Political Hypocrisy?

[jumnien]

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.

The Democrats, being supported by the most elite of the elite, the richest of the richest in Thailand, have no problems when it comes to raising money. Convincing Thai people to vote for them given their abysmal and elitest history, is the problem.

[Lilawadee]

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?

Whatever it was, it lead to the stalemate that paved the way for a military coup. So after a year of toying with the economy without much direction by a military installed government, and the needless exercise of completely rewriting the constitution, we're now back in, say, 1995 or thereabouts with weak governments comprised of coalitions of opportunity from various regional clans. Divide & conquer.

What I would have expected from a party calling themselves "Democrats" would be to be patient for the inevitable day that TRT would run into economic trouble due to, for example, the current global downturn, THEN manage to woo both the middle class as well as enough areas in the North and North East to become large enough to form a government, and/or to see TRT split up through inevitable squabbles between factions.

It's really quite common in democracies to be on the sidelines for many years before coming back. Look at the UK for example, in the 80's Labour looked like they'd never be able to come back, but they came back with an equally lengthy run in power.

Patience, and opposing military interference on the part of the Democrat Party would have been so much better for Thailand, and ultimately for their own chances.

[sriracha john]

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:

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.

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,

There are three people that post regularly "in the news clipping forum" that have "10-thousands of posts."

George, Jai Dee, and myself. If you weren't addressing me "in particular," which of the other 2 were you addressing?

Yes, your examples were not my quotes, but you also just said "these types of posts" so it's down to 3 people. Tough to swallow "not intending anything personal" when your subtle vagueness isn't vague in the slightest.

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.

The reason they disappear has absolutely nothing to do with voicing a different opinion.... guess again.

This forum doesn't silence people that don't share one unified opinion. To imply otherwise is a slam against the administration of this board.

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,

So, if it's not and comes as no wonder... what was the intent of your "strange obsessive posting" quip?

[absolutelyBangkok]

Time will tell.

Truth normally finds its way in Thailand - even though along mysterious ways.

Yongyuth's refrigerator story doesn't add to his credibility - and doesn't disappear.

He'll survive a few months.

[rixalex]

...needless exercise of completely rewriting the constitution

Needless? I don't know the full ins and outs of either the old one or the new one, but judging from the way power was abused during Thaksin's era, something certainly needed to be done to put a few more checks and balances in place.

[jackspratt]

Time will tell.

Truth normally finds its way in Thailand - even though along mysterious ways.

Yongyuth's refrigerator story doesn't add to his credibility - and doesn't disappear.

He'll survive a few months.

Fortunately, those lucky to be behind the refrigerator survived.

2500+ didn't!

1000+ of whom were "collateral damage".

[rixalex]

Convincing Thai people to vote for them given their abysmal and elitest history, is the problem.

To talk about the history of a party is a bit misleading because parties here have no continuing ideology or belief that is sustained for any time. Politicians flit from one to another dependant on which banner is more electable.

It would be more useful to talk about the history of individuals.

[jackspratt]

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?

Whatever it was, it lead to the stalemate that paved the way for a military coup. So after a year of toying with the economy without much direction by a military installed government, and the needless exercise of completely rewriting the constitution, we're now back in, say, 1995 or thereabouts with weak governments comprised of coalitions of opportunity from various regional clans. Divide & conquer.

What I would have expected from a party calling themselves "Democrats" would be to be patient for the inevitable day that TRT would run into economic trouble due to, for example, the current global downturn, THEN manage to woo both the middle class as well as enough areas in the North and North East to become large enough to form a government, and/or to see TRT split up through inevitable squabbles between factions.

It's really quite common in democracies to be on the sidelines for many years before coming back. Look at the UK for example, in the 80's Labour looked like they'd never be able to come back, but they came back with an equally lengthy run in power.

Patience, and opposing military interference on the part of the Democrat Party would have been so much better for Thailand, and ultimately for their own chances.

"Whatever it was".

A far cry from "an intentional derailment of due democtratic process"

Are you suggesting that the Democrats were aware of the inevitability of a coup if they boycotted the election?

I would also suggest you are making a pretty big assumption that Thaksin would not have had the whole game tied up before there would have been a further (fully participatory) election. Many are suggesting otherwise - including a coup of his own.

And please don't insult me (and other readers) by comparing the state of democracy in Thailand with that in the UK - chalk and cheese spring to mind.

Edited January 25, 2008 by jackspratt

[chevykanteve]

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.

The Democrats, being supported by the most elite of the elite, the richest of the richest in Thailand, have no problems when it comes to raising money. Convincing Thai people to vote for them given their abysmal and elitest history, is the problem.

Brilliant, spot-on and common sense!! Thank you.

[dog412]

the particular nature of Thai politics lives off of rumour and innuendo. why?, as to not have to show their true FACE. break it down into it's lowest common denominator, and the intent becomes less murky- MONEY, POWER, TRADITION. not in any particular order by the way. FACE is what you show, not what you feel or believe, but actually what will benefit the wearer the MOST. beware those expounding cryptic and esoteric messages to those that are the least able to "decipher" those messages.

[chevykanteve]

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?

Yeah, Sri Racha. And there's been a lot of coup d'etat / pro-dictatorship / (so-called) "democrat" apologists posting as well.

Edited January 25, 2008 by chevykanteve

[chownah]

The calling of the snap election: The Democrats along with that group led by the Newspaper mogul named Sondhi claimed that Toxin no longer had a mandate....Toxin claimed he did...they continued to make bold claims about his loss of voter backing and elevated a small issue into a large one....Toxin did what I think is the right thing to do...he called an election (which he and everyone else with any political sense at all knew he would win) and he called it in the shortest time possible because the country was rapidly fracturing due to the continued demonstrations etc.....he called it as quickly as possible to try to put society back in order (or at least this is a good enough reason to do this regardless of whether this is what was on his mind or not) so that governance could continue. This is a good thing...it was meant to put a halt to the escalating claims that the gov't had no mandate from the voters.....a claim that is important and central to any democracy is whether the gov't indeed does represent the will of the voters.....which was never really an issue here as anyone with any political common sense knew that Toxin would win an election...so why waste time? The Democrats then used a feature of the voting law to stop the vote. While this was legal under Thai law it does not diminish the fact that the tactic was used as a clear and obvious attempt to thwart the democratic process....to thwart the will of the voting majority who clearly supported Toxin's TRT. People may argue about voting irregularities but this does not change the fact that obviously a majority of those casting votes wanted the TRT to continue to govern.

So....to recap....Toxin went to the voters to assure the opposition and the general public that he still represented the majority of voters and the Democrats used a technicality to thwart the will of the electorate. Toxin was going to the people for a mandate and the Democrats were going to the technicality of the law to thwart the will of the majority.

I do not excuse the fake political parties and all the other ethically questionable and/or illegal things that members of the TRT did to try to get past the Democrats tactics...I think that was wrong. I am posting this to just explain what I understand to be the issues concerning the "snap" election (legally allowed by the constitution and really a formality anyway since everyone knew that Toxin did still have a mandate) and how the Democrats were using whatever legal method they could to thwart the voting majority...which is a markedly undemocratic way for a Democrat to behave.

Chownah

Edited January 25, 2008 by chownah

[rixalex]

Yeah, Sri Racha. And there's been a lot of coup d'etat / pro-dictatorship / (so-called) "democrat" apologists posting as well.

I can understand why you use the term "pro-dictatorship". It serves your argument well. Although i don't claim to speak for all, i really don't imagine any of the people you refer to actually favour dictatorship. What many people did favour though was the ousting of a corrupt and selfish individual who through meddling and interference had gained a vice like grip on power that he was intent on keeping, no matter what consequences, even bloodshed, which was what we were on the verge of in Bangkok.

Some will say that democracy should prevail no matter what the cost. I too would have been of that school of thought had i not been here to live through the Thaksin era. But seeing first hand how democracy had been so utterly twisted and perverted, i now see that there are varying shades of democracy, and some bear a striking resemblence to dictatorship.

[jumnien]

Yeah, Sri Racha. And there's been a lot of coup d'etat / pro-dictatorship / (so-called) "democrat" apologists posting as well.

What many people did favour though was the ousting of a corrupt and selfish individual who through meddling and interference had gained a vice like grip on power that he was intent on keeping, no matter what consequences, even bloodshed, which was what we were on the verge of in Bangkok.

Good summary of the Sondhi-led military junta. It is a nice feeling that his vice like grip on power as you put it so well has subsided. Thailand can move on now, hopefully!

[chownah]

Yeah, Sri Racha. And there's been a lot of coup d'etat / pro-dictatorship / (so-called) "democrat" apologists posting as well.

What many people did favour though was the ousting of a corrupt and selfish individual who through meddling and interference had gained a vice like grip on power that he was intent on keeping, no matter what consequences, even bloodshed, which was what we were on the verge of in Bangkok.

Good summary of the Sondhi-led military junta. It is a nice feeling that his vice like grip on power as you put it so well has subsided. Thailand can move on now, hopefully!

Yes, and one of the most important tasks in the on going going on is to evaluate the constitution and its place in Thai gov't. By this I don't mean just this constitution (although I do include this particular one) but rather the overall place that any constitution in general plays in Thai gov't and politics. If there is anything to thank Toxin for it is that he gave us an opportunity to see how critical a constitution is and how inadequate the constitution was during his gov't. Now the military has rewritten the constitution and it is clear at least to some/most/all us farangs that the provisions written in by the military do not invest the ultimate authority in the people but rather it is invested in the military. I'll not make a judgement about whether this is a necessary temporary measure or not....but I will say that my view is that as written it is unaccepable long term. I hope that Thai society takes a long and hard look at the issue of "constitution" and gets a better grip on what is needed than it has had in the past....the constition during the Toxin gov't. was touted as a wonderful document when it was enacted so clearly some kind of learning curve is needed here......and speaking of learning curve it can not be overly stressed that educating the next generation of voters should be seen as essential....especially by those who truly oppose the corruption and don't simply want their share....does such a political animal exist in Thailand?...and if so is there any chance that they will prevail?

Chownah

Edited January 26, 2008 by chownah

[rixalex]

Yeah, Sri Racha. And there's been a lot of coup d'etat / pro-dictatorship / (so-called) "democrat" apologists posting as well.

What many people did favour though was the ousting of a corrupt and selfish individual who through meddling and interference had gained a vice like grip on power that he was intent on keeping, no matter what consequences, even bloodshed, which was what we were on the verge of in Bangkok.

Good summary of the Sondhi-led military junta. It is a nice feeling that his vice like grip on power as you put it so well has subsided. Thailand can move on now, hopefully!

I was of course refering to Thaksin... but you knew that.

If we accept your theory that Sondhi is the one with the vice like grip on power, how do you explain that it has subsided as you put it? Just how vice like could it have been for it to subside?

[sriracha john]

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.

The Democrats, being supported by the most elite of the elite, the richest of the richest in Thailand, have no problems when it comes to raising money. Convincing Thai people to vote for them given their abysmal and elitest history, is the problem.

Brilliant, spot-on and common sense!! Thank you.

Now if it was only true, it'd be truly wonderful.

Thaksin himself is the richest of the richest of the absolute richest in Thailand.

Did he contribute to the Democrat Party?

Edited January 26, 2008 by sriracha john

[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?

Yeah, Sri Racha. And there's been a lot of coup d'etat / pro-dictatorship / (so-called) "democrat" apologists posting as well.

Indeed there are Democrats on the forum, but I'm not sure who could be called "pro-dictatorship."

The Democrat proponents' difference with the Thaksin-apologists being that they somehow seem to last.

[Lilawadee]

If we accept your theory that Sondhi is the one with the vice like grip on power, how do you explain that it has subsided as you put it? Just how vice like could it have been for it to subside?

Well that IS kind of the crux of the matter. Because the influence of Sondhi's employers has greatly increased through the establishment of a rigged constitution. (And secondly through the banning of 111 TRT executives, thus leaving the coutry with a much weaker cast of individuals in the upcoming government.).

]

The Democrats, being supported by the most elite of the elite, the richest of the richest in Thailand, have no problems when it comes to raising money. Convincing Thai people to vote for them given their abysmal and elitest history, is the problem.

Thaksin himself is the richest of the richest of the absolute richest in Thailand.

Did he contribute to the Democrat Party?

I'm sorry, but we can't explore this question to the fullest, as we might cross the boundaries of the discussable turf on this forum. We'll have to leave this one for a different time or place. I'm sure you understand.

"Whatever it was"

A far cry from "an intentional derailment of due democtratic process"

Yup. I simply didn't feel it was productive to argue over what *I* called something, as after all that's opinion. I wanted to make sure focus remained on facts that aren't disputed, namely the overthrow by force of an emerging democratic system.

Are you suggesting that the Democrats were aware of the inevitability of a coup if they boycotted the election?

Well, I for one thought at the time that the country was now running out of legal and peaceful options to get out of the mess. And presumably people in the Democrat party would be even better aware of that than I was.

And please don't insult me (and other readers) by comparing the state of democracy in Thailand with that in the UK - chalk and cheese spring to mind.

Please, it's perfectly common when discussing systems of governance to look for parallels. Of course Thailand is a FAR cry away from the system in the UK, and now since the coupe even more so than ever. No need to feel insulted, surely.

[Lilawadee]

Did some more research and can answer a bit more accurately; bare with me:

Thaksin himself is the richest of the richest of the absolute richest in Thailand.

Before the coup, he was in fact the fourth richest businessman in Thailand. Since the coup, and having funds seized as well as having bought Manchester City FC and without his major money making company Shin Corp, I dare say he at least will not have improved his standing. More likely he dropped a few places.

Thaksin 4th richest man in Thailand - Published on Jul 17, 2006

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is the country's fourth richest businessman, with a fortune worth US$2.2 billion (Bt84.12 billion), Forbes magazine said Monday. The 56-year-old billionaire, who took office in 2001, founded telecom giant Shin Corp, which includes the top mobile phone operator, satellite services and a stake in a budget airline. His family in January sold a nearly 50-per-cent stake in Shin Corp and earned $1.9 billion under a tax-free deal. Thailand's richest businessman is Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, the owner of Thai Beverage, with his fortune worth $3.2 billion, Forbes said. The second richest businessman, according to Forbes, is Chaleo Yoovidhya, who created the formula for energy drink Red Bull.

Agence France-Presse Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/pag...amp;id=30008921

And that's of course Thailand's businessmen. There are far richer people than that in Thailand, which was possibly what Sunrise was alluding to. PM me for a link to a good overview on that.

Edited January 26, 2008 by Lilawadee

[rixalex]

If we accept your theory that Sondhi is the one with the vice like grip on power, how do you explain that it has subsided as you put it? Just how vice like could it have been for it to subside?

Well that IS kind of the crux of the matter. Because the influence of Sondhi's employers has greatly increased through the establishment of a rigged constitution. (And secondly through the banning of 111 TRT executives, thus leaving the coutry with a much weaker cast of individuals in the upcoming government.).

I'm confused... what is it to be... it's subsiding or it's increasing?

[rixalex]

Did some more research and can answer a bit more accurately; bare with me:

If you want to go naked, do so alone and behind closed doors.

[Lilawadee]

If we accept your theory that Sondhi is the one with the vice like grip on power, how do you explain that it has subsided as you put it? Just how vice like could it have been for it to subside?

Well that IS kind of the crux of the matter. Because the influence of Sondhi's employers has greatly increased through the establishment of a rigged constitution. (And secondly through the banning of 111 TRT executives, thus leaving the coutry with a much weaker cast of individuals in the upcoming government.).

I'm confused... what is it to be... it's subsiding or it's increasing?

Sondhi, the CNS and the military junta have completed their job. In that sense the influence of Sondhi & Surayud in day to day politics is at an end.

However the structure is now in place that establishes a 'managed democracy'. So in that sense the influence of the ruling elite has been cemented into this new constitution.

Overall, elected politicians are now much weaker than before the coup. ALL elected politicians.

I can understand people not liking Thaksin, but the greater loss is that now *ANY* elected government has to keep looking over its shoulder, including those future ones that you WOULD actually like.

[Lilawadee]

Did some more research and can answer a bit more accurately; bare with me:

If you want to go naked, do so alone and behind closed doors.

Apologies, English is not my first language.

Edited January 26, 2008 by Lilawadee

[sriracha john]

saves on re-typing to quote the exact same conversation...

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.

Edited January 26, 2008 by sriracha john

[chevykanteve]

The calling of the snap election: The Democrats along with that group led by the Newspaper mogul named Sondhi claimed that Toxin no longer had a mandate....Toxin claimed he did...they continued to make bold claims about his loss of voter backing and elevated a small issue into a large one....Toxin did what I think is the right thing to do...he called an election (which he and everyone else with any political sense at all knew he would win) and he called it in the shortest time possible because the country was rapidly fracturing due to the continued demonstrations etc.....he called it as quickly as possible to try to put society back in order (or at least this is a good enough reason to do this regardless of whether this is what was on his mind or not) so that governance could continue. This is a good thing...it was meant to put a halt to the escalating claims that the gov't had no mandate from the voters.....a claim that is important and central to any democracy is whether the gov't indeed does represent the will of the voters.....which was never really an issue here as anyone with any political common sense knew that Toxin would win an election...so why waste time? The Democrats then used a feature of the voting law to stop the vote. While this was legal under Thai law it does not diminish the fact that the tactic was used as a clear and obvious attempt to thwart the democratic process....to thwart the will of the voting majority who clearly supported Toxin's TRT. People may argue about voting irregularities but this does not change the fact that obviously a majority of those casting votes wanted the TRT to continue to govern.

So....to recap....Toxin went to the voters to assure the opposition and the general public that he still represented the majority of voters and the Democrats used a technicality to thwart the will of the electorate. Toxin was going to the people for a mandate and the Democrats were going to the technicality of the law to thwart the will of the majority.

I do not excuse the fake political parties and all the other ethically questionable and/or illegal things that members of the TRT did to try to get past the Democrats tactics...I think that was wrong. I am posting this to just explain what I understand to be the issues concerning the "snap" election (legally allowed by the constitution and really a formality anyway since everyone knew that Toxin did still have a mandate) and how the Democrats were using whatever legal method they could to thwart the voting majority...which is a markedly undemocratic way for a Democrat to behave.

Chownah

The gentleman's name is Thaksin, not Toxin. Poisonous epithets (no pun intended) should be avoided in the interest of general politeness. I mean, you don't have an axe to grind, do you (???)

[chevykanteve]

Did some more research and can answer a bit more accurately; bare with me:

If you want to go naked, do so alone and behind closed doors.

You criticise a non-native speaker about spelling: with all due respect, please review your own grammar:

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.

[chownah]

The gentleman's name is Thaksin, not Toxin. Poisonous epithets (no pun intended) should be avoided in the interest of general politeness. I mean, you don't have an axe to grind, do you (???)

Chevykanteve,

Please read what I have posted and then tell me if I am grinding some axe. I think it is a mistake to judge someone by their spelling errors....I recommend that you do not focus too strongly on one word at at time and but rather try to put all the words together to understand my point of view.

Chownah

Edited January 26, 2008 by chownah

[rixalex]

I can understand people not liking Thaksin, but the greater loss is that now *ANY* elected government has to keep looking over its shoulder, including those future ones that you WOULD actually like.

Wasn't the problem with Thaksin that he no one looking over his shoulder?

[rixalex]

Did some more research and can answer a bit more accurately; bare with me:

If you want to go naked, do so alone and behind closed doors.

You criticise a non-native speaker about spelling: with all due respect, please review your own grammar:

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.

It was meant as a light-hearted joke - sorry it went over your head and you took it seriously.

As for my grammatical "error" - i believe that a Party can be considered as "it" or "they" - "they" being the people who belong. Whatever the case, this is all getting a little too pedantic for me.