Political Hypocrisy?

[chevykanteve]

(BangkokPost.com) - Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva warned People Power party (PPP) to reconsider if it plans to propose its deputy leader Yongyuth Thiyapairat to be the speaker of the House of Representative.

Mr Abhisit said PPP should avoid doing anything that will cause problems later.

..................... .......................... ......................... ............................. ........................ ..........................

Democrat party leader said the house's speaker should be able to restore confidence, not to cause troubles.

[Lilawadee]

Well, the party is in a pretty sad state of affairs. They've shown they're willing to do anything BUT actually win an election to get into power... They've tried boycotts, collaborating with the military / anti democratic forces in a coup, supported an obviously flawed and non-democratic constitution (appointed Senate), legal cases to get the winning party banned.. Good lord, what ELSE?

Good riddance I say, until they can reform themselves and get some of the moral high ground back, IN ADDITION TO doing things for the country that would make people actually want to vote for them.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Lilawadee

[pete_r]

Well, the party is in a pretty sad state of affairs. They've shown they're willing to do anything BUT actually win an election to get into power...

Cheers to that. The PPP is being criticized to death in other threads, but the Democrats behaviour since the start of this little lark in 2006 hasn't done much for

their reputation and standing.

Edited January 19, 2008 by pete_r

[raslin]

Well, the party is in a pretty sad state of affairs. They've shown they're willing to do anything BUT actually win an election to get into power...

Cheers to that. The PPP is being criticized to death in other threads, but the Democrats behaviour since the start of this little lark in 2006 hasn't done much for

their reputation and standing.

Is it the Oxford influence?

Abhisit doesn't even go boating!

Jolly poor show.

[Plus]

Well, the party is in a pretty sad state of affairs.

Which party are you talking about? The one that won biggest number of MPs in its entire history? The one that added nearly six million voters since the last count (in 2005)?

How can it be called "sad"?

[howtoescape]

Which party are you talking about? The one that won biggest number of MPs in its entire history? The one that added nearly six million voters since the last count (in 2005)?

How can it be called "sad"?

Read the above threads, they may have added voters to their ranks, but as they blatantly dont recognise any form of democracy what does it matter how many votes they get.

[mrtoad]

Do a little bit more reading about political history in Thailand, and a lot more might become clearer.

As regards the Dems, they hardly are a spent force, but they do need to look at putting something up front to the majority of the electorate, rather than taking the "moral highground". Votes and popularity will always come down to what is actually offered in real terms, rather than ideology, unles the person or party is truly above all of that.

[jbowman1993]

Well, the party is in a pretty sad state of affairs. They've shown they're willing to do anything BUT actually win an election to get into power... They've tried boycotts, collaborating with the military / anti democratic forces in a coup, supported an obviously flawed and non-democratic constitution (appointed Senate), legal cases to get the winning party banned.. Good lord, what ELSE?

Good riddance I say, until they can reform themselves and get some of the moral high ground back, IN ADDITION TO doing things for the country that would make people actually want to vote for them.

I'm no fan of Thai political parties, even though I do think Ap is a good egg, but someone has to take you to task for writing this inane drivel.

boycotts - The reason for the boycott was that Thaksin called a snap election with little more than a month's notice. It was a political ploy on his part, to deflect attention from the increasing protests against him. It failed miserably as the other parties protested that they only party capable (financially) of organizing an nationwide election campaign was the TRT. It was an attempt by Thaksin to further tighten his grip on power, and it failed, in the end, because the other political parties refused to participate. What happened? TRT tried to cheat by paying parties to contest the election and they got disbanded.

Collaborating with the Military - I never heard any statement from them during the entire 16 month coup duration, or any news reports backing up this statement. Unless you can produce some sort of documentation, this is just hot air. I seem to recall Aphisit being quite vocal in condemning the coup, at the time.

Supporting an obviously flawed and non-democratic constitution - As he said countless times, Aphist remarked that he was only supporting the constitution as the best chance of moving past the junta goverment, and returning to a more democratic path. All the other political parties did the same, and the Thai people voted for it in a referendum

Legal Cases to get the party banned - The member in question who brought thoses cases was acting on his own, and he resigned from the party with they refused to support his actions.

Throughout the whole coup and this subsequent election, Aphisit has looked and acted the like a leader. He answers questions thoughtfully and respectfully, he doesn't lose his temper, and he is well thought out and articulate in his vision for the country. This would be in direct contrast to your post, which possesses none of those qualities. Maybe you should try again?

[jbowman1993]

Double post

Edited January 22, 2008 by jbowman1993

[howtoescape]

Throughout the whole coup and this subsequent election, Aphisit has looked and acted like a leader.

He answers questions thoughtfully and respectfully, he doesn't lose his temper, and he is well thought out and articulate in his vision for the country.

Just because you are presentable and appear to be respectful doesnt mean you have the right to take over as leader, most politicians fill all the above criteria.

[sriracha john]

The incoming Prime Minister of Thailand being a notable exception.

[jbowman1993]

Throughout the whole coup and this subsequent election, Aphisit has looked and acted like a leader.

He answers questions thoughtfully and respectfully, he doesn't lose his temper, and he is well thought out and articulate in his vision for the country.

Just because you are presentable and appear to be respectful doesnt mean you have the right to take over as leader, most politicians fill all the above criteria.

In Thailand? Please list some of them, to better educate us....

[Lilawadee]

Well, the party is in a pretty sad state of affairs.

Which party are you talking about?

The one that won biggest number of MPs in its entire history? The one that added nearly six million voters since the last count (in 2005)?

How can it be called 'sad'

Well, go look at them and see if they're smiling.

I hear Abhisit is thinking about leaving politics and taking up floriculture instead:

Hold on Abby, I think I can still see a bit of hair showing!

Edited January 23, 2008 by Lilawadee

[Lilawadee]

Well, the party is in a pretty sad state of affairs. They've shown they're willing to do anything BUT actually win an election to get into power... They've tried boycotts, collaborating with the military / anti democratic forces in a coup, supported an obviously flawed and non-democratic constitution (appointed Senate), legal cases to get the winning party banned.. Good lord, what ELSE? Good riddance I say, until they can reform themselves and get some of the moral high ground back, IN ADDITION TO doing things for the country that would make people actually want to vote for them.

someone has to take you to task for writing this inane drivel.

Thank you for keeping things respectful.

rboycotts - The reason for the boycott was that Thaksin called a snap election with little more than a month's notice. It was a political ploy on his part, to deflect attention from the increasing protests against him.

Personally I think calling an election when under fire from a vocal group that you know is in a minority is a good thing to do. It's called 'going to the country to get a fresh mandate'. As for the timing, it was apparently within the limits of the 1997 constitution that was very much supported by the Democrat Party. Also in other democracies (United Kingdom comes to mind) it's common to call elections at politically opportune times.

It failed miserably as the other parties protested that they only party capable (financially) of organizing an nationwide election campaign was the TRT. It was an attempt by Thaksin to further tighten his grip on power, and it failed, in the end, because the other political parties refused to participate. What happened? TRT tried to cheat by paying parties to contest the election and they got disbanded.

That's pretty much correct. I personally call the boycott by the "Democrat" party an intentional derailment of due democtratic process, and the resulting stalemate led directly to the military coup.

Collaborating with the Military - I never heard any statement from them during the entire 16 month coup duration, or any news reports backing up this statement. Unless you can produce some sort of documentation, this is just hot air. I seem to recall Aphisit being quite vocal in condemning the coup, at the time.

What do you suppose is the thought behind cartoons like this one, from the biggest Thai newspaper?

The guy pictured holding the PM chair ready is Abhisit, by the way.

Of course when you say that you never read anything like that then I have no reason to doubt that. After all the sentiment peddled by publications like The Nation was a different one.

Supporting an obviously flawed and non-democratic constitution - As he said countless times, Aphist remarked that he was only supporting the constitution as the best chance of moving past the junta goverment, and returning to a more democratic path.

I hope he's happy with it. Let's see what he does when attempts are made to make the current constitution more democratic, first and foremost that thingy about having half the Senate being appointed rather than elected, and allowing the military to step in at any time. I may change my judgment on the Dems in this regard if and when they support such changes.

Legal Cases to get the party banned - The member in question who brought thoses cases was acting on his own, and he resigned from the party with they refused to support his actions.

Right, or when he was pressured after the legal case went nowhere and the powers that be didn't want another stalemate & coup.

Throughout the whole coup and this subsequent election, Aphisit has looked and acted the like a leader. He answers questions thoughtfully and respectfully, he doesn't lose his temper, and he is well thought out and articulate in his vision for the country.

I guess not enough voters felt the same way. Don't get me wrong, I think Abhisit is a likable and smart guy, who may become a very good PM one day. That he isn't today is partly his parties own making. His boycott of the elections and the subsequent coup and military government I think really damaged his chances. I think it's time he reached out more actively to the people who aren't yet voting for him.

This would be in direct contrast to your post, which possesses none of those qualities. Maybe you should try again?

Please, why the nastiness? I hope this post explains my position further; I don't expect to convince you but it is my position.

[Plus]

Personally I think calling an election when under fire from a vocal group that you know is in a minority is a good thing to do. It's called 'going to the country to get a fresh mandate'.

It was Thaksin's personal issue, his problems had nothing to do with the Parlament or his party. Thaksin's name wasn't even on the ballots. How's national election erlates to complicated tax cases? There are proper channels for that, not elections on a whim.

We can have different opinions on this, but it is perfecly legal for any party to abstain from running in elections. Democrats were charged with subverting democracy through boycott and the court acquited them.

[JacknDanny]

The incoming Prime Minister of Thailand being a notable exception.

[dog412]

Thaksin vs. Prem, who will win and who will lose?

[Lilawadee]

Thaksin vs. Prem, who will win and who will lose?

I think that was last year's showdown. And Thaksin obviously lost that one.

I don't think Thaksin would therefore seek such a confrontation again, and also from the other side I think they feel they've done enough to weaken the political system. I think they too are fairly confident that no further challenges, perceived or actual, will arise to their supremacy.

[Losangels]

I think with Samak likely becoming the next premier and Pojaman back in Thailand to fight charges, the political pendulum has swung in Taksin's favour. Therefore in the short-term at least, Tasksin is ahead of Prem in my humble opinion

[Lilawadee]

In 'day to day' politics, Thaksin & Co are ahead compared to any others who would be running a government such as the Democrat Party, or, arguably, the military.

Prem on the other hand has no need or desire to run day to day politics. I think he's pretty pleased with himself as he watches the usual cast of dinosaurs fight it out amongst themselves. He's in 'management' yousee, not on the workfloor of day to day politics. As long as nobody on the workfloor challenges the status-quo he's quite content with the situation.

[chevykanteve]

Well, the party is in a pretty sad state of affairs. They've shown they're willing to do anything BUT actually win an election to get into power... They've tried boycotts, collaborating with the military / anti democratic forces in a coup, supported an obviously flawed and non-democratic constitution (appointed Senate), legal cases to get the winning party banned.. Good lord, what ELSE? Good riddance I say, until they can reform themselves and get some of the moral high ground back, IN ADDITION TO doing things for the country that would make people actually want to vote for them.

someone has to take you to task for writing this inane drivel.

Thank you for keeping things respectful.

rboycotts - The reason for the boycott was that Thaksin called a snap election with little more than a month's notice. It was a political ploy on his part, to deflect attention from the increasing protests against him.

Personally I think calling an election when under fire from a vocal group that you know is in a minority is a good thing to do. It's called 'going to the country to get a fresh mandate'. As for the timing, it was apparently within the limits of the 1997 constitution that was very much supported by the Democrat Party. Also in other democracies (United Kingdom comes to mind) it's common to call elections at politically opportune times.

It failed miserably as the other parties protested that they only party capable (financially) of organizing an nationwide election campaign was the TRT. It was an attempt by Thaksin to further tighten his grip on power, and it failed, in the end, because the other political parties refused to participate. What happened? TRT tried to cheat by paying parties to contest the election and they got disbanded.

That's pretty much correct. I personally call the boycott by the "Democrat" party an intentional derailment of due democtratic process, and the resulting stalemate led directly to the military coup.

Collaborating with the Military - I never heard any statement from them during the entire 16 month coup duration, or any news reports backing up this statement. Unless you can produce some sort of documentation, this is just hot air. I seem to recall Aphisit being quite vocal in condemning the coup, at the time.

What do you suppose is the thought behind cartoons like this one, from the biggest Thai newspaper?

The guy pictured holding the PM chair ready is Abhisit, by the way.

Of course when you say that you never read anything like that then I have no reason to doubt that. After all the sentiment peddled by publications like The Nation was a different one.

Supporting an obviously flawed and non-democratic constitution - As he said countless times, Aphist remarked that he was only supporting the constitution as the best chance of moving past the junta goverment, and returning to a more democratic path.

I hope he's happy with it. Let's see what he does when attempts are made to make the current constitution more democratic, first and foremost that thingy about having half the Senate being appointed rather than elected, and allowing the military to step in at any time. I may change my judgment on the Dems in this regard if and when they support such changes.

Legal Cases to get the party banned - The member in question who brought thoses cases was acting on his own, and he resigned from the party with they refused to support his actions.

Right, or when he was pressured after the legal case went nowhere and the powers that be didn't want another stalemate & coup.

Throughout the whole coup and this subsequent election, Aphisit has looked and acted the like a leader. He answers questions thoughtfully and respectfully, he doesn't lose his temper, and he is well thought out and articulate in his vision for the country.

I guess not enough voters felt the same way. Don't get me wrong, I think Abhisit is a likable and smart guy, who may become a very good PM one day. That he isn't today is partly his parties own making. His boycott of the elections and the subsequent coup and military government I think really damaged his chances. I think it's time he reached out more actively to the people who aren't yet voting for him.

This would be in direct contrast to your post, which possesses none of those qualities. Maybe you should try again?

Please, why the nastiness? I hope this post explains my position further; I don't expect to convince you but it is my position.

EXCELLENT responses, Khun Lilawadee! It's great to read political commentary that contains substance and not just name-calling, argumentative, axe-to-grind rubbish.

[Gravelrash]

At times you bemoan the characters Thai politics tosses up. Then you see a shining light of western politics overbursting with integritity like...Hilary Clinton, and it makes me feel all superior.

Gutter politics here: Democrats I would think a marginally better bet, but I don't vote. Stop whining about your pet favourite being a loser. It is called evaluate and do a better job next time...or move on.

[rixalex]

EXCELLENT responses, Khun Lilawadee! It's great to read political commentary that contains substance and not just name-calling, argumentative, axe-to-grind rubbish.

Excellent?! Nope, don't agree. It all seemed pretty one-sided.

[Lilawadee]

Excellent?! Nope, don't agree. It all seemed pretty one-sided.

That's a fair criticism. I argued the side that I feel is under-represented in this forum. There's people in the news-clippings forum adding entire posts that consist of things like the following, and I'm quoting the FULL text, so don't think I'm lifting things out of context:

Slimy snake.

and

This family of criminals have used this lie to draw sympathy so many times by now that I'm almost tempted to wish a real assassination attempt that will shut them up for once.

These types of quotes can be regularly seen on this site from long standing members with thousands, sometimes 10-thousands of posts. I feel it's about time to have something to counter what at times seems like a very strange obsession with the former PM of Thailand.

[sriracha john]

If you're addressing me, feel free to do so by name instead of some thinly-veiled reference.

There's been a variety of Thaksin apologists posting on this forum for years... but for some reason, they don't seem to last.

As Thaksin has been the single biggest newsmaker in Thailand since Thaivisa's beginning, is it any wonder there's a lot of posts regarding him?

[Ricardo]

If you're addressing me, feel free to do so by name instead of some thinly-veiled reference.

There's been a variety of Thaksin apologists posting on this forum for years... but for some reason, they don't seem to last.

As Thaksin has been the single biggest newsmaker in Thailand since Thaivisa's beginning, is it any wonder there's a lot of posts regarding him?

No ! Despite his having 'quit Thai politics forever', he is still a major-player, unitl or even after he retrieves his money ! So we are obsessed with him, only in-so-far as he is still a large influence, in my view.

And I suspect that time will reveal that many posters who are anti-Thaksin will, over the next few years, be equally anti-Samak, or anti-whoeverelse follows afterwards, it's about observing & commenting-on what we feel we see happening here. Since we are all as farangs irrelevant, and unable ever to participate, but still care about Thailand & its' people & their future.

The arrival of a new poster, who seeks to present what they see as a more-balanced view, and doesn't flame others, is to be welcomed, and I find myself agreeing with quite a lot of what Lilawadee posts. Nice cartoon too !

[rixalex]

Putting forth a view that is under-represented, as the OP states to be doing, is no bad thing, except if done blindly with no consideration for the big picture. The OP seems to rest a considerable amount of blame on the political failings of Thailand at the feet of the Democratic Party. They are far from blameless, but others have done a lot more harm.

For me, the biggest crime that the Democratic Party are guilty of, is their completely inept and unimaginative election campaign. It really is a stinging indictment and says how bad they were to have been beaten by a man like Samak, with all his history.

Samak didn't win the election, the Democratic Party lost it.

[Lilawadee]

If you're addressing me, feel free to do so by name instead of some thinly-veiled reference.

Actually I wasn't addressing you in particular, you will note that the example quotes I posted weren't from you. Because I'm not intending this as anything personal, we all have our opinions and Thaivisa is a richer place because of them. I just didn't want one side to become so dominant that casual guests (of which there are a LOT, looking at the list of users reading a forum) get the impression that 'all farangs' are in agreement on certain things relating to Thailand. I was just a 'guest' myself for ages before finally registering and diving in.

There's been a variety of Thaksin apologists posting on this forum for years... but for some reason, they don't seem to last.

I think that as Thaivisa matures as a forum it will become more confident in allowing all opinions to be expressed freely, not just the ones that are safe in the political climate-of-the-day. And I think management will get better at recognizing that NOT all Farangs are anti Thaksin, and that sometimes offering an opposing opinion is actually just that, a different opinion, and not trolling with the intent to incite.

As Thaksin has been the single biggest newsmaker in Thailand since Thaivisa's beginning, is it any wonder there's a lot of posts regarding him?

Of course not, and don't think I'm not grateful for a lot of the news items posted by many, especially including yourself. If time allows I hope to add some news clippings of my own, from different news sources.

And I suspect that time will reveal that many posters who are anti-Thaksin will, over the next few years, be equally anti-Samak, or anti-whoeverelse follows afterwards, it's about observing & commenting-on what we feel we see happening here.

Sure. Though I think if Samak/PPP manage to stay away from any renewed 'social order' campaigns, the Farang-Flak will likely remain at pretty regular levels. This is actually likely because the Phalang Dharma faction dharma-thumpers seem far less influential currently.

Edited January 25, 2008 by Lilawadee

[jackspratt]

Personally I think calling an election when under fire from a vocal group that you know is in a minority is a good thing to do. It's called 'going to the country to get a fresh mandate'. As for the timing, it was apparently within the limits of the 1997 constitution that was very much supported by the Democrat Party. Also in other democracies (United Kingdom comes to mind) it's common to call elections at politically opportune times.

I personally call the boycott by the "Democrat" party an intentional derailment of due democtratic process, and the resulting stalemate led directly to the military coup.

So let me get this straight - going to an election when under fire from your opponents, within the terms of the prevailing constitution, is both politically opportune, and a good thing.

But boycotting that election - also presumably within the terms of the same constitution - is a derailment of due democratic process?

I guess there are democratic processes, and democratic processes.

[Siripon]

An important factor to remember is elections cost a lot of money in Thailand, the Democrats had little money when Thaksin called the snap election after just over a year in office.

And likewise now, Chart Thai and Pua Paen Din spent a lot the last few months and there's no way they want another election in the near future- one reason for joining the government- make it more stable, and more chance to recoup funds of course.