PAD Leaders To Announce New Politics

[cmsally]

Well here's a snippet to get the debate going:

While the below isn't surprising given prevous statements by PAD leaders, it is food for thought:

Question seven: (Andrew Burke) You have discussed making politicians up from professional associations, etc. how would you choose them?

Kasit - We are undecided. It could depend on how much tax they pay, for example. (gasps from the audience)

Quoted from Bangkok Pundit

[cmsally]

More details here:

Real Life Thailand Blog

[Bangyai]

PAD brainstorms over "New Politics"

The People's Alliance for Democracy yesterday turned its mass rally at Government House into a brain storming session.

That is a real scary picture.

Yes,after a long brainstorming session the latest new politics idea will be 65% vs 35%.

As for Thai veterans. Thailand sent substantial forces to serve in Vietnam, an all volunteer force that included several monks who left the priesthood to go and fight. A strange volte face of ethics ?

Total Thai casualties ( deaths ) totalled 177.

The unit was known as the Queens Cobras and was deployed in Bien Hoa Province. Their first large action was codenamed ' Operation Naresuan '

[Plus]

One thing about "functional consituencies" is that it gives unequal weight to various groups of people. How to decide which ones get better representation? Tax returns could be one of the possible criteria.

Since people and industries that contribute more to govt coffers get a bigger voice anyway, why not bring it out in the open? Instead of secretly lobbying in the back rooms they'd get to be properly evaluated and controlled and conduct their lobbying in full public view. And they also must prove that they deserve this special privileges.

That would be one way of dealing with what the US call "special interests".

Or we can continue to pretend that a dinner remark from Toyota senior manager carries the same weight as a complaint dropped into the government mailbox.

[cmsally]

One thing about "functional consituencies" is that it gives unequal weight to various groups of people. How to decide which ones get better representation? Tax returns could be one of the possible criteria.

Since people and industries that contribute more to govt coffers get a bigger voice anyway, why not bring it out in the open? Instead of secretly lobbying in the back rooms they'd get to be properly evaluated and controlled and conduct their lobbying in full public view. And they also must prove that they deserve this special privileges.

That would be one way of dealing with what the US call "special interests".

Or we can continue to pretend that a dinner remark from Toyota senior manager carries the same weight as a complaint dropped into the government mailbox.

In my opinion functional constituencies would breed the very same dichotomy we are seeing in politics as a whole today. The only difference would be that the dichotomy would exist within those business interests or industrial groups. It would be a way to stamp out the competition (which if allowed to go on for a number of years would soon create monopolies). The lobbying of the various competitors to secure their representative in order to assure their business interests were taken care of , would be nothing different from the buying of MPs that you see today.

For instance wealthy Thai individuals/corporations in the past few years have been buying up huge tracts of agricultural land and also invested huge amounts in the leisure industry. So can we realistically expect they would would be giving up any functional seats to do with agri. or tourism to a little rice farmer or hotelier from Nakhon Nowhere?

[Plus]

It would be a way to stamp out the competition

Since you are elected by your comptetition it would be impossible to keep your post while actively stamping them out. You'd have to work for your sector's benefit.

The assumption is that everyone on the voting/selecting board for each sector has direct personal interest in the outcome. With geographical constituencies most people don't care what their MPs are doing in Bangkok as long as they are elected, so they can easily sell their vote, it doesn't have any value anyway. Same thing happens with buying off MPs - they don't give a fuc_k which party they belong to and what their party bosses in Bangkok are up to. They just need funds for themselves and their provinces.

"New politics" hopes to bring people directly into governing process, so that value of their decisions would be very high, higher than any potential corrupt offer.

>>>

It is possible that major players in some industries get consolidated in large groups that would roll over all the little guys, but setting a minimum limit of, say, 80% of votes from that particular sector to get nominated would prevent that. Sort of anti-monopoly laws.

Also the nomination/selection panel could serve as an arbitrator - candidates facing major dissent within their groups could be passed over in favour of more cooperative reps.

[cmsally]

Since you are elected by your comptetition it would be impossible to keep your post while actively stamping them out. You'd have to work for your sector's benefit.

Take the scenario of ending up with the bigger players while the smaller ones get pushed out of the game. You then end up with a microcosm of Thai politics as it stands today. What Taksin effectively did was to sideline the smaller parties and create a major party that could command the majority vote.

With power comes money and all those people who like to jump ship and so the circle goes on.

I can see the same thing happening in the business interests (func const.) scenario.

There would then be one of 2 outcomes. It would be in the interests of those that are more powerful and play behind the scenes in which case there would be little outward open dissent. Or the monopoly would have gone against the established behind the scenes players and you would have an outcome very similar to what we see today.

Practicality drives me away from the rosy cheeked scythe wielding vision of each sector acting on the entire sectors interests wratching up those productivity figures for the good of the Thai nation.

Instead I see Mr Somchai not giving a toss for voting for his company and instead accepting a nice fat cheque from competitor B company which aims to buy out the competition.

Edited October 1, 2008 by cmsally

[Samuian]

Very interesting - "New Politics" is a debating club, and to introduce that a TV station had to be attacked, Government House occupied, and nearly a war had to be provoked with a neighboring country.

Sir, if you keep flashing your "know it all and what it's all about" attitude, as of the public was invited why did YOU fail to make it there?

Could have been the chance of your lifetime!

Besides I slowly like your kind of rhetorical humor displayed, regarding "nearly the war with a neighboring country"!

Well, do you mind to tell the audience then, who started the Praeh Vihar story in the first place and to which "club" did he belong to? Was it the PAD who want it listed as a World Heritage Site - in 1962 the UNO came to the conclusion that it is Cambodian! The PAD already influenced this decision..?

what about my question regarding V.Ashavame's involvement in this?

Edited October 1, 2008 by Samuian

[Howsitgoin]

Sir, if you keep flashing your "know it all and what it's all about" attitude, as of the public was invited why did YOU fail to make it there?

Could have been the chance of your lifetime!

Besides I slowly like your kind of rhetorical humor displayed, regarding "nearly the war with a neighboring country"!

Well, do you mind to tell the audience then, who started the Praeh Vihar story in the first place and to which "club" did he belong to? Was it the PAD who want it listed as a World Heritage Site - in 1962 the UNO came to the conclusion that it is Cambodian! The PAD already influenced this decision..?

what about my question regarding V.Ashavame's involvement in this?

Don't forget - PAD invited for a broad based discussion on "New Politics" participants from the public, well, as long as those participants were on their side. I doubt that i would qualify...

And to foreigners like me has to be explained that Thailand is so special, and that democracy is not about elections. That is my role here - according to PAD.

So excuse me when i feel that the "New Politics" debate is about the same intellectual level as when some 15 year old kids in the west just discovered Ganja, black berets and that there is something else to spend some thought on than their own willies.

Under the present conditions Noppadon as foreign minister dealt out the best what could possibly done with the heritage listing (remember - the heritage listing has nothing whatsoever to do with any national claims over the area). But yes, of course - developing such a site as a tourism site is bad, very bad.

Matter of the fact is that PAD claims the whole temple for Thailand, and according to Sondhi L., and endless patriotic folk songs at sung at the rally site, PAD is ready to go to war over this issue. "New Politics"...

[Plus]

I can see the same thing happening in the business interests (func const.) scenario.

I don't. You can't get your peers to vote for you if all you want is to increase your market share at their expense. The vote buying won't work as voters will be directly affected by their choices. It works in traditional politics because people have no interest in what happens next, they are excluded from political process expect for four seconds that come once in four years, and 200 baht sounds like a good deal for four seconds of your time.

If the same thing happens in functional consituencies, ie people have no interest in participating in political life, then the whole thing is meaningless. The original idea came about to accomodate needs of people who want their voice to be heard but are trapped in traditional politics where nothing they think or say matters at all.

If people are so apathetic towards governing and participation in political life, why ask their opinion in the first place? It doesn't make any sense, and it opens doors to exploiting their votes by all kinds of political crooks for their own ends.

"New politics" is about giving people a chance to be active citizens. Those who are more active, more concerned and more dedicated deserve to be given a bigger voice, legally, not through backdoor channels s it happens now. And they can prove themselves among their peers, that would be a kind of voter readiness test.

To bring up the old example, 200 years ago the proof of having a stake in governing was land ownership. Today it might be having a steady and important job, in addition to a rather meaningless criterion of being born in this country.

I think it's a more realistic system - giving people a chance to increase their voter weight, 1.0 for everyone, 1.5 for top dog businessman or political activist, and something in between for less important occupations/social groups. It happens anyway, peope find ways to increase their power by all kind of means, mostly illegal, from direct vote buying to sucking up to pooyais to representing shady business interests. There are no alternative ways to rise through political ranks. We've been waiting for a decade now, nothing happens, apart from Korn and a couple of other democrats the result is very depressing.

[younghusband]

[quote name='Plus' date='2008-10-01 18:11:07' post='2248540'

I think it's a more realistic system - giving people a chance to increase their voter weight, 1.0 for everyone, 1.5 for top dog businessman or political activist, and something in between for less important occupations/social groups. It happens anyway, peope find ways to increase their power by all kind of means, mostly illegal, from direct vote buying to sucking up to pooyais to representing shady business interests. There are no alternative ways to rise through political ranks. We've been waiting for a decade now, nothing happens, apart from Korn and a couple of other democrats the result is very depressing.

I wonder whether you were present or have heard reports of the recent discussion at the FCCT.One theme that had fairly wide endorsement was that the problem was not really voters being bought but MPs.

Korn's position is fascinating.If I can understand his sympathetic stance on PAD idealistic principles -I don't yet -perhaps I will have to do some fresh thinking.However the general view on his performance at FCCT was that it was ambivalent to say the least.I hope I'm not giving anything away by saying his view on the PAD leadership is not that much different to mine.

[cmsally]

I think it's a more realistic system - giving people a chance to increase their voter weight, 1.0 for everyone, 1.5 for top dog businessman or political activist, and something in between for less important occupations/social groups. It happens anyway, peope find ways to increase their power by all kind of means, mostly illegal, from direct vote buying to sucking up to pooyais to representing shady business interests. There are no alternative ways to rise through political ranks. We've been waiting for a decade now, nothing happens, apart from Korn and a couple of other democrats the result is very depressing.

Therein lies the crux of the problem, you are suggesting more power for the top echelons. It is a well known fact that to rise to the top echelons of both bureaucracy and private business you have to pay (whether or not in hard cash it boils down to the same). You are suggesting that because these people have made it up there, very often treading on those with more of a moral fibre and less financial clout, they have a right to a greater portion of the political pie.

[Plus]

One theme that had fairly wide endorsement was that the problem was not really voters being bought but MPs.

Yes, but these MPs simply translate money into votes via different channels, not only direct handouts. Tthey spend it all, or most of it, on elections. It's still bought votes, except for voters it comes in forms of free food, transport, t-shirts, personal visits by canvassers, little gifts and so on.

you are suggesting more power for the top echelons

I'm suggesting more control of the power of the top echelons and fair rules for those who aspire to reach that power.

I'm saying that if you don't control this process, top dogs would get their power anyway, albeit illegally, people who believe they can design a system where everyone is truly equal when it comes to power are only fooling themselves.

I'm saying that there should be a clean and transparent way to power, so that people who get it don't need to compromise their integrity and morals. Otherwise everyone who gets to the top becomes dirty and corrupt.

[Howsitgoin]

"New politics" is about giving people a chance to be active citizens.

"New Politics" still appears to me as a juvenile debating club after reading the two links provided by cmsally.

Kasit's standard answer appears to be, when asked about any specifics: "It's just an idea a this stage, we'll need to discuss it...".

That's awesome, really, anybody can be part of "New Politics", opine as much as he/she wants to, and just don't ever get to the stage that you actually have to put a collection of these brain farts to paper.

Oh my god, how infantile can grown man that once had important positions only be. Just read the comments...

Shocking.

[Plus]

Maybe in yout little socialist/trotskist club everything handed down by your leaders is taken as a gospel and you are not expected to contribute anything. PAD made it clear from the start that the society at large should form the exact shape of "new politics".

Folks at FCCC went there to hear the answers when, in fact, they should be providing solutions.

If you look around you can easily spot the stupid cows who want "new politics" presented on a silver plate and all they want to do about it is to vote yes or no. How gracious of them. Consumers of democracy, looking for best bargains.

If it's all they can contribute to the process, maybe there's no point in asking them in the first place.

If there's another referendum, they should take a knowledge test first - whether they know what exactly they are voting for or against.

[animatic]

Sir, if you keep flashing your "know it all and what it's all about" attitude, as of the public was invited why did YOU fail to make it there?

Besides I slowly like your kind of rhetorical humor displayed, regarding "nearly the war with a neighboring country"!

Well, do you mind to tell the audience then, who started the Praeh Vihar story in the first place and to which "club" did he belong to? Was it the PAD who want it listed as a World Heritage Site - in 1962 the UNO came to the conclusion that it is Cambodian! The PAD already influenced this decision..?

Under the present conditions Noppadon as foreign minister dealt out the best what could possibly done with the heritage listing (remember - the heritage listing has nothing whatsoever to do with any national claims over the area). But yes, of course - developing such a site as a tourism site is bad, very bad.

Noppadon did the best he could???

The guy didn't even bother to read the constitution or even get a synopsis from his staff

about the legal parameters of his job description, and this is the best he could do.

He wrote a government document so flawed he lost his job over it.

And the whole cabinet signed off on it in an equal level of utter incompetence.

PAD called them out about it, and no doubt joined many by using the nationalist card.

They were far from the only ones with this position they just tapped into an existing nationaisim..

Noppadon had to resign for not having a CLUE about the legal abilities of his job.

The military was doing their own moves on the border, not dancing to PAD's tune.

A bunch of protesters isn't gonna start an actual shooting war, even if 3 fools cross the border,

an army, and a government without a clue acting macho, CAN do that.

Samak as international diplomat HAH! That's a war on the hoof ready to start.

Hun Sen was playing to his local audience before his election.

He had no intention of a real war with Thailand, no matter WHAT PAD might be saying.

PAD's leaders would know this as well as anybody, except a few here it seems.

Nationalist sabre rattling from both sides nothing much more.

PAD is not even a blip on Hun Sen's radar, he is interested in Cambodian power, and money,

and there's WAY too much money to be made working WITH Thailand vs. starting a war.

Nationalist rhetoric MUST be separated from actual moves to actual war.

PAD talked nothing more,

but the ARMY and Samak government made any actual war like moves.

You can't successfully cloud this issue further.

Edited October 2, 2008 by animatic

[permanent_disorder]

Sir, if you keep flashing your "know it all and what it's all about" attitude, as of the public was invited why did YOU fail to make it there?

Could have been the chance of your lifetime!

Besides I slowly like your kind of rhetorical humor displayed, regarding "nearly the war with a neighboring country"!

Well, do you mind to tell the audience then, who started the Praeh Vihar story in the first place and to which "club" did he belong to? Was it the PAD who want it listed as a World Heritage Site - in 1962 the UNO came to the conclusion that it is Cambodian! The PAD already influenced this decision..?

Under the present conditions Noppadon as foreign minister dealt out the best what could possibly done with the heritage listing (remember - the heritage listing has nothing whatsoever to do with any national claims over the area). But yes, of course - developing such a site as a tourism site is bad, very bad.

Matter of the fact is that PAD claims the whole temple for Thailand, and according to Sondhi L., and endless patriotic folk songs at sung at the rally site, PAD is ready to go to war over this issue. "New Politics"...

Somsak Accuses PM of Dereliction of Duty

TOC 2 October 2008

People's Alliance for Democracy leader Somsak Kosaisuk accused Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat of failing to perform his duties as the prime minister of Thailand. He stressed that new politics can only happen after the People Power Party-government has been eliminated.

Somsak Kosaisuk, a key PAD leader, took the PAD stage last night. He elaborated on the PAD’s proposal for new politics. The PAD leader stressed that new politics can only happen after the current administration is ousted. He’s called on PAD supporters to help drive out the corrupt nominee government to pave the way for new politics.

Somsak reiterated the need for the PAD to ensure that the next government must be an honest administration and have the country’s interest at heart. He accused the current administration of only working to further its own interests and not the nation’s.

....

Somsak also called for PM Somchai to officially nullify the joint communique between Thailand and Cambodia. With regards to the controversial Preah Vihear issue, he urged Somchai to free Thailand from any obligations with Cambodia or the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization or UNESCO to prove that he’s loyal to Thailand.

Source: www.thailandoutlook.tv/toc/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1009730

//Edit: Undid manipulations of quoted online article and added URL of source.

[Howsitgoin]

Somsak Kosaisuk, a key PAD leader, took the PAD stage last night. He elaborated on the PAD’s proposal for new politics. The PAD leader stressed that new politics can only happen after the current administration is ousted.

He elaborated?

And what is "New Politics" now?

So far it is nothing but a debating club where every Dick and Harry can voice his opinions, and everything is perpetually open to discussion.

[animatic]

Somsak Kosaisuk, a key PAD leader, took the PAD stage last night. He elaborated on the PAD’s proposal for new politics. The PAD leader stressed that new politics can only happen after the current administration is ousted.

He elaborated?

And what is "New Politics" now?

So far it is nothing but a debating club where every Dick and Harry can voice his opinions, and everything is perpetually open to discussion.

New politics would be any politics after the current kleptocracy of the hardly competent

is run from the scene of the crime. Whatever returns in it's place will likely be NEW politics.

Debating issues is not a negative thing,

even if workable solutions are harder to come by,

than blanket rejections and derision of those trying to

have a any kind of open debate.

[Howsitgoin]

New politics would be any politics after the current kleptocracy of the hardly competent

is run from the scene of the crime. Whatever returns in it's place will likely be NEW politics.

Debating issues is not a negative thing,

even if workable solutions are harder to come by,

than blanket rejections and derision of those trying to

have a any kind of open debate.

That now is the lowest common denominator i have so far heard within this debate. Christ, that doesn't even define anything at all anymore.

The problem with those sort of debating clubs is that a country can't be run on debate. "New Politics" has not even brought forward one proposal that is even acceptable to the public, less a definition of what it could possibly mean other than a fuzzy juvenile form of protest, with more than vague promises how Thailand could move forward if only this government is ousted. Facts are exaggerated, distorted or even invented, so that the most outrageous tactics can be excused.

The only proposals that these people came up with are on a constant base "open for discussion", such as 70:30 that now became 50:50, which next week might be something completely different.

How on earth can the government possibly negotiate with a group of people that so far not issued any constructive proposal whatsoever, who change their demands by the day, and whose only idea seems to be to run the country by continuously debating with each other, other than proposing to go to war against a neighboring country over a small temple that has clearly been awarded to Thailand by the International Court?

Lunacy.

[Plus]

The government has no legitimacy to negotiate anything. Their current position is too weak for negotiations.

There was a uninumous agreement that this is just a stop gap cabinet to prepare for new elections most likely before the end of the year.

What the government should do is to start up the reform process and step aside. Amend one article in the Consitution, set up CDA in a format acceptable to the opposition (both Dems and PAD), and wash its hands off the whole process. They've got bad economy to fix, floods, Asean meetings - they should concentrate on that.

[Howsitgoin]

The government has no legitimacy to negotiate anything.

No legitimacy? Elections don't count as legitimacy anymore?

[Howsitgoin]

PAD repeats its 'New politics' is not yet fixed

By The Nation

Published on October 3, 2008

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) re-iterated again yesterday that the formula for their so-called "New Politics" is not yet fixed and will depend on further input from members attending their seminars.

Issues yet to be resolved included the number of members in future parliaments and how they should be selected or elected .

PAD co-leaders Chamlong Srimuang and Piphob Thongchai said the government might also consider these matters, especially given that it had called for the drafting of a new Constitution.

The next seminar will be on Sunday afternoon at Government House which continues to be occupied by PAD demonstrators. Chamlong was asked by the media whether the PAD would invite a larger section of Thai society to join in such seminars and he said the group had never barred anyone from participating. He said the pro-government Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) can also hold similar discussion groups.

Piphob said that while the alliance doesn't oppose a new round of constitution drafting, he felt it was the government in need of reform and not the charter.

Chamlong criticised the choice of Nattawut Sai-kua as the new Government Speaker as inappropriate . Nattawut,he said, as a former DAAD leader who led a protest against privy council president Prem Tinsulanond and had criticised Prem in the past.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/10/03...cs_30085000.php

[Howsitgoin]

Very good - still no definition for "New Politics", and everybody can take part in the discussion... as long as one is a member of PAD.

And according to Chamlong Nattawut as Speaker of the Government inappropriate because he has criticized Prem in the past...

Ridiculous.

[Plus]

The government has no legitimacy to negotiate anything.

No legitimacy? Elections don't count as legitimacy anymore?

Legally we have a government, sure. In reality it works out of temporary office because it's not recognised by large numbers of people, is not in control of the army or police, or over large parts of the country, and is only a short time away from legally collapsing, too.

>>>

I think EVERYBODY else on this board or in this country knows what "new politics" is.

[Howsitgoin]

Legally we have a government, sure. In reality it works out of temporary office because it's not recognised by large numbers of people, is not in control of the army or police, or over large parts of the country, and is only a short time away from legally collapsing, too.

>>>

I think EVERYBODY else on this board or in this country knows what "new politics" is.

Not exactly.

The government works out of a temporary office because a bunch of ultra-nationalist maniacs have illgally occupied Government House, and the government is not able to disperse the protests the way it would happen in any other country because of the use of patronage politics by aforementioned group.

The government is in control of Police, but unfortunately Army is only controlled by itself, riddled by factional infighting and extra-constitutional influences.

Interesting that you appear to speak for "EVERYBODY" here, or is it everybody that agrees with you, and ANYBODY else who has a opposing view is discounted, which obviously seems to be part of PAD's "New Politics"

[Plus]

The govt tried to re-take the govt house by all means possible and failed miserably for the lack of cooperation by law enforcement agencies. It brought warrants, state of emergency, fully armed crowd dispersing units - still no one wants to fight this battle. The govt is simply not in control.

>>>

Everybody means everybody. People argue for or against "new politics" but only one poster keeps asking for definition.

[Howsitgoin]

The govt tried to re-take the govt house by all means possible and failed miserably for the lack of cooperation by law enforcement agencies. It brought warrants, state of emergency, fully armed crowd dispersing units - still no one wants to fight this battle. The govt is simply not in control.

>>>

Everybody means everybody. People argue for or against "new politics" but only one poster keeps asking for definition.

Lack of corporation of law enforcement agencies?!

I would suggest to go back and read old newspaper articles - police cooperated very well. Only 30 Senators led by Rosana, Gen. Patumpong and Abisit did not respect court warrants and appeared on the scene of protests hindering police to do their duty, and forcing the government to abandon their attempt.

Very interesting - every question asked about "New Politics" is answered by representatives of PAD with "This is only my personal view...", or "This is open for discussion...", but "EVERYBODY" knows what it is, ...according to you...

Then, please, it should be easy for you to give us a link to PAD's definition, where policies and details are outlined.

I am waiting...

[Plus]

Let me check the old threads again. I surely missed the part where Rosana and Abhisit stopped police from removing demonstrators.

...

...

...

Ok, done, no sign of it.

[animatic]

The government has no legitimacy to negotiate anything.

No legitimacy? Elections don't count as legitimacy anymore?

When this cabinet was vetted by Thaksin in London,

all TRUE legitimacy was lost inexorably.

I puppet regime for a former leader with 5 warrents for offences

that the judiciary deems valid is not a route to legitimacy.

The vote of the people has been abrogated by the PPP

wheeling and dealing and then bowing to Thaksin's wishes.