State Of Emergency Announced In Bangkok

[jts-khorat]

The Thai electorate is changing. There are many thai’s out there that will not tolerate corruption and cronyism in their government.

Where?

Show me those 'innocents', but don't look to closely or you will become a pillar of salt.

[bkkjames]

Let's face it. The PPP, PAD, Democrats or any other political party leaders don't give a poop about the people of Thailand. All that is important to them is to try and hold onto power long enough to make a nice amount of money that allows them to buy a nice Mercedes Benz, a nice house and drink Starbucks Coffee for the rest of their lives without having to worry about anything anymore.

When you become prime minster, your main goal is not to improve the country, but to make as many business deals as possible with the connections that come with the job of prime minster.

Well after 20 odd pages of this, we are still back where we started. Out of our hands. Hang on for the ride

Or should we go another 20 pages to make the advertisers happy?

[chrisloh]

The Thai electorate is changing. There are many thai's out there that will not tolerate corruption and cronyism in their government. Unfortunately many thai politicians do not realize this, after all they get elected even when people know that this is what they are like., look at yongyuth the refrigerator.

The problem that has faced the last two elected governments in Thailand is that this minority is vocal and prepared to do what is necessary to bring down a government they see as corrupt.

What is needed is a new generation of politicians that realize that politics in Thailand is no longer the easy path to unearned riches it has been in the past. And it does look like the courts are going work their way though Thailand's politicians until they have a set who are less obviously corrupt.

The current electoral system does not help. The costs of an election campaign seem to fall on the individual candidate with little help from their party. At best this encourages the view that becoming elected is a financial investment that requires a financial return and at worst creates politicians who are owned by the people who financed their campaign.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the current prime minister been accused of organizing pro government gangs that beat and killed anti government demonstrators in the 1970's?

Corruption? Lets be more candid, just ask ourselves this simple question, who in the largest employment firm (the government departments) are not corrupt? Fighting corruption starts from the young, the education system and the character development brought about by the parents, not just bringing down a government. Singapore a nation of 4.5million todate, started fighting corruption way back in the 70s. Today they are proud to be listed as one of the top least corrupt country, but doesn't mean corruption don't exist.

[eastwest]

A possible solution is for the government to be disbanded and the country temporarily held in abeyance for a time whilst a new, and internationally monitored, election takes place that is not corrupted with money or threats or false promises.

Note: /////Edit/////(by eastwest)

This would allow a trusted and capable caretaker committee to take over for the interim with little loss since the 'elected' government has achieved little in the time that they have been in power anyway. Such a committee must be comprised of persons loyal to Thailand, rather than to their pocket, and organise the a fair and proper election that can be seen as a true representation of the decision of the people.

The idea of a new election monitored and overseen by international observers to ensure fairness is a path to begin anew and should be considered. Yet it is unlikely PAD would agree to such a step because the opposition would probably gain the majority of votes as in previous elections, and thus control of any new government. And that is simply not acceptable to Sondhi and his cohorts. But such a proposed election could be a starting point in negotiations with PAD and if international pressure is brought to bear, it may be a way out for all involved stakeholders.

Edited September 2, 2008 by eastwest

[TAWP]

A possible solution is for the government to be disbanded and the country temporarily held in abeyance for a time whilst a new, and internationally monitored, election takes place that is not corrupted with money or threats or false promises.

Note: /////Edit/////(by eastwest)

This would allow a trusted and capable caretaker committee to take over for the interim with little loss since the 'elected' government has achieved little in the time that they have been in power anyway. Such a committee must be comprised of persons loyal to Thailand, rather than to their pocket, and organise the a fair and proper election that can be seen as a true representation of the decision of the people.

The idea of a new election monitored and overseen by international observers to ensure fairness is a path to begin anew and should be considered. Yet it is unlikely PAD would agree to such a step because the opposition would probably gain the majority of votes as in previous elections, and thus control of any new government. And that is simply not acceptable to Sondhi and his cohorts. But such a proposed election could be a starting point in negotiations with PAD and if international pressure is brought to bear, it may be a way out for all involved stakeholders.

The proposition of having International observers where stopped last election from all directions.

[roamer]

Didn't international observers as well as countries like the USA declare the elections to be "free and fair"?

How "free and fair" was rule under the military junta?

More so than under Samak?

Don't think so...

International observers were remarkably few on the ground, to the point of being non-existent, in any of the Issan villages I was in at election time. Free and Fair...... :D

[Artisi]

Speaking to the neighbour whom I have known for 10 years, and is a furvent watcher of ASTV and even more furvent anti-PPP/TRT, she had absolutely no idea about this 70:30 proposal and absolutely no idea about Sondhi's previous financial wranglings with Thaksin.

She is a lovely woman, probably the typical PAD supporter, but she has no idea of any possible underhand agendas behind these protests.

Of course the upstanding righteous PPP and its criminal element don't or didn't have any underhanded agenda, did they?

Oh no, just change the constitution which was voted in democratically you save their own a#ses and those of the puppet master who run away when the going got too tough and it looked like some real gaol time coming up.

[bloody tiger]

A thai perspective on 70:30

Chaiyan Ratchakul, History Department, Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai University, talked to Prachatai about the PAD’s ‘new politics’.

What do you think about Thai politics now?

The question has been long debated as to who, in principle, should rule? Who should run the administration? A philosopher says that a ruler should be a philosopher king. Since time immemorial, there have been numerous philosophers and kings, as separate individuals, though. Both attributes are rarely found in one person. Some say rulers must come from heaven, chosen by God and ruling by divine rights, while others reject the idea. It did exist in history, and was tried at certain times. I think it has now become extinct.

Assuming that God cannot crown and cannot vote, the question remains as to who should choose the rulers. It has been an evolving system. Eligible voters used to be those who paid a certain amount of tax, or men only, or owners of a certain amount of land, etc. It has been tried until these restrictions on eligibility have been discarded, except in dictatorial regimes where the people have to select from choices provided by the state.

For lack of a better means to determine who is qualified to choose, everyone is eligible to vote, except people under 18, not exclusively those who are educated, morally decent or proficient, as there is no guarantee that these people can choose better than the others. Can the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) justify who is qualified to choose?

Choosing rulers is like choosing how to live. Which lifestyle is better? This is a difficult question, and ultimately one way is no better than any other in this. So everyone has to choose for him/herself. This is the meaning of Democracy which needs to be preceded by the word ‘liberal’, or Liberal Democracy. It needs the preceding adjective, not the long phrase following as it does in Thai.

Of course, this is not the making of heaven on earth, but it is widely practiced. If I say ‘universal’, it might be disliked by some people. So how should we put it? Perhaps ‘India-wise’. But India will say it follows the universal practice. If some people argue that the universal practice does not suit Thailand, as Thailand is so unique, they have to justify their claim that we don’t need to be universal, don’t need to follow the west in this regard. And they should also identify in which areas we should or should not follow the west. Is the idea of freedom of speech or freedom of assembly claimed by the PAD western? Have the legal system with the legal codes that apply to the whole country, and the judicial system with all the judges been Thai since the beginning?

What about the PAD’s 70:30 idea?

Shortly after Oct 6, 1976, it was proposed that Democracy had to take a step-by-step approach, or guided democracy, because the people were not educated. However, the proposal was recognized as a temporary measure, and further development would be needed. Does the PAD’s 70:30 proposal include a development plan? I’d like to hear how they plan to develop this. Is it until Thai people stop being stupid? Are the PAD so smart?

Nationalists, the media and Bangkok people always accuse rural people of vote-selling, being fooled by politicians, so they propose rural people and the general public get 30%. Sondhi Limthongkul says unabashedly that the Sakdina (feudalists) and the rich have to share the pie. His proposal is like taking us back to the time before the 1932 revolution. He is more Sakdina than the Sakdina themselves, because I’ve never heard such thing from the Sakdina.

Socio-politics is a subject that tries to find out who actually rules, unlike political philosophy which tries to say who should rule. We are well aware that even if people have 100% representation, their representatives would not become rulers. Some other forces, though not elected, rule the country de facto. These include the military, the judiciary, financial institutions, etc. Instead of the 70:30 proportion, a proposal should be made that these institutions be elected as well. I don’t mean it to be sarcastic, but I’d like to hear what the PAD have to say to oppose this.

In retrospect, when democracy was in its infancy after the 1932 revolution, there were restrictions in setting up the system that had to include, for example, both elected and non-elected representatives. But that was the beginning. Or according to Pridi Bhanomyong, ‘we cannot climb to the top of a tree at once’.

Before the dictatorial regime of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, members of parliament from the northeast were of decent quality in terms of their attitude towards the poor, better than the dignitaries. There was no vote buying and selling, which was a relatively new phenomenon in the 1990s and 2000s. But lately vote buying and selling have been in decline. Some argue that during Thaksin’s years it was not a direct vote buying, they bought votes with policies. This is an extremely broad definition of vote buying. If using policies to persuade people to vote for a political party is vote buying, then there would be no countries free from vote buying.

Most governments always spent a lot more money on Bangkok and big cities than rural areas. Is this vote buying? Candidates for Bangkok Governorship promise people that they will build this and that. Is that vote buying? Expressways, underground trains, and decent schools. Is this populism? When these are applied to rural people, Bangkok people ask, ‘Why give them money? Why don’t they learn to earn by themselves?’, attacking populism as a spending spree. I’d say populism is better than non-populism. Urban people have got used to it for so long.

Speaking like this, I’d be accused of being pro-Thaksin. Some friends who I have associated with since adolescence asked me that: ‘Are you pro-Thaksin?’ I can only respond that I’m not with those who are against Thaksin. It’s not that I cheer the underdog, but I wonder what the ‘Thaksin regime’ really means? Is it just a ploy to support another regime by using the ‘Thaksin regime’ as a decoy?

If Thaksin bought votes, then how can we explain the rejection of the 2007 draft charter by a lot of voters in the referendum? The accusation of vote selling by villagers has been cited so often to the point of becoming meaningless. I worked for the People Network for Election in Thailand in 1992 when vote buying was really huge. A particular party leader always claimed that his party didn’t buy votes, while smearing other parties for buying votes. But I preferred to believe the PNet volunteers. According to our figures, this party came in number two in vote buying, but it doesn’t mean that it was more decent. That’s because the number of candidates it fielded came second.

The 70:30 proposal just follows the prejudice, and follows the coup d’etat. With Thaksin already toppled, the coup already done, the 2007 charter already in force, they have yet to win. So electoral politics is next in line, isn’t it?

Is there something behind the idea?

When the PAD first proposed the 70:30 idea, it was just a good laugh. But it’s weird that later on there were responses. The National Government thing came back again. Some newspapers cheered. It means that this kind of idea was not just the brainchild of the PAD leaders. Perhaps this is a kind of conspiracy.

There are two assumptions for the current round of protests by the PAD. One is that the PAD initiated this scheme on their own, and has been joined by like-minded people. The other assumption is that there are masterminds behind this. The PAD leaders just lead the demonstrations, but are henchmen for much more influential and higher-up people. I’m not sure which one is true, as both are highly likely.

But one is made to think why there have been such concerted efforts among various bodies in shaking up and attacking the government like this. The PAD kicked the ball. The media cheered. Political parties joined in, and passed the ball to the courts. And the courts shot the goal. Do these groups just converge by pure chance or a miracle? Apart from the courts, these groups overlap with those who killed students on Oct 6, 1976. This is a historical continuity. They are the same interest groups. Some are even the same persons.

The idea and the protests do not just stem from the PAD. It’s a display of conflicting forces in Thai society from the past. In my view, the ‘Oct 6’ students were killed because their ideas threatened the status quo, no matter whether they could really carry out their threat. What mattered was that the rulers felt threatened. This is like the case of Thaksin who has allegedly threatened the status quo. Thaksin himself may not have thought that far. He probably just wanted to try to get votes and popularity. But when he was popular in those constituencies, he had to be got rid of, as the ‘Thaksin regime’.

Why institutionalize an individual as a regime? Is it because Thaksin threatens another regime in Thailand? Thaksin’s corruption scandals are just condiment, but corruption per se is not so big an evil that it makes a ‘regime’. ‘Thaksin regime’ has no meaning in itself, rather a counterpart to another power in the same way that the students were labeled ‘communists’. If we try to find out if the students were really ‘communists’, we might not get the answer as much as if we look to find what the counterpart to ‘communist’ is.

Since the Oct 14, 1973 uprising ushered in people’s participation in politics, Thai politics has increasingly become mass politics. In the coups on Oct 6, 1976 and Sept 19, 2006, for example, the military just added the finishing strokes, and all the arrangements had already been made by someone else. And support from the mass is important. It’s no longer a power play exclusively in Parliament or among the elite. This is indeed the ‘new politics’, involving the mass. The PAD just play along this line. For the previous coup, the head of the PAD had to use this tactic.

And this is what makes Thaksin still look threatening to his opponents. And this is what prompts the 70:30 idea, to cut the mass away from the so-called ‘Thaksin regime’. Don’t bother accusing Samak of being Thaksin’s nominee. The real nominees are those who are willing to vote for Thaksin or pro-Thaksin political groups. And these nominees are over 10 million. The PAD’s idea is to reduce these nominees by 70%. Isn’t it a little too much? Isn’t it a little bit of a jo

This is actually a very in depth analysis of events within events, although i feel there may be some political slant by Chaiyan Ratchakul...nevertheless...i think a very nice piece with many relevant factors. Only one point I would strongly disagree with him (and my apologies, he is thai and i farang, i don't presume to know more then him...just my slant)... and that is vote buying........he said it was a 1990's/2000's phenomenon....i am afraid you are very very wrong there sir. The instance of vote buting in politics was absolutely firmly entrenched during and preceding that period.....as a matter of fact, prior to Thai Ra Thai( and in the year TRT wonpower) the democrats were the leaders in vote buying. Vote buying definately was in incidence long before the 1932 revolution (the people had long been empowered to run most facets of govt before the end to absolute rule in 1932).

So my summary on VOTE BUYING:

Long entrenched in the thai political system

Used by ALL parties in elections prior to this years one ( and used by some in the most recent election)

A system that DOES NOT have to be instigated by party leaders, it is so intrisic in the system that its occurs even if the leaders instruct not too. YES,THIS IS TRUE!

Once again, a good discussion by khun Chaiyan Ratchakul, and an excellent post bythai at Heart

[chrisloh]

Didn't international observers as well as countries like the USA declare the elections to be "free and fair"?

How "free and fair" was rule under the military junta?

More so than under Samak?

Don't think so...

Yeah.....saying that, how come the PAD didn't stage any protest during the last military junta rule?? Economy was not well, industries are not moving ...........maybe the country should invite the military to rule again, at least there is peace.

[animatic]

Thais deserve better leadership.

No they don't. This is what they have chosen out of free will. This is the 21st century, and nobody can claim that did not know better, not even in this country.

If you fall for vote buying, corruption and populist politics, you sure must realize that the little money you got will have to be re-paid manifold to those finally in power.

Thailand got what it wanted. It's called Darwinism and may the weak and gullible be weeded out [edit: in a literal sense, this is not meant as call for violence]!

How can this be interpreted?? Not a flame, a question.

Darwinism in that if they make the wrong vote buying decisions

they can then just starve to death, because they were too weak to make a better one.

How are they to be 'weeded out': by their actions? Or inactions?

What about if they have been lied to and correct information censored,

except by occasional visits home from the children.

Or if they have no children and ALL their info comes from the

influencial persons sources. Should they still be weeded out for that?

Got a radion and PPP controls the only two stations they can get...

What about all those loans that ONLY ended up in the loss of the small family farm,

and back to sharecropper status on a consolidated influencial person's new plantation.

Another TRT election legacy.

There is nothing wrong with populist policies if they benefit many,

without 'undue hardship' on the few as in Russia's version.

But as noted populism hiding corruption is not a solution either.

Coercive paternal feudalism in democratic populist clothing

isn't democracy if the electorate is not getting what they expect.

Edited September 2, 2008 by animatic

[eastwest]

The proposition of having International observers where stopped last election from all directions.

Could you please clarify what you're saying here?

[Artisi]

This is so funny

All the sexpats are getting into something that is not their business.

Get a life all this is typical Thai rubbish

Wkakakaka, hahaha, they're good talkers, but they cant walk the walk and do sh1t to change the world...

anyways, the protest thing here are annoying the sh1t of out me, was suppose to have school today with anticipation to present my new craft to the entire class, and the PAD/pro-gov had just to fuk that up.

Just to be ignorant, i'll head down to Paragon and get a fancy hair cut today.... hmmm, what another day

By the sounds of it, it would be a good place for you everyday instead of teaching class - you are the type of teacher Thailand DOESN'T need.

[Plus]

Sondhi Limthongkul says unabashedly that the Sakdina (feudalists) and the rich have to share the pie.

Huh? They shouldn't share and keep it all to themselves?

Chamlong should try to figure out a way of educating people, rather than just disenfranchising them.

Yeah, I see little hope in folks like Journalists getting the message that there's no disenfrachising voters in PAD's agenda.

I'll repeat - it was an idea for academic discussion, not a system to be imposed after toppling Samak.

>>>

The real question people should be asking is not who will do the selecting, but who are they going to select from., the process itself is secondary. It can be made transparent and democratic, it can be made secretive and hidden, it can be abused, it can have its own checks and balances built in - there was nothing about the process in the proposal itself.

>>>

Thailand needs to rethink it's political system, and it has nothing to do with one man one vote principle - it's about getting people involved in the political process.

For example, politicians promising better local development should run in local elections, while politicians with a national agenda should run in national elections.

What happens now is that upcountry MPs come to Bangkok and sit here deliberating monetary policy implications instead of serving their constituences back home as they promised they would. If they are so good a local level, why should they waste their time in Bangkok at all? They can't cheat their constituents with little hand-outs - they'd need to produce concrete results.

So far they are brought to Bangkok to give numerical advantage to the government so it can push its national agenda that can be otherwise weak. Why should it be so? Why can't the national government be formed on the basis of national/party list vote, not on how many local MPs they can manage to lure into their camp through all possible illegal means?

The current system is designed to be abused and there's no transparency in it whatsoever.

[thaigene2]

I haven't read though the entire thread, but didn't the people of Thailand elect the PPP as their government with a majority and more than any other party? If so, why is a minority protesting? Let's face the truth here for a second, the majority of Thais have voted for the PPP. Why is their choice not being respected? And occupying government buildings and TV stations and threatening to cut off electricity and water supplies is hardly democracy, but anarchy.

Yes it is anarchy. And they are not being listened to because Thailand is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy, run by a group of feudalists (Sakdina) who are scared sh+tless by populism. Thaksin is a sideshow to them, but what he was able to do (apart from his corruption and self-enrichment) - he mobilized the vast majority of voters behind him and began to change the balance of power away from the feudals and toward a modern form of governance (albeit one that was manipulated for his own gain).

Anyway, what we're seeing is the Sakdinas trying to grab back power though the vendetta-seeking Thaksin-haters, who are acting as their proxies on the street. The army's failure to act, the police pulling back when they had the upper hand, the PAD calling for 70% appointed elitist MPs rather than elections, this is all being orchestrated by the silver-spoon brigade who have nothing to offer Thailand or society but their own greed and selfishness - except for their daughters to other guanxi-minded hi-sos in order to start the cycle of greed all over again.

This is a conspiracy - and there is no doubt about that. The yellow T-shirt brigade are probably too stupid to understand that, but none of these actions has been a 'coincidence'

Edited September 2, 2008 by thaigene2

[bloody tiger]

This guy loves the CROCODILE DUNDEE movie

[Jai Dee]

Appeals Court rejects PAD's plea against arrest warrants

The Appeals Court Tuesday rejects an appeal by the nine leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy, seeking to annul their arrest warrants.

The court decided that the arrest warrants were properly issued in line with the Criminal Procedural Code's Artcle 68 so the court rejected the appeal.

Source: The Nation - 02 September 2008

[JetsetBkk]

Samak Sundaravej Political career

(source Wikipedia)

In 1968 Samak joined the opposition Democrat Party. Well connected to the military, Samak became head of its renegade right-wing faction.....

1976 - 1992 - 2008. A 16-year cycle.

16 years = one generation. It's a 'right of passage', like puberty.

[h90]

Didn't international observers as well as countries like the USA declare the elections to be "free and fair"?

How "free and fair" was rule under the military junta?

More so than under Samak?

Don't think so...

International observers were remarkably few on the ground, to the point of being non-existent, in any of the Issan villages I was in at election time. Free and Fair...... :D

37 observer

[Jai Dee]

Hat Yai airport closed

The Hat Yai International Airport was closed Tuesday afternoon following protests by supporters of the People's Alliance for Democracy.

Airport officials confirmed that the services of the airport were suspended indefinitely since 1 pm.

All flights between Bangkok and Hat Yai were cancelled.

Source: The Nation - 02 September 2008

[Thai at Heart]

Sondhi Limthongkul says unabashedly that the Sakdina (feudalists) and the rich have to share the pie.

Huh? They shouldn't share and keep it all to themselves?

Chamlong should try to figure out a way of educating people, rather than just disenfranchising them.

Yeah, I see little hope in folks like Journalists getting the message that there's no disenfrachising voters in PAD's agenda.

I'll repeat - it was an idea for academic discussion, not a system to be imposed after toppling Samak.

>>>

The real question people should be asking is not who will do the selecting, but who are they going to select from., the process itself is secondary. It can be made transparent and democratic, it can be made secretive and hidden, it can be abused, it can have its own checks and balances built in - there was nothing about the process in the proposal itself.

>>>

Thailand needs to rethink it's political system, and it has nothing to do with one man one vote principle - it's about getting people involved in the political process.

For example, politicians promising better local development should run in local elections, while politicians with a national agenda should run in national elections.

What happens now is that upcountry MPs come to Bangkok and sit here deliberating monetary policy implications instead of serving their constituences back home as they promised they would. If they are so good a local level, why should they waste their time in Bangkok at all? They can't cheat their constituents with little hand-outs - they'd need to produce concrete results.

So far they are brought to Bangkok to give numerical advantage to the government so it can push its national agenda that can be otherwise weak. Why should it be so? Why can't the national government be formed on the basis of national/party list vote, not on how many local MPs they can manage to lure into their camp through all possible illegal means?

The current system is designed to be abused and there's no transparency in it whatsoever.

Alternatively, being as only 10% of the voting population live in Bangkok, how about the national parliament sitting in Isaan?

[Old Man River]

I haven't read though the entire thread, but didn't the people of Thailand elect the PPP as their government with a majority and more than any other party?

Yes, the people elected the PPP giving it 233 seats to the Democrat's 165 seats. This is based on the electoral system. However, on a direct vote basis, the Democrats actually received more votes than the PPP, albeit a very slight majority.

[eastwest]

It may be that to have a free and fair election, Thailand might have to invite the international community to oversee the process. Is this a viable suggestion--to have a new election rigorously monitored by international observers? Or does it infringe on the Thai sensibility that they themselves can properly manage an election?

[ando]

I haven't read though the entire thread, but didn't the people of Thailand elect the PPP as their government with a majority and more than any other party? If so, why is a minority protesting? Let's face the truth here for a second, the majority of Thais have voted for the PPP. Why is their choice not being respected? And occupying government buildings and TV stations and threatening to cut off electricity and water supplies is hardly democracy, but anarchy.

because there was massive vote buying, so even the EC decided today to disband the PPP.

Means it was not democratic elected.

The EC has not disbanded the PPP. They have recomended the matter go to the courts for a judgement.

Not saying its not going to happen though.

[ubonjoe]

Why is it that the only mention of vote buying in this thread is only related to the PPP?

PPP is not the only party that has charges pending at the EC.

Most of the parties now in Parliament have charges pending.

How many polling places in the county were there?

The PPP and others have only one case each that even justifies review by the EC at this time.

There were a lot of yellow cards issued and elections repeated with the parties again winning the vote.

So even the charges of massive vote buying could be discounted.

[animatic]

In case anyone's interested this was the number one news story on the BBC News 24 station in England on the 02:00 news, even before the hurricane news. They did a full run down on the situation including an interview with one of their guys in Bangkok. It lasted about five minutes in total.

I'm afraid CNN has cut half the globe from its beat. And focuses of fluffy distractions in the remainder. Good on the BBC!

With dozens hurt and one dead, this is a serious test of the new constitution.

And a good visual for the impolite mayhem on the streets of the land of smiles.

Long live

King Bumibol Adulyadej

The world doesn't care about Thailand. Further, why should it?

Among other things, CNN is covering another killer hurricane in New Orleans; the quadrennial convention of the Democratic Party and of the Republican Party, respectively.

The Democratic Party has accomplished a historical first: nominating a black American for president.

The Republican Party has done a historical first for itself and a historical second for the nation: selecting a woman candiate for vice president (a second 'Hail Mary' pass) in the upcoming November 4th election

If you're already bored by the relatively tame present events in the United States, do try to think of how unappealing news in the U.S. is concerning Thailand and its hopelessly wild politics and government.

The U.S. Government always has been a strong supporter of HM, and vice-versa.

Well I might disagree at the moment Kuhn Samak is front and center on http://edition.cnn.com/

Thai commission rules to disband PM's party

Thailand's election commission ruled Tuesday that Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's party committed electoral fraud in the December elections and should be dissolved, state media reported. The ruling coincided with Samak's declaration of a state of emergency in Bangkok. full story

* Defiance in Bangkok Video

* Government's water supply under threat

Thailand in crisis as ruling party faces fraud claims

* Story Highlights

* NEW: Commission will forward their case to the public prosecutor's office

* Prosecutor's office will determine whether to submit case to Constitutional Court

* PM declares state of emergency in capital city of Bangkok after violent protests

* Samak's government accused of corruption and serving as a proxy for former PM

* Next Article in World »

* Read

* VIDEO

Decrease font Decrease font

Enlarge font Enlarge font

BANGKOK, Thailand (CNN) -- Thailand's election commission ruled Tuesday that Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's party committed electoral fraud in the December elections and should be dissolved, state media reported.

A pro-government demonstrator, center, is tackled by anti-government protesters in Bangkok, Tuesday.

A pro-government demonstrator, center, is tackled by anti-government protesters in Bangkok, Tuesday.

Click to view previous image

1 of 3

Click to view next image

The ruling came on the same day that Samak declared a state of emergency in the capital city of Bangkok after overnight clashes between his supporters and anti-government demonstrators, led by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), left one person dead.

Protesters, who last week shut down three airports across the country, are expected to do the same to Bangkok International Airport.

A shut-down there will cause major disruptions because many international travelers use it for connecting flights.

"We're closing that airport only temporarily just for a symbolic gesture," PAD leader Sondhi Limthongku said.

Demonstrators have also called for a general strike Wednesday, and more than 40 unions have agreed to participate -- potentially paralyzing the country. Video Watch striking workers halt Bangkok transport »

Protesters also continued to occupy Government House, the headquarters of the ruling administration

The election commission's unanimous decision to dissolve the People's Power Party is not expected to have any immediate effect.

The commission will forward their case to the public prosecutor's office. It will conduct its own investigation to determine whether or not to submit it to the Constitutional Court for a final ruling.

However Tuesday's ruling is another blow to Samak who has been the subject of daily anti-government protests.

He declared a state of emergency Tuesday that overrides the country's constitution and allows the army to be in charge of enforcing laws. Video Watch a member of the People's Alliance for Democracy discuss his group's defiance »

Don't Miss

* Protesters threaten Thai PM's water supply

* Protests shut airports, rail services

* Arrest warrants issued for Thai protesters

Among other things, the emergency order forbids public gatherings of more than five people and bans the media from publishing or broadcasting images that would panic the public.

PAD leader Sondhi Limthongku said the government order will not deter his supporters from continuing their movement to de-seat Samak.

Early Tuesday morning, a clash between pro- and anti-government supporters left one person dead and wounded at least 30 others. It was the worst outbreak of violence since the PAD launched its efforts to oust Samak.

The PAD claims that Samak's administration is a proxy for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a coup in 2006.

The alliance contends Samak is trying to amend the constitution so Thaksin does not have to face charges. Thaksin returned to England from Thailand last month, just as he was to appear in court in a corruption case.

The election commission ruling stems from charges against the party's deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat, who the Supreme Court found guilty of buying votes during the campaign phase of last December's elections.

advertisement

According to the country's constitution, senior members of a party that is ordered dissolved cannot participate in political activities for five years. Other members have to find a new party within two months, the Thai News Agency said.

The news agency added that PPP members have already registered a new political party, which is expected to be housed in a building owned by Thaksin.

Edited September 2, 2008 by animatic

[jts-khorat]

Thais deserve better leadership.

No they don't. This is what they have chosen out of free will. This is the 21st century, and nobody can claim that did not know better, not even in this country.

If you fall for vote buying, corruption and populist politics, you sure must realize that the little money you got will have to be re-paid manifold to those finally in power.

Thailand got what it wanted. It's called Darwinism and may the weak and gullible be weeded out [edit: in a literal sense, this is not meant as call for violence]!

How can this be interpreted?? Not a flame, a question.

Darwinism in that if they make the wrong vote buying decisions

they can then just starve to death, because they were too weak to make a better one.

How are they to be 'weeded out': by their actions? Or inactions?

What about if they have been lied to and correct information censored,

except by occasional visits home from the children.

Or if they have no children and ALL their info comes from the

influencial persons sources. Should they still be weeded out for that?

Got a radion and PPP controls the only two stations they can get...

What about all those loans that ONLY ended up in the loss of the small family farm,

and back to sharecropper status on a consolidated influencial person's new plantation.

Another TRT election legacy.

There is nothing wrong with populist policies if they benefit many,

without 'undue hardship' on the few as in Russia's version.

But as noted populism hiding corruption is not a solution either.

Coercive paternal feudalism in democratic populist clothing

isn't democracy if the electorate is not getting what they expect.

'Weeded out'; this is already happening a lot all over Isaan. A lot of people used Thaksin's loans to buy expensive pickups instead of farm supply. A lot of them are about to sell their last land to feed the bank. The current THb 5 discount on car fuel is just another example of money not going into education or improving life of the poor.

Nobody in his right mind would think that the backers both of the PAD and of the government -- who spend millions a day to keep the protesters fed on both sides -- will not recoup those investments later 'somehow'. Guess who will pay.

Guess also who in the end paid the 1,6 BILLION baht that Sondhi buried as non-performing loan with Kasikorn Bank. This last only thrown in to demonstrate that the people backing the PAD also will not get what they 'expect'; he is a business man pretty much of the same calibre as Thaksin was (and they were good chums in the past).

Just a few quick thoughts off the bat. Those who are stupid enough to let their vote be bought will end up paying for this with their own money many times over.

And yes, this means that many will -- not starve to death -- but be cheap day-laborers without a future or education for their children, when they could have been farmers on their own land.

[thaigene2]

Appeals Court rejects PAD's plea against arrest warrants

The Appeals Court Tuesday rejects an appeal by the nine leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy, seeking to annul their arrest warrants.

The court decided that the arrest warrants were properly issued in line with the Criminal Procedural Code's Artcle 68 so the court rejected the appeal.

Source: The Nation - 02 September 2008

Another pointless decision, since no one is going to arrest them because the feudals have told the army and police not to touch them.

[Pdaz]

I'm just waiting to see how Raimon Lands 'spin doctors' manage to make the unrest into a 'positive' for potential condo buyers in their next creative writing piece in the BKK post....

[blaze]

A thai perspective on 70:30

Chaiyan Ratchakul, History Department, Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai University, talked to Prachatai about the PAD’s ‘new politics’.

What do you think about Thai politics now?

The question has been long debated as to who, in principle, should rule? Who should run the administration? A philosopher says that a ruler should be a philosopher king. Since time immemorial, there have been numerous philosophers and kings, as separate individuals, though. Both attributes are rarely found in one person. Some say rulers must come from heaven, chosen by God and ruling by divine rights, while others reject the idea. It did exist in history, and was tried at certain times. I think it has now become extinct.

Assuming that God cannot crown and cannot vote, the question remains as to who should choose the rulers. It has been an evolving system. Eligible voters used to be those who paid a certain amount of tax, or men only, or owners of a certain amount of land, etc. It has been tried until these restrictions on eligibility have been discarded, except in dictatorial regimes where the people have to select from choices provided by the state.

For lack of a better means to determine who is qualified to choose, everyone is eligible to vote, except people under 18, not exclusively those who are educated, morally decent or proficient, as there is no guarantee that these people can choose better than the others. Can the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) justify who is qualified to choose?

Choosing rulers is like choosing how to live. Which lifestyle is better? This is a difficult question, and ultimately one way is no better than any other in this. So everyone has to choose for him/herself. This is the meaning of Democracy which needs to be preceded by the word ‘liberal’, or Liberal Democracy. It needs the preceding adjective, not the long phrase following as it does in Thai.

Of course, this is not the making of heaven on earth, but it is widely practiced. If I say ‘universal’, it might be disliked by some people. So how should we put it? Perhaps ‘India-wise’. But India will say it follows the universal practice. If some people argue that the universal practice does not suit Thailand, as Thailand is so unique, they have to justify their claim that we don’t need to be universal, don’t need to follow the west in this regard. And they should also identify in which areas we should or should not follow the west. Is the idea of freedom of speech or freedom of assembly claimed by the PAD western? Have the legal system with the legal codes that apply to the whole country, and the judicial system with all the judges been Thai since the beginning?

What about the PAD’s 70:30 idea?

Shortly after Oct 6, 1976, it was proposed that Democracy had to take a step-by-step approach, or guided democracy, because the people were not educated. However, the proposal was recognized as a temporary measure, and further development would be needed. Does the PAD’s 70:30 proposal include a development plan? I’d like to hear how they plan to develop this. Is it until Thai people stop being stupid? Are the PAD so smart?

Nationalists, the media and Bangkok people always accuse rural people of vote-selling, being fooled by politicians, so they propose rural people and the general public get 30%. Sondhi Limthongkul says unabashedly that the Sakdina (feudalists) and the rich have to share the pie. His proposal is like taking us back to the time before the 1932 revolution. He is more Sakdina than the Sakdina themselves, because I’ve never heard such thing from the Sakdina.

Socio-politics is a subject that tries to find out who actually rules, unlike political philosophy which tries to say who should rule. We are well aware that even if people have 100% representation, their representatives would not become rulers. Some other forces, though not elected, rule the country de facto. These include the military, the judiciary, financial institutions, etc. Instead of the 70:30 proportion, a proposal should be made that these institutions be elected as well. I don’t mean it to be sarcastic, but I’d like to hear what the PAD have to say to oppose this.

In retrospect, when democracy was in its infancy after the 1932 revolution, there were restrictions in setting up the system that had to include, for example, both elected and non-elected representatives. But that was the beginning. Or according to Pridi Bhanomyong, ‘we cannot climb to the top of a tree at once’.

Before the dictatorial regime of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, members of parliament from the northeast were of decent quality in terms of their attitude towards the poor, better than the dignitaries. There was no vote buying and selling, which was a relatively new phenomenon in the 1990s and 2000s. But lately vote buying and selling have been in decline. Some argue that during Thaksin’s years it was not a direct vote buying, they bought votes with policies. This is an extremely broad definition of vote buying. If using policies to persuade people to vote for a political party is vote buying, then there would be no countries free from vote buying.

Most governments always spent a lot more money on Bangkok and big cities than rural areas. Is this vote buying? Candidates for Bangkok Governorship promise people that they will build this and that. Is that vote buying? Expressways, underground trains, and decent schools. Is this populism? When these are applied to rural people, Bangkok people ask, ‘Why give them money? Why don’t they learn to earn by themselves?’, attacking populism as a spending spree. I’d say populism is better than non-populism. Urban people have got used to it for so long.

Speaking like this, I’d be accused of being pro-Thaksin. Some friends who I have associated with since adolescence asked me that: ‘Are you pro-Thaksin?’ I can only respond that I’m not with those who are against Thaksin. It’s not that I cheer the underdog, but I wonder what the ‘Thaksin regime’ really means? Is it just a ploy to support another regime by using the ‘Thaksin regime’ as a decoy?

If Thaksin bought votes, then how can we explain the rejection of the 2007 draft charter by a lot of voters in the referendum? The accusation of vote selling by villagers has been cited so often to the point of becoming meaningless. I worked for the People Network for Election in Thailand in 1992 when vote buying was really huge. A particular party leader always claimed that his party didn’t buy votes, while smearing other parties for buying votes. But I preferred to believe the PNet volunteers. According to our figures, this party came in number two in vote buying, but it doesn’t mean that it was more decent. That’s because the number of candidates it fielded came second.

The 70:30 proposal just follows the prejudice, and follows the coup d’etat. With Thaksin already toppled, the coup already done, the 2007 charter already in force, they have yet to win. So electoral politics is next in line, isn’t it?

Is there something behind the idea?

When the PAD first proposed the 70:30 idea, it was just a good laugh. But it’s weird that later on there were responses. The National Government thing came back again. Some newspapers cheered. It means that this kind of idea was not just the brainchild of the PAD leaders. Perhaps this is a kind of conspiracy.

There are two assumptions for the current round of protests by the PAD. One is that the PAD initiated this scheme on their own, and has been joined by like-minded people. The other assumption is that there are masterminds behind this. The PAD leaders just lead the demonstrations, but are henchmen for much more influential and higher-up people. I’m not sure which one is true, as both are highly likely.

But one is made to think why there have been such concerted efforts among various bodies in shaking up and attacking the government like this. The PAD kicked the ball. The media cheered. Political parties joined in, and passed the ball to the courts. And the courts shot the goal. Do these groups just converge by pure chance or a miracle? Apart from the courts, these groups overlap with those who killed students on Oct 6, 1976. This is a historical continuity. They are the same interest groups. Some are even the same persons.

The idea and the protests do not just stem from the PAD. It’s a display of conflicting forces in Thai society from the past. In my view, the ‘Oct 6’ students were killed because their ideas threatened the status quo, no matter whether they could really carry out their threat. What mattered was that the rulers felt threatened. This is like the case of Thaksin who has allegedly threatened the status quo. Thaksin himself may not have thought that far. He probably just wanted to try to get votes and popularity. But when he was popular in those constituencies, he had to be got rid of, as the ‘Thaksin regime’.

Why institutionalize an individual as a regime? Is it because Thaksin threatens another regime in Thailand? Thaksin’s corruption scandals are just condiment, but corruption per se is not so big an evil that it makes a ‘regime’. ‘Thaksin regime’ has no meaning in itself, rather a counterpart to another power in the same way that the students were labeled ‘communists’. If we try to find out if the students were really ‘communists’, we might not get the answer as much as if we look to find what the counterpart to ‘communist’ is.

Since the Oct 14, 1973 uprising ushered in people’s participation in politics, Thai politics has increasingly become mass politics. In the coups on Oct 6, 1976 and Sept 19, 2006, for example, the military just added the finishing strokes, and all the arrangements had already been made by someone else. And support from the mass is important. It’s no longer a power play exclusively in Parliament or among the elite. This is indeed the ‘new politics’, involving the mass. The PAD just play along this line. For the previous coup, the head of the PAD had to use this tactic.

And this is what makes Thaksin still look threatening to his opponents. And this is what prompts the 70:30 idea, to cut the mass away from the so-called ‘Thaksin regime’. Don’t bother accusing Samak of being Thaksin’s nominee. The real nominees are those who are willing to vote for Thaksin or pro-Thaksin political groups. And these nominees are over 10 million. The PAD’s idea is to reduce these nominees by 70%. Isn’t it a little too much? Isn’t it a little bit of a jo

THanks for posting this-

[h90]

I haven't read though the entire thread, but didn't the people of Thailand elect the PPP as their government with a majority and more than any other party? If so, why is a minority protesting? Let's face the truth here for a second, the majority of Thais have voted for the PPP. Why is their choice not being respected? And occupying government buildings and TV stations and threatening to cut off electricity and water supplies is hardly democracy, but anarchy.

because there was massive vote buying, so even the EC decided today to disband the PPP.

Means it was not democratic elected.

The EC has not disbanded the PPP. They have recomended the matter go to the courts for a judgement.

Not saying its not going to happen though.

yes you are right....if they crack down on the PAD and changing the constitution it won't happen.

And they told already if they disband PPP they have already the next party to continue so a lose/lose scenario for Thailand.