PAD Lay Siege On Government House, NBT TV Station

[sriracha john]

Transportation, utilities threaten strikes

Supporters of PAD threatened on Sunday to stage strikes that threaten electricity and water supplies in Bangkok, and to close more airports in the South. In Bangkok, the union spokesmen of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand and the Metropolitan Water Works Authority said workers would take a one-day sick leave on Monday. Official Thai News Agency said the spokesmen threatened to cut water supplies and electricity to all police stations nationwide. Media reports quoted PAD supporters in the South as saying protesters could shut down seven airports. The claim appeared credible; the group easily shut three airports last Friday. PAD coordinator Sunthorn Rakrong told reporters in the South that he had the power to close seven airports: Hat Yai, Phuket, Surat Thani, Krabi, Samui, Nakhon Sri Thammarat and Trang. In addition, if they wished, anti-government groups could block all roads leading to the South, as far north as Bor Nok in Prachuab Khiri Khan province. *perhaps easily accomplished as one of the narrowest points in the country* Mr Sunthorn said he expected there would be large protests if PM Samak tried to enter the South. Railway service has been halted nationwide. TNA finally reported that all railway service has been halted in the North, even around the key city of

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=130211

Edited September 1, 2008 by sriracha john

[scyriacus]

Wait a Minute! THE Government did not ,and does not need to use Tactics! IT IS the Government elected by a majority in a Democracy.It IS therefore Legitimized and Legal.It has already the supporting Mandate of the overwhelming public.And has seemingly thus far stood by the laws of the land and even Bent over backwards to afford peaceful resolve.If this were most other countries the Legal force would have been Hard!The Government is NOT a Faction it IS The Government!

wait a minute! this government is not legal. like you are not allowed to open a bank account for someone else (maybe a terrorist) you are not allowed to play the pm for your puppetmaster (maybe a bailjumping warranted fugitive) have you people all forgotten 'honesty', 'integrity', 'reliability', 'responsibility'? all words samak obviously doesn't know and never knew. his 'credo' seems to be 'greed', 'power', 'treachery', 'callousness' & 'corruption'. 'helterskelter' (what a name!) can use as much big words as mr josef goebbels, it does not make them better. i sometimes suspect, he wants to 'liberate' thailand as gwb did 'liberate' iraq. a corrupt regime, allowing you to make best business is not, what 'democracy' means. it means = "the people rule" and not = "rule the people". when will you ever learn?

Who finally determines whether or not a government in Thailand is legal? Sondhi? You? As long as institutions of even more gravitus than the court have determined this government is legal, then that's what we have to live with. And by royal proclamation, as well as by the fact that the courts have not ruled this government to be illigitamte (yet) then you can protest it's policies, it's principles (or lack thereof) but not it's legitimacy. (using legitimacy in the strictest sense of the word) and legal right to govern..

excuse me blaze. it was you who started that argument by calling this corrupt votebuying undemocratic regime 'legal', 'elected', 'legitimized' and what not.... i just tried to demonstrate, that you cannot decide on that! only thai people can and will finally, amongst them the pad protesters and not you! i think,you've got the message, coz you're protesting wildly, when somebody uses your senseless argument just upside down......never mind, mai pben rai

[sriracha john]

Thai PM shuns calls for House dissolution

BANGKOK, Aug 31 (TNA) - Thailand's Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej rejected calls from opposition Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and some Senators who urged him to dissolve the House of Representatives to save Thailand's democracy.

The premier stood firm that he won't resign nor dissolve the House, reiterating that he had to preserve democratic rule and would not resign under pressure.

During Sunday's special joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate in bid to defuse the

political crisis, Democrat Party MPs urged Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to resign, charging the anti-government protests had been prompted by the premier himself, that he had pushed for constitutional amendments and that he had used the state media to attack his political adversaries.

Jurin Laksanavisit of the Democrat Party criticised the premier for allegedly triggering the anti-government protests which culminated in the seizure of Government House by demonstrators led by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) after, the Democrat MP alleged, Samak had pushed for constitution amendment bids only to do undue favours to his predecessor Thaksin Shinawatra and used state-run NBT television channel only to attack his political opponents.

Mr. Jurin called on Samak to consider resigning as pressed by the anti-government protests after he had apparently failed to keep varied state enterprises operating at the services of the people such as the State Railways of Thailand (SRT), the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority (BMTA) and Thai Airways International while more state firms would likely follow suit.

The prime minister categorically dismissed the Democrat charges and contended that he had done nothing wrong to deserve being chased from politics by the PAD demonstrators and assured he had instructed the police not to use force to disperse those who have taken over Government House. Nor did the police use tear gas in a bid to disperse the protesters at the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Friday, the premier said.

Samak commented that the Democrats had taken sides with the PAD which had mobilised people to rise up against the government and illegally seized government premises.

Meanwhile, the PAD which led the anti-government protests, said Sunday's joint meeting between MPs and Senators to defuse the political crisis was merely a waste of time. Suriyasai Katasila, the PAD coordinator, said the anti-government demonstrators who have seized Government House for almost a week were not listening to the lawmakers' debate as they found it to be useless and unable to defuse the political crisis.

The joint parliamentary session was merely designed to ''launder the wrongdoings'' of the prime minister, he said. Mr. Suriyasai said the PAD might initiate another round of offensives against the Samak government in the next few days and torch an effigy of the premier.

He said the military might not follow orders from the premier even if he decided to impose emergency rule to quell the anti-government protests.

The PAD activist added that the naming of Pol. Lt-Gen. Jongrak Juthanond as acting Metropolitan Police commissioner in place of Pol. Lt-Gen. Asawin Khwanmuang might spark some violence against the protesters.

Meanwhile, pro-government groups gathering at parliament had dispersed and then marched peacefully

to converge at Sanam Luang.

In other developments, union members of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) and the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority vowed to take one-day sick leave Monday and threatened to cut water supplies and electricity to all police stations nationwide.

[sriracha john]

Thai leader fends off calls for his resignation

He debates opponents in parliament for some 11 hours

BANGKOK, Thailand - Facing chaotic street protests demanding his resignation, Thailand's embattled prime minister turned to lawmakers Sunday to find a way out of the crisis, but ended up having to fend off his critics' calls to step down or call new elections.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej went before a special joint session of Parliament to find a solution to the deepening crisis, even as thousands of right-wing protesters laid siege to his office compound for a sixth night and threatened to shut down more airports and roads in the country.

The debate ended early Monday after about 11 hours with scores of lawmakers either lambasting Samak or defending him. More than 1,000 government supporters staged a spirited but peaceful counter rally in front of Parliament.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the opposition Democrat Party, proposed that Samak dissolve Parliament and call new elections.

"Dissolving Parliament is a way for the government to show responsibility. If you don't want to take the responsibility on your own (by resigning), take all of Parliament members with you (by dissolving it)," Abhisit said.

Samak replied: "I will not resign or dissolve Parliament. I will not be defeated by those protesters."

"Don't you feel ashamed? Our image as far as the rest of the world sees us will be destroyed. I am the one who has taken the helm of the country, the decision should be mine," he said.

"I am sure that I love this country as much as anybody," he said. "But I love democracy much more, more than anyone who told me to resign."

Small explosion after session

Shortly after the debate ended, a small explosion at a police booth near where there have been anti-government protests damaged windows, but caused no casualties. No one claimed responsibility for the blast.

Samak received key backing Saturday from his ruling six-party coalition, which said it would not back calls for dissolving Parliament to call new elections. The coalition controls more than two-thirds of the seats in the 480-seat lower house.

The influential army commander, Gen. Anupong Paochinda, has vowed that the military will not stage a coup.

The group leading the protesters, the People's Alliance for Democracy, has expressed little interest in the lawmakers' debate.

Chamlong Srimuang, one of the protest leaders, dismissed the debate as "a cheap joke," saying it was too late for lawmakers to appease the protesters.

"People don't care about what's happening in Parliament," he said, repeating demands for Samak to resign. "Their meeting has nothing to do with us."

The group began its occupation of the Government House compound on Tuesday and has blocked streets in the capital. It has had allies in state enterprise unions disrupt rail and air services around the country through strikes and blockades.

Threat to close airports

Its leader for the southern provinces, Sunton Raksarong, threatened Sunday to have the group shut down seven airports in his region — which serve thousands of foreign tourists everyday — if the government imposes emergency rule.

Three airports were closed by protest blockades Friday night, with the busiest, at the popular tourist destination of Phuket, reopening only on Sunday.

Sunton threatened to block major roads to the South. Some roads in the south, north and northeast were temporarily blocked last week.

Protester Thanyalak Genawicharana, 63, a retired teacher from Bangkok, said he was willing to put up with even more difficulties than camping out in cramped, wet conditions at Government House to bring Samak down. He said he was "one among millions of people who can drive out this corrupt government."

"I hate Samak and I hate Thaksin," he said.

- Associated Press / Aug. 31, 2008

Edited September 1, 2008 by sriracha john

[catmac]

... He's not better than T. maybe he is better, coz t. is out and s. is in?

** Sondhi ended up declaring himself bankrupt for three years. This meant that his THB 1.5 billion debt could be claimed from whatever was in his personal account for a span three years, rather than having to repay the debt over 15 or 20 years as earlier scheduled. cheating coward ! clever and cheating seems to be the same here, but why coward?

*** Sondhi's income skyrocketed as a result of his political activism. Revenues of his media companies increased by no less than 215 million baht (approx $6 million US) a month from the start of his protests to early 2006. are you serious? 6 mio us$ per month increase, he should be a better leader than tax-sin

seriously you should consider to change your 'heroe' from t. to s. you seem to worship money........

Mr. scyriacus:

I didn't write that; it's from Wikipedia which is an open resource kind of media. If you have problems what's written there, please go to Wikipedia and change the facts.

I didn't create the facts.

Mr. Sondhi did and he's as much a cheater and crook like T. whom I never called a heroe or hero.....

Sometimes, especially these days scryiacus, the truth hurts....

Maybe you should read this before giving comment:

Bankruptcy and anti-Democrat period (1997-2001)

Following the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, Sondhi's satellite and publishing businesses faced a meltdown. His WCS was sold to the CP Group before it was renamed TA Orange and later became True Move. The Manager Group was saddled with THB 20 billion in debt but only THB 4 billion in equity. The Manager Group's holding company alone had liabilities of THB 6 billion. Manager Media had Bt4.7 billion in debt. Sondhi was personally in debt for THB 1.5 billion. Sondhi ended up declaring himself bankrupt for three years. This meant that his THB 1.5 billion debt could be claimed from whatever was in his personal account for a span three years, rather than having to repay the debt over 15 or 20 years as earlier scheduled.

Sondhi's companies were also investigated for irregular inter-company transactions. IEC guaranteed a THB 1.2 billion baht loan by M group in 1996, but never disclosed this guarantee to the public. M Group later defaulted on the loan, sending IEC into bankruptcy[6]

Auditors of Eastern Printing, Sondhi's SET-listed printing company, noted that its huge losses partially stemmed from lendings to associated companies and the establishment of off-balance accounts to related publishing companies. For example, in its 2000 financial statement, Sondhi-linked companies Asia Inc and FRYE Smith (USA) Co owed Bt59.86 million and Bt125.79 million respectively to Eastern Printing. Likewise, according to its 2000 financial statements, Manager Media lent Bt1.061 billion to related publishers, under guarantee from Sondhi.[7]

The Manager Group furiously attacked the Democrat-led government over its management of the economic crisis during its time in office from late 1997 to 2000. This included scathing attacks on Finance Minister Tharin Nimmanhaeminda for his emergency financing agreements with the IMF and Deputy Prime Minister Sawit Bhodhivihok for his policy of privatizing the state-owned electricity sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sondhi_Limtho....281997-2001.29

Nice chap, this Sondhi, isn't he ?

Oh...why a coward? Because he declared HIMSELF bankrupt for a period of 3 years and did not pay back his debts, leaving others in trouble; that's a coward, especially if you have a big mouth over other Thai who cheated and corrupted.

Be a fair man scyriacus and study Sondhi a bit more and you will find out WHAT'S behind the protests of the PAD !!!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....? My @arse.

POWER TO SONDHI because:

"They (PAD) have now refined their argument to propose rural voters in Thailand are too poorly educated to be allowed to elect a parliament, and that it should be a largely appointed body instead."

Don't let yourself fooled by this man Sondhi, he might turn out worse than T. and Samak....

LaoPo

Right on, LaoPo! What is at stake here is the prospect of a known crook, Sondhi (how much did he loot from Krung Thai Bank, all of which was a loss to the ordinary Thai taxpayer), and now the shadowy extra-judicial killer General P., overthrowing this, or any other elected government they may chose not to agree with.

The opposition to PAD is not so much pro-Samak, as vehemently anti-Sondhi and his "new politics".

[sriracha john]

The opposition to PAD is not so much pro-Samak, as vehemently anti-Sondhi and his "new politics".

Given their less-than-illustrious history of the UDD/DAAD (add in any other of their monthly acronym changes) one might proffer they are simply pro-Violence.

Edited September 1, 2008 by sriracha john

[unomi]

The opposition to PAD is not so much pro-Samak, as vehemently anti-Sondhi and his "new politics".

I don't think most of the people expressing support for PAD are necessarily Pro-Sondhi, just vehemently anti-sock puppetry and 'business as usual'.

The PPPs eagerness to remove article 237 of the constitution is very problematic, especially in light of the PPP standing to be dissolved because of said article. 

At the end of the day, less than 1 year ago the constitution came into law by public referendum that required over 50% of the votes of the people voting specifically to adopt it. 

Now PPP with 37% of the vote; running on a platform that had NO mention of constitutional reform, wants to surreptitiously rip out parts that do not suit them.

[catmac]

15,000 British holiday makers stranded in the South of Thailand.Some trying to make their main flights attempted to charter Buses to Bangkok.They were violently Blocked by PAD supporters!Despite pleas for allowing these families with children to return home for school start.Plus 5,000 Australian holidaymakers (Source matichon news (matichon.co.th)

yeah crocodile, even fernando marcos & adolf hitler liked to be pictured with children. that propaganda did work for them, but it doesn't work for you. thailand is in a serious political crisis, some even demand blood. and you are jerking tears (20,000 families with children, not a single paedophile!) about some days a few children can't go to school. you have never been young, haven't you? otherwise you may remember, how much a normal child enjoys a day off. and you are hopelessly exaggerating. what about the 50,000 americans, 20,000 germans, 2 million chinese? did you forget them or you just don't care. please don't try to bring 'HelterSkelter' to this forum. doublecheck your alleged source, you bloody liar...........(it should be allowed to call a bloody liar by his real name) woa, sorry, this kind of propaganda makes me sick, please everybody excuse me....please, but i can't help if i have to read that bullshit (15,000 brits + 5,000 australian, all with children, no one else, woa, puhhh)...........

Scyriacus (see I use your chosen name, not a silly sneer), do calm down. You are monopolising this board with your endless stream of abuse at everyone you disagree with. If you wish to take part, try to answer the points as raised, not plucking out the odd word and twisting them together to give a totally distorted meaning to the OP's point.

You see, it is possible to disagree and argue your case without me having to patronise you, or call you a "bloody liar".

[marshbags]

Where are the evil Newin and Chalerm, especially Chalerm as he,s conspicuously been out of the headlines at since leaving office ???

For sure he,s not out of the frame, regarding the PPP and the new party TRT MK 3, especially as he could be the only one eligible to front ???? re the change over, should it take place.

Hmmm curious ?????

marshbags

Edited September 1, 2008 by marshbags

[catmac]

I venture to sugest that most of the shirkers abusing their sick entitlement are doing the kind of non-skilled jobs that anyone could learn in a couple of days.

hi kitty venturer! i recommend you apply for the job, with your 28 years shirkers experience in democracy you could learn it in a couple of minutes. good luck to you. but don't expect me to trust your colleagues after just a couple of days of training......

Do grow up.

[klikster]

Democracy means that you can demonstrate without being afraid to go to jail (or worse).

Democracy means equal rights for everyone and not just for a small, rich, group

Democracy means the opportunity to think critically.

Democracy means the chance to be assertive.

Democracy means fair elections, a valid and reliable choice of government.

You really think that Thailand is a democracy?

Some of your points are flawed.

"Democracy means that you can demonstrate [legally] without being afraid to go to jail (or worse)." And does socialism not allow any of that same freedom?

"Democracy means equal rights for everyone and not just for a small, rich, group" This is a pipe dream, IMO.

"Democracy means the opportunity to think critically." There was much critical thinking under totalinarism.

"Democracy means the chance to be assertive." And socialism?

"Democracy means fair elections, a valid and reliable choice of government." I can name a major world power where the that seems to have not been the case 8 years ago.

"You really think that Thailand is a democracy?"

Tell us about all the true democracies where the media, old guard, rich and famous, or the royalist elite do no control the selection of governments.

Even then, democracy does not equal liberty.

[RubbaJohnny]

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you

Thai Tak Baht

Very good comments that these shameless people risk safety and have created a rift in society that can only be exacerbated by which ever faction wins

Whoever comes back from Hua Hin with tail between legs

I put Samaks survival odds somewhere between the Giant Panda and the ice in this glass

Edited September 1, 2008 by RubbaJohnny

[Thai at Heart]

Democracy means that you can demonstrate without being afraid to go to jail (or worse).

Democracy means equal rights for everyone and not just for a small, rich, group

Democracy means the opportunity to think critically.

Democracy means the chance to be assertive.

Democracy means fair elections, a valid and reliable choice of government.

You really think that Thailand is a democracy?

Some of your points are flawed.

"Democracy means that you can demonstrate [legally] without being afraid to go to jail (or worse)." And does socialism not allow any of that same freedom?

"Democracy means equal rights for everyone and not just for a small, rich, group" This is a pipe dream, IMO.

"Democracy means the opportunity to think critically." There was much critical thinking under totalinarism.

"Democracy means the chance to be assertive." And socialism?

"Democracy means fair elections, a valid and reliable choice of government." I can name a major world power where the that seems to have not been the case 8 years ago.

"You really think that Thailand is a democracy?"

Tell us about all the true democracies where the media, old guard, rich and famous, or the royalist elite do no control the selection of governments.

Even then, democracy does not equal liberty.

CHANG NOI

The facts about vote-buying and the patronage system

By Chang Noi

Published on September 1, 2008

Over the last couple of years, concern about vote-buying has been on the rise. The story goes like this. Voters upcountry are too poor and too poorly educated. Some sell their vote for cash on the spot. Others are victims of "the patronage system" and obey the instructions of a patron on how to vote in return for continuing patronage of various kinds.

The argument then continues: vote-buying and the patronage system mean that one-man/one-vote elections cannot work in Thailand. There needs to be some "Thai-style" alternative. This might be some corporatist method of representation such as the People's Alliance for Democracy proposed. It might mean diminishing the power of the elected Parliament, and returning more power to the bureaucracy.

According to legend, vote-buying began in spectacular fashion in Roi Et in 1981, engineered by people in the military. It then swelled over the following two decades. At election time, banks calculate massive rises in money circulation, and journalists love describing complex systems involving lotteries. A brilliant study done in Ayutthaya in the mid-1990s showed that monks, gunmen, and local officials were all deeply involved. Vote-buying is part of the political culture; of that there is little doubt.

But vote-buying is not a simple matter. The practice has been in place for a quarter-century. The number of elections has multiplied - for Parliament, Senate, municipality, provincial council, sub-district council, and so on. Thais have become some of the most experienced voters in the world. There has been a lot of learning about how to use the vote.

In the early history of Thai vote-buying, candidates thrust red notes into voters' hands in order to create an obligation. Once a voter had accepted the candidate's generosity, it would be bad manners not to repay that generosity when casting the vote. But this kind of naive transaction did not last long. By the mid-1990s, some voters would take money from every candidate, and then vote how they pleased. Others would only take from a candidate they had already decided to vote for, in order not to create an obligation.

Candidates still had to offer money. Not doing so would risk being branded as "ungenerous" and thus not worth electing. This was particularly true of candidates known to be rich. Vote-buying has thus become a bit like a candidate's deposit, distributed among the voters rather than paid to the authorities.

By the mid-1990s, vote negotiation had become much more complex than these simple retail transactions. Voters understood that candidates had the potential to offer much greater benefits than a few red notes. They could bring infrastructure spending and development projects with much more impact in the locality. Communities negotiated with candidates to promise scheme, and held them to their promises by the threat of withdrawing their vote at the next poll. Parliament created the "MPs fund" to enable sitting members to fulfil these promises. Lots of local infrastructure got built.

Since then, the system has shifted again. The 1997 constitution began a deliberate attempt to de-link this kind of local pork-barrel from national politics. The funding for local schemes has been substantially transferred from the national budget to local government. MPs have less influence on central-budget spending, and the MPs fund has disappeared. Elected provincial councils and municipalities now have big budgets. Many politicians have followed the money from national to local politics.

At the same time, the profile of the electorate has changed. The great 1986-1996 boom boosted incomes, and the 1997 bust only temporarily knocked them back. The expansion of secondary education in the 1980s began to work through to the electorate.

Then Thaksin changed the game in national politics. He promised some attractive re-distributive schemes, and delivered them. He centralised control over a fifth of the budget under his own executive authority, and toured the country dishing this out. The party and the prime minister became more important patrons than the local MP. Although the 2007 Constitution has reversed some of this change, the memory still dominates.

In the last couple of years, there have been studies of election practice in the North, Northeast, and South. The decision on casting a vote is now very complex and involves the party, the candidate, and the money. In the South, voters feel a strong emotional pull to vote Democrat. In the North and Northeast, Thaksin's schemes have created a strong pull towards the People Power Party/Thai Rak Thai. Yet the candidate also undergoes scrutiny. Is he a local person, someone close to us? Can he get things done, and does he have the track record to prove it? Is he reasonably honest? Does he have the right kind of friends? Finally, does he prove his generosity with a gift? Only candidates known to have modest wealth are excused this obligation, yet can still be elected on grounds of their social contribution.

At the recent poll, there did not seem to be much money around. After three elections in three years, pockets were empty. Candidates feared disqualification. The issue at stake in the poll was so stark, that a few hundred baht was not likely to matter.

So why the current panic about vote-buying? The upcountry electorate is richer, better educated, and more experienced at elections than ever before. In truth, the problem is not that upcountry voters don't know how to use their vote, and that the result is distorted by patronage and vote-buying. The problem is that they have learnt to use the vote only too well. Over four national polls, they have chosen very consistently and very rationally.

And, of course, that may be the real problem. Back when many upcountry electors sold their votes, and as a result their weight in national politics was zero, nobody cared so much about vote-buying. But now the electors have got smart, they have to be stopped. The bleating about vote-buying and patronage politics is simply an attempt to undermine electoral democracy because it seems to be working.

I believe the last 3 paragraphs may explain a lot of the reasons as to why we are in this ridiculous situation.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/01...on_30082102.php

[tropo]

I think that many of the PAD people do believe that they are fighting the good fight-

Of course they do, but no one explained to them that in a democracy you don't fight for change, you vote for it. It's not a perfect system by any means, but the alternatives are worse.

Democracy means that you can demonstrate without being afraid to go to jail (or worse).

Democracy means equal rights for everyone and not just for a small, rich, group

Democracy means the opportunity to think critically.

Democracy means the chance to be assertive.

Democracy means fair elections, a valid and reliable choice of government.

You really think that Thailand is a democracy?

Going by your requirements, does any country have a democracy?

[geovalin]

The opposition to PAD is not so much pro-Samak, as vehemently anti-Sondhi and his "new politics".

I don't think most of the people expressing support for PAD are necessarily Pro-Sondhi,

VERY dangerous concept.

It means that Sondhi will use these nice and sincere people as troupes for his own purposes. Please remember that one of his goal is to enter in a war with Cambodia. Please do not tell me: "It's just his idea, no one will follow".

The guy is so persuasive, the situation is so explosive and the frustration of the Thai population is so high that he can succeed to make this peaceful crowd to take their cars, put a sticker (this temple is Thai) on them and drive to the border. Then...

The non-pro-Sondhi PAD should just express their disapproval on the crazy Sondhi stances. And they do not!!!!!! Not clear enough, too dangerous to trust their possible wisdom.

It's a risk Thailand cannot afford.

[sriracha john]

The opposition to PAD is not so much pro-Samak, as vehemently anti-Sondhi and his "new politics".

I don't think most of the people expressing support for PAD are necessarily Pro-Sondhi, just vehemently anti-sock puppetry and 'business as usual'.

The PPPs eagerness to remove article 237 of the constitution is very problematic, especially in light of the PPP standing to be dissolved because of said article. 

At the end of the day, less than 1 year ago the constitution came into law by public referendum that required over 50% of the votes of the people voting specifically to adopt it. 

Now PPP with 37% of the vote; running on a platform that had NO mention of constitutional reform, wants to surreptitiously rip out parts that do not suit them.

A historical view of amending the constitution... even the innovator wanted to have nation-wide referendum on them....

PM’s sales pitch was flawed

Referendum proposal shows ignorance of charter; bid to evade political crisis

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra: Happy to divert attention from his political woes.

Thailand enshrined the referendum concept in its 1997 Constitution, but no referendum has been held yet. Charter writers included the mechanism to facilitate public participation in decision-making.

Since coming to power five years ago, the government has deliberately neglected to ask voters about a number of contentious issues, such as the privatisation of Egat, the Thai-Malaysian gas pipeline and the planned free-trade agreement with the United States.

Last week, the government made a big turnaround. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra proposed holding a referendum on whether to amend the Constitution.

Suddenly, the referendum proposal became a hot topic at every coffee shop, and Thaksin talked about it non-stop after floating the idea on Thursday.

Myriad questions were asked about the subject and few seemed to notice that Thaksin hyped the proposal to divert attention from his dwindling popularity – and a further big rally at Royal Plaza.

If he was serious about the referendum, he neglected to do his homework about the process.

Under Article 214 of the Constitution, a referendum must be announced and published in the Royal Gazette no less than 90 days before the vote.

Thaksin repeatedly said the referendum should coincide with the Senate election on April 19, which is barely 60 days away.

But even if the government is able to decide on a new date for the referendum, there would be another quandary.

Paragraph 2 of Article 214 stipulates that a referendum’s purpose is to solicit public opinion on an issue that cannot be in conflict with the Constitution.

Charter writers never envisioned the referendum as a mechanism for amending the Constitution. Rather, they drafted Article 313 to spell out the legislative process for revising the charter. The reason for ruling out referendums as a vehicle for rewriting the charter was simple – it is impossible to ask a yes-or-no question on complex issues entailing the basic law.

Even if voters were to be asked to choose whether or not to revise the charter, the answer would be meaningless because no alternative provisions were presented to help them decide.

Thaksin apparently is trying to use the referendum as a pretext to kill constitutional amendments, banking on the public inclination to stick with what they know rather than venture into the unknown.

It would be unlikely for voters to cast ballots in favour of rewriting the charter when they have no idea about an alternative. Furthermore, a democratic society would uphold its basic law rather than tear it up.

Even if voters took the risk for change, Thaksin would still have the last word on the matter.

Any new round of political reform to break power concentrated in the hands of Thaksin would spiral down into an illusory proposal. A “yes” vote would hand him complete control over the drafting of constitutional amendments.

Under the existing legislative process, civic groups, independent organisations, senators and MPs have equal footing with the government to sponsor constitutional amendments.

But following a referendum, the Cabinet alone would have the say on the drafting process.

Thaksin sparked the debate on a referendum to buy time for public anger about his Shin sell-off to cool, critics say. If he intended to hold a referendum he would have taken the time to study the relevant provisions before talking about it.

Behind Thaksin’s hot air there don’t appear to be real solutions for problems in the charter or reconciliation with his opponents.

The Nation

fast forward 2 years...

So much for "quitting" politics....

Thaksin backs plans to change constitution

BANGKOK (AFP) — Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra on Saturday threw his support behind the government's plan to amend Thailand's constitution. The ruling People Power Party (PPP) and its five coalition partners are considering a series of changes to the constitution. The basic law was approved in a referendum last August.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej wants to remove a clause that allows the disbanding of political parties convicted of vote fraud, saying the provision undermines the government's stability.

Thaksin said the proposed amendments would make the constitution more democratic.

"Democracy is the best system, and the best thing to do is make (the constitution) more democratic," he told reporters before flying to Cambodia, where he was set to play golf with Prime Minister Hun Sen.

"Politicians absolutely must work for the public. They cannot work for their personal gain," he said. *"except me"*

Two of Samak's most important coalition partners face dissolution over vote fraud charges currently before the court. The PPP could also find itself threatened with a similar fate pending the outcome of a separate case against the Speaker of Parliament Yongyut Tiyapairat. Thaksin's own Thai Rak Thai party was dissolved last May by the Constitutional Tribunal.

The PPP's drive to amend the basic law has generated fierce debate, which has led to fears of a new coup against Thaksin's allies who now run the country. But Thaksin said he was optimistic the country would not suffer another putsch.

"Please don't even think about it. We would rather have everyone help brainstorm how to build our future and improve the lives of the next generation," he said when asked about the coup rumours.

- AFP (today)

Thaksin's lawyer chimes in ludicrously...

Bangkok Post

Noppadon laments dissolution of coalition parties

Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama said he hopes that the Constitution Court will not dissolve Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya parties after the Election Commission (EC) pushed for the dissolution of the two coalition partners.

Noppadon claimed that it is against the principles of political science, jurisdiction and human rights

--------------------------------

He conveniently uses and refers the human rights when it suits his parties agenda and self interests.

It's a pity they do / did not use them to protect all the poor souls who have paid the ultimate price, along with continued abuses of Thailands less fortunates, for whom they are meant to assit and fight for the rights of, in the first place.

His arrogance and insensitivity towards them makes my blood boil.

marshbags and

and now... Noppadope is saying not only does it violate political science, jurisdiction, and human rights...

he's crazily suggesting that holding a party responsible because of the actions of its leaders is against Buddhism itself...

:D

Noppadon denounces Article 237

Says it goes against Buddhist religious tenets

Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama said yesterday said nothing would stop the government from amending the charter.

The government has been under attack for many weeks for its decision to amend the charter, especially Article 237, which in effect states that if a party executive is found guilty of electoral fraud, then the political party of which the executive is a member should be disbanded.

Critics see the move as an act of self-preservation, and a PPP Deputy Leader is facing such a charge.

The foreign minister criticised Article 237 as unsound.

"This Article 237 has never existed in Thai history. It's against religious teaching for someone to commit a wrongdoing and then someone else pay for it," Noppadon said. *such a feeble arguement from a so-called lawyer*

"Punishment should be reserved for the one who has committed the crime. So any party executive who committed an offence should be punished, but the party should not be disbanded. Otherwise, people could try to have parties dissolved," said Noppadon.

- The Nation (today)

Even coalition partners saw it as wrong...

Suvit pulls party out of coalition

Puea Pandin, partners disagree on 'initiatives'

The Puea Pandin Party is withdrawing from the People Power Party-led coalition due to disagreements on a number of issues. The points of contention are the government's push for rewriting the charter, its role in the Preah Vihear temple row, and its poor response to bloody clashes between government supporters and demonstrators. Puea Pandin leader Suvit Khunkitti told reporters yesterday that his party was pulling out of the coalition due to conflicts with other coalition partners. He said he made the announcement on behalf of the Puea Pandin executive board and MPs. He reasoned that the government was preoccupied with rewriting the constitution instead of solving the economic problems which Puea Pandin considered a priority. Puea Pandin had tried to convince other coalition partners to be mindful of the sensitivity surrounding the Preah Vihear issue, because it concerned the national sovereignty, he said. ''We get along very well on some points, but some of their [coalition partners'] initiatives worry us,'' Suvit added. Another major reason, Suvit said, was political clashes turning violent recently. Puea Pandin wanted reconciliation, not confrontation, he said. Suvit said he informed PM Samak of the decision during the cabinet meeting yesterday and told Chart Thai Party Leader Banharn Silpa-archa by telephone. It was reported that he tried to convince Banharn to withdraw as well. Chart Thai and Puea Pandin are close political allies. As a partner with 24 House seats in the 316-MP coalition, Puea Pandin was given five seats in the Samak Cabinet.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/300708_News/30Jul2008_news01.php

[ThaiPauly]

A very informative and interesting post Thai at Heart

Cheers

Edited September 1, 2008 by ThaiPauly

[geriatrickid]

i detest all weapons, violence, corruption, people with too much money. do you think i'm wrong? tell me about my worst argument (your opinion) and i'm eager to explain to you.

I do not understand the logic in many of your statements and at times they appear to be contradictory with previous statements that you have made. For example, your last statement is puzzling. I refer you to the New York Times Aug. 31 edition which has a rather scathing article on PAD from its BKK corrspondent Thomas Fuller. The NYT has been quite anti Bush and has a somewhat left of center approach to world issues, so I think it meets your criteria for a newspaper.

Underlying the crisis — and the continuing debate over Mr. Thaksin's place in Thailand's politics — is a class struggle.

The People's Alliance is backed by powerful members of the country's elite, and both Mr. Thaksin and Mr. Samak have championed the cause of impoverished rural farmers. Mr. Samak's party commanded widespread support in the countryside during last year's elections.

On Sunday, Amorn Amornratananont, a leader of the People's Alliance, said the group wanted to overhaul the voting system to dilute the power of less-educated people."We need a revolution," he said as he signed autographs on the lawn of the prime minister's compound, where thousands of protesters are camped in a carnival-like atmosphere.

One of the protesters seeking his autograph, Phloenphit Likitikul, 34, expressed similar concerns about poor voters. "It's too easy to manipulate poor people," she said. "We're a democracy, but we're not really ready for it." Monday marks the 100th day of protests by the People's Alliance against Mr. Samak's government, but it was only last Tuesday that the group's members adopted more aggressive tactics. They overcame the police units guarding the prime minister's compound and climbed over the gates, leading civil servants to flee. Source NYT 31-Aug

You claim that "you detest people with too much money". Ok, so then why are you taking the side of the people that have the money? What I take away from this article is that the haves are getting spooked by the have nots getting too close to the troughh. The haves are saying, that's not right and that these poor people aren't worthy of such a share, nor are they entitled to vote. Somewhat of the same argument that was made when the emancipation of women voters was being argued. It is also very similar to the arguments made to deny the right to one man/woman vote to black and coloured South Africans. Who is PAD or any other party to decide if a Thai of legal age is any less worthy of his or her basic right to vote?

It seems to me that if you are such a proponent of people's liberties and civil rights that you would be opposed to PAD which wants to remove the process of electoral representation. PAD has stated in very clear terms that it seeks to further marginalize the poor and less educated and deny their right to vote. These people will never become educated unless they are given the means to obtain an education. PAD, and its ssupporters, the oligarchy of the wealthy and military do not wish that to occur as it would mean an end to their lives of privelige.

Edited September 1, 2008 by geriatrickid

[ubonjoe]

Logged in this morning and went back to where I was when I decided it was time to get some sleep to see if there were any new posts that were informative. Didn’t find much new information.

I did find a question about my reply where I used term "in bed with".

Just tried to find a definition for it on the web and found one much better to use.

It is "in cahoots with".

From http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=in%20cahoots

in cahoots

in partnership with someone who shares your purpose (often secretly)

[Journalist]

Got this in my mailbox today - written by the head of CLSA in Thailand.

If you can spare 5 mins I think it sums things up better than the Thai newspapers. Also discusses how the pay structure works.

Sunday Evening – Bangkok 2300 – 6^th Day of Government House under Seized

Bangkok’s many fashionable restaurants were unusually quiet this weekend as most people chooses to be glued to their television sets to see the latest development in the on-going clash between an elected government and the PAD protesters. My fellow Country Head from Indonesia was very surprised that we were one of the only three tables at his favorite Italian restaurants that one normally has to book in advance.

There were no traffics and the bars were quiet. Phuket airport remained firmly shut since Friday and only just re-opened at 4pm Sunday (apparently local news said only 500 passengers were stranded – I am sure there were more than this number as THAI has 14 regular flights alone). Both Hat Yai and Krabi airports were also shut. Thai domestic consumption and tourism will definitely be hit in the 2H08 if this sort of protests are to be allowed to continue.

The market did not get sold down aggressively on Friday because local funds and local HNWs were net buyers thinking that PM Samak would have no choice except to step down over this weekend especially when he flew to Hua Hin to seek an audience with the King on Friday. The message from the PPP-led coalition government is clear on Sunday i.e. the coalition partners are in “full support of Samak” and that the PM will NOT step down as he believes that he was elected by the majority. An “Emergency” session of both the lower and upper houses were called and the debate is still in progress tonight (Sunday). It is expected that the emergency meeting of parliaments will conclude possibly with a call for some form of National Unity Government.

Therefore it seems that once again Bangkokians will wake up on Monday to see their Government House being surrounded (PAD’s objective was to oust Samak) as the on-going “political mess” remains unsolved for now at least and I suspect SET will open down on Monday (as locals will cut their long positions). Whatever ways you look at it Thailand is in a mess politically. Although, the country has come a long way economically in the past 2 decades in terms of wealth creation, education and the level of healthcare etc. and as a result we have a very fast changing social dynamics within Thai society (towards a younger more outward looking and new money being made from the provinces than ever before) whilst our political power structure has not evolve as fast as our social progress has been. Thais are more divided today than ever before.

1. Whether you are pro or against Thaksin, I think Thailand is setting itself a bad precedent by allowing (possibly?) an elected government to be

Over thrown by what is essentially “mob rule” (IF that happens remains to be seen). There is no doubt that the PAD leaders and supporters are

Patriotic and loyal to the monarchy and that PM Samak is a nominee of Thaksin but that is beside the point. My point here is in the future

When a majority of the population elect a party and someone somewhere isn’t happy about it they shouldn’t have the right to change it by taking

to the streets and hoping that bloodshed will occur and the military will step in and only to then look to HM the King to resolve and nominate a

Caretaker government. This means that our democratic system is so weak that ultimately we have to rely on our beloved King to resolve

every crisis?.

- Isn’t it strange that the 2 top PAD leaders, Major Chamlong and Khun Sonthi (media tycoon) were once close friends of Thaksin?

- Chamlong was a Bangkok Governor (“Mr. Clean”). He wears a peasant outfit (Thailand’s Mahatma) and shuns the material world. In

1992 (our last bloodshed) he took to the street against the then PM (General Suchinda) when about 50 people were killed.

- He then formed Phalang Dhama Party which he then he handed the leadership to a young successful telecom tycoon, Thaksin Shinawatra. Subsequently, Chamlong disowned Thaksin as he is fundamentally against capitalism and all that its represents. Furthermore he distrusts democracy particularly when it seems to him that the “wrong people” wins.

- Sonthi on the other hand speaks perfect English and is very charismatic. He emulated Thaksin’s success in the telecom business

Through the Manager Group only to go bust during the 97 crisis. Whilst his friend Thaksin went on to become even richer and became

Prime Minister and of course hit the jackpot with the eventual sales to Temasek.

- What PAD wants going forward (other than to get rid of all of Thaksin’s nominee) is to have a National Unity Government comprising

Of all political parties with them possibly calling the shot (“peaceful coup” or “Ariya Kat-Kuen” in Thai).

- PAD’s only hope of achieving this is to provoke the government or the riot police to forcefully remove the demonstrators.

2. Interestingly on the other side of the political spectrum, the PPP coalition met and unanimously endorsed Samak on Saturday. What

Conversation took place when Samak flew to see the King we will never know. But I believe that Samak will not dissolve the house and call for

Another General Election (unless he has no other choice). Why? Because election is very expensive here (see my sales note on Friday) and

this government is only in power for less that 1 year! Eventually we will have to have an election but don’t expect the path to it to be smooth.

- It is believe that Thaksin will not throw in so much money this time round even though PPP will probably win a majority again.

- At the same time if Samak eventually steps down the PPP’s possible choice will be either a brother-in-law of Thaksin (Somchai Wongsawat)

Or Dr. Surapong (Finanace Minister) yet again risking PAD continuing street protests on grounds that they are nominee or proxy of Thaksin.

- Samak’s live long ambition is to become Prime Minister. Even though I think he won’t last long I still think he won’t leave just yet. He also know that his government’s popularity and credibility is being judge whether he will give an order for police to use force or not. They tried and it back fired on Friday which resulted in an almost nation-wide strike actions.

- What surprised everyone including the PAD was how effective they have been in bringing the country to a stand-still through strike actions.

- Has Thais started to become more militants in its unions and workforce?

3. The Democrat Party also don’t want another election. They have been out of power for so long that their “war chest” is depleted.

- In addition the leaders of the Democrat know very well that if there is an election today, PPP will win an even bigger majority

Than before because the rural voters are fed-up and feels so disenfranchise by the current political stalemate.

- As I wrote before, Thaksin’s exile has created a political vacuum. He has changed Thailand’s political landscape forever and

“Populism” is here to stay. The worrying factor for Thailand (and I hope this won’t happen) is that we may get a populist

Politician a la Hugo Javez or worse a local mafia (“Chao Por”) who is worse than Thaksin in a sense that at least Thaksin was economically literate even though his government was probably one of the most corrupt.

- The Democrat party knows very well that it is tough for them to appeal to “the hearts and minds” of Thai rural voters.

4. If Thais believe that the best solution is to have a National Unity Government for at least 2 years until the rift within our society

Is healed then I think the short term outlook is negative. For one, who will decide the government? If it is to be decided in parliament

It will not be settled within days or weeks. If it were to be decided by the King then the monarchy risks being tainted with interference.

Although, it is true that a National Unity Government will stop this mess (it only patches up things until the next election) and until it happened

the PAD protesters will be on the streets perhaps inciting more strikes to our ports and airports especially now that they realized how effective it

has been.

- This government may have many faults including corruption and cronyism. However, the demand for this government to step

Down through undemocratic means (“Mob Rule”) is also not a solution.

- It is a shame that the current opposition forgets this point and is lending moral supports to the demonstrators.

- Ironically, the man at the center of this mess in now asking for asylum in the UK after skipping bail.

- Have you ever wondered what scenario we will be now if Thaksin wasn’t as greedy and concentrate his business acumen on

The economy? Perhaps we may be seeing SET index at1000 today?. I have entitled this Slice of Life “ What a Mess” because as a Thai

With vested interest in this country there are so many things that might and could have “gone right” for Thailand in the past 3 years.

But instead, we are here today with stock market at a slump, weakening foreign reserves and currency, weakening domestic demand

In a climate where we can not rely on exports for growth. And now, possibly slowing tourism arrivals and consumer spending!

5. A solution (as we have said in Andrew Stotz’s strategy) is another general election by the end of the year unless there is violence and bloodshed

Then the military will step in and form a National Government before. But the military hands are tied because the last coup and eventual

Election means that they will have to be sentimental of the majority.

Attached below is my SOL on Friday which makes an interesting read with the above story (“How Much do Thai Politician Gets Paid?”):-

A great deal of unhappiness about Thai politics are due charges of corruption and therefore I thought it is appropriate to look at the salary structure of Thai politicians and Civil Servants to see if it is enough to live on in today’s inflationary world. The following is from an official website (in Thai) of the pay structures per month:

Prime Minister THB 120,000 (US$3,700/ month)

Deputy Prime Ministers THB 110,000 (US$3,400/ month)

Cabinet Minister THB 80,000 to THB 110,000. (US$2,500 – US$ 3,400/ month)

Permanent Secretary THB 70,000 (US$ 2,100)

Advisors to PM THB 70,000 (US$2,100)

MPs THB 70,000 (US$2,100)

Supreme Court Judges THB 100,000 -250,000 range. (US$3,125 – US$ 7,800/ month)

1. An MP up-country will have to pay THB 500 – THB 1,000 per 1 vote (unwritten standard practice). In order to “buy” a seat up-country an MP

will have to pay around THB 30 million – THB 50 million (well known by un-quantifiable) to win a majority in that constituency. In the past this

cost was taken up by the MP but during the Thaksin-era, apparently TRT put up all the costs of getting MPs elected.

2. An average Thai Cabinet Minister lasts approx. 11 months in his post. Thus not so surprising that not much long term projects ever get

Implemented.

- In order to quickly get back the “fixed costs” of getting into politics the government in power will grant and approve contracts.

- Again nobody knows the exact percentage but from the press I see quotes of b/w 10%-18% of total project (average 15%). For example, the purple line subway system

Is estimated to cost THB 50 billion (yet to be approved) a 15% “under-table” money would mean THB 7.5 billion (US$225 million) just from 1 project.

- Obviously the more coalition parties in government the more ways this money has to be spilt.

3. Once that “brown envelope” money comes through it is normally split into 3 portions: the first for the political party’s coffer (to fight the next

election); second to the PM; whilst the rest for the Ministry that the project falls under (i.e. Infrastructure will go to Communication Ministry).

- Therefore, as you can see the incentive of being a Thai politician certainly now outweigh the tiny income and allowance that the State pays.

4. If we see a House Dissolution the stock market will be up as political parties try to raise funds. During the Thaksin-era it is the Shin Corp group of

companies that was punted by retails. But now it is difficult to see what are the political stocks except the main contractors: ITD, STECON, CK,

EMC, BWG and TUCC.

Harry Bunyaraksh

Country Head.

+662 257 4600 (General)

+662 257 4604 (Direct)

+661 866 2867 (Mobile)

Edited September 1, 2008 by Journalist

[KireB]

I think that many of the PAD people do believe that they are fighting the good fight-

Of course they do, but no one explained to them that in a democracy you don't fight for change, you vote for it. It's not a perfect system by any means, but the alternatives are worse.

Democracy means that you can demonstrate without being afraid to go to jail (or worse).

Democracy means equal rights for everyone and not just for a small, rich, group

Democracy means the opportunity to think critically.

Democracy means the chance to be assertive.

Democracy means fair elections, a valid and reliable choice of government.

You really think that Thailand is a democracy?

Going by your requirements, does any country have a democracy?

That doesn't answer the question, does it? Is Thailand a democracy, in your opinion? Please tell us.

If not, tell me why so many people on this forum are defending the likes of Samak, Thaksin, cronies, in the name of democracy? Some posters even go further and would like to see PAD squashed by riot police. All in the name of democracy.

I have the feeling that a lot of the people on this forum have the word DEMOCRACY imprinted in their mental schemes, (indoctrination comes to mind actually), without any sense of reality.

[sriracha john]

By the mid-1990s, some voters would take money from every candidate, and then vote how they pleased. Others would only take from a candidate they had already decided to vote for, in order not to create an obligation.

worth noting this little tidbit, that changed the above with a previous election, was omitted from mentioning in the article

Constitution Court invalidate the April election and orders new election

Constitution Court will invalidate the controversial April 2 election and order new election to be held, Judge Ura Wang-ormklang said on Monday.

The ruling came after two groups of people filed complaints with Constitution Court, alleging that the election was unconstitutional.

The complaints -- filed by a Thammasat University law lecturer and the People's Network for Elections, a Thai watchdog -- argue that the April 2 date was chosen unfairly, that the winners were improperly certified, and that the ruling party had financed campaigns by fringe groups.

The most serious issue was that the ballot booths were placed in a way to compromise voting privacy despite the fact that the constitution stipulate that the voting has to be direct and secret.

Edited September 1, 2008 by sriracha john

[clausewitz]

I talked with a PAD member during the weekend. At first she insisted that they wanted to overthrow the govt. because it was elected by vote buying and all real Thai hated Thaksin (they only voted fr him and PPP because of being given money). When I said I had met many Thai's who genuinely seemed to love Thaksin she admitted this was true. But the thing is these Thai's come from Issan and are apparently of 'low intelligence' (her words). According to her it is a known fact that the North east population is too dumb to be able to choose anything as important as a government. She gave me some Thia proverb about how they only know eating rice morning and evening (I couldn't really understand it).

Hence, as she explains it, any votes from Issan can't be seriously considered as part of a democratic process.

CHANG NOI

The facts about vote-buying and the patronage system

By Chang Noi

Published on September 1, 2008

Over the last couple of years, concern about vote-buying has been on the rise. The story goes like this. Voters upcountry are too poor and too poorly educated. Some sell their vote for cash on the spot. Others are victims of "the patronage system" and obey the instructions of a patron on how to vote in return for continuing patronage of various kinds.

The argument then continues: vote-buying and the patronage system mean that one-man/one-vote elections cannot work in Thailand. There needs to be some "Thai-style" alternative. This might be some corporatist method of representation such as the People's Alliance for Democracy proposed. It might mean diminishing the power of the elected Parliament, and returning more power to the bureaucracy.

According to legend, vote-buying began in spectacular fashion in Roi Et in 1981, engineered by people in the military. It then swelled over the following two decades. At election time, banks calculate massive rises in money circulation, and journalists love describing complex systems involving lotteries. A brilliant study done in Ayutthaya in the mid-1990s showed that monks, gunmen, and local officials were all deeply involved. Vote-buying is part of the political culture; of that there is little doubt.

But vote-buying is not a simple matter. The practice has been in place for a quarter-century. The number of elections has multiplied - for Parliament, Senate, municipality, provincial council, sub-district council, and so on. Thais have become some of the most experienced voters in the world. There has been a lot of learning about how to use the vote.

In the early history of Thai vote-buying, candidates thrust red notes into voters' hands in order to create an obligation. Once a voter had accepted the candidate's generosity, it would be bad manners not to repay that generosity when casting the vote. But this kind of naive transaction did not last long. By the mid-1990s, some voters would take money from every candidate, and then vote how they pleased. Others would only take from a candidate they had already decided to vote for, in order not to create an obligation.

Candidates still had to offer money. Not doing so would risk being branded as "ungenerous" and thus not worth electing. This was particularly true of candidates known to be rich. Vote-buying has thus become a bit like a candidate's deposit, distributed among the voters rather than paid to the authorities.

By the mid-1990s, vote negotiation had become much more complex than these simple retail transactions. Voters understood that candidates had the potential to offer much greater benefits than a few red notes. They could bring infrastructure spending and development projects with much more impact in the locality. Communities negotiated with candidates to promise scheme, and held them to their promises by the threat of withdrawing their vote at the next poll. Parliament created the "MPs fund" to enable sitting members to fulfil these promises. Lots of local infrastructure got built.

Since then, the system has shifted again. The 1997 constitution began a deliberate attempt to de-link this kind of local pork-barrel from national politics. The funding for local schemes has been substantially transferred from the national budget to local government. MPs have less influence on central-budget spending, and the MPs fund has disappeared. Elected provincial councils and municipalities now have big budgets. Many politicians have followed the money from national to local politics.

At the same time, the profile of the electorate has changed. The great 1986-1996 boom boosted incomes, and the 1997 bust only temporarily knocked them back. The expansion of secondary education in the 1980s began to work through to the electorate.

Then Thaksin changed the game in national politics. He promised some attractive re-distributive schemes, and delivered them. He centralised control over a fifth of the budget under his own executive authority, and toured the country dishing this out. The party and the prime minister became more important patrons than the local MP. Although the 2007 Constitution has reversed some of this change, the memory still dominates.

In the last couple of years, there have been studies of election practice in the North, Northeast, and South. The decision on casting a vote is now very complex and involves the party, the candidate, and the money. In the South, voters feel a strong emotional pull to vote Democrat. In the North and Northeast, Thaksin's schemes have created a strong pull towards the People Power Party/Thai Rak Thai. Yet the candidate also undergoes scrutiny. Is he a local person, someone close to us? Can he get things done, and does he have the track record to prove it? Is he reasonably honest? Does he have the right kind of friends? Finally, does he prove his generosity with a gift? Only candidates known to have modest wealth are excused this obligation, yet can still be elected on grounds of their social contribution.

At the recent poll, there did not seem to be much money around. After three elections in three years, pockets were empty. Candidates feared disqualification. The issue at stake in the poll was so stark, that a few hundred baht was not likely to matter.

So why the current panic about vote-buying? The upcountry electorate is richer, better educated, and more experienced at elections than ever before. In truth, the problem is not that upcountry voters don't know how to use their vote, and that the result is distorted by patronage and vote-buying. The problem is that they have learnt to use the vote only too well. Over four national polls, they have chosen very consistently and very rationally.

And, of course, that may be the real problem. Back when many upcountry electors sold their votes, and as a result their weight in national politics was zero, nobody cared so much about vote-buying. But now the electors have got smart, they have to be stopped. The bleating about vote-buying and patronage politics is simply an attempt to undermine electoral democracy because it seems to be working.

I believe the last 3 paragraphs may explain a lot of the reasons as to why we are in this ridiculous situation.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/01...on_30082102.php

[younghusband]

A very informative and interesting post Thai at Heart

Cheers

I endorse that sentiment.

On a non political point it's a pleasure to read a calm, intelligent,well informed and reasoned analysis in contrast to the half baked and often semi educated PAD related nonsense - from all sides - that has made several of us look to other sources for information over the last few days.

Secondly Chang Noi's article takes us directly to the heart of the the current Thai political crisis, namely the politicisation of the rural majority.This is the development that fuels the hatred of Thaksin,the unholy alliance of feudal and military interests, the repulsive PAD leadership and (to their shame) many middle class Bangkokians.Long ago Disraeli described Britain as the two nations, the rich and the poor and Thailand today is in the same position.Whether Samak survives or Thaksin dies in exile is almost irrelevant.As to the former while he has the ability to call for elections (which he would win), he doesn't control the security forces and that eventually may sink him.

The more interesting question is whether Abhisit/Korn etc can show the leadership to manage change.Their performance over the last two weeks hasn't been encouraging but don't forget all politicians are opportunistic.We're not electing saints.I think the forces that launched the last coup, tried to rig the elections (see Human Rights Watch report),enforced their agenda through the courts etc realise that they will have to rely on the Dems.But it's all very unpredictable.Clearly there are Dems in the PAD camp so it will be a challenge for Abhisit to enforce discipline in the part and keep the military high command at bay.

Meanwhile the global economy deteriorates and Thailand's reputation is increasingly in tatters.What a sad journey (for those of us who love Thailand) from being on the cusp of Asian tigerhood in the early 1990's to the silly and second rate place it is today.The striking feature is the sheer shortsightedness,lack of compassion and greed of the ruling alite and its middle class hangers on.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Finally, from the Bangkok Post:

Tyranny of a minority

In other civilised countries, such a provocation and occupation of the seat of government would have been met with a swift and complete enforcement of the law to regain the state properties. Instead, the PAD's revolting rampage has been met with tamed official responses. Even at Makkhawan Bridge in an old and historic area of Bangkok where altercations between the authorities and protesters ensued following a police attempt to dismantle the three-months-old protest site, injuries were limited. More protesters were injured when they marched and confronted police at the gates of the Metropolitan Police Bureau. Stationed inside the gates with the PAD crowds massing outside, the police reportedly deployed several tear gas canisters.

In addition, as the PAD bullies its way in a unilateral and anti-democratic effort to bring closure on the Samak government, its many sceptics and critics are cowed into silence. Dissent against the PAD brings personal attacks and character assassinations.

Yet this is the time for those myriad Thais - the silent majority - who never liked Mr Thaksin then and despise Mr Samak now - to come out and condemn the PAD's blatant hijacking of Thailand's democratic system. They lack the PAD's voice, vehicle and organisation, but they must find a way to speak out.

Article continues here: http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=130220

Edited September 1, 2008 by WinnieTheKhwai

[sriracha john]

PM blames lunatic third party for gas

PM Samak yesterday insisted police had not used tear gas against supporters of the PAD protesting outside the Metropolitan Police Bureau on Friday. "The police didn't do it. It was some lunatic third party. An inquiry has been set up to find out who did it," Samak said during his regular Sunday broadcast. Deputy Police Spokesman Surapol Thuanthong also said police had not used tear gas. Friday's confrontations at city police headquarters and at the Makkhawan Rangsan bridge left 45 protesters injured. Yesterday they filed complaints at Dusit police station, accusing police on the spot and their supervisors of physically assaulting them. Pol Col Somchai Choeiklin, Superintendent of Dusit police station, said his staff would question all 45 demonstrators before referring them to Vajira hospital for a medical check-up. The investigation would take about one week.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/010908_News/01Sep2008_news10.php

[RadioCityMike]

A very informative and interesting post Thai at Heart

Cheers

I endorse that sentiment.

On a non political point it's a pleasure to read a calm, intelligent,well informed and reasoned analysis in contrast to the half baked and often semi educated PAD related nonsense - from all sides - that has made several of us look to other sources for information over the last few days.

Secondly Chang Noi's article takes us directly to the heart of the the current Thai political crisis, namely the politicisation of the rural majority.This is the development that fuels the hatred of Thaksin,the unholy alliance of feudal and military interests, the repulsive PAD leadership and (to their shame) many middle class Bangkokians.Long ago Disraeli described Britain as the two nations, the rich and the poor and Thailand today is in the same position.Whether Samak survives or Thaksin dies in exile is almost irrelevant.As to the former while he has the ability to call for elections (which he would win), he doesn't control the security forces and that eventually may sink him.

The more interesting question is whether Abhisit/Korn etc can show the leadership to manage change.Their performance over the last two weeks hasn't been encouraging but don't forget all politicians are opportunistic.We're not electing saints.I think the forces that launched the last coup, tried to rig the elections (see Human Rights Watch report),enforced their agenda through the courts etc realise that they will have to rely on the Dems.But it's all very unpredictable.Clearly there are Dems in the PAD camp so it will be a challenge for Abhisit to enforce discipline in the part and keep the military high command at bay.

Meanwhile the global economy deteriorates and Thailand's reputation is increasingly in tatters.What a sad journey (for those of us who love Thailand) from being on the cusp of Asian tigerhood in the early 1990's to the silly and second rate place it is today.The striking feature is the sheer shortsightedness,lack of compassion and greed of the ruling alite and its middle class hangers on.

Yes, definitely Chang Noi's article is very well presented. It also reflects what I have heard from some Thai friends. However, on the issue of preventing vote buying by punishing the vote buyers, it would be very easy for someone to sabotage a party. Someone could claim to be a democrat and go around buying votes just to get the democrats falsely accused of vote buying. I very much endorse the idea of letting the voters take money from as many people that were foolish enough to pay it. Just make sure that no one knows who that voter decided to vote for.

[tropo]

That doesn't answer the question, does it? Is Thailand a democracy, in your opinion? Please tell us.

I did answer your question. Democracy as you see it does not exist.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Is Thailand a democracy, in your opinion? Please tell us.

Regardless if it is or if it isn't or if it's somewhere in between: would PAD bring Thailand closer to democracy or further from it, in your opinion? Please tell us.

[sriracha john]

However, on the issue of preventing vote buying by punishing the vote buyers, it would be very easy for someone to sabotage a party. Someone could claim to be a democrat and go around buying votes just to get the democrats falsely accused of vote buying. I very much endorse the idea of letting the voters take money from as many people that were foolish enough to pay it. Just make sure that no one knows who that voter decided to vote for.

Political tricks would simply come up with something else...

Complaints flood courts - 414 cases

The April 2 general election has led to an unprecedented number of legal complaints flooding the court system, with the Supreme Court alone receiving 414 cases _ the most in Thai political history. The high number of cases reached the courts despite the fact that the Thai Rak Thai party ran virtually unopposed.

In the Feb 6, 2005 general election, only 34 election-related complaints were lodged with the Supreme Court.

The EC has been accused of issuing unlawful orders involving the allegedly hasty organisation of the election.

It has also faced criticism over the re-organisation of poll booths which allegedly deprived voters of the right to secrecy, the use of rubber stamps instead of pens to mark the ballots, its permission for candidates to re-run in different constituencies in by-elections, and its negligence to take action against caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra for electoral violations. Several complaints called on the EC to invalidate the April 2 election.

- Bangkok Post