Exit Poll Results Show PPP Wins

[John K]

What is with this meaningless impulse of some posters to place the blame on the junta in nearly every topic when evidence and even backroom rumors don’t support it? If you were tested by teachers you most certainly would fail the comprehension test.

[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.

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?

Looking down the line - say about 5 to 10 posts - I think this a debate we cannot start here.

Just to satisfy curiousity though - does the Crown control the armed forces in the UK in this day and age?

[Plus]

Farmers rationally vote for issues that concern them but in overall scheme of things they are really really insignificant.

Thaksin boosted big businesses and used increased taxes to feed the farmers. So...

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.

I'm saying farmers were not even aware that they share of national income has been comparatevely shrinking. Let them know about other approaches as well first. Until then their vote, however rational, is still uneducated.

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?

I dont' know - this is exactly what Thaskin did. "Vote for me once in five years, I'll take care of you, but how I run the country is my own business."

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.

We know how Village Fund ended - to pay for consumer goods or to serve as bridge loans when you get into problems with money lenders. After so many years in operation there aren't any numbers to track how the money was invested. Productivity increase and smart debts are of no concern neither for politicians nor for the voters.

Most of other populist offers are no more than social safety net. You can finance them only as long as the government has the money. You can't borrow to pay for healthcare, education, or pensions.

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?

Actually how people vote in the US presidential elections and the government they choose will have little effect on the economy. Congress is in many ways more important in that respect. So people are concerned with abortions, gay rights, and evolution of species, but also environment and medicare. They do know that someone will have to pay for it - either the government, government approved insurance companies and so on. In Thailand they just want to pay 30 baht, they don't want to think who will pay for the rest.

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

The thing is that rural voters aren't even aware how that works. They don't know/don't want to know if Thaksin takes 3 baht for himself as long as they get their 50 satang.

When they eventually understand that there are choices, then we can talk about differences in policies and ideology between parties and their supporters. I mentioned earlier that it might turn into socialism-capitalism or nazism-libertarianism or something else.

At the moment no matter who they vote for, will make sure big business gets taken care of first. That's why I say that without Thaksin PPP will be just another faceless party doing exactly the same thing. Democrats are better, ok, but only in details.

Nation's archives are badly screwed now, I can't fing the article about proportion of GDP. Foreign direct investment goes into SET listed companies anyway, like when Toyota invested 30 bil. Then there's domino effect - their non-listed suppliers get orders and so on.

I'm not arguing it's the best approach or that farmers should be stripped of vote of that PPP should be banned - typical boogie men for some posters here, I'm saying it doesn't matter who the farmers vote for, all Thai parties are ideologically the same. They serve their sponsors first, then throw leftovers to the people.

[hammered]

Farmers rationally vote for issues that concern them but in overall scheme of things they are really really insignificant.

Thaksin boosted big businesses and used increased taxes to feed the farmers. So...

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.

I'm saying farmers were not even aware that they share of national income has been comparatevely shrinking. Let them know about other approaches as well first. Until then their vote, however rational, is still uneducated.

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?

I dont' know - this is exactly what Thaskin did. "Vote for me once in five years, I'll take care of you, but how I run the country is my own business."

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.

We know how Village Fund ended - to pay for consumer goods or to serve as bridge loans when you get into problems with money lenders. After so many years in operation there aren't any numbers to track how the money was invested. Productivity increase and smart debts are of no concern neither for politicians nor for the voters.

Most of other populist offers are no more than social safety net. You can finance them only as long as the government has the money. You can't borrow to pay for healthcare, education, or pensions.

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?

Actually how people vote in the US presidential elections and the government they choose will have little effect on the economy. Congress is in many ways more important in that respect. So people are concerned with abortions, gay rights, and evolution of species, but also environment and medicare. They do know that someone will have to pay for it - either the government, government approved insurance companies and so on. In Thailand they just want to pay 30 baht, they don't want to think who will pay for the rest.

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

The thing is that rural voters aren't even aware how that works. They don't know/don't want to know if Thaksin takes 3 baht for himself as long as they get their 50 satang.

When they eventually understand that there are choices, then we can talk about differences in policies and ideology between parties and their supporters. I mentioned earlier that it might turn into socialism-capitalism or nazism-libertarianism or something else.

At the moment no matter who they vote for, will make sure big business gets taken care of first. That's why I say that without Thaksin PPP will be just another faceless party doing exactly the same thing. Democrats are better, ok, but only in details.

Nation's archives are badly screwed now, I can't fing the article about proportion of GDP. Foreign direct investment goes into SET listed companies anyway, like when Toyota invested 30 bil. Then there's domino effect - their non-listed suppliers get orders and so on.

I'm not arguing it's the best approach or that farmers should be stripped of vote of that PPP should be banned - typical boogie men for some posters here, I'm saying it doesn't matter who the farmers vote for, all Thai parties are ideologically the same. They serve their sponsors first, then throw leftovers to the people.

Exactly how my wife's illiterate indebted poverty stricken farmer uncle described Thai poliitcs to me. Great minds think alike

Peace

Edited January 9, 2008 by hammered

[sriracha john]

Thaksin did rise up to join their ranks.

Maybe those at the top did not like the newcomer?

He not only joined their ranks, he passed them.

He is at the top.... the very top.

Thaksin's true wealth has been evaluated as high as 200 billion, making him the richest person in Thailand.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1418738

and that is richer than anyone in Thailand...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1523504

[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?

Looking down the line - say about 5 to 10 posts - I think this a debate we cannot start here.

Just to satisfy curiousity though - does the Crown control the armed forces in the UK in this day and age?

I beleive the army takes an oath of allegience to the crown but it is Parliament that is sovereign.

The "royal" Navy dos not have to take the oath.

As you may notice it "Royal" navy and air force but not army - that is historical but many regiemnts are "Royal" but not the army as a whole.

My best pal who is a deputy Ambassador has an official document on his wall signed by the Queen entrusting him to act as a diplomat on behalf of the crown or something like that - he would say though his allegiance is owed to Parliament while it was democratically elected by the people who can endow sovereignty to parliament.

His brother in law as is Colonel in the Para's and we have had some intersting discussion surrounding this and under what circumstances Parlaiment and/or the PM would not be obeyed. This was over 20 years ago now though when I was a politics undergraduate.

[hammered]

Thaksin did rise up to join their ranks.

Maybe those at the top did not like the newcomer?

He not only joined their ranks, he passed them.

He is at the top.... the very top.

Thaksin's true wealth has been evaluated as high as 200 billion, making him the richest person in Thailand.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1418738

and that is richer than anyone in Thailand...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1523504

There is an article on Asia Sentinel that would suggest that he is not the richest person in Thailand. However, the huge wealth that Mr. Thaksin accumulated together with a popularity that went well beyond that ever enjoyed by a Thai poltician before and a certain arrogance combined with a new way of dividing the pie were probably the main reasons for his ouster however, much I would prefer it to be based on his hideous human rights record!

[Prakanong]

Thaksin did rise up to join their ranks.

Maybe those at the top did not like the newcomer?

He not only joined their ranks, he passed them.

He is at the top.... the very top.

Thaksin's true wealth has been evaluated as high as 200 billion, making him the richest person in Thailand.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1418738

and that is richer than anyone in Thailand...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1523504

It is debateable if he is the actual richest but he is certainly up there.

The latest estimates of the Kings wealth puts him as the richest person on earth, past Bill Gates,, Buffet, Mittal et al.

Then what about Charoen and his wealth?

The Red Bull guy?

Do we count individual or family wealth as well - the Shinawatra's are not the wealthiest family in Thailand are they?

So much of the wealth is hidden in all cases though - it has to be in a society as corrupt as Thailand

Edited January 9, 2008 by Prakanong

[Prakanong]

Thaksin did rise up to join their ranks.

Maybe those at the top did not like the newcomer?

He not only joined their ranks, he passed them.

He is at the top.... the very top.

Thaksin's true wealth has been evaluated as high as 200 billion, making him the richest person in Thailand.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1418738

and that is richer than anyone in Thailand...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1523504

There is an article on Asia Sentinel that would suggest that he is not the richest person in Thailand. However, the huge wealth that Mr. Thaksin accumulated together with a popularity that went well beyond that ever enjoyed by a Thai poltician before and a certain arrogance combined with a new way of dividing the pie were probably the main reasons for his ouster however, much I would prefer it to be based on his hideous human rights record!

A rational person with an ounce of humanity would hope the ouster had its reasons in the human rights record but we all know that not to be true.

October 6th 76 and Black May in 92 are very good illustrations iof Thailand's human rights records and we still talk about Tianamen Square in relation to the Chinese?

[hammered]

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?

Looking down the line - say about 5 to 10 posts - I think this a debate we cannot start here.

Just to satisfy curiousity though - does the Crown control the armed forces in the UK in this day and age?

I beleive the army takes an oath of allegience to the crown but it is Parliament that is sovereign.

The "royal" Navy dos not have to take the oath.

As you may notice it "Royal" navy and air force but not army - that is historical but many regiemnts are "Royal" but not the army as a whole.

My best pal who is a deputy Ambassador has an official document on his wall signed by the Queen entrusting him to act as a diplomat on behalf of the crown or something like that - he would say though his allegiance is owed to Parliament while it was democratically elected by the people who can endow sovereignty to parliament.

His brother in law as is Colonel in the Para's and we have had some intersting discussion surrounding this and under what circumstances Parlaiment and/or the PM would not be obeyed. This was over 20 years ago now though when I was a politics undergraduate.

The UK may be a good model for Thailand to look to for a system that evolved where the old feudal classes and newer monied classes, middle classes and urban working classes all still exist side by side until today within a constitutional monarchy with the majority controlled lower house that is elected on a constituency based system by the majority having arguably more power than any other similar house worldwide.

[sriracha john]

Thaksin did rise up to join their ranks.

Maybe those at the top did not like the newcomer?

He not only joined their ranks, he passed them.

He is at the top.... the very top.

Thaksin's true wealth has been evaluated as high as 200 billion, making him the richest person in Thailand.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1418738

and that is richer than anyone in Thailand...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1523504

It is debateable if he is the actual richest but he is certainly up there.

The latest estimates of the Kings wealth puts him as the richest person on earth, past Bill Gates,, Buffet, Mittal et al.

Then what about Charoen and his wealth?

The Red Bull guy?

Do we count individual or family wealth as well - the Shinawatra's are not the wealthiest family in Thailand are they?

So much of the wealth is hidden in all cases though - it has to be in a society as corrupt as Thailand

The links above show where Charoen et al fall below Thaksin.

Are there reports later than the Forbes in the second link for the other?

Thaksin was certainly not the wealthiest Thai when he became PM, but he was when he left the position.

From billionaire in baht before to billionaire in pound sterling when he was dumped.

[hammered]

Snoh speaks sense. Good God I cant believe I agree with this guy. From the Nation

Snoh urges Democrat to form coalition with PPP

Pracharaj Party leader Snoh Thienthong Wednesday urged the Democrat Party to form a coalition government with the People Power Party.

Snoh said the two biggest parties in term of MPs should work on the same coalition and other small parties should work on the opposition bench.

The Nation

[Plus]

They serve their sponsors first, then throw leftovers to the people.

Exactly how my wife's illiterate indebted poverty stricken farmer uncle described Thai poliitcs to me. Great minds think alike

When will our resident democracy lovers grasp this concept, too?

Not much for "Thaksin empowered the masses" ileftist intellegence.

Middle classes, military, and "elites" want to keep governments in check, btw, farmers don't. Is that democratic or not?

I agree with John K - democracy won't work in a bitterly divided society. Without at least SOME common principles pluralism doesn't prevent bloodshed in barabaric countries. You need to unite people around something before allowing plurality.

Look at Iraq - they can't keep the country together anymore. <deleted> muslims got at sunnies, sunnies at shites, kurds are pulling away on their own. Decade earlier we had Balkan disintegration.

Thailand is nowhere near that, in fact it's not for one man's ambition there would be no conflicts at all (well, there's always Deep South). Speaking of which - their main beef is that they don't care for nation/monarchy/religion that holds the rest of the country together. Thais can't seem to find any common ground with those people. Will democracy work there? Should they be allowed to secede and set up their own, international terrorists united state?

Back to the mainland - nothing will work until both pro and anti Thaksin sides agree on a common course of action regarding that man's fate. His own decision plays a very important part in finding this common solution.

[Siripon]

No,no,no...A democracy needs a functioning opposition for checks and balances, that would never happen if the Democrats joined PPP. And besides their ideology is incompatible, PPP exist purely to rescue Thaksin by hook or crook whilst the Democrats are pledged to progressive, honest government.

If there was a national government, I recommend they persuade Khun Anand to come back for a third term and give him a free hand to choose the cabinet.

Anything rather than Samak, Chalerm, Yongyut, and of course not forgetting the stroke stricken father of Sudarat!

[hammered]

They serve their sponsors first, then throw leftovers to the people.

Exactly how my wife's illiterate indebted poverty stricken farmer uncle described Thai poliitcs to me. Great minds think alike

When will our resident democracy lovers grasp this concept, too?

Not much for "Thaksin empowered the masses" ileftist intellegence.

Middle classes, military, and "elites" want to keep governments in check, btw, farmers don't. Is that democratic or not?

I agree with John K - democracy won't work in a bitterly divided society. Without at least SOME common principles pluralism doesn't prevent bloodshed in barabaric countries. You need to unite people around something before allowing plurality.

Look at Iraq - they can't keep the country together anymore. <deleted> muslims got at sunnies, sunnies at shites, kurds are pulling away on their own. Decade earlier we had Balkan disintegration.

Thailand is nowhere near that, in fact it's not for one man's ambition there would be no conflicts at all (well, there's always Deep South). Speaking of which - their main beef is that they don't care for nation/monarchy/religion that holds the rest of the country together. Thais can't seem to find any common ground with those people. Will democracy work there? Should they be allowed to secede and set up their own, international terrorists united state?

Back to the mainland - nothing will work until both pro and anti Thaksin sides agree on a common course of action regarding that man's fate. His own decision plays a very important part in finding this common solution.

A PPP-Dem coalition would maybe be a start. If they can come together that would send a strong signal. It would also allow the biggest party to be in power preferrably with the most cabinet seats while allowing a party maybe more trusted by the other side to have a big say, and no doubt part would be allowing court cases to go through the justice system. There owuld also be an undenaible coutrywide mandate covering all regions for constitutional changes etc. At least Snoh and a social critic are now talking about this now. They must be TV readers!

[Plus]

But that would mean keeping Thaksin away for good. Is he ready to accept that after investing heavily in PPP? I seriously doubt that.

[Ricardo]

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?

Sorry, but I wasn't aware that there were any farang members of the Thai feudal military complex, who exactly are you talking about, and what are your sources ?

[Prakanong]

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?

Sorry, but I wasn't aware that there were any farang members of the Thai feudal military complex, who exactly are you talking about, and what are your sources ?

I was being ironic about some of the posters on here who seem to consider themselves as part of this social group for some strange reason and who try to argue that democracy is not good for Thailand and especially for the rural poor.

The Juntanista's, those with so much hatred for Thaksin its bordering on the pathological and who should really seek psychatric help.

I am no fan of the man but to be so absorbed about him like some of the TV posters and this about someone for whom they could not vote etc and have no legitimate rights in the sovereign nation that is Thailand is quite loopy.

You would think he as the devil incarnate - while he was no angel he is not exactly an outlier in Thai politics but of course some of them only know the Thaksin era and Thai history, economy and politcs is beyond them.

[younghusband]

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?

Looking down the line - say about 5 to 10 posts - I think this a debate we cannot start here.

Just to satisfy curiousity though - does the Crown control the armed forces in the UK in this day and age?

Actually - and this may come as a surprise to some - the position in the UK is the same as in Thailand.Officers in the British armed forces owe their loyalty to the crown.This is not some anachronistic waffle but deeply felt by British officers.Thus their prime loyalty is to the throne not to Parliament or to the Prime Minister.I suppose the main difference with Thailand is that the players have a very clear idea what the rules of the game are, and that the military in particular understand they are under the direction of the elected government.If however the British crown was threatened by an elected government, I do not think it would be easy to predict the armed forces reaction.

[hammered]

No,no,no...A democracy needs a functioning opposition for checks and balances, that would never happen if the Democrats joined PPP. And besides their ideology is incompatible, PPP exist purely to rescue Thaksin by hook or crook whilst the Democrats are pledged to progressive, honest government.

If there was a national government, I recommend they persuade Khun Anand to come back for a third term and give him a free hand to choose the cabinet.

Anything rather than Samak, Chalerm, Yongyut, and of course not forgetting the stroke stricken father of Sudarat!

So what are the alternatives and are they better:

A PPP government buoyed up by the whore parties and if we are really unlucky with Banharn at the helm. With the military and bureacracy paranoid and chomping at the bit to overthrow them complete with continuing and probably worsening polarisation.

A very weak and fractious Dem led government after a a bunch of red cards to reduce to the PPP with the country even more polarised and the PPP launching wave after wave of attacks on a totally unviable coalition until it collapses.

A Dem led government after the PPP is disolved and a bunch of by elections (230ish) have been held leaving the country even more polarised and maybe dangerously so and interantionally seen as a joke.

Another coup. Enough said.

Violence on the streets.

The election declared unconstitutional and needing to be held again thereby leaving the country rudderless until election results put us in exactly the same situtaion as now with the country becoming even mor epolarised.

An Anand led government of national reconcilliation. That will probably require a coup first as he is not an elected MP.

Normally I would agree that a strong opposition is needed in a functioning democracy. Sadly Thailand doesnt exactly have a functioning democracy right now and that needs to be addressed. It makes more sense imho right now for the two parties that actually represent the people of the country to come together and form a government with say a limited timescale and limited objectives that will lead to a future election held under a reformed constitution and in conditions where divisions have ben lessened. And if the PPP and Dems could actually come together on even a limited set of agreements for the national good then it may just start to heal some of the rifts. Not sure the military would like it though.

[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?

Looking down the line - say about 5 to 10 posts - I think this a debate we cannot start here.

Just to satisfy curiousity though - does the Crown control the armed forces in the UK in this day and age?

Actually - and this may come as a surprise to some - the position in the UK is the same as in Thailand.Officers in the British armed forces owe their loyalty to the crown.This is not some anachronistic waffle but deeply felt by British officers.Thus their prime loyalty is to the throne not to Parliament or to the Prime Minister.I suppose the main difference with Thailand is that the players have a very clear idea what the rules of the game are, and that the military in particular understand they are under the direction of the elected government.If however the British crown was threatened by an elected government, I do not think it would be easy to predict the armed forces reaction.

Interesting you would think so!

So the British people in whom sovereignty resides vote in a party on a manifesto to disband the monarch and establish a republic.

The first act of Parliament of this govt/ does indeed do that.

Do you think the British armed forces would rise up and overthrow the govt?

[soundman]

So what are the alternatives and are they better:

A PPP government buoyed up by the whore parties and if we are really unlucky with Banharn at the helm. With the military and bureacracy paranoid and chomping at the bit to overthrow them complete with continuing and probably worsening polarisation.

A very weak and fractious Dem led government after a a bunch of red cards to reduce to the PPP with the country even more polarised and the PPP launching wave after wave of attacks on a totally unviable coalition until it collapses.

A Dem led government after the PPP is disolved and a bunch of by elections (230ish) have been held leaving the country even more polarised and maybe dangerously so and interantionally seen as a joke.

Another coup. Enough said.

Violence on the streets.

The election declared unconstitutional and needing to be held again thereby leaving the country rudderless until election results put us in exactly the same situtaion as now with the country becoming even mor epolarised.

An Anand led government of national reconcilliation. That will probably require a coup first as he is not an elected MP.

Normally I would agree that a strong opposition is needed in a functioning democracy. Sadly Thailand doesnt exactly have a functioning democracy right now and that needs to be addressed. It makes more sense imho right now for the two parties that actually represent the people of the country to come together and form a government with say a limited timescale and limited objectives that will lead to a future election held under a reformed constitution and in conditions where divisions have ben lessened. And if the PPP and Dems could actually come together on even a limited set of agreements for the national good then it may just start to heal some of the rifts. Not sure the military would like it though.

All these problems of polerisation etc would simply evaporate if the taxin's and those of his ilk ran out of money.

If PPP had no money, does anyone think they would have gotten the support they did?

[hammered]

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?

Looking down the line - say about 5 to 10 posts - I think this a debate we cannot start here.

Just to satisfy curiousity though - does the Crown control the armed forces in the UK in this day and age?

Actually - and this may come as a surprise to some - the position in the UK is the same as in Thailand.Officers in the British armed forces owe their loyalty to the crown.This is not some anachronistic waffle but deeply felt by British officers.Thus their prime loyalty is to the throne not to Parliament or to the Prime Minister.I suppose the main difference with Thailand is that the players have a very clear idea what the rules of the game are, and that the military in particular understand they are under the direction of the elected government.If however the British crown was threatened by an elected government, I do not think it would be easy to predict the armed forces reaction.

The Crown in the UK does not carry the respect it once did and a governemnt could probably reduce its power or even do away with it without interference from the forces although this remains a moot point as the chance of anyone outside of the Murdoch press and the Socialist Workers Party wanting to actually get rid of the monarchy are low even if for tourism reasons alone.

Back when there was a chance of a Benn led Labour party a few decades ago a few extreme right wing officers, ex-officers and military intelligence characters (buffoons from an Evelyn War book would describe them well) are even meant to have prepared a plan for a coup but the story goes the Queen Mother found out and told them to stop being silly little boys. At the end of the day Britain is too pragmatic to have such things happen not to mention the army is small, scattered around the world and most people dont want a bunch of soldier boys anywhere near them. Thailand has a way to go until it achieves the same I guess.

Interesting to deabte this more especially if talking to those in HM forces but we shoudl get back on topic I guess.

[Ricardo]

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.

Sorry, but I wasn't aware that there were any farang members of the Thai feudal military complex, who exactly are you talking about, and what are your sources ?

I was being ironic about some of the posters on here who seem to consider themselves as part of this social group for some strange reason and who try to argue that democracy is not good for Thailand and especially for the rural poor.

The Juntanista's, those with so much hatred for Thaksin its bordering on the pathological and who should really seek psychatric help.

I am no fan of the man but to be so absorbed about him like some of the TV posters and this about someone for whom they could not vote etc and have no legitimate rights in the sovereign nation that is Thailand is quite loopy.

You would think he as the devil incarnate - while he was no angel he is not exactly an outlier in Thai politics but of course some of them only know the Thaksin era and Thai history, economy and politcs is beyond them.

I see, I think ...

So, farangs who think Thaksin is a crook ...

and say so on ThaiVisa ...

must therefore support everything the coup-leaders say & do ...

and therefore must be called 'Juntanistas' ...

who are so absorbed as to be quite loopy ...

and are therefore members of the Thai feudal military complex ...

Got it, I think ...

I disagree.

[hammered]

So what are the alternatives and are they better:

A PPP government buoyed up by the whore parties and if we are really unlucky with Banharn at the helm. With the military and bureacracy paranoid and chomping at the bit to overthrow them complete with continuing and probably worsening polarisation.

A very weak and fractious Dem led government after a a bunch of red cards to reduce to the PPP with the country even more polarised and the PPP launching wave after wave of attacks on a totally unviable coalition until it collapses.

A Dem led government after the PPP is disolved and a bunch of by elections (230ish) have been held leaving the country even more polarised and maybe dangerously so and interantionally seen as a joke.

Another coup. Enough said.

Violence on the streets.

The election declared unconstitutional and needing to be held again thereby leaving the country rudderless until election results put us in exactly the same situtaion as now with the country becoming even mor epolarised.

An Anand led government of national reconcilliation. That will probably require a coup first as he is not an elected MP.

Normally I would agree that a strong opposition is needed in a functioning democracy. Sadly Thailand doesnt exactly have a functioning democracy right now and that needs to be addressed. It makes more sense imho right now for the two parties that actually represent the people of the country to come together and form a government with say a limited timescale and limited objectives that will lead to a future election held under a reformed constitution and in conditions where divisions have ben lessened. And if the PPP and Dems could actually come together on even a limited set of agreements for the national good then it may just start to heal some of the rifts. Not sure the military would like it though.

All these problems of polerisation etc would simply evaporate if the taxin's and those of his ilk ran out of money.

If PPP had no money, does anyone think they would have gotten the support they did?

But also Clinton or Guiliani or .... would not become US president without money etc

That is the way of politics. Oh plus it always attracts meglomaniacs.

[hammered]

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.

Sorry, but I wasn't aware that there were any farang members of the Thai feudal military complex, who exactly are you talking about, and what are your sources ?

I was being ironic about some of the posters on here who seem to consider themselves as part of this social group for some strange reason and who try to argue that democracy is not good for Thailand and especially for the rural poor.

The Juntanista's, those with so much hatred for Thaksin its bordering on the pathological and who should really seek psychatric help.

I am no fan of the man but to be so absorbed about him like some of the TV posters and this about someone for whom they could not vote etc and have no legitimate rights in the sovereign nation that is Thailand is quite loopy.

You would think he as the devil incarnate - while he was no angel he is not exactly an outlier in Thai politics but of course some of them only know the Thaksin era and Thai history, economy and politcs is beyond them.

I see, I think ...

So, farangs who think Thaksin is a crook ...

and say so on ThaiVisa ...

must therefore support everything the coup-leaders say & do ...

and therefore must be called 'Juntanistas' ...

who are so absorbed as to be quite loopy ...

and are therefore members of the Thai feudal military complex ...

Got it, I think ...

I disagree.

No I think it goes like this:

Those who think Thaksin was a crook and blaggard and (fill in the gap) and who love the Junta and its geriatric government get labelled Juntaistas.

Those who think Thaksin was crook and blaggard and generally ungentlemanly guy but dont worship the ground Surayud etc walk on and ar enot over the moon abiout the coup dont get labelled Juntaistas.

Similarly those who see no and hear no wrong on Mr. Thaksin get labelled Thaksinistas

While those who find a coup totally abhorrent and condemn it totally but recognize that Mr. Thaksin was a flawed leader do not get labelled Thaksinistas

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Ricardo]

Actually - and this may come as a surprise to some - the position in the UK is the same as in Thailand.Officers in the British armed forces owe their loyalty to the crown.This is not some anachronistic waffle but deeply felt by British officers.Thus their prime loyalty is to the throne not to Parliament or to the Prime Minister.I suppose the main difference with Thailand is that the players have a very clear idea what the rules of the game are, and that the military in particular understand they are under the direction of the elected government.If however the British crown was threatened by an elected government, I do not think it would be easy to predict the armed forces reaction.

Younghusband, may I just say, I think you're spot-on, with this analysis.

It also explains why, when Prem lectured new officers about their primary loyalty to King & country, at the college a couple of years ago, Thaksin got so upset with him about it.

[Prakanong]

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.

Sorry, but I wasn't aware that there were any farang members of the Thai feudal military complex, who exactly are you talking about, and what are your sources ?

I was being ironic about some of the posters on here who seem to consider themselves as part of this social group for some strange reason and who try to argue that democracy is not good for Thailand and especially for the rural poor.

The Juntanista's, those with so much hatred for Thaksin its bordering on the pathological and who should really seek psychatric help.

I am no fan of the man but to be so absorbed about him like some of the TV posters and this about someone for whom they could not vote etc and have no legitimate rights in the sovereign nation that is Thailand is quite loopy.

You would think he as the devil incarnate - while he was no angel he is not exactly an outlier in Thai politics but of course some of them only know the Thaksin era and Thai history, economy and politcs is beyond them.

I see, I think ...

So, farangs who think Thaksin is a crook ...

and say so on ThaiVisa ...

must therefore support everything the coup-leaders say & do ...

and therefore must be called 'Juntanistas' ...

who are so absorbed as to be quite loopy ...

and are therefore members of the Thai feudal military complex ...

Got it, I think ...

I disagree.

I am glad you disagree but it is not what I meant.

I also think Thaksin is a crook - if we are to have levels of "Crookery" though he is an amateur vompared to many of those that have gone before him in Thailand.

Some of the posters on TV become quite irrational when speaking of the man, have a seeming hatred that goes very deep for someone they do not know personally and i bet in most case have no real affect on their lives except to close Nana Plaza early.

It just seems very irrational to me to take it so personally and in my view that is loopy - they are a tad unbalanced.

As for the Thai Military Feudal alliance I am sure they have never even had a meal in the same restaurant but they do seem to taody up to a group again they have no real personal knowledge of - do they fawn over the likes in their home country?

Care in the community anyone?

[John K]

There seems to be some hints of what would happen if the PPP is sent packing.

Would a new election be set for the remaining?

Would the second place winners be declared the actual winners where the PPP won?

Outside of those two options I can’t see anything without pushing things way out and giving time for restructure. However doing that may be more painful in the long run. The world is waiting to see where Thailand stands before any business decisions are made good or bad. So can Thailand afford to wait another 3 or more months?

A very complex set of questions however they are from two different baskets. It is much like deciding how far you want to drive on your spare tire that was only designed for short term use.

In actuality the best choice would be have an election with the remaining as this cycle of Thaksin not staying away and mucking up the works can seemingly go on forever. However that is just my opinion.

Thaksin has already messed this election up beyond repair and it probably will be trashed. That you can’t place blame on anyone in the Thai government or military. It was arrogance and ignoring the law on the wholesale level by the PPP. Let the blame ride on that. Also very possibly that may have been a tactical fallback decision by Thaksin that he did not bother to tell anyone in the PPP. That would buy him more time to make a second strike via infiltration by buying people. His wife being in Thailand tends to support that. Either way they both work towards getting him off the hook and back in power.

Edited January 9, 2008 by John K

[blaze]

So what are the alternatives and are they better:

A PPP government buoyed up by the whore parties and if we are really unlucky with Banharn at the helm. With the military and bureacracy paranoid and chomping at the bit to overthrow them complete with continuing and probably worsening polarisation.

A very weak and fractious Dem led government after a a bunch of red cards to reduce to the PPP with the country even more polarised and the PPP launching wave after wave of attacks on a totally unviable coalition until it collapses.

A Dem led government after the PPP is disolved and a bunch of by elections (230ish) have been held leaving the country even more polarised and maybe dangerously so and interantionally seen as a joke.

Another coup. Enough said.

Violence on the streets.

The election declared unconstitutional and needing to be held again thereby leaving the country rudderless until election results put us in exactly the same situtaion as now with the country becoming even mor epolarised.

An Anand led government of national reconcilliation. That will probably require a coup first as he is not an elected MP.

Normally I would agree that a strong opposition is needed in a functioning democracy. Sadly Thailand doesnt exactly have a functioning democracy right now and that needs to be addressed. It makes more sense imho right now for the two parties that actually represent the people of the country to come together and form a government with say a limited timescale and limited objectives that will lead to a future election held under a reformed constitution and in conditions where divisions have ben lessened. And if the PPP and Dems could actually come together on even a limited set of agreements for the national good then it may just start to heal some of the rifts. Not sure the military would like it though.

All these problems of polerisation etc would simply evaporate if the taxin's and those of his ilk ran out of money.

If PPP had no money, does anyone think they would have gotten the support they did?

But also Clinton or Guiliani or .... would not become US president without money etc

That is the way of politics. Oh plus it always attracts meglomaniacs.

The cynisim of some towards democracy is of course, not limited to Thailand- in fact I would suggest there is more cynisim in the so called 'developed' west in certain pockets than there is in the devloping world. The aphorism that your uncle and Plus shared is commonly repeated in every western country that I am aware of- that polititians are to be trusted less than used car salesmen- that they are all in it for themselves- that all the parties are bought off by big money- and that voters are too ignorant and selfish to grasp the compexities of the issues.

There is also the belief in many camps that national governments as we know them in the west are all subservient to the power of the multinationals and thus national government is a chimera - capable of independantly legislating little more than zoning laws where all else, from social policies to fiscal management is dictated by faceless global players with no allegience to any nation.

It is interesting to notice that the columnists in both the Nation and the Post now appear to be more embracing of democracy in Thailand, even if it means permitting the PPP to govern, than a surprisingly large number of educated and politically aware westerners (including many in this forum). And that while Thaksin's alleged corruption provides the overt justification for the cynicism- the substance may be much deeper.