Exit Poll Results Show PPP Wins

[aaaaaa]

A very interesting thing I learned today, but apparently the 52 storey building that burned yesterday is owned by non other than Pojaman Shinawatra and the fire was nothing more than a good old fashion Thai style message to her. I need someone to verify this but I do trust my source.

I knew that quite for a while, having lived in that area for 3-4 years already.

I think I tried even to say the same thing as you in this thread already - that as soon as she arrived (on Tue morning), somehow fire happens very next day.

with 5mln Baht paid for bail out - that losses due to that fire perhaps are nothing much than just a acknowledgement of a "message" indeed.

[aaaaaa]

From what I consider a reliable source the building in question is owned by Pojaman Shinawatra but not verified yet in the media.

from what I've heard - Esplanade (Ratchada) is owned by Thaksin's son as well !

although never got any evidences

[Prakanong]

From what I consider a reliable source the building in question is owned by Pojaman Shinawatra but not verified yet in the media.

from what I've heard - Esplanade (Ratchada) is owned by Thaksin's son as well !

although never got any evidences

There is always the land office and company registrations

As for the building with the fire if Thaksins wife owns it what about TCC then - the joint venture between Charoen and Capitland?

Why would they say it was theirs?

From this website http://www.mipimasia.com/gb/press/client_n..._august_10_2007

" * Cyber World Tower

Property: Twin Office Towers, 53 levels for tower A and 48 levels for tower B.

Location: In the heart of Rachadapisek’s prime commercial hub, near Thailand

Cutural Center Subway Station

Lettable Area: 60,000 sq.m. "

"Projects undergoing construction are the Cyber World Project with total office space of 200,696 square meters scheduled to be completed by the end of 2007, the Athenee Tower Project with total office space of 91,726 square meters scheduled to be completed by July 2007, and the North Park Office Complex Project."

Edited January 10, 2008 by Prakanong

[John K]

A very interesting thing I learned today, but apparently the 52 storey building that burned yesterday is owned by non other than Pojaman Shinawatra and the fire was nothing more than a good old fashion Thai style message to her. I need someone to verify this but I do trust my source.

I knew that quite for a while, having lived in that area for 3-4 years already.

I think I tried even to say the same thing as you in this thread already - that as soon as she arrived (on Tue morning), somehow fire happens very next day.

with 5mln Baht paid for bail out - that losses due to that fire perhaps are nothing much than just a acknowledgement of a "message" indeed.

I think this will be like everyone knowing Thaksin did it but finding the proof is a another story. So in this case like you said, everyone in the area knows who owns it. Depending on if the AEC needs to know or not it may not hit the media. In any case it is an interesting twist.

[John K]

ANALYSIS

Legal hurdles ahead for PPP

Despite triumphing in the December 23 election, the People Power Party, lit up by the halo of deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra, will not find the path to power strewn with roses.

While the PPP looks set to form a coalition government, the road ahead is full of political landmines that could see the cancellation of its election victory or even its dissolution in the worst-case scenario.

The PPP will not have to wait long as the Supreme Court will today rule on the complaint filed by the New Aspiration Party that the Election Commission (EC) had no authority to organise the advance and absentee balloting on December 15 and 16.

That case will be followed by another for which the high court will, on Tuesday, hold its first hearing on four legal issues concerning the national poll that were raised by Democrat candidate Chaiwat Sinsuwong.

They are: whether the PPP was qualified for the election as a nominee of the disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party; whether People Power leader Samak Sundaravej was qualified to run in the race as the proxy of Thaksin; whether the advance voting was valid; and, whether the distribution - allegedly by PPP candidates in northeastern provinces - of video CDs with Thaksin asking his supporters to vote for the PPP, was illegal.

Another case pending legal process is the lawsuit filed by the EC against the PPP.

It follows the high court's ruling in early December that the PPP was involved in forging the signature of Sithichai Kowsurat as a party member by putting his name on the roster of election candidates.

Based on membership documents supplied by the PPP, the EC disqualified Sithichai as a candidate of the Puea Pandin Party in November for holding double party membership. His candidacy was restored because of the court's verdict.

The EC's reaction to the Sithichai case is not a good sign for the PPP. EC member Sodsri Satayathum has warned that PPP leader Samak would be held accountable and might face criminal charges if the EC finds that he or his party had fabricated membership records.

If the PPP intentionally tampered with its records to influence the election process, this could lead to a judicial review by the Constitution Court, she said, noting the offence is punishable by party dissolution.

The PPP is also staring at possible dissolution on another front.

The EC is about to rule on an election fraud case involving PPP deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat as a party-list candidate for Zone 1, covering northern provinces like Chiang Rai and Chiang Mai.

The crux of the charges concerns his alleged involvement in offering monetary rewards to village headmen and kamnan in his home city of Chiang Rai to sway votes for him and his party.

The PPP could feel the heat in this case because, under the new election rules, a political party is accountable for any campaign offence involving its executive members.

EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond said recently a ruling against Yongyuth could trigger a series of events that could end with the PPP being disbanded.

The EC chairman claimed, should Yongyuth be found to have committed wrongdoing in his capacity as deputy party leader, the Constitution Court could consider winding the PPP down.

If those cases are already causing headaches for the PPP, there are more.

The Supreme Court will kick off the trial against Thaksin's wife Pojaman on January 23 over her purchase of land in 2003, when Thaksin was prime minister. The Assets Examination Committee has accused them of abuse of power to boost their wealth.

The PPP-led coalition could face a crisis of legitimacy if they are found guilty.

The hearing will take place shortly after the House convenes the first session, scheduled before January 22.

The House session to elect the prime minister, expected to be held by early next month, will be the first parliamentary test for the PPP-led alliance that is about to form the government.

Samak apparently is not the favoured choice of some key members of the PPP and its allies, including Chat Thai, Puea Pandin, Pracharaj, Matchima Thipataya and Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana.

As Samak is seen as a fierce opponent of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda - allegedly the man behind the September 2006 coup toppling Thaksin - they are concerned that an attempt to reconcile all sides involved in national conflicts will fail if he becomes the prime minister.

Chat Thai leader Banharn Silapa-archa is reportedly an alternative to Samak, as he has a good relationship with Prem and would be palatable to both pro- and anti-Thaksin camps.

If the PPP still insists on nominating Samak as the new premier, its coalition government could have a short life, as it would face strong resistance from the anti-Thaksin groups.

Weerayut Chokchaimadon

The Nation

[Prakanong]

A very interesting thing I learned today, but apparently the 52 storey building that burned yesterday is owned by non other than Pojaman Shinawatra and the fire was nothing more than a good old fashion Thai style message to her. I need someone to verify this but I do trust my source.

I knew that quite for a while, having lived in that area for 3-4 years already.

I think I tried even to say the same thing as you in this thread already - that as soon as she arrived (on Tue morning), somehow fire happens very next day.

with 5mln Baht paid for bail out - that losses due to that fire perhaps are nothing much than just a acknowledgement of a "message" indeed.

I think this will be like everyone knowing Thaksin did it but finding the proof is a another story. So in this case like you said, everyone in the area knows who owns it. Depending on if the AEC needs to know or not it may not hit the media. In any case it is an interesting twist.

Why then would TCC Land then claim it as one of theirs?

A JV between two reputable companies - one with business links to the CPB

Do you think they are lying, covering up for the Shinawatra family or any other consiracy theory?

Do you know who owns all the buildings in the area you live?

We are awaiting your reporting back with proof by February 1st but no-one is holding ther breath - if you break the story of this cover up you can join Woodward and Bernstein.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Prakanong

[John K]

On another front I came across a story Thursday that suggest Thaksin may be running out of available cash.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...icle3324877.ece

If that is the case it makes you wonder how much he spent on buying votes in Isaan.

[aaaaaa]

All this political mess really does tell me that Thailand simply is not ready for a democracy. But so what? The benefits of a democracy are highly overated when in "developed" democracies parties with a smaller slice of the pie continually manage to put their leaders on the seat of power.

the question is: WHO is ready for Democracy? is there ANY country which has it? or ready for it?

there is no actual Democracy in the world and won't be.

as someone said : "It is not allowed".

Thaksin once said

Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," he said. "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress.

exactly so!

Democracy is just a popular slogan, a candy for consumerism-infected masses ready to buy whatever next thing is sold to them (war on terror, war on drugs, war on communists etc)

The Nation a year ago also quoted Sonthi saying that Thailand is not ready for Democracy and Thai people have to be more educated to grasp it. and that it would be decided, which form of democracy is more appropriate for this country.

[aaaaaa]

ANALYSIS

Legal hurdles ahead for PPP

The PPP will not have to wait long as the Supreme Court will today rule on the complaint filed by the New Aspiration Party that the Election Commission (EC) had no authority to organise the advance and absentee balloting on December 15 and 16.

so, Supreme Court at it again! show must go on....

although it is interesting, as it was mentioned somewhere, that WHY Democrats didn't file such complain BEFORE the elections?

it looks like if they've been waiting for election results and then brought up this card.

and the main thing is - more and more signs that Banharn is the next PM.

I think I've read the analysis with predictions that he will be next quite some time before the elections.

perhaps this:

'Third force' parties to determine polls

By Shawn W Crispin

Dec 15, 2007

Both the front-running People's Power Party (PPP), the new incarnation of Thaksin's TRT, and the conservative Democrats, which served in the political opposition for TRT's six years in power, have sworn against joining forces with the other, meaning the makeup of the next coalition government will likely be determined by which can strike an alliance with two main middling parties, Chat Thai (Thai Nation) and Pua Pandin (Motherland Party). Both have referred to themselves as "third force" parties, which if the pollsters have it right, will be major swing factors in the next government's formation.

even his predictions about won seats were quite close.

and now here is what was said about Banharn:

Chat Thai is running a more old-fashioned campaign, relying largely on the weight of party leader Banharn Silapa-archa's still strong name recognition in the country's central rice-growing heartland. The party's main vow has been to work towards national reconciliation and a return to political normalcy.

Banharn, a former prime minister and favorite whipping boy of the local press, has through his former firm opposition to Thaksin's rule won favor in the same royalist circles that during his 1995-96 premiership frowned upon on his lack of formal schooling and pedigree as a provincial power-broker. The machine politician has since rehabilitated his image to something approaching national statesman and his name has been bandied about as a potential compromise prime minister in a broad-based ruling coalition where the Democrats control the main economic portfolios.

(from: )

aha! here is the "magic words" : national reconciliation

not too much populist (as TRT or PPP), neither too much anti-populist (as Democrats) - just "golden middle" !

a "potential compromise prime minister" indeed ! who's got everything necessary to prolong sweet old good technocro-buerocro-elitist reign. and of course - under THE BEST umbrella - of national reconciliation !!!

there are also predictions of likely scenarios of PPP in opposition ....

similar predictions 10 days later and 2 days after Elections:

Thailand democratic but shaky after vote

By Shawn W Crispin

Dec 25, 2007

There are already murmurs of a potential grand bargain whereby Banharn would emerge as a compromise prime minister inside a four- or five-party coalition, while the Democrats controlled the major economic and finance portfolios and Abhisit assumed the post of parliament speaker rather than premier.

so, folks - fasten your seat-belts !

if Thaksin has got TV excited so much - then Banharn as PM in Democrats' coalition government Vs PPP will be much more fun !

Edited January 10, 2008 by aaaaaa

[bino]

A very interesting thing I learned today, but apparently the 52 storey building that burned yesterday is owned by non other than Pojaman Shinawatra and the fire was nothing more than a good old fashion Thai style message to her. I need someone to verify this but I do trust my source.

I knew that quite for a while, having lived in that area for 3-4 years already.

I think I tried even to say the same thing as you in this thread already - that as soon as she arrived (on Tue morning), somehow fire happens very next day.

with 5mln Baht paid for bail out - that losses due to that fire perhaps are nothing much than just a acknowledgement of a "message" indeed.

I think this will be like everyone knowing Thaksin did it but finding the proof is a another story. So in this case like you said, everyone in the area knows who owns it. Depending on if the AEC needs to know or not it may not hit the media. In any case it is an interesting twist.

Why then would TCC Land then claim it as one of theirs?

A JV between two reputable companies - one with business links to the CPB

Do you think they are lying, covering up for the Shinawatra family or any other consiracy theory?

Do you know who owns all the buildings in the area you live?

We are awaiting your reporting back with proof by February 1st but no-one is holding ther breath - if you break the story of this cover up you can join Woodward and Bernstein.

I was believing that the building belonged to the Shinawatra empire as well. In fact, I thought that it was the actual property purchased by Potjaman and currently at the heart of the Ratchadaphisek land corruption claim.

I initially thought that it was too coincidental that the building owned by Potjaman which is the subject matter of the corruption case she "returned to defend hersef" in - caught fire on the day she returned. Seemed like a "message" to me.

But- I was wrong, if the building belongs to the Charoen empire. Maybe the arsonist (messenger) misunderstood also?

[aaaaaa]

interesting piece about Banharn shortly before the Sep coup:

Banharn 'to return as premier'

2006/08/19

Thai Rak Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra has struck a secret deal

with Banharn Silapa-archa to take over as prime minister after the October 15 election ...

(from: www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/08/19/politics/politics_30011472.php - see Google Cashed)

Banharn is well re known for "mischief" !

Between 1995 and 1996, he even served as Prime Minister. Throughout this seemingly distinguished career, however, Banharn has been implicated in numerous corruption scandals. Accordingly, Thais in general call him all sorts of pejorative names, such as ‘Mr ATM’, portraying him as a politician who dispenses dirty money under the table to anyone who needs it. His short-lived yet highly inept administration is also believed to have paved the way for the economic crisis of 1997.

(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banharn_Silpa-Archa)

while more mild words are used to explain his government's failure elsewhere:

He left office, a year after, on September 27, 1996, when the concordance in the government diminished.

http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/eng/pm_21.htm

concordance ?

Concordance - Harmonious mutual understanding

(http://www.answers.com/concordance?cat=health)

well, not so promising for "national reconciliation", huh ?

and Democrats has had their experience with him too 8 years ago .... BEFORE Thaksin !

Thailand: No tidings of comfort or joy

atimes.com

April 13, 2000

... it hasn't been the happiest few months the prime minister [Chuan Leekpai] and his ruling Democrat Party...

Former interior minister and party secretary-general Sanan Kachornprasart has been indicted for falsifying personal financial records by the National Counter Corruption Commission; relatives of cabinet and leading party members have been denied Senate seats on charges of vote fraud; last Friday, the central Bank of Thailand asked the police to investigate grounds for bringing criminal charges against the brother of Finance Minister Tarrin Nimmanahaeminida in connection with loan losses at publicly-owned Krung Thai Bank; late Tuesday, former agriculture minister and Chart Thai Party (a government coalition partner) secretary-general Pongpol Adireksarn, just dropped from the cabinet, accused party boss and former prime minister Banharn Silpa-archa of attempting to siphon money from an Asian Development Bank loan to restructure the agriculture ministry.

Chuan should do :

... Declare that he cannot continue in coalition with a party, Chart Thai, whose secretary-general accuses its leader of blatant attempted malfeasance, and dissolve parliament. None of this is likely to happen.

so, Democrats, no matter what Abhisit is trying to sing, were not less corrupted.

they had to give up in embarrassment twice before and after Banharn's term as well:

The first Chuan government (1992-1995) fell when members of the cabinet were implicated in profiting from Sor Phor Kor 4-01 land titles distributed in Phuket province. Fierce public and press criticism have been cited for Chuan 1's downfall.

Second governemt(1997-2001)

Corruption

Chuan's government was also plagued with corruption scandals. Key cases of corruption included:

* Rakkiat Sukhthana, Health Minister, was charged with taking a five million THB (125,000 USD) bribe from a drug firm and forcing state hospitals to buy medicine at exorbitant prices. After being found guilty, he jumped bail and went into hiding.

* Suthep Thaugsuban, Minister of Transport and Communications, whose brokering of illegal land deals caused the fall of the Chuan 1 government, was linked to abuse of funds in setting up a co-operative in his southern constituency of Surat Thani.[11]

* The "edible fence" seed scandal, in which collusion led to massive overpricing of seeds distributed to rural areas. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture was forced to resign.[12]

* The Salween logging scandal, where up to 20,000 logs were felled illegally in the Salween forest in Mae Hong Son. Some of them turned up in the compound of the Democrat party’s office in Phichit province.[12]

* Sanan Kajornprasart, Interior Minister, as well as 8 other cabinet ministers were found to have understated their declared assets. Sanan was later barred by the Constitution Court from politics for 5 years.[13]

* Chuan himself was found by the National Counter-Corruption Commission to have undeclared shareholdings in a rural cooperative.[13]

Chuan stepped down as the head of the Democrat Party in 2003.

Chuan also got the nickname 'Chang Ta See' (painter in Thai).

When Democrat Party's members were accused of corruption,

he always helped them by telling the press his party's members were clean.

(from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuan_Leekpai)

so, their accusations of Thaksin in curruption is nothing else than old "pot kettle black" thing !

there are few more things Democrats were accused of:

Perceptions grew that the Democrats were helping only big financial institutions and selling out the nation to foreign investors. The Democrats' "open contempt" for the plight of the common Thai set off a revenge vote against the party during the 2001 election, which gave a landslide victory to Thaksin Shinawatra.

Human Rights

Chuan's second government came under fire for the violent arrest of 223 villagers protesting the Pak Mun dam. Respected historian Nidhi Iawsriwong noted that "the present situation is as worse as that of the May event (the bloody crackdown of anti-government protesters in 1991). We have a tyrant government that is arrogant and not accountable for the public. This is dangerous because the government still sees itself as legitimate and claims that it is democratic. In fact, it is as violent as a military government".

In March 1999, Chuan nominated Thanom Kittikachorn to the post of honourary royal guard ... provoking widespread criticism. Thanom was one of the "Three Tyrants" who ruled Thailand during the 60's and early 70's and ordered the massacre of pro-democracy students on 14 October 1973.

therefore it is very unlikely that Democrats will do honest politics as Abhisit was trying all along to assure everybody.

and of course, more so - Banharn !!!!!!!

Edited January 10, 2008 by aaaaaa

[blaze]

A very interesting thing I learned today, but apparently the 52 storey building that burned yesterday is owned by non other than Pojaman Shinawatra and the fire was nothing more than a good old fashion Thai style message to her. I need someone to verify this but I do trust my source.

I knew that quite for a while, having lived in that area for 3-4 years already.

I think I tried even to say the same thing as you in this thread already - that as soon as she arrived (on Tue morning), somehow fire happens very next day.

with 5mln Baht paid for bail out - that losses due to that fire perhaps are nothing much than just a acknowledgement of a "message" indeed.

I think this will be like everyone knowing Thaksin did it but finding the proof is a another story. So in this case like you said, everyone in the area knows who owns it. Depending on if the AEC needs to know or not it may not hit the media. In any case it is an interesting twist.

Why then would TCC Land then claim it as one of theirs?

A JV between two reputable companies - one with business links to the CPB

Do you think they are lying, covering up for the Shinawatra family or any other consiracy theory?

Do you know who owns all the buildings in the area you live?

We are awaiting your reporting back with proof by February 1st but no-one is holding ther breath - if you break the story of this cover up you can join Woodward and Bernstein.

But- I was wrong....

A refreshing statement- one we don't get often in this forum.

Those who advocate better education for the Thais would do well to start with educating them about the danger in listening to and passing on rumors- and I'm not kidding. Many have said that the Thais need education in political science. No- they need education in science- a basic grasp of what qualifies as fact and what qualifies as speculation- or rumor- or wishful thinking.

Much of what has transpired in the last two years has been based on unsubstantiated claims- which have then become 'givens'.

And most of those claims are coming from people who have 'education'.

[Prakanong]

A very interesting thing I learned today, but apparently the 52 storey building that burned yesterday is owned by non other than Pojaman Shinawatra and the fire was nothing more than a good old fashion Thai style message to her. I need someone to verify this but I do trust my source.

I knew that quite for a while, having lived in that area for 3-4 years already.

I think I tried even to say the same thing as you in this thread already - that as soon as she arrived (on Tue morning), somehow fire happens very next day.

with 5mln Baht paid for bail out - that losses due to that fire perhaps are nothing much than just a acknowledgement of a "message" indeed.

I think this will be like everyone knowing Thaksin did it but finding the proof is a another story. So in this case like you said, everyone in the area knows who owns it. Depending on if the AEC needs to know or not it may not hit the media. In any case it is an interesting twist.

Why then would TCC Land then claim it as one of theirs?

A JV between two reputable companies - one with business links to the CPB

Do you think they are lying, covering up for the Shinawatra family or any other consiracy theory?

Do you know who owns all the buildings in the area you live?

We are awaiting your reporting back with proof by February 1st but no-one is holding ther breath - if you break the story of this cover up you can join Woodward and Bernstein.

I was believing that the building belonged to the Shinawatra empire as well. In fact, I thought that it was the actual property purchased by Potjaman and currently at the heart of the Ratchadaphisek land corruption claim.

I initially thought that it was too coincidental that the building owned by Potjaman which is the subject matter of the corruption case she "returned to defend hersef" in - caught fire on the day she returned. Seemed like a "message" to me.

But- I was wrong, if the building belongs to the Charoen empire. Maybe the arsonist (messenger) misunderstood also?

Excellent new take on that thast no-one on here came up with.

Worth throwing in the pot and considering - a lot more credible than some of the the Big Dogs Bar school of Paranoia and Conspiracy Theory suppositions.

It might be true that the Thaksin clan own the building - TCC Land and orher credible analysts have said they do and have published this widely.

The conspiracy theorists on here are pointing to local gossip and Nana Plaza bar talk.

The ball is in the court of the gossip / conspiracy theorists to prove their case with hard evidence.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Prakanong

[Prakanong]

A very interesting thing I learned today, but apparently the 52 storey building that burned yesterday is owned by non other than Pojaman Shinawatra and the fire was nothing more than a good old fashion Thai style message to her. I need someone to verify this but I do trust my source.

I knew that quite for a while, having lived in that area for 3-4 years already.

I think I tried even to say the same thing as you in this thread already - that as soon as she arrived (on Tue morning), somehow fire happens very next day.

with 5mln Baht paid for bail out - that losses due to that fire perhaps are nothing much than just a acknowledgement of a "message" indeed.

I think this will be like everyone knowing Thaksin did it but finding the proof is a another story. So in this case like you said, everyone in the area knows who owns it. Depending on if the AEC needs to know or not it may not hit the media. In any case it is an interesting twist.

Why then would TCC Land then claim it as one of theirs?

A JV between two reputable companies - one with business links to the CPB

Do you think they are lying, covering up for the Shinawatra family or any other consiracy theory?

Do you know who owns all the buildings in the area you live?

We are awaiting your reporting back with proof by February 1st but no-one is holding ther breath - if you break the story of this cover up you can join Woodward and Bernstein.

But- I was wrong....

A refreshing statement- one we don't get often in this forum.

Those who advocate better education for the Thais would do well to start with educating them about the danger in listening to and passing on rumors- and I'm not kidding. Many have said that the Thais need education in political science. No- they need education in science- a basic grasp of what qualifies as fact and what qualifies as speculation- or rumor- or wishful thinking.

Much of what has transpired in the last two years has been based on unsubstantiated claims- which have then become 'givens'.

And most of those claims are coming from people who have 'education'.

And I think itrs pretty obvious by some of their postings on this thread those who do not have advanced degree's in any subject and when asked they will not answer ;-)))

A bit of trivia from the book "Thai Capital" by Bakeer et al - The last "C" in TCC Land is the initial of a guy called "Chin" - he is the whiskey blender credited with creating both Mekong and Saengsong whiskey - I reckon some of the posters here may have been paying too much homage to him.

[blaze]

All this political mess really does tell me that Thailand simply is not ready for a democracy. But so what? The benefits of a democracy are highly overated when in "developed" democracies parties with a smaller slice of the pie continually manage to put their leaders on the seat of power.

the question is: WHO is ready for Democracy? is there ANY country which has it? or ready for it?

The question then is, what form of government would you replace democracy with?

And who should decide on the form as well as who implements it?

Bear in mind that the dissillusion with democracy is not new: it was very popular in Europe when fascists and communists battled on the streets- both having determined that brute violence was the best determinant of who should rule (The fascists won).

Who should decide which form of government is best for Thailand- the majority of the Thais? Only the better educated (excluding better educated socialists and agrarian reformers or anyone who would seek to disturb the glaring economic imbalances in the country). Or the top generals?

Many of those who decry democracy's short comings know very little about it- they have never participated in the process beyond casting their vote and then bitching when the party they support doesn't win. They haven't taken an active role in a political party- worked for local party associations, attended regional and national conventions, actively sought opportunities to contribute to the formulation of party policy- true participation requires more action than simply casting a vote.

In fact I would suggest that most North East Thais have, at some level (specifically local) participated more in the democratic process than have many westerners.

Edited January 11, 2008 by blaze

[Prakanong]

All this political mess really does tell me that Thailand simply is not ready for a democracy. But so what? The benefits of a democracy are highly overated when in "developed" democracies parties with a smaller slice of the pie continually manage to put their leaders on the seat of power.

the question is: WHO is ready for Democracy? is there ANY country which has it? or ready for it?

The question then is, what form of government would you replace democracy with?

And who should decide on the form as well as who implements it?

Bear in mind that the dissillusion with democracy is not new: it was very popular in Europe when fascists and communists battled on the streets- both having determined that brute violence was the best determinant of who should rule (The fascists won).

Who should decide which form of government is best for Thailand- the majority of the Thais? Only the better educated (excluding better educated socialists and agrarian reformers or anyone who would seek to disturb the glaring economic imbalances in the country). Or the top generals?

Many of those who decry democracy's short comings know very little about it- they have never participated in the process beyond casting their vote and then bitching when the party they support doesn't win. They haven't taken an active role in a political party- worked for local party associations, attended regional and national conventions, actively sought opportunities to contribute to the formulation of party policy- true participation requires more action than simply casting a vote.

In fact I would suggest that most North East Thais have, at some level (specifically local) participated more in the democratic process than have many westerners.

We have many countries that have gone from having a one party system and limited freedoms to democracy ie east Europe. Their economies are doing OK in the main especially those that are joining the enlarged EU.

Viietnam and China together with htieir growth are pointed to a successes without democracy but they have never had it - would they grow quicker with democracy.

Whatever it is - Thailand has gone through the "Gate" of Democracy and outside of coup's etc not many countries go backwards and those that do are not exactly bastions of economic growth in the main.

Some of the posters on here though are remarkable condescending regarding the Thai's and democracy - as though they are not intelligent or educated enough for it. Incredible.

[quiksilva]

My belief stems from the fact that Thailand is a country where more than half of the respondents to a recent poll suggested that they had no problem with selling their vote.

So this is not a belief stemmed from a judgment of their level of intelligence, rather it is based on whether a large proportion of the populace hold (or lack) the core principals that make democracy function. A democracy that is brought is a sham, nothing more nothing less, so why bother with the pretense?

PS I cant believe that this whole TCC conspiracy theory is still going, Its very entertaining, completely baseless, but then again so are some of the best fantasy novels. I suppose it makes life a little more interesting.

edit: that potential misunderstanding seems credible judging from this thread.

Edited January 11, 2008 by quiksilva

[younghusband]

A very interesting thing I learned today, but apparently the 52 storey building that burned yesterday is owned by non other than Pojaman Shinawatra and the fire was nothing more than a good old fashion Thai style message to her. I need someone to verify this but I do trust my source.

I knew that quite for a while, having lived in that area for 3-4 years already.

I think I tried even to say the same thing as you in this thread already - that as soon as she arrived (on Tue morning), somehow fire happens very next day.

with 5mln Baht paid for bail out - that losses due to that fire perhaps are nothing much than just a acknowledgement of a "message" indeed.

I think this will be like everyone knowing Thaksin did it but finding the proof is a another story. So in this case like you said, everyone in the area knows who owns it. Depending on if the AEC needs to know or not it may not hit the media. In any case it is an interesting twist.

Don't be shy about supplying the forum with interim reports before your main findings are due 1 February on your claims that the Cyber Tower Building is owned by the Shinawatras and was flamed to give a traditional Thai lesson.The Scientific Crime Division has confirmed according to today's Bangkok Post that arson has been ruled out which must be puzzling for you, as must be the now universal confirmation the building was owned by Charoen.Anyway we look forward to your explanation of these anomolies.

[aaaaaa]

The question then is, what form of government would you replace democracy with?

well, first of all, there is NOTHING to replace yet

you didn't answer my question, and actually can't answer - because there is no real Democracy anywhere.

however I can answer your question, assuming that hypothetically there is actual example of Democracy somewhere.

the answer is nothing new - rather pretty old - and wasn't invented by me, but by Founding Fathers of US:

Republic according to them was much more preferable to Democracy.

although of course, nowadays some opine that it is neither a Republic anymore.

And who should decide on the form as well as who implements it?

I guess it would depend on the electorate system in particular country according to their form of government?

assuming that it is a Democracy as it supposed to be - majority of people.

otherwise - what's the point to promote and try to archive Democracy by ... non-democratic means ?

Who should decide which form of government is best for Thailand- the majority of the Thais?

well, again if you are talking about such decision within Democracy - then yes, sure - exactly the the majority of the Thais, who else? definitely not a the majority of Lao/ Khmer/ Myanmaris/ Malays / farangs / etc

and also not a minority of Thais either.

otherwise - what Democracy if would be ?

Only the better educated (excluding better educated socialists and agrarian reformers

or anyone who would seek to disturb the glaring economic imbalances in the country).

Or the top generals?

generals of course are out of question.

those better educated (for example as urban middle-class backed Democrats) has previously lost their credit and therefore Elections twice in 2001 and 2005 ! oops, and looks like they've lost once again, in latest Dec 2007 Elections too.

to make assumption that "Only the better educated" can really understand the meaning of Democratic process and therefore have the right to decide all such things - I think it is very .... Un-Democratic !

so, perhaps there must be some other alternative system - where opinions of both "better educated" (and well-to-do) and "uneducated"/ poor can be fairly and properly considered. may be it would vary from country to country. like in case of Thailand, perhaps some proportions have to be calculated according to the numbers of urban/ rural, educated/ uneducated and rich/poor population.

I mean - so that middle class and elite didn't have a chance to say that those barn-nork are trying to take over the power in the country, while at the same time farmers and poor people too felt not discriminated.

perhaps it would be some other formula than "majority" - according to agreed upon proportions.

or whatever else.

but then - it will already go beyond the frames of Democracy, huh?

In fact I would suggest that most North East Thais have, at some level (specifically local)

participated more in the democratic process than have many westerners.

that probably is quite true.

however despite that, Northerners and Isaanees rightly feel deprived when their votes are disregarded. after all - isn't Democratic process about that, choosing their own representatives?

of course, there are people arguing that all those rural folks actually only sell their votes.

but then - they might be less educated, but educated enough to know that those "better educated" and in more higher positions, who are able to run for MP seats, get MUCH MORE money, especially so AFTER elections. therefore poor chaps think: what the heck ! at lest let me get my 500 Baht (or whatever - bag of rice etc.)

I heard that many of those village people - they even try to get money from EACH and every party, if possible.

(after all - elections happen once in 4 years ! better get some cash till chance will come next time !)

BUT ! it doesn't mean they vote for all those who paid them.

many or most, if not all of them, would take money from some party - but would vote for another, or NOT vote at all !

and this is true ! because many become disillusioned by all the flowery words and the lack or absence of results later on.

so, many so called "uneducated" people simply give it up because they realize that it is just a game - big guys wrestling for better share of pie, not bothering at all about promises made or ACTUAL well being of their voters.

therefore eventually those voters loose interest in credibility of fair elections or even in the VERY IDEA and purpose of Elections.

and who can blame them?

oh, and BTW - vote buying happens practically everywhere in the world. just may be Hillary Clinton or her rivals pay in different way than in cash. however the pre-election campaign is ALL about BUYING votes - by promises, deals or whatever.

simply in Thailand it is may be cynically blatant, that's all !

Edited January 11, 2008 by aaaaaa

[Plus]

in a poll recently done, 66 percent of NYU students- who have more than the 9 years you advocate- would sell their right to vote.

On the upside the value they placed on their votes indicated they realise how important it is. Though some would sell their vote for an Ipod (quite a lot by Thai standards already), others would forfeit their right to vote in exchange for free college education, and that is a one mean sum.

People with education are not necessarily more honest, they just know their price better. We've heard it many times here - Thaksin made villagers realise that their vote counts, that by voting they can really improve their lives, bla bla bla. I don't believe there's much substance in this claim, just look how PPP still relies on good old fashined 200 per vote routine.

I don't quite understand how it came about, but arguing against better voter education as a means to advance democracy? I think you got carried away fighting your anti-coup cause, or whatever it is.

>>>

Why people are still arguing Ratchada building link to Shinawatras? So they don't own it, they are just prospective tenants, probably the biggest ones. That's one big motive for burning "their" building already, not that I believe arson rumours.

Can you find some information that they were not interested in renting there at all?

>>>

Aaaa, look at all your "Democrats are corrupt" cases - they have been punished in vast majority of them, often during THEIR term in office. Not a single TRT member was punished in six years Thaksin and co. were plundering the country. That's the difference, under Democrats the system worked and corruption was wrong. Under Thaksin they system collapsed and thieves were made heroes.

[aaaaaa]

My belief stems from the fact that Thailand is a country where more than half of the respondents to a recent poll suggested that they had no problem with selling their vote.

So this is not a belief stemmed from a judgment of their level of intelligence, rather it is based on whether a large proportion of the populace hold (or lack) the core principals that make democracy function. A democracy that is brought is a sham, nothing more nothing less, so why bother with the pretense?

yes, they have no such problem - because they know that anyway those politicians they "elect" anyway will NOT follow their words but only will try to get a LOT of money, HUGE PILES of money!

therefore, simple folks are just following those leaders (as elected MPs supposed to be) - they try to "make some profit in unfair deal", which is - to get at least SOMETHING from those who uses them all along before, during and after elections.

for example I've read I think about poll (ABAC's) showing that most of surveyed people express lack of faith in sufficiency economy because people in big position and well-to-do do not bother to show on their own examples following it.

so, naturally ordinary people think: ha! look at these guys! they are getting richer and fatter, and do not bother to reduce their lavish life-style and material possessions. why then we, who has much less those things, or nothing at all, should even attempt it?

this was some article in Nation or Post - no BS !

[Plus]

They set a precedent wherein the poor realized that through the electoral system, they would be able to get a more equal piece of the pie.

Just a quick note about "equal piece" - farmers constitute 60% of the population but contribute only 10% of GDP. What do you think should be their fair share. 60%, or 10%, or something in between? There's big difference between 10 and 60, it is bound to produce a great debate (not for this thread, though).

It must be acknowledged that there are different views on how much farmers are entitled to.

[quiksilva]

Plus, with respect to them being a prospective tenant.

First consider that no forensic evidence of arson has been found by the police.

Also ask yourself this, why would they rent space there when the Shinawatra clan already own several perfectly good office buildings themselves?

Shinwatra Towers, 1,2 &3 are probably the best known, but also consider that Pojaman owns the building on Petchburi Road where the PPP are headquartered. I wonder whether perhaps people are confusing this building with Rachada Square, it used to be called IFCT Tower 1. edit (they own many more too)

So why move TRT (sorry PPP) and give up all that lovely rental income? Unless you are referring to some other tenant? If so who?

Also, firms look at more than one property when undertaking office relocations, so (whoever they are) they would be prospective tenants for several other towers too why not set these on fire too?

Honestly, if I thought that there was even an outside chance that this might be true, I could very easily check with my executive level contacts at TCC, but I just don't see any logical reasoning behind this.

Edited January 11, 2008 by quiksilva

[younghusband]

Why people are still arguing Ratchada building link to Shinawatras? So they don't own it, they are just prospective tenants, probably the biggest ones. That's one big motive for burning "their" building already, not that I believe arson rumours.

Can you find some information that they were not interested in renting there at all?

Come on Plus, don't hitch your wagon to the ludicrous propositions being put forward on the Cyber Tower fire.Anyway if arson is ruled out, as seems to be now confirmed, it's a non-event fom the political standpoint.

[quiksilva]

Abhisit orders suit amended

By Manop Thip-osod

Democrat leader: "The party wants to assure the public that it has no plan to have the election voided.... The party wants parliament to convene and the country to move forward."

Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Thursday instructed party candidate Chaiwat Sinsuwong to withdraw a request that the Supreme Court nullify all advance votes to avoid public confusion over the party's position on the election.

Mr Abhisit said the party felt uneasy about one of the four points raised with the Supreme Court and that Mr Chaiwat had acted without consulting the party.

"This was not what the party decided, so the party has asked Mr Chaiwat to withdraw this point. The party wants to assure the public that it has no plan to have the election voided," he said.

In his petition, Mr Chaiwat questioned if the advance voting on Dec 16 was valid and asked the court to nullify the results.

The Democrat candidate in Buri Ram's constituency 3, who failed to win, also contended that the People Power party (PPP) was unqualified to contest the Dec 23 polls as it was a nominee of the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, which was dissolved last year by the Constitution Tribunal. He also said PPP leader Samak Sundaravej was a proxy of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Mr Thaksin was the TRT's leader and founder at the time it was ordered to be disbanded.

Mr Chaiwat also asked the court to rule if the distribution of video discs to voters featuring the former prime minister was illegal.

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider all Mr Chaiwat's points and set Tuesday for a first hearing.

Mr Abhisit expected Mr Chaiwat to follow the instruction in a day or two.

Mr Chaiwat said he would consider the party's instruction, while noting that a similar point had also been raised by someone else with the Supreme Court.

Sarawut Thongpen of the New Aspiration party has asked the court to declare advance votes void. The court is scheduled to hear the case filed by Mr Sarawut today.

Political activist Veera Somkwamkid said he would testify in court on Tuesday as Mr Chaiwat's witness.

Mr Abhisit reaffirmed the Democrats' position, which is that it has no intention to defer attempts to open parliament or obstruct the PPP, which came first in the poll, to form a coalition government.

The party would like to see the PPP go ahead with its plan, he said, but he refused to comment on Pracharaj party leader Sanoh Thienthong's suggestion that the Democrats and the PPP form a coalition government.

"The party wants parliament to convene and the country to move forward. We are concerned about the people's plight. We would like to see a government formed," he said.

The Democrat leader also urged pressure groups and political parties to stop pressuring the EC and allow it to do its job in a transparent manner.

Source: Bangkok Post January 11 2008

Looks like the Dems are backing down

[aaaaaa]

Aaaa, look at all your "Democrats are corrupt" cases - they have been punished in vast majority of them, often during THEIR term in office. Not a single TRT member was punished in six years Thaksin and co. were plundering the country. That's the difference, under Democrats the system worked and corruption was wrong. Under Thaksin they system collapsed and thieves were made heroes.

were they? who was punished?

and how?

perhaps I've missed something - do tell, how were they punished, imprisoned or what?

what I can surmise - only by being forced to dissolve the Parlament. Chuan stepped down as PM.

but so Thaksin and Co lost their government.

however Democrats were not dissolved or banned from politics - TRT was.

and I think considering how much money politicians gain from their position - THAT is a huge enough punishment !

so, I think your arguments are inconsistent.

system worked? how? that except perhaps Chuan himself (although even he mentioned as blamed for some financial thing too) - all his other cronies were enriching themselves urgently, while he "painted their face clean" ?

yes, sure, in this I would agree - system worked !

although my point was not about "crime and punishment" - but about the fact that Democrats were (and ARE) no less corrupt than TRT (only perhaps less corrupt than Banharn's party ), while at the same time - they also lost the popular vote because TOTALLY disregarded wishes of poor in favor of richer folks.

they should have learned from 2 losses to Thaksin's TRT and tried to adjust their attitude - and tried to get some credibility for themselves (and therefore - votes) by doing something for those MAJORITY voters (= barn nork). instead the only thing they tried to do - to oppose and expose Thaksin's wrongs.

it is always said that deeds have better results than words ! so, they should have DONE something by now !

instead they only talk talk talk. and continue bashing Thaksin. this is immature or simply unprofessional.

Abhisit said that this time his party placed "People in the center".

HOW? by flowery words? sorry, even uneducated people do not trust just pretty words.

I think they should have WORKED for people - negotiated and got themselves some positions in government instead of being opposition, and ACTUALLY DONE something substantial instead of all the talking.

everybody can talk. but to win the vote - they must DO better. that would be the best proof of their quality and that they are better than TRT and Thaksin. otherwise it is not enough to oppose him and accuse of corruption - it is only WORDS !

even now, suppose they form the government (as it looks like gonna happen - with Banharn as compromise PM) - I wish them to DO, not talk. voters might luck education and understanding of proper meaning of Democracy, but they do understand the RESULTS, the promises fulfilled and their problems heard and resolved !

[Plus]

Remember Andrew Walker, Australian professor I earler called a moron? Saw him quoted again in Bangkok Post:

"Andrew Walker of the Australian National University's Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, said the sufficiency economy had become an ideological tool used by the elite to take the pressure off them to address any serious redistribution of income or resources."

This looks as if it was taken straight from Thaivisa forums, and they call it a "science".

Has anyone been to that Thai Studies conference and heard him provide any support for his claim? I seriously doubt it's anything more than cheap propaganda and rhetorics. My first assessment still stands - moron.

Thaivisa posters who share his opinion are just that - posters sharing opinions, they don't go public and claim any scientific status to them.

[Plus]

Shinawatras interest in renting that building is documented, what else do I have to say? Find some evidence that they gave up on those plans.

The plan was to set up another Software Park and fill it with IT companies, it wasn't meant to be another office for TRT, it was purely business.

Arson has been ruled out, true, though I wouldn't give any more credence to that "scientific" conclusion than to "arson" gossip. So far they blame the fire on a cigarette butt or on faulty electrical appliance. That doesn't definely rule out the possibility of the arsonist dropping that cigarette butt or shortwiring a fan.

It's a fruitless pursuit at the moment, the real question should be - does Pojamarn herself belive in possible arson? If it was a message, it wasn't for us, it was for her.

>>>

Aaaaa, Phuket land scandal brought down Democrat government. TRT didn't go down on its own accord.

Sanan was prosecuted while Democrats were still in office and fully served his five year ban. Look at TRT execs now.

Rakkiat wasn't a Democrat minister, but he was forced to go on a run like a common thief while Democrats were still in power.

You can go through your list yourself, most of your corruption charges have already been addressed and guilty have been punished. Didn't happen to any TRT minister under Thaskin.

>>>>

Democrats are not backing down - for that you need to show they were behind Chaiwat's claim in the first place. Abihisit is just being pragmatic - annuling advance votes would serve no pupose at all.

[aaaaaa]

Thaivisa posters who share his opinion are just that - posters sharing opinions,

they don't go public and claim any scientific status to them.

did anyone lately expressed that they share his opinion? or even mention him? I didn't see. neither how he is related to the conversation here - oh, yeah, only that he also talks about the sufficiency economy?

and then

it looks like pretty much everybody here does nothing else or more than posts his opinions.

(the whole TV is merry-go-round of opinions ! )

anybody else does anything more than that ?

Just a quick note about "equal piece" - farmers constitute 60% of the population but contribute only 10% of GDP. What do you think should be their fair share. 60%, or 10%, or something in between? There's big difference between 10 and 60, it is bound to produce a great debate (not for this thread, though).

It must be acknowledged that there are different views on how much farmers are entitled to.

I agree !

that's what I've been trying to say too - that perhaps must be such a debate on Constitutional level and decisions made about who entitle to how much. otherwise within limits of present democratic-style proportions, it will never end this disagreement and rivalry between rural and urban folks.

but then - it won't be a Democracy and there is no need to try to call it so or to preserve it as such.

more honest and practical thing to do would be - to give it some other relevant name and admit that it is better for all sides concerned !

Edited January 11, 2008 by aaaaaa

[Prakanong]

Remember Andrew Walker, Australian professor I earler called a moron? Saw him quoted again in Bangkok Post:

"Andrew Walker of the Australian National University's Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, said the sufficiency economy had become an ideological tool used by the elite to take the pressure off them to address any serious redistribution of income or resources."

This looks as if it was taken straight from Thaivisa forums, and they call it a "science".

Has anyone been to that Thai Studies conference and heard him provide any support for his claim? I seriously doubt it's anything more than cheap propaganda and rhetorics. My first assessment still stands - moron.

Thaivisa posters who share his opinion are just that - posters sharing opinions, they don't go public and claim any scientific status to them.

And where is your evidence that beaurocrats and technocrats caused the economic growth of Thailand

Where i your evidence the system worked under the Democrats

You call other morons who do not agree with your obsession over haksin but provide no evidence yorself.

Where is your research the sufficiency economy works and is a valiid economic moreon.

What are your qualiofications ion this area- which schools did youattend and gain your advanced degree's - where are your peer reviewed journal articles?

So if someone has a different viewpoin than you regarding Thailand and Thaksin they are morons - thast is so intellectual - hilarious - its like debating with a 3 year old.