Abhisit Vejjajiva Elected New Prime Minister Of Thailand

[younghusband]

Plenty that I don't like about the Malaysian situation, too - but none of it has anything to do with that article. You condemn the country and have nothing to say about the article?

It's become a comic game.Any foreign correspondent who covers the absurdities of political events in Thailand is immediately traduced by PAD ideologues for being in the pay of Thaksin, for being a communist, for being from the wrong country etc etc.As you suggest it's very rare the actual content is analysed and discussed.

Prize for the silliest theory? Clearly it must be the Moon Conspiracy.

And of course the complete inverse including blatant flaming from the Pro Thaksin camp.

Why do you imagine only one side has a monopoly on truth?

Both sides have done good and bad,

but each did DIFFERENT good and different bad

and so are roundly criticized for their acts.

And the good is ignored to focus on the bad.

What's all this about blatant flaming from the Pro Thaksin camp? Some people have apparently yet to grasp that to regard PAD as an illiberal and undemocratic movement does not imply support for Thaksin.If you are just saying everybody has their good points and bad points, and that we're just all different - save your observations for the kumbaya set.

[Ulysses G.]

What's all this about blatant flaming from the Pro Thaksin camp? Some people have apparently yet to grasp that to regard PAD as an illiberal and undemocratic movement does not imply support for Thaksin. If you are just saying everybody has their good points and bad points, and that we're just all different - save your observations for the kumbaya set.

Right on brother!

[Bangyai]

Both sides have done good and bad,

but each did DIFFERENT good and different bad

and so are roundly criticized for their acts.

And the good is ignored to focus on the bad.

True enough. ' one bad act blots out a thousand good ones ' as the saying goes.

So, what in your opinion , are the good things that Thaksin did for Thailand ?

As for Younghusbands point, since this is perceived as a two horse race, it is often assumed that by taking a strong dislike to the PAD and the way the democrats have been brought to power, means that you are a Thaksinite ( sounds biblical ? ) . Well, in the words of the old song : ' It ain't necessarily so '. Amongst the red shirts gathered at the National Stadium were many clutching small pictures of the king. In front of the Giant Swing , a red shirted protester expressed the view that there were many like himself who although disliking Thaksin found themselves grouping with the reds as the only show in town actively engaged in trying to stop the PAD from overturning the govournment, which for all it warts and spots , was the product of a peoples election.

[animatic]

You make my point so well.

[jasreeve17]

Imagine what Einstein could have been if he had attended university.

Da_n! I wish I'd said that........

And I wrote the script for a dramatised biography of him............ oh, the shame.

I also wrote one about Hitler and he rose quite far without having a degree..... Hmmm, no - you're right......... best not to go there........

Stalin went to college

Kubla Kahn didn't.

? Many universities in Outer Mongolia in the 12th century were there? Managed to rule the largest empire the World has ever seen though...

But, your focus is interesting in so much as it's consistent, PADites do tend to live a few centuries out of date; you know, before democracy became common...

So you flame me as a PADite, and say i am living in few centuries out of date eh?

Just because I can pull an appropriate reference for a pantheon of post-christian historical personages?

I would more acurately see myself as centrist seeing merit in some of PAD's goals,

which says little about their methods. I would have been willing to see merit in

even Samaks end results if there had been anything worth noting...

No one side has exclusive rights to the domain of truth.

No one group is without sin and mistakes and thus

siding on all points exclusively with one group ignores truths.

Getting retro is clearly late 1950's tube technology for me.

But that reality really doesn't fit your desire to ignore the points being made

and shoot the messenger for perceived biases, in support of your OWN biases.

Your 1st comment was good, your second one just shows your blanket biases.

Thaksinistas vs PADites is an arbitrary line in the sand drawn by partisans, to make

themselves feel better in a group, rather than standing alone within their own philosophy.

Kubla Kahn is a bit before my prefered historical reading.

I lean more toward 1,000-1,500AD european studies.

A better crucible of humanities development relative to today in some ways.

Once again you show your ignorance...

Check the facts before you rant rubbish, don't blindly accept christian propaganda as fact - foolish folk that bleet along, sheeplike, to 'history' they know nothing about, would be able to find some great surprises if they actually checked for themselves or searched a little deeper. Go and spend a year or two in Mongolia then get back to me.

It's one of your many problems, you rant away so certain of your facts, quoting selectively here and there, but with no deep understanding of the facts at hand. Boring.

[Plus]

The red movement is nothing but the vehicle to bring Thaksin back to power, but it took on homeless anti-coup campaigners, too.

It's ironic how people accuse PAD supporters of being misled regarding the utlimate (fascist, murderous ethnic cleansing) goals of the movement, yet see no problems with lending support to pro-Thaksin mob.

At one time they couldn't join PAD demos because they'd be linked to the likes of Sondhi or royalist like Pramuang or even Snoh, they couldn't be seen as yellows, but now red is ok for them. They have no objections of being seen standing shoulder to shoulder with Chalerms and Samaks, holding hands with shit throwing thugs. Listening to Sondhi is insulting to their intellegence but not to Da Torpedo.

The argument that "being red doesn't mean supporting Thaksin" are extremely naive.

Most anti-PAD people on TV are not openly red, if that makes any real difference - "neutrality" doesn't exist anymore, whatever you say or do will be exploited by one side or another, there's no third force and there's no sitting on the fence, and there's no compromise.

The way forward is to recognise that 99% of the problems do not really exist and apart from Thaksin both movements share the same goals - government accountable before the people, not govenernment accountable to the the military nor the government accountable to Thaksin.

It is necessary for reds to drop Thaksin from their agenda altogether if they want to present themselves as a valid political movement and engage Democrats (or PAD) in any kind of discussions/dialogues or arguments.

[Samuian]

.....Thaksin was evil....'

Well said, if "was" is replaced with "is" I second that!

But then don't we know by now, stop repeating the writing on the wall!

.... still on the run...!

It's ironic how people accuse PAD supporters of being misled regarding the utlimate (fascist, murderous ethnic cleansing) goals of the movement, yet see no problems with lending support to pro-Thaksin mob.

"Ironic"? It says all about this camp of ideology, the lot, not further explanations needed!

Edited December 22, 2008 by Samuian

[clausewitz]

What is hilarious is how Abhisit throws his lies directly in the faces of teh people. One day he says that "PAD will be held accountable for their actions". On that same day he decides to appoint leading PAD nutjob Sakit as foriegn minister. Way to go Abhisit, the PAD must be in fear now you are in charge.

he seems a little dainty and his comments about running away from the bullies at Eton and his skill in swim ballet make me wonder if he is man enough for this job.

[hammered]

What is hilarious is how Abhisit throws his lies directly in the faces of teh people. One day he says that "PAD will be held accountable for their actions". On that same day he decides to appoint leading PAD nutjob Sakit as foriegn minister. Way to go Abhisit, the PAD must be in fear now you are in charge.

he seems a little dainty and his comments about running away from the bullies at Eton and his skill in swim ballet make me wonder if he is man enough for this job.

Mmmm. Lets look at where machoism has got Thailand, or the rest of the wrold for that matter....

By the way no need for underhand suggestions. It is easy enough to critique Abhisit if that is the aim.

[Siripon]

What is hilarious is how Abhisit throws his lies directly in the faces of teh people. One day he says that "PAD will be held accountable for their actions". On that same day he decides to appoint leading PAD nutjob Sakit as foriegn minister. Way to go Abhisit, the PAD must be in fear now you are in charge.

he seems a little dainty and his comments about running away from the bullies at Eton and his skill in swim ballet make me wonder if he is man enough for this job.

Hopefully Khun Sunai will be reinstated as chief of the DSI to quicken up some stalled cases, ie CTX.

The leaders of the PAD will soon face serious charges and Aphisit can say he can't interfere with the justice system, a stance surely all democracy advocates must agree with.

[animatic]

Imagine what Einstein could have been if he had attended university.

Da_n! I wish I'd said that........

And I wrote the script for a dramatised biography of him............ oh, the shame.

I also wrote one about Hitler and he rose quite far without having a degree..... Hmmm, no - you're right......... best not to go there........

Stalin went to college

Kubla Kahn didn't.

? Many universities in Outer Mongolia in the 12th century were there? Managed to rule the largest empire the World has ever seen though...

But, your focus is interesting in so much as it's consistent, PADites do tend to live a few centuries out of date; you know, before democracy became common...

So you flame me as a PADite, and say i am living in few centuries out of date eh?

Just because I can pull an appropriate reference for a pantheon of post-christian historical personages?

I would more acurately see myself as centrist seeing merit in some of PAD's goals,

which says little about their methods. I would have been willing to see merit in

even Samaks end results if there had been anything worth noting...

No one side has exclusive rights to the domain of truth.

No one group is without sin and mistakes and thus

siding on all points exclusively with one group ignores truths.

Getting retro is clearly late 1950's tube technology for me.

But that reality really doesn't fit your desire to ignore the points being made

and shoot the messenger for perceived biases, in support of your OWN biases.

Your 1st comment was good, your second one just shows your blanket biases.

Thaksinistas vs PADites is an arbitrary line in the sand drawn by partisans, to make

themselves feel better in a group, rather than standing alone within their own philosophy.

Kubla Kahn is a bit before my prefered historical reading.

I lean more toward 1,000-1,500AD european studies.

A better crucible of humanities development relative to today in some ways.

Once again you show your ignorance...

Check the facts before you rant rubbish, don't blindly accept christian propaganda as fact - foolish folk that bleet along, sheeplike, to 'history' they know nothing about, would be able to find some great surprises if they actually checked for themselves or searched a little deeper. Go and spend a year or two in Mongolia then get back to me.

It's one of your many problems, you rant away so certain of your facts, quoting selectively here and there, but with no deep understanding of the facts at hand. Boring.

Oh my gosh I got a date wrong from memory.

I did note I studie EUROPEAN histories of this period more.

Genghis Khan c. 1155-1227

Khubilai Khan 1215 - 1294

Yes I listed back to 1000 ad, but lean toward 1300-1500.

So yes a bit before. And European focused.

So it's christian propaganda, eh.

No age has a monopoly on re-writing history,

the winners always detail how the game was won in THEIR opinion.

But the points made are ignored and you focus on a time line mistake. Boring.

Notice no name calling.... one of YOUR many problems I suspect.

Twice as boring, but it seems to make you feel better.

Edited December 22, 2008 by animatic

[LaoPo]

What is hilarious is how Abhisit throws his lies directly in the faces of teh people. One day he says that "PAD will be held accountable for their actions". On that same day he decides to appoint leading PAD nutjob Sakit as foriegn minister. Way to go Abhisit, the PAD must be in fear now you are in charge.

he seems a little dainty and his comments about running away from the bullies at Eton and his skill in swim ballet make me wonder if he is man enough for this job.

When I read the first I had to smile.....it's never going to happen.

Secondly, Abhisit is a nice and decent man but he's a: ...many strings actually.

To lead Thailand you need to be a streetfighter and "think and feel" rural poor (not just the elite, Pad and military).....but he can't.

The rural poor don't trust him and they are the majority...by far and the bangkok middle class and elite know that and are scared to death for further unrest. A lot of members are constantly talking about the past and what Thaksin did bad for the country.

The BIG problem is that NOBODY ever cared for the majority in this country; It is a structural problem not the Thaksin problem. The problem goes much deeper and further than Thaksin because the problem was already there and still is.

It will be a major job for Abhisit to try and comfort the rural poor majority; if he can do that ?

I don't know.

LaoPo

[Plus]

Interesting letter in today's Nation from Andrew Drummond, about conspiracy theories, western media coverage, Abhist, and PAD's occupation of the airport.

PM is not an elitist but quite down to earth

During the recent troubles the western media saw a conspiracy in every broom cupboard. Merely because sections of society, army, monarchy, 'elitists' may or may not like the PPP or Thaksin Shinawatra, there were considerable unsubstantiated claims as to the level of their involvement.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, himself was described as 'elitist' and lacking the common touch, by the most elitist of British organisations, The Times and the BBC.

Without doubt Abhisit comes with a better education than most foreign correspondents in Thailand, and maybe even 'better stock', but elitist? - certainly not, I am happy to say.

The Times, which clearly believes Mr Shinawatra is a man of the people, published a particularly nasty 'profile' on Abhisit, questioning his ethics, and pulled out some 'dial a quote' T-Rex's to substantiate its view.

Abhisit Vejjajiva is considerably down to earth. As a student he went on anti-Margaret Thatcher demos in support of his colleagues and his musical taste goes as far as 'Atomic Kitten'. He admitted it! He clearly is not as high up in the clouds as some of my colleagues. He had to do a pact with the devil - end of story.

The BBC described some sections of the PAD as 'thugs', working in a 'military' operation. That is their view, but even I as a foreign correspondent would have to concede during months of protests, despite having lost lives and limbs to police tear gas canisters, and M79 grenades, they exhibited remarkable restraint.

As for the airport sieges, history will perhaps reveal just what type of sieges they ever were. But from what I saw on a daily basis the demo was pretty much restricted to the departure level of Suvarnabhumi.

Despite the photos, there really was no serious blockade. There was just no will to remove them.

Now is not the time for recriminations over the recent troubles. But if the Thai National Human Rights Commission wants prosecutions, it should go back to its report on the killings during Thaksin Shinawatra's war on drugs and ask the new administration to listen to the TNHRC and families of the innocent victims. It is long overdue.

ANDREW DRUMMOND

BANGKOK

[Ulysses G.]

Despite the photos, there really was no serious blockade. There was just no will to remove them.

Actually, that is exactly what most of us are objecting to.

[animatic]

I went through Suvarnabhumi twice this week.

Not a single visible sign of ANY disturbance from two weeks ago.

It was as if it never happened.

[LaoPo]

I went through Suvarnabhumi twice this week.

Not a single visible sign of ANY disturbance from two weeks ago.

It was as if it never happened.

Yes, and.....?

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

I went through Suvarnabhumi twice this week.

Not a single visible sign of ANY disturbance from two weeks ago.

It was as if it never happened.

Except that their were far less passengers than there would be.

[Thai at Heart]

I went through Suvarnabhumi twice this week.

Not a single visible sign of ANY disturbance from two weeks ago.

It was as if it never happened.

Except that their were far less passengers than there would be.

I am sure the hoteliers of Thailand will be glad to know that at least the airport shows no visible sign of disturbance. Unfortunately, memories are harder to scrub than concrete.

With predicted figures for tourism and transit passengers heading south, Survanbhumi will be a pleasure to use for all the wrong reasons unfortunately.

Will anyone bother to suggest that possibly the New Year would be a good time to close Don Muang and save a lot of people the hassle of running across town just to get around this country effectively.

[Samuian]

Interesting letter in today's Nation from Andrew Drummond, about conspiracy theories, western media coverage, Abhist, and PAD's occupation of the airport.

PM is not an elitist but quite down to earth

Shines some light on the affair...well he who has eyes....ears connected to a functioning brain....

interesting view by Thanong Khanthong :

........Thaksin took over the Palang Dharma Party from Lt Gen Chamlong Srimuang in the early 1990s and screwed it. He later set up his Thai Rak Thai Party to run for election for the first time in 2000-2001 and took over the New Aspiration Party from Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh. Later on he succeeded in consolidating his power through mergers and acquisitions of other smaller parties and political factions. He did not build his power through a base of his own because but through the constituency MPs of others.

Somehow the image of Thaksin had become larger than life, so that when Thaksin went into the second election in 2005 his party won a landslide. The strength of Thaksin's political power base lies in the ex-members of the New Aspiration Party.

From Thaksin's control of the politicians came the control of Parliament, the police, the public prosecutors and the bureaucracy. The monopoly of Thaksin's power without adequate check and balance became a crisis of confidence in the Thai political system. This subsequently bred mistrust and crises.

If you look at the key politicians who willingly or unwillingly supported Thaksin's political power, they are all veterans who have been around for much longer than him. These guys include Pinij Charusombat, Somsak Thepsuthin, Newin Chidchob, or Suwat Liptapalop. If you talk to these guys, they don't think that they owe Thaksin anything. They are now quite happy that Thaksin is off their backs.

In short, Thaksin's power lies in his ability to subdue the factions controlled by the big-time politicians from the transition period of IMF-guided economy to post-IMF growth. If these big-time politicians believe that Thaksin is over, Thaksin will be over.

The foreign media like to call Thaksin as a "popularly elected democratic leader", giving the impression that he won the votes via direct ballots of the presidential system. They also frequently call Thaksin's administration as representing popular democracy.

But this is not the case. The Thai people vote for their MPs first and parties second. Thailand is not the United States.

source:

Edited December 22, 2008 by Samuian

[sabaijai]

Interesting letter in today's Nation from Andrew Drummond, about conspiracy theories, western media coverage, Abhist, and PAD's occupation of the airport.

PM is not an elitist but quite down to earth

During the recent troubles the western media saw a conspiracy in every broom cupboard. Merely because sections of society, army, monarchy, 'elitists' may or may not like the PPP or Thaksin Shinawatra, there were considerable unsubstantiated claims as to the level of their involvement.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, himself was described as 'elitist' and lacking the common touch, by the most elitist of British organisations, The Times and the BBC.

Without doubt Abhisit comes with a better education than most foreign correspondents in Thailand, and maybe even 'better stock', but elitist? - certainly not, I am happy to say.

The Times, which clearly believes Mr Shinawatra is a man of the people, published a particularly nasty 'profile' on Abhisit, questioning his ethics, and pulled out some 'dial a quote' T-Rex's to substantiate its view.

Abhisit Vejjajiva is considerably down to earth. As a student he went on anti-Margaret Thatcher demos in support of his colleagues and his musical taste goes as far as 'Atomic Kitten'. He admitted it! He clearly is not as high up in the clouds as some of my colleagues. He had to do a pact with the devil - end of story.

The BBC described some sections of the PAD as 'thugs', working in a 'military' operation. That is their view, but even I as a foreign correspondent would have to concede during months of protests, despite having lost lives and limbs to police tear gas canisters, and M79 grenades, they exhibited remarkable restraint.

As for the airport sieges, history will perhaps reveal just what type of sieges they ever were. But from what I saw on a daily basis the demo was pretty much restricted to the departure level of Suvarnabhumi.

Despite the photos, there really was no serious blockade. There was just no will to remove them.

Now is not the time for recriminations over the recent troubles. But if the Thai National Human Rights Commission wants prosecutions, it should go back to its report on the killings during Thaksin Shinawatra's war on drugs and ask the new administration to listen to the TNHRC and families of the innocent victims. It is long overdue.

ANDREW DRUMMOND

BANGKOK

[hammered]

Interesting letter in today's Nation from Andrew Drummond, about conspiracy theories, western media coverage, Abhist, and PAD's occupation of the airport.

PM is not an elitist but quite down to earth

During the recent troubles the western media saw a conspiracy in every broom cupboard. Merely because sections of society, army, monarchy, 'elitists' may or may not like the PPP or Thaksin Shinawatra, there were considerable unsubstantiated claims as to the level of their involvement.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, himself was described as 'elitist' and lacking the common touch, by the most elitist of British organisations, The Times and the BBC.

Without doubt Abhisit comes with a better education than most foreign correspondents in Thailand, and maybe even 'better stock', but elitist? - certainly not, I am happy to say.

The Times, which clearly believes Mr Shinawatra is a man of the people, published a particularly nasty 'profile' on Abhisit, questioning his ethics, and pulled out some 'dial a quote' T-Rex's to substantiate its view.

Abhisit Vejjajiva is considerably down to earth. As a student he went on anti-Margaret Thatcher demos in support of his colleagues and his musical taste goes as far as 'Atomic Kitten'. He admitted it! He clearly is not as high up in the clouds as some of my colleagues. He had to do a pact with the devil - end of story.

The BBC described some sections of the PAD as 'thugs', working in a 'military' operation. That is their view, but even I as a foreign correspondent would have to concede during months of protests, despite having lost lives and limbs to police tear gas canisters, and M79 grenades, they exhibited remarkable restraint.

As for the airport sieges, history will perhaps reveal just what type of sieges they ever were. But from what I saw on a daily basis the demo was pretty much restricted to the departure level of Suvarnabhumi.

Despite the photos, there really was no serious blockade. There was just no will to remove them.

Now is not the time for recriminations over the recent troubles. But if the Thai National Human Rights Commission wants prosecutions, it should go back to its report on the killings during Thaksin Shinawatra's war on drugs and ask the new administration to listen to the TNHRC and families of the innocent victims. It is long overdue.

ANDREW DRUMMOND

BANGKOK

That about sums it up. Nice to see the drug war mentioned too.

[aromsia]

I guess Andrew is having trouble finding work these days.

On second thought, maybe it's visa time and no sponsor?

Edited December 22, 2008 by aromsia

[TAWP]

I guess Andrew is having trouble finding work these days.

On second thought, maybe it's visa time and no sponsor?

And here it comes...

[Ricardo]

I went through Suvarnabhumi twice this week.

Not a single visible sign of ANY disturbance from two weeks ago.

It was as if it never happened.

Yes, and.....?

LaoPo

and remember the claims, at the time, that it would take at least two weeks, simply to re-open Swampy ? Pure spin, which failed to acknowledge the frequent remarkable ability of Thai people, to get something up-and-running (in some fashion) far more quickly than most foreign-observers would expect.

[Steve2UK]

Democrats will certainly embark on some sort of constution amendment and I expect someone would raise "new politics" ideas there. PAD proposed it in the middle of a war, there will be significant resistance just due to the bad memories of those days, but if the idea is repackaged and presented by someone else, it might get some traction, though I have no idea how far they are prepared to go with it. It would all depend on political mood next year, on how Abhisit goes with "reds" of all hues, they need to build some mutual trust to start.

Thailand has an advantage of being very easy on consitutions, they can write a new one every year and no one would care, so a complete overhaul would not be as psychologically difficult as in the US, for example. Over there they all talk about changes all the time but they are restricted by their existing constitution and all the relevant laws that cannot be touched. So they legalised lobbists to deal with "interest groups" in a roundabout way instead of directly including them in the proces as legitimate players. Apparently they are not satisfied with the results, but what else would you expect - it's a patch up job, trying to squeeze modern reality into centuries old sacred tradition.

If you drop all the baggage and start from square one - what kind of government would be most suitable for demands of the 21st century? What should be qualifications for each and every ministry or for lawmakers? How most suitable candidates can be selected?

I don't think that you'd come up with anything resembling the current system. Geographical representation simply doesn't make much sense - these jobs should go to skilled and experienced professionals from their respective fields that have little to do with geography.

The society itself is changing dramatically, too. People's connections to each other are not location based anymore, especially in the cities. I guess an average "modern" person knows ten times more people through work, school, interest group, fitness club or Internet than his direct neighbours. Communities are not geography based anymore. If these people were to pick someone to represent them, they wouldn't even think of the guy next door, unless they are voting for a local governing body.

This changing reality needs to be reflected in the political system, too.

>>

Steve, I know very well that they devil is in the details, but I also don't see any reason to discuss the details at the moment - not until the general direction is agreed upon by Thais so we know what is coming.

I also understand your concern that there could be undue pressure with the professional assosiations. In a way it is unavoidable - this kind of pressure to toe the line exist within any society, any group. I don't think it should a major concern, though - for one thing it can't get any worse than now. You want to find fascism in Thailand - just look how political parties operate internally.

The goal would be to make professional groups to be open and democratic themselves, but I don't think they should put that in constitution, though - too many details. I don't think they should put even the number of those groups and number of represenatitives from each one into consitution - too many details, too inflexible.

Don't forget that the system is only as good as people themselves. You need people to catch the idea of openness and accountability, they will do the rest, whatever system they are placed under. You need to start somewhere, set an example, protect anbd nurture it, give people taste, create a trend. I don't think it would be possible under the current "winner takes all" system unless the winner is dedicated to spead of democracy, which seems to be the case now. Will Democrats inspire a change in people themselves? If they do, maybe we won't even need "new politics" altogether, after all it was born only as a response to bad people taking over the political system. PAD didn't think about the most suitable form of government for modern age at all.

I'm not sure why you didn't follow what IMO is normal forum practice and reply quoting my post # 983 (page 40) given that

a] I raised a number of specific points - so it would be easier for other readers to follow the discussion if you had included my post in your response

b] There have been a large number of other postings on different tangents in between my post and your response.

OK, whatever. When I raised the points that I did, I hadn't seen the contents of a lecture (Keynote speech, 9th International Conference of Thai Studies, University of Northern Illinois, Dekalb, 4 April 2005) given by Pasuk Phongpaichit, Professor of Economics at Chulalongkorn. It's a 10-page transcript, but the following extract is highly relevant to a point I raised about farmers (I was talking in that context about their resisting pressures but the point applies equally to their ability to make their voice heard and their vote count):

"The peasantry is gradually disappearing, but very slowly and imperfectly. Now, some 40 percent of households return their primary occupation as agriculture. Most of these still have family smallholdings. But, they are no longer peasants in any way, but are engaged in market agriculture and often dependent on export markets. They are poor because of under-investment, declining world price trends for agriculture, and environmental deterioration. Agrarian households survive by sending family labor to the urban or the global economy in return for remittance income. This “post-peasantry” suffers from the usual political weaknesses of the agrarian mass, i.e. not being able to organize. It is also weighted down by a history of repression. And it has difficulty cohering around any class interest because its economic fortunes now depend on both the urban and agrarian economies.

Last but not least, the big social segment, which has ballooned over the past generation, is the informal sector of the urban areas. This includes the whole ‘shophouse’ subsector of mom-and-pop stores, and other family and micro-scale enterprises; vendors; the self-employed; many illegal or semi-legal enterprises; and a large workforce which floats between many different kinds of employment including construction, seasonal agricultural work, sweatshops, illegal gambling, prostitution, other personal services and so on.

Defining this segment is difficult and hence counting it too. But based on the 2004 Labour Force Survey, the following is a rough picture of Thailand’s current social structure: around 40 percent in agriculture, just over a quarter in the urban informal sector (with large links and flows between these two groups), about 15 percent in the whitecollar middle class, and 8 percent as ‘formal’ industrial labour (meaning fairly permanently employed).

The main point is: the ‘disorganized mass’ of post-peasants and urban informal sector amount to two-thirds.

41% agriculture

26% urban informal

15% formal industrial*

8% white collar

10% other

*in factories with 10+ workers

THE POLITICS OF NUMBERS

What is the implication of the above social structure on politics? In representative politics, numbers matter. As representative institutions have become more established over the past generation, the potential political influence of this large ‘disorganized mass’ has steadily grown. But this potential has been realized in a particular form. They do not share political interests which might take shape as a party or even a lobby. They have been suppressed by hegemonic discourse and by constitutional arrangements. Officials and elites have argued that ordinary people were somehow not ready for democracy. The so-called “People’s Constitution” of 1997 stipulates that candidates for members of parliaments must have a tertiary degree, thus excluding around 95 percent of all in the rural and informal sectors from membership of parliament. Democracy has not been so welcoming. [My note: degree requirement for MP's dropped in 2007 constitution]

The political figures who exploited the resulting situation were the local political bosses which emerged from the 1970s onwards, and became the dominant element of the political system in the 1990s. The rural and informal population were not active participants in democratic politics, but were available as passive recipients of political goods. A pyramid of informal organizations developed upwards: in the locality, the phak phuak or clique, which could turn out voters; above that, the electoral alliance; then the faction of MPs; finally, the governing coalition. Up this pyramid flowed the aggregated support needed for success in representative politics. Downwards in reciprocation flowed various political goods such as budget allocations, informal political patronage, Protection, and cash in the form of vote-buying. The pyramid remained very non-institutionalized – essentially as informal as its social base. Over two Decades, the people at the base became used to their role as clients for patronage from a big boss figure linked to the pyramid."

[my bold highlights above]

Full transcript at: http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk...inwideangle.pdf

In case you rush to dismiss her as a Thaksin apologist, I'll also include the following extract from her conclusion:

"Thaksin could last a long time. He promises to make the economy grow, and distribute its benefits more fairly. But he is also moving Thailand away from the model of liberal, plural democracy to a one-party state with presidential touches. If we want to prevent this, we first need to understand why it is happening."

As already noted, it's a 10-page transcript so everyone is sure to find something in it with which they can disagree. I hope that you won't resort to the now familiar "nothing original in it........ I stopped paying attention when I reached that paragraph" or similar response. Some people reading these threads are trying to gain an understanding - and dismissing opposing views for what come across as merely tactical reasons doesn't help make anyone's case.

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

So, how would this "disorganised mass" (two-thirds of the Thai population) actually achieve fair representation under the functional system that you propose? I'm not so foolish as to call on you to provide a fully worked out proposal, but these are more than just "details" - they are right at the core of any change to the present geographic/party list system.

You say "Geographical representation simply doesn't make much sense - these jobs should go to skilled and experienced professionals from their respective fields that have little to do with geography. The society itself is changing dramatically, too. People's connections to each other are not location based anymore, especially in the cities. I guess an average "modern" person knows ten times more people through work, school, interest group, fitness club or Internet than his direct neighbours. Communities are not geography based anymore."

Leaving aside the 26% "urban informal" sector for the purposes of this, how many of those agricultural workers (41% of the Thai population) do you think fall into the category of what you'd regard as 'average "modern" person' (let alone are members of fitness clubs)? Your "especially in the cities" is a telling phrase - and it strikes me that your whole thesis is city-centric in general and "professional"-oriented in particular........ so back to constructing a system that inherently favours city professionals (read "middle class") over the rural population. Thus - as I raised before - we're back to the top-down "toe-the-line" pressures so often found in the structures containing those professionals. In passing, I'll remind you that you completely ignored my question about how the military would be represented in the system you propose...........

You concede that "In a way it is unavoidable - this kind of pressure to toe the line exist within any society, any group" but you "don't think it should a major concern". You go on to say "The goal would be to make professional groups to be open and democratic themselves, but I don't think they should put that in constitution, though - too many details. I don't think they should put even the number of those groups and number of represenatitives from each one into consitution - too many details, too inflexible".

Too many details? Again - these "details" are right at the core of any change. You might understand why I infer from all this that you regard a constitution as being relatively insignificant. Most developed nations that I can think of regard their constitution as a vital safeguard for their people's liberties (the UK is an exception in not having a written constitution as such) - and IMO rightly so. When you say "the system is only as good as people themselves. You need people to catch the idea of openness and accountability, they will do the rest, whatever system they are placed under", you seem to be under the illusion that people left to themselves (i.e. without the protection/authority of a constitution or at least some set of well-thought-through and well-worded laws/rules to govern conduct) will simply gravitate to doing the right thing. I suggest to you that historical precedent shows otherwise; it's a Utopia that is beyond mere mortals - societies rapidly descend into anarchy and/or get taken over by whoever has the most clout. It's just not good enough to say that the current system must go until you can make some convincing case why what you propose to replace it with can reasonably be expected to operate better - and better for all the people, not just a third of them.

This post is very (too?) long already - so I'll close with a quote from Bangkok Pundit:"Even in some utopian New Politics scheme there will be different groups in society and each group will need to be rewarded (quota system)". It's IMO undeniable that we're already seeing that with Abhisit's political need to appoint his cabinet as he has - i.e. quota trumps merit. That's just political reality for now - and I don't see it changing anytime soon under the current system - even less likely under your proposed alternative.

[TAWP]

DP>> Everything you link is the Truth, handed down from God, anything someone else from the opposite view links is the work of the Devil.

Must be nice when everything is so clear cut.

And anyone saying that the 'western media' uses the words as 'fascist' or are all saying the same things are still telling a lie.

[permanent_disorder]

I went through Suvarnabhumi twice this week.

Not a single visible sign of ANY disturbance from two weeks ago.

It was as if it never happened.

Yes, and.....?

LaoPo

and remember the claims, at the time, that it would take at least two weeks, simply to re-open Swampy ? Pure spin, which failed to acknowledge the frequent remarkable ability of Thai people, to get something up-and-running (in some fashion) far more quickly than most foreign-observers would expect.

the information that it would take at least two weaks came from the AOT chief.

i don't know if that was all pure spin and in my opinion the claims and concerns aren't so pointless at all. at least not ignorant and careless like other voices to the subject, full of dewy-eyed optimism.

[henryalleman]

And all of this as published in a newspaper of a country where MP's are appointed by the king, A country where there is no real freedom of religion, A country where some ethnic groups don't have the same rights as the others. A country where women can't married a man from another religion. A country where a man get a 15 year jail sentence because he converted himself to a different faith.

They better comment the injustices in their own country, oops sorry can(t do because there is no freedom of the press also, some foreign magazines are even forbidden.

Shame on them to have the audacity to point the finger to another country.

Oh Henry! Looks like another trip to Canossa for you.........

Malaysia is a federal constitutional elective monarchy. It is nominally headed by the Paramount Ruler or Yang di-Pertuan Agong, commonly referred to as the King of Malaysia. Yang di-Pertuan Agong are selected for five-year terms from among the nine Sultans of the Malay states; the other four states, which have titular Governors, do not participate in the selection. The king also is the leader of the Islamic faith in Malaysia. The system of government in Malaysia is closely modeled on that of Westminster parliamentary system, a legacy of British colonial rule.

The bicameral Parliament consists of the Senate (Dewan Negara) and the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat). All seventy Senate members sit for three-year terms (to a maximum of two terms); twenty-six are elected by the thirteen state assemblies, and forty-four are appointed by the king based on the advice of the Prime Minister. The 222 members of the Dewan Rakyat are elected from single-member districts by universal adult suffrage. Parliament has a maximum mandate of five years by law. The king may dissolve parliament at any time and usually does so upon the advice of the Prime Minister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Malaysia

Plenty that I don't like about the Malaysian situation, too - but none of it has anything to do with that article. You condemn the country and have nothing to say about the article?

Thanks for the info, I did made an mistake about the MP's

but;

All seventy Senate members sit for three-year terms (to a maximum of two terms); twenty-six are elected by the thirteen state assemblies, and forty-four are appointed by the king on the advice of the Prime Minister.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/03/03/mala...enied-fair-vote

I can't call this democratic.

And am I wrong about this also?

A country where there is no real freedom of religion,

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37973

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=1334

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=4169

A country where women can't married a man from another religion.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/st...006/1673632.htm

And there are so much more human rights abuses, just ask the Chinese and Hindu minorities in Malaysia

That's why Malayan newspaper should expose there own Human rights violation before the comment some other countries.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/05/16/mala...fall-prey-abuse

[Pierrot]

If you drop all the baggage and start from square one - what kind of government would be most suitable for demands of the 21st century? What should be qualifications for each and every ministry or for lawmakers? How most suitable candidates can be selected?

I don't think that you'd come up with anything resembling the current system. Geographical representation simply doesn't make much sense - these jobs should go to skilled and experienced professionals from their respective fields that have little to do with geography.

Elitist and wrong.

Are you talking about staff or leaders ? Usually leaders are "less" educated than their staff. Just check the owners (not the "caretakers") of some of the biggest companies.

Universities teach staff, life teaches leaders.

[Thai at Heart]

To SteveUK,

Excellent post. I don't want to include it in the message coz I am awaiting the answer.