Pad Rallies At British Embassy In Bangkok

[animatic]

A word repeastedly bandineed about

Gruesome.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

–adjective

1. causing great horror; horribly repugnant; grisly: the site of a gruesome murder.

2. full of or causing problems; distressing: a gruesome day at the office.

American Heritage Dictionary

adj.

Causing horror and repugnance; frightful and shocking: a gruesome murder. See Synonyms at ghastly.

[Obsolete grue, to shudder (from Middle English gruen, from Middle Dutch grūwen or Middle Low German gruwen) + -some1.]

grue'some·ly adv., grue'some·ness n.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Grewsome

Grew"some\, Gruesome \Grue"some\,

a. [From a word akin to Dan. gru horror, terror + -some;

cf. D. gruwzaam, G. grausam. Cf. Grisly.] Ugly; frightful.

Maybe they make you shudder, or you are having a bad day at the office.

But I found the Police attack Oct 7. to be gruesome,

but not PAD's existence per se.

I suppose Sondhi makes you shudder, or at least squirm a bit.

[younghusband]

A word repeastedly bandineed about

Gruesome.

I think most English speakers know exactly what "gruesome" means and implies.

An example in context might be found in an extract from the Economist editorial of 4th September.If you think the use is inappropriate,which would be surprising in a journal noted for its precise and clear English, I suggest you take it up with the Editor directly.

"Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin’s government and the sad signs that Mr Samak’s is no better. The PAD’s leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A GRUESOME bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but “new politics”—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too “ill-educated” to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit."

[hammered]

A word repeastedly bandineed about

Gruesome.

I think most English speakers know exactly what "gruesome" means and implies.

An example in context might be found in an extract from the Economist editorial of 4th September.If you think the use is inappropriate,which would be surprising in a journal noted for its precise and clear English, I suggest you take it up with the Editor directly.

"Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin’s government and the sad signs that Mr Samak’s is no better. The PAD’s leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A GRUESOME bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but “new politics”—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too “ill-educated” to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit."

True of Thaksin. Not sure Samak had any policies tbh.

[Plus]

.. certain groups would select representatives. The groups include farmers, doctors and gays. What other groups would there be? Is there a list? What about Muslims, Christians, lesbians, professional athletes, 'hostesses', which of these groups would be able to select a representative?

The exact composition is up to the body that would write a draft.

For now PAD are not even pushing for 70/30 split, let alone precise number of groups and how many reps they would send to parliament.

I don't see why you are willing to spend so much time on details of that proposal now. I think it's a red herring, a pointless argument. If you think it's so important - I bet you don't know how exactly MPs are elected at the moment, details and devils don't matter.

[Smithson]

.. certain groups would select representatives. The groups include farmers, doctors and gays. What other groups would there be? Is there a list? What about Muslims, Christians, lesbians, professional athletes, 'hostesses', which of these groups would be able to select a representative?

The exact composition is up to the body that would write a draft.

Who would write the draft?

For now PAD are not even pushing for 70/30 split, let alone precise number of groups and how many reps they would send to parliament.

I don't see why you are willing to spend so much time on details of that proposal now. I think it's a red herring, a pointless argument. If you think it's so important - I bet you don't know how exactly MPs are elected at the moment, details and devils don't matter.

The details are very important, politicians are a shifty bunch, wouldn't you agree? If they're not giving you all the info then, chances are their hiding something.

[hammered]

For all it is worth (and I mentioned that it comes from polls earlier):

http://www.abacpoll.au.edu/in_news/2551/thenation101108.pdf

"Backing for New politics and Civic politics rose to 5.58, from 5.42 on October 18."

Poll was conducted in 18 provinces, so it's not only Bangkok.

Would be interesting what question ppl were asked, as clear details on New Politics are pretty much non-existent. The devil is in the detail.

This link is easier to read:

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews...1110-99479.html

The big ones are high support for unity government, 2/3 think the wrong time for constitutional ammendment, 2/3 thinkl the phone call worsened the politcal situation and 32% have a lower opinion of Thaksin after the call but take a look at it all. Quite a large sample as well.

[sriracha john]

For anyone who disagrees just keep in mind that you are probably analysing a sideshow or a smokescreen, and that you haven't been able to see the whole picture.

I agree, it can be difficult...

Distance between Madison, Wisconsin, United States and Bangkok, Thailand, as the crow flies: 13,623 Km

[Plus]

Who would write the draft?

Civil society representatives, basically the same bunch that wrote 1997 constitution. That's what Sondhi said when "new politics" were first announced - it's a proposal for the society to consider.

The details are very important, politicians are a shifty bunch, wouldn't you agree? If they're not giving you all the info then, chances are their hiding something.

Politicians have nothing to do whatsoever with "new politics" - they are not the ones proposing it, not the ones making it happen, and they will be the worst affected.

Democrats are supportive, though. The current system needs a revamp one way or another.

And again, if you are so genuinely worried about politicians and details - there's a REAL consitution rewrite done by politicians in the process - why do you ignore that and concentrate on PAD's idea that is still as far from implementation as ever.

Everyone, judging by news, opinions and polls is concerned with amednments currently in the works. Everyone but you.

People consider this backdoor rewrite as a REAL threat to democracy, not "new politics" proposal.

[Bangyai]

Oh, absolutely it is; since the end of their friendship it's a fight by a frustrated, bitter and hatred Sondhi to destroy everything related to Thaksin, right or wrong.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with his true feelings for the country and the Thai population because he doesn't give <deleted>.

But...he is a master in 'playing' the crowds for his own cause.

LaoPo

So he and Thaksin have a lot in common then?

Most good friends have a lot in common.

The line between love and hate is thin...very thin.

LaoPo

Some enchanted evening, you may meet a stranger......tra la la

[cmsally]

For anyone who disagrees just keep in mind that you are probably analysing a sideshow or a smokescreen, and that you haven't been able to see the whole picture.

I agree, it can be difficult...

Distance between Madison, Wisconsin, United States and Bangkok, Thailand, as the crow flies: 13,623 Km

What absolute codswallop .

The fact that someone is based in Wisconsin does not mean they cannot see the whole picture. They also happen to be Thai and a specialist in Thai affairs.

The fact they are not in Thailand also makes it easier for them to report on the truth, as Thailand is not exactly famed for it's free speech and media is it?

This person is free to tell it as he sees it without fear of losing his job, position, salary etc.

[animatic]

Don't for a minute imagine that the current crew attempting a constitutional re-write

will be making things better for 'The People'.

Their mandate only goes to Thaksin's bottom line,

and mega-projects kick backs, and to make this latter LESS transparent.

[Smithson]

Politicians have nothing to do whatsoever with "new politics" - they are not the ones proposing it, not the ones making it happen, and they will be the worst affected.

Democrats are supportive, though. The current system needs a revamp one way or another.

So it's politics without politicians, which is supported by the Democrats (a political party), even though they would be the worst affected? Strange indeed!

And again, if you are so genuinely worried about politicians and details - there's a REAL consitution rewrite done by politicians in the process - why do you ignore that and concentrate on PAD's idea that is still as far from implementation as ever.

Everyone, judging by news, opinions and polls is concerned with amednments currently in the works. Everyone but you.

I'm not deeply concerned about NP, just curious. Regarding the current amendment, the object is crystal clear, it's a scam.

People consider this backdoor rewrite as a REAL threat to democracy, not "new politics" proposal.

People consider the rewrite and NP as threats to the development of democracy in LOS.

[sriracha john]

For anyone who disagrees just keep in mind that you are probably analysing a sideshow or a smokescreen, and that you haven't been able to see the whole picture.

I agree, it can be difficult...

Distance between Madison, Wisconsin, United States and Bangkok, Thailand, as the crow flies: 13,623 Km

What absolute codswallop .

You mean its not 13,623 Km away?

All I was emphasizing was that it's a noteworthy point to factor in whenever reading anyone's evaluation of a situation... from the other side of the world.

Very much like forum posters that attempt to do so on any other topic.

[Smithson]

Don't for a minute imagine that the current crew attempting a constitutional re-write

will be making things better for 'The People'.

Their mandate only goes to Thaksin's bottom line,

and mega-projects kick backs, and to make this latter LESS transparent.

Of course. It was good to see the politicians found guilty of corruption today, let's hope this sort of thing continues to deter the crooks whichever side of the fence they're on.

[younghusband]

For anyone who disagrees just keep in mind that you are probably analysing a sideshow or a smokescreen, and that you haven't been able to see the whole picture.

I agree, it can be difficult...

Distance between Madison, Wisconsin, United States and Bangkok, Thailand, as the crow flies: 13,623 Km

What absolute codswallop .

You mean its not 13,623 Km away?

All I was emphasizing was that it's a noteworthy point to factor in whenever reading anyone's evaluation of a situation... from the other side of the world.

Very much like forum posters that attempt to do so on any other topic.

Whether one would put more reliance on a highly educated and well regarded Thai academic, noted for sensible and moderate views, than say-purely hypothetically of course -some obsessed and not very well educated farang retiree permanently hunched over a laptop, is a matter of personal choice.

[Jai Dee]

OK... settle down thanks folks.

Please cut out the flaming and personal attacks and get back on topic.

[Plus]

Politicians have nothing to do whatsoever with "new politics" - they are not the ones proposing it, not the ones making it happen, and they will be the worst affected.

Democrats are supportive, though. The current system needs a revamp one way or another.

So it's politics without politicians, which is supported by the Democrats (a political party), even though they would be the worst affected? Strange indeed!

Strange, maybe. But it worked last year, when NLA was all appointed - that was one of the most productive periods for Thai parliament ever.

Dems are not worried about it - they don't have that many hungry mouths to feed in their fold, their local MPs might not like it, though.

One weak point of the proposal is that no consideration given to what the current bunch are going to do after it's implemented - they need space to live and work, too. I, personally, want real decentralisation to keep them in their localities. If they are so good at looking after their own flock - let them, they are not really needed in Bangkok anyway.

I think 50% national party list vote and 50% functional consituency reps for parliament, and bigger local administrations with elected governors and guaranteed budget to keep consitutency based MPs busy would be a great idea.

Having said that - we must be realistic regarding implementation, too. Decentralisation has been notoriously difficult, for example. If it's meant to be the key component of reform - it might simply fail.

[Smithson]

The problem isn't just with politics, corruption is rife throughout Thai society. The education system needs a complete overhaul. The judiciary needs to do it's job and punish corruption at all levels, while salaries need to be increased so ppl don't have an excuse for being corrupt. People need to be aware of their rights and be encouraged to stand up for themselves.

Until these things are tackled, no system (new or old) will change anything.

[younghusband]

I think 50% national party list vote and 50% functional consituency reps for parliament, and bigger local administrations with elected governors and guaranteed budget to keep consitutency based MPs busy would be a great idea.

Let's just remember that the whole point of this is to prevent the Thai majority from being a decisive voice in the choice of a national government.I do however commend Plus for at least for spelling some of this out, and I think I do understand what is being proposed a little better.My concern runs deeper however and I think it's worth reminding ourselves of Chang Noi's devastating deconstruction of the "bleating" about money politics and the patronage system.

"Vote-buying and the “patronage system”?

1 sep 2008

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

The argument then continues: vote-buying and the patronage system mean that one-man/one-vote elections cannot work in Thailand. There needs to be some “Thai-style” alternative. This might be some corporatist method of representation such as the PAD proposed. It might mean diminishing the power of the elective parliament, and returning more power to the bureaucracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, the profile of the electorate has changed. The great 1986-96 boom boosted incomes, and the 1997 bust only temporarily knocked them back. The expansion of secondary education in the 1980s began to work through to the electorate.

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

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

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

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

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

[animatic]

All well put,

except it seems to be working to elect the biggest CROOKS possible.

Not the ones actualy benefiting the populace back home,

just APPEARING to on a basic level.

Were it to continue like that the 'part of the pie' going up country would diminish

as assuredly and inversely would their pols lock on power and graft increase.

[sriracha john]

For anyone who disagrees just keep in mind that you are probably analysing a sideshow or a smokescreen, and that you haven't been able to see the whole picture.

I agree, it can be difficult...

Distance between Madison, Wisconsin, United States and Bangkok, Thailand, as the crow flies: 13,623 Km

What absolute codswallop .

You mean its not 13,623 Km away?

All I was emphasizing was that it's a noteworthy point to factor in whenever reading anyone's evaluation of a situation... from the other side of the world.

Very much like forum posters that attempt to do so on any other topic.

Whether one

< flaming and personal attack snipped >

I appreciate your not refuting that proximity to a rapidly evolving situation is a critical point.

[Plus]

Let's just remember that the whole point of this is to prevent the Thai majority from being a decisive voice in the choice of a national government.

It isn't the point at all. Where did you get this idea? From New Mandala or any other leftist drivel outlet?

Let's just remember that decisive voice in the choice of a national government belongs not to the people but but to political machine and those who grease its wheels.

Yes, it is a lot more sophisitcated than just pouring money in it, like Pua Paendin had discovered. Like with any machine, expertise is necessary, not just funds.

The undeniable fact is that this machine, when properly operated, delivers. TRT has perfected it - gathering votes was like farming to them - proper nurture and care coupled with effective weeding - and voila - they get enough votes to pursue their own agenda. And that's where there's a crucial difference between populist/popular party working for the people and TRT - they used electoral mandate to enrich themselves, not their electorate, and certainly not for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Some say that this is normal - well, not to millions of Thais who see this game through. And even the electoral mandate was achieved by dubious and outright illegal means.

This "democratic" party would never listen to people's voice unless they have absolute control over what they think and know, and TRT was very adamant to have enough brainwashing in selected areas to assure victory and ignore and intimidate any voices of dissent.

Note how all this class divides - urban/rural, have/have nots differences exist only on paper - in real life only poor that have went through TRT farming process in Isan and the North exhibit any compliance with the theory, as instructed.

[hammered]

I think 50% national party list vote and 50% functional consituency reps for parliament, and bigger local administrations with elected governors and guaranteed budget to keep consitutency based MPs busy would be a great idea.

Let's just remember that the whole point of this is to prevent the Thai majority from being a decisive voice in the choice of a national government.I do however commend Plus for at least for spelling some of this out, and I think I do understand what is being proposed a little better.My concern runs deeper however and I think it's worth reminding ourselves of Chang Noi's devastating deconstruction of the "bleating" about money politics and the patronage system.

"Vote-buying and the “patronage system”?

1 sep 2008

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

The argument then continues: vote-buying and the patronage system mean that one-man/one-vote elections cannot work in Thailand. There needs to be some “Thai-style” alternative. This might be some corporatist method of representation such as the PAD proposed. It might mean diminishing the power of the elective parliament, and returning more power to the bureaucracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, the profile of the electorate has changed. The great 1986-96 boom boosted incomes, and the 1997 bust only temporarily knocked them back. The expansion of secondary education in the 1980s began to work through to the electorate.

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

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

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

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

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

If anyone cares to go back to the last election party list results and see a 41% PPP to 41% Dem result they would soon conclude that it is possible to design a very democratic electoral system that at if used at the last election would probably have the Dems leading a coaliton government and the PPP in opposition. That system is oparty list proportional representation with no constituencies. It is also more democratic than the current system in terms of pure OMOV.

If the aim is to design a system that Thaksin wont win in, or cant game/buy depending on how people view things, then why not stick with a democratic one rather than trying to invent something that is going to be laughed at by most of the world.

And if an idiot like me can think of a machiavelian but democratic way to shaft Thaksin why cant those who seriously dont like the guy and spend all their time trying to prevent his return? Very strange and I have never understood why nobody ever talks about this - well I can understand why Thaksin and his buddies wont but the other lot.....

[Plus]

Hammered, they want to change the system so that no other Thaksins can even participate.

If they have the elections now and Dems win, people would say - Look, the system works, there's no need to change anything.

I don't think the world would really care enough about Thai electoral system to laugh at it. If it delivers, expect other countries to follow - from Bangladesh to Malaysia to Philippines - the world is full with failed democracies with no idea how to move forward.

[LaoPo]

All I was emphasizing was that it's a noteworthy point to factor in whenever reading anyone's evaluation of a situation... from the other side of the world.

Very much like forum posters that attempt to do so on any other topic.

Well, I think it wis diminishing the importance of the content in the essay *, written by a respected Thai intellectual, Professor Thongchai Winichakul **, Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

That he is thousands of kilometers away from Bangkok does not make his views about the PAD of a lesser importance, and it certainly doesn't make his views and opinion of a lesser importance than the views/opinions by Farang, living in Thailand.

The good Professor probably has better knowledge and insight about Thai politics as well as more contacts within the intellectual circles in Bangkok than we do.

I seldom read a more intelligent, open and enlightening view about the PAD and the role of the leaders of PAD behind the scenes than the views by Professor Thongchai Winichakul.

I have said it before and I say it again: I fail to see and understand the REAL REASONS of some Thaivisa members who are -more or less- fanatically supporting the ideology of the PAD and their leaders.

Plus wrote:

"I think 50% national party list vote and 50% functional consituency reps for parliament, and bigger local administrations with elected governors and guaranteed budget to keep consitutency based MPs busy would be a great idea"

...a great idea.....a great idea ?

A -democratic- nightmare you mean

* http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/20...cy-in-thailand/

** http://seasia.wisc.edu/People/Thongchai%20Winichakul.htm & http://history.wisc.edu/people/faculty/winichakul.htm

LaoPo

[jitagon]

There has been so much ignorant crap expounded on this forum re The Thais[/b and [b]The Fact That they are willing to sell their votes. There are many poor Thais who care deeply about their country and would never sell their vote. Not least thanks to the PAD's ongoing education programme to this effect.

A large majority of the poor in the Issan were indeed taken in by Toxin. What did they have to lose? As far as they were concerned, the Opposition didn't give a toss, so a couple of hundred baht for a few days groceries/whiskey circle looked to be a better bet than nothing at all.

The Democrats have severely let this country down by not addressing the problems and concerns of the majority of the poor in their own country, and now the chickens have come home to roost. And what are they doing about it? Never mind the bleating about not being given the same 'airtime' they should be formulating and actively promoting genuine policies to change the perception of Thailand being a third world country, who exports nice rice and is, in effect, the biggest brothel on the planet.