDP -very interesting argument there from you.

Are you sure SET companies control 90% of Thai GDP - please prove this!

Let us extrapolate this out then. MNC's account for the vast majority of the worlds GDP. They are the major actors in the world economy and internaional busness environment.

Following your logic Thailand and everyone else in the world should do what is best for them!

Yeah - right!!!

Edited January 9, 2008 by Prakanong

[sriracha john]

These time no one knows how any party is going to finance its "policies". Why? Not important, their voters don't care and don't think about it.

The PPP has... Their policy is to quadruple current tourist arrival numbers and parlay those trillions of baht they generate into paying for all their schemes, scams, and plans.

I look forward to the day when Bangkok, Koh Samet, Chiang Mai, Koh Chang, Phuket, Samui, Koh Tao, Krabi, and everywhere else have four times the number of tourists all running around into each other.... nevermind the four-fold increase in airport arrivals and departures.

Edited January 9, 2008 by sriracha john

[chownah]

There is alot of talk here about how the poor have no view of what is best for the nation and how they are not really equipped to make the complicated decisions needed to run a country.....for those who think this please tell me then why not just exclude the rural poor from voting?....when they do vote and a military dictatorship uses guns to depose their elected gov't you think its a good thing and make all kinds of reasons why it is good that the rural poor don't get to have their elected gov't...so...why lie to the rural poor and say that you want them to be part of a democracy when in fact you really DON'T want them to be part of a democracy? Why not just be honest and pass a law that only people who live in certain regions of the country can vote....that's what your attitudes amount to anyway.

Chownah

[Prakanong]

There is alot of talk here about how the poor have no view of what is best for the nation and how they are not really equipped to make the complicated decisions needed to run a country.....for those who think this please tell me then why not just exclude the rural poor from voting?....when they do vote and a military dictatorship uses guns to depose their elected gov't you think its a good thing and make all kinds of reasons why it is good that the rural poor don't get to have their elected gov't...so...why lie to the rural poor and say that you want them to be part of a democracy when in fact you really DON'T want them to be part of a democracy? Why not just be honest and pass a law that only people who live in certain regions of the country can vote....that's what your attitudes amount to anyway.

Chownah

Exactly - some poster seem to be saying they are just rural uneducated pasants and should not have the vote as they vote rationally for their own best interests rather than the greater good of the country.

Problem is this rationaity reflects most voters in the world.

The people putting thse people down are not exactly the elite of society - jsut what do they do in Thailand - are they legal?

Are they visa runners?

Are those on this thread who work in Thailand doing so fully legally?

[blaze]

Have you studied voting patterns and motivation in say the USA. Europe or UK?

Do all voters think in whole country terms or are they voting for their own special nterest.

Please show the research as to the difference between Thai rural voters and voting patterns in the west or elsewhere?

These time no one knows how any party is going to finance its "policies". Why? Not important, their voters don't care and don't think about it.

For the poor, it isn't important where the money comes from. As long as they are stuck in the cycle of poverty, a huge national debt won't make any difference to them. And if they understand that, more power to them.

Some economists would argue that 'populist' programs are nescessary to elevate the poor into a more economically viable component of the economy. And to that end would advocate deficit budgeting- having the government borrow vast sums as an investment in the population- not unlike student loans. Let the government go into debt- in the same way that a business borrows venture capital. Run a deficit- many countries have done so- and providing that borrowed money is used intelligently- to improve the productivity of the people, it can be seen as a smart investment- a smart debt.

I'm not saying I agree with this approach- but if the poor take that approach, they are in the company of some well educated economists.

[Abrak]

SET listed companies, in the meantime, produce about 90% of Thai GDP, so it's far more important what the government will do for them rather than what farmers will get as spoils.

This is just a complete bit of nonsense.

Traditionally incremental growth in Thailand has come not from SET list companies (or domestic companies at all) but from Foreign Direct Investment.

Of the top five employers in Thailand only Saha Union is a Thai company (western digital is the largest).

I would suggest that what is going on in the politics is making Thailand an economic backwater as far as future FDI.

[hammered]

There is alot of talk here about how the poor have no view of what is best for the nation and how they are not really equipped to make the complicated decisions needed to run a country.....for those who think this please tell me then why not just exclude the rural poor from voting?....when they do vote and a military dictatorship uses guns to depose their elected gov't you think its a good thing and make all kinds of reasons why it is good that the rural poor don't get to have their elected gov't...so...why lie to the rural poor and say that you want them to be part of a democracy when in fact you really DON'T want them to be part of a democracy? Why not just be honest and pass a law that only people who live in certain regions of the country can vote....that's what your attitudes amount to anyway.

Chownah

In all fairness I dont think more than a handful of people if any at all are actually proposing removing the vote from those they dont agree with, which is worrisome. To do so would return things to a very feudal setting. Whatever flaws there are in elctoral systems, and they exist in all and we have debated the Thai electoral problems to death, once an election has been held and any irregularities looked at fairly and dealt with fairly the result has to be accepted. This to my mind is particulalry true of the recent Thai election where the Junta wrote the election system and rules, and who had ample time to createa system to their liking. If vote buying is caught on video as with the 2 Chart Thai candidates sure they should be red carded but evidence should be strong.

Personally i also hope for no more disolutions. If it does happen to PPP Thailand will only have to hold another election (surely 230 odd by elections with no new parties wont be acceptable), and there wil be another PPP style party and there will be another similar result and .........

Time to move on

[quiksilva]

There is alot of talk here about how the poor have no view of what is best for the nation and how they are not really equipped to make the complicated decisions needed to run a country.....for those who think this please tell me then why not just exclude the rural poor from voting?....when they do vote and a military dictatorship uses guns to depose their elected gov't you think its a good thing and make all kinds of reasons why it is good that the rural poor don't get to have their elected gov't...so...why lie to the rural poor and say that you want them to be part of a democracy when in fact you really DON'T want them to be part of a democracy? Why not just be honest and pass a law that only people who live in certain regions of the country can vote....that's what your attitudes amount to anyway.

Chownah

In all fairness I dont think more than a handful of people if any at all are actually proposing removing the vote from those they dont agree with, which is worrisome. To do so would return things to a very feudal setting. Whatever flaws there are in elctoral systems, and they exist in all and we have debated the Thai electoral problems to death, once an election has been held and any irregularities looked at fairly and dealt with fairly the result has to be accepted. This to my mind is particulalry true of the recent Thai election where the Junta wrote the election system and rules, and who had ample time to createa system to their liking. If vote buying is caught on video as with the 2 Chart Thai candidates sure they should be red carded but evidence should be strong.

Personally i also hope for no more disolutions. If it does happen to PPP Thailand will only have to hold another election (surely 230 odd by elections with no new parties wont be acceptable), and there wil be another PPP style party and there will be another similar result and .........

Time to move on

Well said

[Prakanong]

SET listed companies, in the meantime, produce about 90% of Thai GDP, so it's far more important what the government will do for them rather than what farmers will get as spoils.

This is just a complete bit of nonsense.

Traditionally incremental growth in Thailand has come not from SET list companies (or domestic companies at all) but from Foreign Direct Investment.

Of the top five employers in Thailand only Saha Union is a Thai company (western digital is the largest).

I would suggest that what is going on in the politics is making Thailand an economic backwater as far as future FDI.

Rationality and facts will not get you anywhere with the Thaksin obsessed paranoids as all judgement is blurred.

As you say its FDI, and govt spending from the Taksin era, is what has driven growth recently. It is certainly not Thai domestic capital who after having their fingers burned in 97 have refrained from investing except in the protected markets of the media and property.

This of course is all beyond the ken of some posters in here!!!

[John K]

Democracy is the best system only if you agree on what is actually good. If members of society have starkly different views of what is good for the country, democracy will only create unresolvable mess. In Thailand we have one side of the divide giving no thoughts to the good of the whole country whatsoever. I can't predict how this conflict will play out when they actually start thinking about it sometime in the future. Maybe it will mature into left-right, socialism capitalism, or it could be right wing nazists vs libertarians.

You know Plus, 10 years ago I would have said democracy is the best for everyone. However now after the last 10 years I would not say that anymore.

There are some places in the world where ethnic and other types of hatred still exist and are only kept in check by a strong hand. The people in those parts of the world simply are not ready for democracy. Look at what happened when that hatred was allowed to breath and fester in Kosovo and Iraq when the strong hand governments went offline. There is simply too much to deal with when big portions of the population have this hate. The only thing that kept them in check was fear of the government and sudden decisive punishment. A democracy projects little if any fear.

In short for now some non-democratic governments are needed until the hate can be reduced to manageable levels.

As for Thailand, yes a democracy will work with a competent government.

Edited January 9, 2008 by John K

[soundman]

When is a person eleigible to vote? At a certain age. Should this be the only criteria to gain the priveledge of having a say in how your country is run?

A teenager is not allowed to vote. Why? They are not considered educated or responsible enough to hold the priveledge of voting. Same parallels could be drawn to the majority of the elegible voters in Thailand.

One person - one vote - right?

Maybe the vote should be open to all including primary school age. I am sure the Mickey Mouse vote will gain 15% of the lower house.

Now, as you can see, all these arguments are pure crap.

What is the answer to have an intelligent voting public where the political parties will put forward decent, socially resposible, fiscally accountable policies rather than totally unsustainable buy, buy, buy, free, free, free healthcare, education, petrol, food etc if you vote for us policies?

I have no idea. I do know one thing. The current, money politic system is un-workable. It seems like most politicians in Thailand have a hidden agenda to get into power to protect & multiply their own assets.

I am not advocating any particular solution, merely raising ideas on this thread. Some of them are quite leftfield, doesn't mean I would actively endorse them.

Sidenote: I would love to know what percentage of the coutries wealth the politicians own. I heard a rumour that at the height of Taxinism, politicians owned more than 50% of the total value of SET listings.

Cheers,

Soundman.

[Prakanong]

Democracy is the best system only if you agree on what is actually good. If members of society have starkly different views of what is good for the country, democracy will only create unresolvable mess. In Thailand we have one side of the divide giving no thoughts to the good of the whole country whatsoever. I can't predict how this conflict will play out when they actually start thinking about it sometime in the future. Maybe it will mature into left-right, socialism capitalism, or it could be right wing nazists vs libertarians.

You know Plus, 10 years ago I would have said democracy is the best for everyone. However now after the last 10 years I would not say that anymore.

There are some places in the world where ethnic and other types of hatred still exist and are only kept in check by a strong hand. The people in those parts of the world simply are not ready for democracy. Look at what happened when that hatred was allowed to breath and fester in Kosovo and Iraq when the strong hand governments went offline. There is simply too much to deal with when big portions of the population have this hate. The only thing that kept them in check was fear of the government and sudden decisive punishment. A democracy projects little if any fear.

In short for now some non-democratic governments are needed until the hate can be reduced to manageable levels.

As for Thailand, yes a democracy will work with a competent government.

Well after your treatise on who should have and who should not have democracy lets get back to Thailand shall we.

"As for Thailand, yes a democracy will work with a competent government."

That means absolutley nothing - please explain.

If this were politics 101 you would fail with that meaningless statement.

[jumnien]

When is a person eleigible to vote? At a certain age. Should this be the only criteria to gain the priveledge of having a say in how your country is run?

A teenager is not allowed to vote. Why? They are not considered educated or responsible enough to hold the priveledge of voting. Same parallels could be drawn to the majority of the elegible voters in Thailand.

One person - one vote - right?

Maybe the vote should be open to all including primary school age. I am sure the Mickey Mouse vote will gain 15% of the lower house.

Now, as you can see, all these arguments are pure crap.

What is the answer to have an intelligent voting public where the political parties will put forward decent, socially resposible, fiscally accountable policies rather than totally unsustainable buy, buy, buy, free, free, free healthcare, education, petrol, food etc if you vote for us policies?

I have no idea. I do know one thing. The current, money politic system is un-workable. It seems like most politicians in Thailand have a hidden agenda to get into power to protect & multiply their own assets.

I am not advocating any particular solution, merely raising ideas on this thread. Some of them are quite leftfield, doesn't mean I would actively endorse them.

Sidenote: I would love to know what percentage of the coutries wealth the politicians own. I heard a rumour that at the height of Taxinism, politicians owned more than 50% of the total value of SET listings.

Cheers,

Soundman.

But, they didn't own 50% of the tanks, did they?

[Prakanong]

When is a person eleigible to vote? At a certain age. Should this be the only criteria to gain the priveledge of having a say in how your country is run?

A teenager is not allowed to vote. Why? They are not considered educated or responsible enough to hold the priveledge of voting. Same parallels could be drawn to the majority of the elegible voters in Thailand.

One person - one vote - right?

Maybe the vote should be open to all including primary school age. I am sure the Mickey Mouse vote will gain 15% of the lower house.

Now, as you can see, all these arguments are pure crap.

What is the answer to have an intelligent voting public where the political parties will put forward decent, socially resposible, fiscally accountable policies rather than totally unsustainable buy, buy, buy, free, free, free healthcare, education, petrol, food etc if you vote for us policies?

I have no idea. I do know one thing. The current, money politic system is un-workable. It seems like most politicians in Thailand have a hidden agenda to get into power to protect & multiply their own assets.

I am not advocating any particular solution, merely raising ideas on this thread. Some of them are quite leftfield, doesn't mean I would actively endorse them.

Sidenote: I would love to know what percentage of the coutries wealth the politicians own. I heard a rumour that at the height of Taxinism, politicians owned more than 50% of the total value of SET listings.

Cheers,

Soundman.

But, they didn't own 50% of the tanks, did they?

Exactly - waht percentage of the country's wealth is controlled by those who suported the coup in 2006, those who supported the slaughter in 92 and 76?

What proportion was owned by the military dictators (Sarit et al) of the past plus their cronies.

The fact is most of the wealth in Thailand has been in the hands of a very few families who probably had unfair market access to say the least ie they are the most corrupt, venal actors in the Thai economy.

Thaksin did rise up to join their ranks. He did not come from the poor background his mythmaking machine likes to make out but he did amass vast wealth with his own corrupt access to markets, esp from the late 80, early 90's - he amassed his wealth quicker than most due to the telecom's business etc.

Maybe those at the top did not like the newcomer?

Maybe he should have kept his distance from politics and just pulled the strings like the other wealthy families in Thailand.

De-regulation and liberalisation of the Thai econmy would put a stop to a lot of this as Thai companies forced to compete with world class MNC's would not last long - just look at the auto industry for very good evidence of that post 97.

[soundman]

But, they didn't own 50% of the tanks, did they?

Well that raises another interesting issue.

Can a government effectively govern if they can't control the military?

The military being effectively under its own control is like a fox in the henhouse. Not in anyone's best interest & a problem that will have to be tackled sooner, rather than later.

Hard to argue with a tank barrel pointing at you.

[Prakanong]

But, they didn't own 50% of the tanks, did they?

Well that raises another interesting issue.

Can a government effectively govern if they can't control the military?

The military being effectively under its own control is like a fox in the henhouse. Not in anyone's best interest & a problem that will have to be tackled sooner, rather than later.

Hard to argue with a tank barrel pointing at you.

Interesting point - to who does the military owe its loyalty to in a constitutional monarchy such as Britain and Thailand in the modern state?

Where does sovereignty lie - in parliament?