Pad Vs. Samak: Who Do You Favor?

[Maizefarmer]

Giving power to the winner of an election is a lot more democratic than giving it to a small minority of thugs that are really f***ing up the country at a very bad time!

Well said.

As far as us ex-pats are concerned probably won;t make dot diff who wins - though Samak's nationalism I do find a little concerning.

[orchis]

I cannot vote in elections here, so also gave the poll a pass

I dislike thai politics, samak, pad, sonti, taxin. all,

but democracy must respect elections.

[JUDAS]

Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all

The needle returns to the start of the song

And we all sing along like before

A great song which also happens to sum up Thai politics

[SmellyCat]

Neither side are angels but the Incumbent government have the mandate to be there. Nobody else does.

Since the government is not democratic I don't see how they would have the mandate.

Let's be honest about this. Thailand is NOT a democracy.

The only one who has the mandate in Thailand is the king.

[Merangue]

Neither side are angels but the Incumbent government have the mandate to be there. Nobody else does.

Since the government is not democratic I don't see how they would have the mandate.

Let's be honest about this. Thailand is NOT a democracy.

The only one who has the mandate in Thailand is the king.

Sorry i am not sure how you come to the conclusion the government is not democratic.

They won a vote (whether it be through buying voted or otherwise) and therefore they have been handed the mandate by the people who voted for them. Unless you are saying that the count was rigged or fixed in some way.

Not something i have heard about but as i said before i am no expert as an outsider.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Merangue

[CRUNCHER]

What is the famous quote? I am sure one of our American friends will correct me, but it goes something like this:-

“Democracy is a very bad form of government, but all the others are so much worse”

Elections in Thailand produce bad governments, but others (military coups, thugs demonstrating on the streets etc) will produce worse governments.

[wayfarer108]

Some typical western reactions here but the reality is you can't have a 'fair and square' election in a country where the votes of an entire village can be bought by paying the village headman 7000 baht.

It wasn't enough that Thaksin and the TRT, and their rebranded cronies the PPP, bought the elections. Mr T blew it by selling out Thailand's satellite system to the highest bidder in Singapore four days after pushing legislation through the National Assembly abolishing capital gains taxes on SET trades and thereby taking at least a billion baht that would otherwise have been added to the government budget. Not to mention altering other legislation to benefit his wife's huge land deals. On top of that, virtually every international state visit concluded with a ShinCorps deal.

So his lapdog Samak comes along and tries to change the constitution so that Thaksin would be eligible for office again. That single action spawned the rebirth of the PAD, which has since gathered momentum through exposing all sorts of other unholy alliances.

Once again, Thaksin/TRT/PPP brought it on themselves. Had Samak left well enough alone, the PPP might have squeaked by the academic corps, Thailand's 5th column.

The deck is so unfairly stacked towards the ogliarchy here that a 'fair election' isn't possible.

Most western elections have taken place within the context of a single constitution. In Thailand every time there's a coup and/or election, there's a new constitution. The one the PPP want stinks. Thailand needs the kind of system Sondhi is proposing, IMO. Whether it comes about or not, it's a proposal that impartial political pundits in Bangkok acknowledge is more workable than the current populist system, which the TRT invented.

The old American adage 'democracy is the worst system except for all the others' doesn't apply when there are clear alternatives available here, ones that have worked well in the past (eg, making half the NA appointed positions).

The gap between rural thailand and the economic elite means that simple majority vote doesn't work in the best interests of the nation; it's one of the reasons the US adopted the electoral college system.

The two extremes--all-electoral vs all-appointed--are obviously open to abuse, so the most functional for thailand may be something in-between. Thailand needs to go back to its earliest constitutions, which recognised that political representation here should include not just elected officials but also appointed experts.

But I doubt it's enough to break the coup-constitution-election-protest-coup cycle, which has been in place since 1947. Ain't gonna change for populists or demagogues.

Both sides in the current conflict are products of the same patronage system, just different window dressing. Patronage is how Thai society functions.

Edited September 1, 2008 by sabaijai

[dr_Pat_Pong]

I support Mr. Samak and Mr. Thaksil.

Good for you and the rest of the minorities.

[dave111223]

I support Mr. Samak and Mr. Thaksil.

Good for you and the rest of the minorities.

I think maybe you mean majority seeing as both these people were elected by the majority.

Some typical western reactions here but the reality is you can't have a 'fair and square' election in a country where the votes of an entire village can be bought by paying the village headman 7000 baht.

It may cost 7000baht to buy the village, but if the village sees that during your term in office you cost them more than 7000 baht because of a bad economic policy.

And no you don't need to be educated to economics to realize "Hey i can only afford 2 beer Changs per week now, i used to be able to buy 3".

Buying votes only gets you in the door, it will not get you re-elected if you suck.

Simple mathematics:

If PRICE PAID FOR VOTE - COST OF BAD GOVERNMENT < 0 then you don't get elected.

[Ulysses G.]

Some typical western reactions here but the reality is you can't have a 'fair and square' election in a country where the votes of an entire village can be bought by paying the village headman 7000 baht.

It wasn't enough that Thaksin and the TRT, and their rebranded cronies the PPP, bought the elections. Mr T blew it by selling out Thailand's satellite system to the highest bidder in Singapore four days after pushing legislation through the National Assembly abolishing capital gains taxes on SET trades and thereby taking at least a billion baht that would otherwise have been added to the government budget. Not to mention altering other legislation to benefit his wife's huge land deals. On top of that, virtually every international state visit concluded with a ShinCorps deal.

So his lapdog Samak comes along and tries to change the constitution so that Thaksin would be eligible for office again. That single action spawned the rebirth of the PAD, which has since gathered momentum through exposing all sorts of other unholy alliances.

Once again, Thaksin/TRT/PPP brought it on themselves. Had Samak left well enough alone, the PPP might have squeaked by the academic corps, Thailand's 5th column.

The deck is so unfairly stacked towards the ogliarchy here that a 'fair election' isn't possible.

Most western elections have taken place within the context of a single constitution. In Thailand every time there's a coup and/or election, there's a new constitution. The one the PPP want stinks. Thailand needs the kind of system Sondhi is proposing, IMO. Whether it comes about or not, it's a proposal that impartial political pundits in Bangkok acknowledge is more workable than the current populist system, which the TRT invented.

The old American adage 'democracy is the worst system except for all the others' doesn't apply when there are clear alternatives available here, ones that have worked well in the past (eg, making half the NA appointed positions).

The gap between rural thailand and the economic elite means that simple majority vote doesn't work in the best interests of the nation; it's one of the reasons the US adopted the electoral college system.

The two extremes--all-electoral vs all-appointed--are obviously open to abuse, so the most functional for thailand may be something in-between. Thailand needs to go back to its earliest constitutions, which recognised that political representation here should include not just elected officials but also appointed experts.

But I doubt it's enough to break the coup-constitution-election-protest-coup cycle, which has been in place since 1947. Ain't gonna change for populists or demagogues.

Both sides in the current conflict are products of the same patronage system, just different window dressing. Patronage is how Thai society functions.

All of this may very well be true, but Samak was still elected and Thailand needs some sort of government. A severly f***ed up elected government (twice) is better than complete anarchy!

[kmart]

I've only been here a couple of months but I look back fondly on the days when the biggest debate was 'Fortuna v CRV'

I'm with you on this. It's about time the political fiasco in this banana republic country was sorted out so we can get on with the more pressing issues of the day.

[sabaijai]

Some typical western reactions here but the reality is you can't have a 'fair and square' election in a country where the votes of an entire village can be bought by paying the village headman 7000 baht.

It wasn't enough that Thaksin and the TRT, and their rebranded cronies the PPP, bought the elections. Mr T blew it by selling out Thailand's satellite system to the highest bidder in Singapore four days after pushing legislation through the National Assembly abolishing capital gains taxes on SET trades and thereby taking at least a billion baht that would otherwise have been added to the government budget. Not to mention altering other legislation to benefit his wife's huge land deals. On top of that, virtually every international state visit concluded with a ShinCorps deal.

So his lapdog Samak comes along and tries to change the constitution so that Thaksin would be eligible for office again. That single action spawned the rebirth of the PAD, which has since gathered momentum through exposing all sorts of other unholy alliances.

Once again, Thaksin/TRT/PPP brought it on themselves. Had Samak left well enough alone, the PPP might have squeaked by the academic corps, Thailand's 5th column.

The deck is so unfairly stacked towards the ogliarchy here that a 'fair election' isn't possible.

Most western elections have taken place within the context of a single constitution. In Thailand every time there's a coup and/or election, there's a new constitution. The one the PPP want stinks. Thailand needs the kind of system Sondhi is proposing, IMO. Whether it comes about or not, it's a proposal that impartial political pundits in Bangkok acknowledge is more workable than the current populist system, which the TRT invented.

The old American adage 'democracy is the worst system except for all the others' doesn't apply when there are clear alternatives available here, ones that have worked well in the past (eg, making half the NA appointed positions).

The gap between rural thailand and the economic elite means that simple majority vote doesn't work in the best interests of the nation; it's one of the reasons the US adopted the electoral college system.

The two extremes--all-electoral vs all-appointed--are obviously open to abuse, so the most functional for thailand may be something in-between. Thailand needs to go back to its earliest constitutions, which recognised that political representation here should include not just elected officials but also appointed experts.

But I doubt it's enough to break the coup-constitution-election-protest-coup cycle, which has been in place since 1947. Ain't gonna change for populists or demagogues.

Both sides in the current conflict are products of the same patronage system, just different window dressing. Patronage is how Thai society functions.

All of this may very well be true, but Samak was still elected and Thailand needs some sort of government. A severly f***ed up elected government (twice) is better than complete anarchy!

What anarchy? You mean the demonstrations? Nothing new, been happening for decades. Like the saying goes, 'The villages elect the government, then Bangkok gets rid of it.' No anarchy, rather semi-systematic.

[sabaijai]

I support Mr. Samak and Mr. Thaksil.

Good for you and the rest of the minorities.

I think maybe you mean majority seeing as both these people were elected by the majority.

Some typical western reactions here but the reality is you can't have a 'fair and square' election in a country where the votes of an entire village can be bought by paying the village headman 7000 baht.

It may cost 7000baht to buy the village, but if the village sees that during your term in office you cost them more than 7000 baht because of a bad economic policy.

And no you don't need to be educated to economics to realize "Hey i can only afford 2 beer Changs per week now, i used to be able to buy 3".

Buying votes only gets you in the door, it will not get you re-elected if you suck.

Simple mathematics:

If PRICE PAID FOR VOTE - COST OF BAD GOVERNMENT < 0 then you don't get elected.

Then how do you explain the election of Samak and the PPP?

A Brit I know who worked as an AP reporter for decades, then retired to a village in northern Thailand and is now

in his 70s, recently recounted his experiences with Thaksin's "village funds" for me:

The 'village fund' virtually destroyed the structure of the

community in which I was living at the time. Thaksin threw one

million baht at the village, much as a passing motorist might

chuck a few bags of kanom and cigs out of the window in passing.

The community was then left to distribute the cash and

miraculously managed to do it without too much rancour. Twenty

families each got 50,000 baht. Two village projects were

approved.

There was absolutely no oversight. Within a week or so, new

pickups and motorcycles appeared on the one village street-clearly

bought with 50,000 baht down payments. The poo yai baan, actually

a good man, environmentally engaged and a pal of mine, made

himself unpopular by demanding prompt repayment of the loans

(Thaksin somehow gave these people the impression they were

getting the money as a gift) and was voted out of office in the

next tambon election.

The "projects" never got off the ground and

the village is as dirt poor as ever, with rice farmers and their

families still laboring for 100 baht a day to put food on the

table of the fat cats, while faced with the hopeless task of

meeting monthly repayments of the loans they took to buy new

pickups or farm equipment.

They voted for the PPP because they were promised more "village

funds."

[thaihome]

...The only one who has the mandate in Thailand is the king.

Pretty well sums up the present situation.

TH

[Pierrot]

Some typical western reactions here but the reality is you can't have a 'fair and square' election in a country where the votes of an entire village can be bought by paying the village headman 7000 baht.

It wasn't enough that Thaksin and the TRT, and their rebranded cronies the PPP, bought the elections. Mr T blew it by selling out Thailand's satellite system to the highest bidder in Singapore four days after pushing legislation through the National Assembly abolishing capital gains taxes on SET trades and thereby taking at least a billion baht that would otherwise have been added to the government budget. Not to mention altering other legislation to benefit his wife's huge land deals. On top of that, virtually every international state visit concluded with a ShinCorps deal.

So his lapdog Samak comes along and tries to change the constitution so that Thaksin would be eligible for office again. That single action spawned the rebirth of the PAD, which has since gathered momentum through exposing all sorts of other unholy alliances.

Once again, Thaksin/TRT/PPP brought it on themselves. Had Samak left well enough alone, the PPP might have squeaked by the academic corps, Thailand's 5th column.

The deck is so unfairly stacked towards the ogliarchy here that a 'fair election' isn't possible.

Most western elections have taken place within the context of a single constitution. In Thailand every time there's a coup and/or election, there's a new constitution. The one the PPP want stinks. Thailand needs the kind of system Sondhi is proposing, IMO. Whether it comes about or not, it's a proposal that impartial political pundits in Bangkok acknowledge is more workable than the current populist system, which the TRT invented.

The old American adage 'democracy is the worst system except for all the others' doesn't apply when there are clear alternatives available here, ones that have worked well in the past (eg, making half the NA appointed positions).

The gap between rural thailand and the economic elite means that simple majority vote doesn't work in the best interests of the nation; it's one of the reasons the US adopted the electoral college system.

The two extremes--all-electoral vs all-appointed--are obviously open to abuse, so the most functional for thailand may be something in-between. Thailand needs to go back to its earliest constitutions, which recognised that political representation here should include not just elected officials but also appointed experts.

But I doubt it's enough to break the coup-constitution-election-protest-coup cycle, which has been in place since 1947. Ain't gonna change for populists or demagogues.

Both sides in the current conflict are products of the same patronage system, just different window dressing. Patronage is how Thai society functions.

So Sir Winston Churchill was an american .

We learn something everyday ...

If you want to give us a lecture in politic, at least try to get your quotation right

Edited September 1, 2008 by Pierrot

[sabaijai]

So Sir Winston Churchill was an american .

We learn something everyday ...

If you want to give us a lecture in politic, at least try to get your quotation right

I stand corrected. And it's "politics" ...

[Pierrot]

So Sir Winston Churchill was an american .

We learn something everyday ...

If you want to give us a lecture in politic, at least try to get your quotation right

I stand corrected. And it's "politics" ...

touché

Edited September 1, 2008 by Pierrot

[SmellyCat]

Sorry i am not sure how you come to the conclusion the government is not democratic.

They won a vote (whether it be through buying voted or otherwise) and therefore they have been handed the mandate by the people who voted for them.

A democracy has more requirements than just having elections. Elections are a tool to have a government that acts according to the free will of the people. They are not the goal.

You seem to imply that winning elections through vote buying is still democratic. I would suggest you to examine the history of democracy and learn about terms such as

Trias Politica and Habeas Corpus

These things that are the foundation of democracy.

[lannaman]

Get back to the kitchen Mr. Samak. You had an idea of what you were about in your chef's hat!

[AlexLah]

What a bunch of 1diot's you are Dave and Ul.

But it is OK, just keep believing in what you feel is right, (stealing money from taxpayers).

I think it is time to elect me as PM.

[NovaBlue05]

They voted for the PPP because they were promised more "village

funds."

Sounds like Congress in the good 'ol US of A. Deliver pork to the home state to get re-elected and then work with lobbyists to fund their next re-election campaign......and other things

[CRUNCHER]

So Sir Winston Churchill was an american .

We learn something everyday ...

If you want to give us a lecture in politic, at least try to get your quotation right

I stand corrected. And it's "politics" ...

My fault. I made a mistake attributing the quote to an American.

Having said that, Churchill was half American through his mother - and that includes some Native American blood. His wife, Clementine, was I believe, American. Churchill himself became an Honourary citizen of USA in 1963.

Back to democracy. Is any country truly democratic? As just one example, in 2000 "the worlds most powerful man' was elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. When you also take into account those who did not vote, Bush became president without the support of over 50% of the population. Another example - most British Governments in the 20th Century came to ower with less that 50% of the popular vote. Typically 20-30% of people do not bother to vote. This means that Britain was governed by governments who did not have the mandate of the majority of it's citizens.

Throw into that the fact that many voters have little idea who or what they are voting for, except perhaps those that try to bribe them with promises of tax cuts, cheaper medical treatment and schooling etc and you really have have to wonder what democracy means and who judges when it's aims have been met.

Thailand might not have the best domocracy, but at least voters have a choice. How they exercise their rights is up to them. When street gangs like PAD try to take away their choice of the people there should be grave cause for concern. I do not like Samak, but if he is kicked out it should be done through peaceful and lawful means.

[wayfarer108]

I have a list of my favorite Thai dictators in descending order, and all of them tower above the elected ones so far, even field marshal sarit.

Elected or selected, all eventually get overthrown. It's like that Buddhist adage, 'greater vehicle, lesser vehicle, all vehicles will be towed at the owner's expense.'

How many good leaders have been deposed by Thai coups? Only a couple. How many bad ones? Lots.

Flip that around to American-style democracy. How many good men get elected? Right.

In the west it's systems over people, in a patronage model, it's people over systems.

Which is the lesser of two evils? Answer: the one in which the evil man is taken down where a popular vote or can't do the job. Or where the military left it

half-finished.

[the highlander]

I have been very impressed by Samak during this PAD carry on!

He has shown a sometimes well hidden wisdom in not violently suppressing the demonstrations, in turn preventing another coup!

Some posters on here must think that corruption in Thailand began with Thaksin!!

PAD's main base are the old Bangkok elite (the real criminals)!

I hope they are hung for their actions!

They as traitors, would be in the West!!

PAD ousted the previously democratically elected government, they had there army buddies change the constitution in order to ensure their pals the Democrats would win the next elections!

They failed!!

PAD supporters now claim that it is because PPP supporters must be stupid and uneducated and corrupt!!

For shame PAD!!

[Wrong Turn]

They voted for the PPP because they were promised more "village

funds."

Sounds like Congress in the good 'ol US of A. Deliver pork to the home state to get re-elected and then work with lobbyists to fund their next re-election campaign......and other things

This is the primary arguement of the PAD, I believe. The western style democracy of one person-one vote means the power is held by the rural and uneducated poor, who are susceptible to bribery and pork come election time.

[Ulysses G.]

I do not like Samak, but if he is kicked out it should be done through peaceful and lawful means.

Hear, hear!

[dave111223]

This is the primary arguement of the PAD, I believe. The western style democracy of one person-one vote means the power is held by the rural and uneducated poor, who are susceptible to bribery and pork come election time.

Exactly, i believe that is the main argument of PAD, which i find bizarre that people would agree with "The vote of the poor uneducated masses shouldn't count". How could anyone rationalize that as a just form of government?

But i think even if the rural poor were prevented from voting the PAD would probably still lose the election, but would still be on the streets up in arms.

What a bunch of 1diot's you are Dave and Ul.

Nice well thought out of rebuttal.

[ham]

Giving power to the winner of an election is a lot more democratic than giving it to a small minority of thugs that are really f***ing up the country at a very bad time!

is always happen things like that in a bad time hehehehe and by the way that's not a small minority, thats what YOU think. The truble is deep in the Thai society. No wonder by this rubbery capitalism. Do you think people let happen this all time with them? Not remeber 30 years ago???? You think ideas like communism, fundamentalism and other sh*t just com because the wind blows from another direction? even the situation is not for laugh at all. Don't want to see the dragon coming out!

like sombody said, democracy is not only voting (it is it for us farangs) but here it works different. This is not democracy as I see it, sorry. People need to scare everywhere, for the big plans they have with us!!! If you understand to read between the lines.

You got your "chip" already?

[popshirt]

Some typical western reactions here but the reality is you can't have a 'fair and square' election in a country where the votes of an entire village can be bought by paying the village headman 7000 baht.

It wasn't enough that Thaksin and the TRT, and their rebranded cronies the PPP, bought the elections. Mr T blew it by selling out Thailand's satellite system to the highest bidder in Singapore four days after pushing legislation through the National Assembly abolishing capital gains taxes on SET trades and thereby taking at least a billion baht that would otherwise have been added to the government budget. Not to mention altering other legislation to benefit his wife's huge land deals. On top of that, virtually every international state visit concluded with a ShinCorps deal.

So his lapdog Samak comes along and tries to change the constitution so that Thaksin would be eligible for office again. That single action spawned the rebirth of the PAD, which has since gathered momentum through exposing all sorts of other unholy alliances.

Once again, Thaksin/TRT/PPP brought it on themselves. Had Samak left well enough alone, the PPP might have squeaked by the academic corps, Thailand's 5th column.

The deck is so unfairly stacked towards the ogliarchy here that a 'fair election' isn't possible.

Most western elections have taken place within the context of a single constitution. In Thailand every time there's a coup and/or election, there's a new constitution. The one the PPP want stinks. Thailand needs the kind of system Sondhi is proposing, IMO. Whether it comes about or not, it's a proposal that impartial political pundits in Bangkok acknowledge is more workable than the current populist system, which the TRT invented.

The old American adage 'democracy is the worst system except for all the others' doesn't apply when there are clear alternatives available here, ones that have worked well in the past (eg, making half the NA appointed positions).

The gap between rural thailand and the economic elite means that simple majority vote doesn't work in the best interests of the nation; it's one of the reasons the US adopted the electoral college system.

The two extremes--all-electoral vs all-appointed--are obviously open to abuse, so the most functional for thailand may be something in-between. Thailand needs to go back to its earliest constitutions, which recognised that political representation here should include not just elected officials but also appointed experts.

But I doubt it's enough to break the coup-constitution-election-protest-coup cycle, which has been in place since 1947. Ain't gonna change for populists or demagogues.

Both sides in the current conflict are products of the same patronage system, just different window dressing. Patronage is how Thai society functions.

I'm of the opinion that democracy (like the bible but that is another topic) is highly over-rated and probably not appropriate for Thailand, certainly at this time.

[flying]

Isn't one of the duties of a civics-minded person to engage in the overthrow of a corrupt government?

Not just to replace it with yet another corrupt government.

Agreed but at the same time I realize there is no other type of goverment *anywhere* in this world.

If you like politics or sausage....never watch either being made.