Double Standard In Thailand

[dbrenn]

There is a discussion on whether Abhisit is actually in charge, and to answer this question we should perhaps take a look at the glaring double standard that exists in Thailand.

When the PAD causes chaos and enormous financial loss by shutting down the country's international airport, shooting and fighting in the streets, the army did nothing. When the Reds cause chaos, the army intervenes. Corrupt politicians in the yellow camp, and there are many, are ignored by the judiciary, whereas corrupt politicians in Thaksin's camp who are the elected government of the day are hounded for infractions as small as appearing on a TV cooking program, and expelled from office.

How undemocratic. There is a school of thought that says that Thailand is not ready for a democracy, that the poor majority is too stupid to vote sensibly and should therefore have its representation diluted by the elite. That is what the PAD has said publicly, but who trusts them or the old guard generals and elite who sponsor them and who have never really done anything to improve the lot of the average Thai.

Thaksin's lot are highly unpalatable, but they were an elected civilian government, marking the first time in Thailand's recent history that worn out and corrupt generals and career bureaucrats were not calling all the shots, bickering amongst themselves, and getting nothing done. The PAD tore down a fledgling democracy that was an example to other countries in SE Asia, and replaced it with mob rule. What they should have done was show how much support they really had by beating Thaksin at the ballot box, peacefully. They seemed unable to do that, and now we are in an unending cycle of street violence and Myanmaresque military intervention.

I notice that a lot of foreigners seem to miss this obvious double standard, automatically vilifying Thaksin as the devil incarnate, while holding up Abhisit and his lot as clean and democratic. Looking at the Bangkok Post or the Nation, which most foreigners depend on for political insight, I can see why. They are clearly biased toward the PAD, and have been since its inception.

Abhisit is a nice guy in a party just as rotten as the rest of them. In charge of Thailand he is not.

[Heng]

Both sides have their elite, but the current side on top has the better elite. The other side is just a tricked out Isaan tour bus: neon colors, disco ball, and packed with fuglies (it's still a $70-80k vehicle... minus any amount of taste and common sense).

That's a non-biased opinion by the way. I don't support either side.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Heng

[PhilHarries]

Can we give this political ping pong a rest? It's getting plain boring , we've heard all the arguements for and against both sides ad nauseum so until there is something new to add it would be nice to discuss other aspects of life in Thailand. I am led to believe there are some.

[dbrenn]

Both sides have their elite, but the current side on top has the better elite. The other side is just a tricked out Isaan tour bus: neon colors, disco ball, and packed with fuglies.

That's a non-biased opinion by the way. I don't support either side.

Using your argument, it is just as easy to say that the other side 'just tricked' factions of the army, the judiciary, the bureacrats, the Bangkokians and southerners. So what are you saying? The fact is, the current side is a minority. The majority vote, even though it comprises the Isan tour bus working class social group that you clearly do not identify with, has been ignored. By what measure do you call the current lot a 'better elite', when we know that they are just the same bunch of crooks, many of whom served in Thaksin's equally corrupt party?

If Thailand wants to run a political system of minority rule, where democratically elected governments are kicked out of office on a pretext, why does it call itself a democracy? By any standard, it isn't one. The PAD seems to have set the scene for mob rule politics and double standards, which are no longer accepted by even the most uneducated peasant. The upshot is a divided nation, with the rural majority bitterly resenting the fact that their democratic voice was ignored, and a descending cycle of violence.

[Martian]

It's all very simple. The yellow shirts are the rich and elite and cannot live with the poorer majority determining the path of the government and country. What they (Yellow shits) have quickly realized is that with a democratically elected government, they lose control of their money through taxation. The poor, with the majority, could introduce and vote into law taxes on the rich to be distributed to the poor through welfare, health care and social security schemes.

This IS what it is all about.

As repugnant as Thaksin might be (for trying to avoid taxes on his communications company sale), he was unlawfully and unconstitutionally removed from office and he really is the only true democratically elected PM of this country. The fact that the judicial system and current government officials continue to ignore this basic concept makes them all corrupt and unfit for public office. They ignore the basic foundations of the rule of law.

Why aren't the Yellow shirt leaders also being rounded up under an arrest warrant?

Regards

Edited April 15, 2009 by Martian

[LawnGnome]

Can we give this political ping pong a rest? It's getting plain boring , we've heard all the arguements for and against both sides ad nauseum so until there is something new to add it would be nice to discuss other aspects of life in Thailand. I am led to believe there are some.

Amen Phil

[Heng]

Both sides have their elite, but the current side on top has the better elite. The other side is just a tricked out Isaan tour bus: neon colors, disco ball, and packed with fuglies.

That's a non-biased opinion by the way. I don't support either side.

Using your argument, it is just as easy to say that the other side 'just tricked' factions of the army, the judiciary, the bureacrats, the Bangkokians and southerners. So what are you saying? The fact is, the current side is a minority. The majority vote, even though it comprises the Isan tour bus working class social group that you clearly do not identify with, has been ignored. By what measure do you call the current lot a 'better elite', when we know that they are just the same bunch of crooks, many of whom served in Thaksin's equally corrupt party?

If Thailand wants to run a political system of minority rule, where democratically elected governments are kicked out of office on a pretext, why does it call itself a democracy? By any standard, it isn't one. The PAD seems to have set the scene for mob rule politics and double standards, which are no longer accepted by even the most uneducated peasant. The upshot is a divided nation, with the rural majority bitterly resenting the fact that their democratic voice was ignored, and a descending cycle of violence.

Where was I making any kind of argument?

The current side is a minority, just made up of better people. I don't identify with either group... I know you want to play dodgeball and all, but my comment was just an observation and I'm not on either team. I can poke fun at the other side as well... it's just not as funny. There is no set measure, it's an intangible (which is the main reason why it can never be copied by the others... no matter how hard they try).

It calls itself whatever it wants to call itself. And the cycle is perfectly natural, and is hardly unique in historical terms. All that happens is that the system topples over and over time, the same components of society end up near the top... just with different names/symbols/and logos.

[dbrenn]

Can we give this political ping pong a rest? It's getting plain boring , we've heard all the arguements for and against both sides ad nauseum so until there is something new to add it would be nice to discuss other aspects of life in Thailand. I am led to believe there are some.

You can of course give politics a rest - just don't open threads that are of a political nature, rather than barging into ones that are and then complaining when you find political content there.

Politics is an important part of Thailand that affects the lives of everyone, and this forum is about Thailand, so it is a legitimate topic to discuss.

[BigSnake]

Can we give this political ping pong a rest? It's getting plain boring , we've heard all the arguements for and against both sides ad nauseum so until there is something new to add it would be nice to discuss other aspects of life in Thailand. I am led to believe there are some.

Concur, Thank you

[dbrenn]

Where was I making any kind of argument?

The current side is a minority, just made up of better people. I don't identify with either group... I know you want to play dodgeball and all, but my comment was just an observation and I'm not on either team. I can poke fun at the other side as well... it's just not as funny. There is no set measure, it's an intangible (which is the main reason why it can never be copied by the others... no matter how hard they try).

It calls itself whatever it wants to call itself. And the cycle is perfectly natural, and is hardly unique in historical terms. All that happens is that the system topples over and over time, the same components of society end up near the top... just with different names/symbols/and logos.

If you don't identify with either group, you can hardly say which is made up of 'better people'. And yes, as you say the same components do end up near the top every time, regardless of who gets elected, so why take to the streets and kick them out? What makes the yellow side 'better people' in your view? The fact they they are not peasants and 'Isan tour bus drivers'? Take a look at all the corruption on both sides of the table and tell me what makes one side or the other 'better'

[tartempion]

It's all very simple. The yellow shirts are the rich and elite and cannot live with the poorer majority determining the path of the government and country. What they (Yellow shits) have quickly realized is that with a democratically elected government, they lose control of their money through taxation. The poor, with the majority, could introduce and vote into law taxes on the rich to be distributed to the poor through welfare, health care and social security schemes.

This IS what it is all about.

As repugnant as Thaksin might be (for trying to avoid taxes on his communications company sale), he was unlawfully and unconstitutionally removed from office and he really is the only true democratically elected PM of this country. The fact that the judicial system and current government officials continue to ignore this basic concept makes them all corrupt and unfit for public office. They ignore the basic foundations of the rule of law.

Why aren't the Yellow shirt leaders also being rounded up under an arrest warrant?

Regards

Indeed,

Thailand in the year BA 2552 equals Europe 1900 AD

[Heng]

If you don't identify with either group, you can hardly say which is made up of 'better people'. And yes, as you say the same components do end up near the top every time, regardless of who gets elected, so why take to the streets and kick them out? What makes the yellow side 'better people' in your view? The fact they they are not peasants and 'Isan tour bus drivers'? Take a look at all the corruption on both sides of the table and tell me what makes one side or the other 'better'

It's no different than saying the NFL is superior to the NFL-Europe or the Premier League being better than the MLS. By the way, I don't play for either league, but it's pure wishful thinking for the inferior league to think that they are just as good.

As for sweeping the streets, it's basic housekeeping. I don't have a problem with any of the Isaan tour bus drivers and peasants doing whatever they like, nor the elites and their generations held swaths of property/titles/etc., as long as they don't block my driveway and interfere with my daily livelihood. And they don't, so all is good. (but I can still easily identify which group is made up of "better" more refined people... take for example what kind of backing -that we don't discuss on this board- the refined group has).

[Martian]

If you don't like the thread's content, stay out.

Regards

[unforgiven]

There is a discussion on whether Abhisit is actually in charge, and to answer this question we should perhaps take a look at the glaring double standard that exists in Thailand.

When the PAD causes chaos and enormous financial loss by shutting down the country's international airport, shooting and fighting in the streets, the army did nothing. When the Reds cause chaos, the army intervenes. Corrupt politicians in the yellow camp, and there are many, are ignored by the judiciary, whereas corrupt politicians in Thaksin's camp who are the elected government of the day are hounded for infractions as small as appearing on a TV cooking program, and expelled from office.

How undemocratic. There is a school of thought that says that Thailand is not ready for a democracy, that the poor majority is too stupid to vote sensibly and should therefore have its representation diluted by the elite. That is what the PAD has said publicly, but who trusts them or the old guard generals and elite who sponsor them and who have never really done anything to improve the lot of the average Thai.

Thaksin's lot are highly unpalatable, but they were an elected civilian government, marking the first time in Thailand's recent history that worn out and corrupt generals and career bureaucrats were not calling all the shots, bickering amongst themselves, and getting nothing done. The PAD tore down a fledgling democracy that was an example to other countries in SE Asia, and replaced it with mob rule. What they should have done was show how much support they really had by beating Thaksin at the ballot box, peacefully. They seemed unable to do that, and now we are in an unending cycle of street violence and Myanmaresque military intervention.

I notice that a lot of foreigners seem to miss this obvious double standard, automatically vilifying Thaksin as the devil incarnate, while holding up Abhisit and his lot as clean and democratic. Looking at the Bangkok Post or the Nation, which most foreigners depend on for political insight, I can see why. They are clearly biased toward the PAD, and have been since its inception.

Abhisit is a nice guy in a party just as rotten as the rest of them. In charge of Thailand he is not.

Elected or not Thaksin is a convicted criminal and should be in jail.End of story thats it!!!!!!!!!!

[daveb1]

Without taking sides I kind of agree with the first poster but this goes way beyond Thailand don’t you think that the rich and elite normally run every country look at the UK and the USA 2 perfect examples! The mega rich and powerfull will always pull the strings.The rest of us are just pawns in there game.

[wasabi]

I have once read Thailand is stuck in the 18th century with 21st century toys. There is no way they are right for democracy. Note I didn't say ready, I don't think democracy is the means of government right for them. Some kind of more centralized rule seems better but hopefully someone who does look out for the interests of the poor. Simply calling them dumb and casting them off is an injustice to the country. They need more chances and resources. It's not right for the rich to hog it all for themselves.

[ozzydom]

Why do people still keep insisting that the previous government won the election.

The previous government was able to form a government in chorus with minor parties and factions to give it the numbers.

After the courts banned the main party and many of its members for among other things ,vote buying,enough of the factions joined the current government which gave them the numbers to form a government.

This is standard practice under many systems of government.

For instance Indonesia where the ruling party in the coalition only received 20% of the popular vote.

Israel where the party that received the majority of the vote was still unable to make up a coalition to govern.

India where the government is made up of a huge number of coalition partners.

Coalition governments are historically unstable as it only takes single small coalition partner to take their ball and go home to swing the numbers and bring a government down.

The current Thai government includes factions who were originally a part of the previous government but chose to swap sides thereby giving this government the numbers in the house.

Once a person is elected to parliament they have the freedom to chop and change affiliations for whatever reason,be it self preservation,or maybe to get their noses deeper into the trough,This can be very lucrative in a short period as they dont have to answer to their constituents until the next poll.

[cmsally]

Where was I making any kind of argument?

The current side is a minority, just made up of better people. I don't identify with either group... I know you want to play dodgeball and all, but my comment was just an observation and I'm not on either team. I can poke fun at the other side as well... it's just not as funny. There is no set measure, it's an intangible (which is the main reason why it can never be copied by the others... no matter how hard they try).

It calls itself whatever it wants to call itself. And the cycle is perfectly natural, and is hardly unique in historical terms. All that happens is that the system topples over and over time, the same components of society end up near the top... just with different names/symbols/and logos.

If you don't identify with either group, you can hardly say which is made up of 'better people'. And yes, as you say the same components do end up near the top every time, regardless of who gets elected, so why take to the streets and kick them out? What makes the yellow side 'better people' in your view? The fact they they are not peasants and 'Isan tour bus drivers'? Take a look at all the corruption on both sides of the table and tell me what makes one side or the other 'better'

Better is hardly a relevant argument, it all boils down to force. Force is dependent on the army; when they are supporting one side and not the other the outcome is rather obvious. The army ultimately holds the balance of power and they are happy to keep it that way.

Power here is more of a tripartisan affair, with govt, opposition and army. Sooner or later a govt will get in that boosts the power of the army, even if it has to have military help to do so. The present govt. "owes" the army, this state of indebtness will keep them happy for a while yet.

At least until they have to hold another pesky election to keep up the facade of democracy.

[sbk]

A pretty good description of a Parliamentary system for those who would care to be educated on how it really works

http://www.answers.com/topic/parliamentary-system

[FarangCravings]

There is a discussion on whether Abhisit is actually in charge, and to answer this question we should perhaps take a look at the glaring double standard that exists in Thailand.

When the PAD causes chaos and enormous financial loss by shutting down the country's international airport, shooting and fighting in the streets, the army did nothing. When the Reds cause chaos, the army intervenes. Corrupt politicians in the yellow camp, and there are many, are ignored by the judiciary, whereas corrupt politicians in Thaksin's camp who are the elected government of the day are hounded for infractions as small as appearing on a TV cooking program, and expelled from office.

How undemocratic. There is a school of thought that says that Thailand is not ready for a democracy, that the poor majority is too stupid to vote sensibly and should therefore have its representation diluted by the elite. That is what the PAD has said publicly, but who trusts them or the old guard generals and elite who sponsor them and who have never really done anything to improve the lot of the average Thai.

Thaksin's lot are highly unpalatable, but they were an elected civilian government, marking the first time in Thailand's recent history that worn out and corrupt generals and career bureaucrats were not calling all the shots, bickering amongst themselves, and getting nothing done. The PAD tore down a fledgling democracy that was an example to other countries in SE Asia, and replaced it with mob rule. What they should have done was show how much support they really had by beating Thaksin at the ballot box, peacefully. They seemed unable to do that, and now we are in an unending cycle of street violence and Myanmaresque military intervention.

I notice that a lot of foreigners seem to miss this obvious double standard, automatically vilifying Thaksin as the devil incarnate, while holding up Abhisit and his lot as clean and democratic. Looking at the Bangkok Post or the Nation, which most foreigners depend on for political insight, I can see why. They are clearly biased toward the PAD, and have been since its inception.

Abhisit is a nice guy in a party just as rotten as the rest of them. In charge of Thailand he is not.

GREAT POST AND SPOT ON

[Heng]

Without taking sides I kind of agree with the first poster but this goes way beyond Thailand don’t you think that the rich and elite normally run every country look at the UK and the USA 2 perfect examples! The mega rich and powerfull will always pull the strings.The rest of us are just pawns in there game.

Pretty much spot on, except that I don't think that life is elites and pawns. Plenty of room in the middle to play all kinds of games.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Can I just say how much I appreciate DBrenn's post.. I completely agree.. It's almost ironic that while it's all so obvious, so many 'Falungs' don't seem to get it.. They disliked Thaksin from the minute the social order campaign started, never mind what he did for the economy or for the rural poor.

Well guess what, sooner or later the rural poor won't just be 'serfs' anymore and the whole fairy tale bar disneyland is coming to an end.

[Shotime]

Sorry, but I would like to read the above article later.

I may not remember this correctly, but I believe that the when the US was forming it's government, they never intended the common rabble to elect anyone. They were afraid that someone like Kuhn Thaksin could get himself elected by the masses. They never intended for the masses to elect anyone except maybe the president of their local gun club or KKK membership. Certainly not the federal government. They realized that the masses were uneducated and could be swayed to vote by things other than what would be best for the country. I may be wrong, but the model of Democracy (the US) does not elect it's President by popular vote. Of course, I'm not referring to Bush who won by fraud and manipulation, but the basic idea is the same. Would you really want those yellow or red shirts picking who runs the country?

[TonySoprano]

There is a discussion on whether Abhisit is actually in charge, and to answer this question we should perhaps take a look at the glaring double standard that exists in Thailand.

When the PAD causes chaos and enormous financial loss by shutting down the country's international airport, shooting and fighting in the streets, the army did nothing. When the Reds cause chaos, the army intervenes. Corrupt politicians in the yellow camp, and there are many, are ignored by the judiciary, whereas corrupt politicians in Thaksin's camp who are the elected government of the day are hounded for infractions as small as appearing on a TV cooking program, and expelled from office.

How undemocratic. There is a school of thought that says that Thailand is not ready for a democracy, that the poor majority is too stupid to vote sensibly and should therefore have its representation diluted by the elite. That is what the PAD has said publicly, but who trusts them or the old guard generals and elite who sponsor them and who have never really done anything to improve the lot of the average Thai.

Thaksin's lot are highly unpalatable, but they were an elected civilian government, marking the first time in Thailand's recent history that worn out and corrupt generals and career bureaucrats were not calling all the shots, bickering amongst themselves, and getting nothing done. The PAD tore down a fledgling democracy that was an example to other countries in SE Asia, and replaced it with mob rule. What they should have done was show how much support they really had by beating Thaksin at the ballot box, peacefully. They seemed unable to do that, and now we are in an unending cycle of street violence and Myanmaresque military intervention.

I notice that a lot of foreigners seem to miss this obvious double standard, automatically vilifying Thaksin as the devil incarnate, while holding up Abhisit and his lot as clean and democratic. Looking at the Bangkok Post or the Nation, which most foreigners depend on for political insight, I can see why. They are clearly biased toward the PAD, and have been since its inception.

Abhisit is a nice guy in a party just as rotten as the rest of them. In charge of Thailand he is not.

It actually does not bother me if people know all of this and still support the Yellow side, but admit to the double standard and take the ends justify the means approach. its the weirdo's who say stuff like "Well, what crime really would you charge the yellow's with for seizing the airport? Its a grey area" or some other crazy shit their wife explained to them. Or my personal favorites, "This whole thing is about Thaksin's frozen 80 billion baht" and "By getting rid of Thaksin, its a step towards ending corruption in Thailand".

[TonySoprano]

Sorry, but I would like to read the above article later.

I may not remember this correctly, but I believe that the when the US was forming it's government, they never intended the common rabble to elect anyone. They were afraid that someone like Kuhn Thaksin could get himself elected by the masses. They never intended for the masses to elect anyone except maybe the president of their local gun club or KKK membership. Certainly not the federal government. They realized that the masses were uneducated and could be swayed to vote by things other than what would be best for the country. I may be wrong, but the model of Democracy (the US) does not elect it's President by popular vote.

Half right. They didn't want minorities or women to vote.

[cat5]

There is a discussion on whether Abhisit is actually in charge, and to answer this question we should perhaps take a look at the glaring double standard that exists in Thailand.

When the PAD causes chaos and enormous financial loss by shutting down the country's international airport, shooting and fighting in the streets, the army did nothing. When the Reds cause chaos, the army intervenes. Corrupt politicians in the yellow camp, and there are many, are ignored by the judiciary, whereas corrupt politicians in Thaksin's camp who are the elected government of the day are hounded for infractions as small as appearing on a TV cooking program, and expelled from office.

How undemocratic. There is a school of thought that says that Thailand is not ready for a democracy, that the poor majority is too stupid to vote sensibly and should therefore have its representation diluted by the elite. That is what the PAD has said publicly, but who trusts them or the old guard generals and elite who sponsor them and who have never really done anything to improve the lot of the average Thai.

Thaksin's lot are highly unpalatable, but they were an elected civilian government, marking the first time in Thailand's recent history that worn out and corrupt generals and career bureaucrats were not calling all the shots, bickering amongst themselves, and getting nothing done. The PAD tore down a fledgling democracy that was an example to other countries in SE Asia, and replaced it with mob rule. What they should have done was show how much support they really had by beating Thaksin at the ballot box, peacefully. They seemed unable to do that, and now we are in an unending cycle of street violence and Myanmaresque military intervention.

I notice that a lot of foreigners seem to miss this obvious double standard, automatically vilifying Thaksin as the devil incarnate, while holding up Abhisit and his lot as clean and democratic. Looking at the Bangkok Post or the Nation, which most foreigners depend on for political insight, I can see why. They are clearly biased toward the PAD, and have been since its inception.

Abhisit is a nice guy in a party just as rotten as the rest of them. In charge of Thailand he is not.

Excellent post. I agree with everything you say. Just one thing I'd add, the Nation is far worse for its biased reporting than the Bangkok Post. Maybe that's why they have joined forces with Thai Visa.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

It actually does not bother me if people know all of this and still support the Yellow side, but admit to the double standard and take the ends justify the means approach. its the weirdo's who say stuff like "Well, what crime really would you charge the yellow's with for seizing the airport? Its a grey area" or some other crazy shit their wife explained to them. Or my personal favorites, "This whole thing is about Thaksin's frozen 80 billion baht" and "By getting rid of Thaksin, its a step towards ending corruption in Thailand".

Well to be fair, some people do acknowledge that.. I remember posts from Plus for example that basically state that the rural poor are too uneducated and stupid and corruptable to have political power.

That IS a valid point of view. I can't find the words to show how much I disagree with it, but as a viewpoint at least it's consistent and logical.

[Heng]

Well guess what, sooner or later the rural poor won't just be 'serfs' anymore and the whole fairy tale bar disneyland is coming to an end.

IMO the elite strategy will work for some time yet. Every person has his/her price, red leaders have shown themselves to be pretty cheap. Every time a "red" (or whatever non-establishment color) shows some promise or leadership potential, they get removed or bought out. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which side has the less likely to be depleted well of funds.

Thaksin was an anomaly that the establishment will likely not allow the likes of again.

[Marksamui]

Yes there are double standards. There is support for the PAD that Thaksin and the reds are missing. This is why the coup (2006) went ahead and eventually Thaksin or a pro Thanksin govenment no longer remain in power.

What will happen when this support changes is really anyones guess and could prove to be a big problem for Thailand....

[dbrenn]

Elected or not Thaksin is a convicted criminal and should be in jail.End of story thats it!!!!!!!!!!

That's exactly my point. Thank you.

Thaksin gets convicted and sentenced to jail for corruption, which he no doubt deserves, but none of the equally corrupt politicians on the other side, and there are many, are ever called to question. The Yellows close down Thailand's international airport, causing mayhem and damage on an unprecedented scale to Thailand's tourist industry and reputation. None are arrested and charged, let alone convicted. The Reds do likewise, causing chaos in equal measure, and they are attacked by the army and then rounded up, with Abhisit, our Mr. Clean who was brought to power by the Yellows, promising criminal procedings.

What does that say about the judiciary? Should they be convicted for deriliction of duty and uneven application of justice? What does that say about Abhisit? It's easy to see why people are getting sick of the system.