Double Standard In Thailand

[gonzobrains]

What I'm tired of is the ongoing statements that the TRT, TTT (thaksin, Samak, Somchai) governments were democratically elected.

They were not democatically elected, they came to power through massise rampant vote buying. And there's lots of evidence.

vote buying, whether direct or indirect, exists worldwide. always has, always will be. you think people in western countries vote for someone if there wasn't some sort of economic incentive to do so?

think of all the "let's vote for change" americans that chose obama. if you don't think vote buying was involved (i.e., massive campaigning, advertising, etc. promising a better economy, more jobs, monetary bailouts, etc. in return) isn't vote buying you're fooling yourself.

[Heng]

Vote buying is fine as long as it's heavily dressed up as marketing. This "cash" approach the locals use is so distasteful.

[chevykanteve]

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.

Good job! An excellent summary of the double-standards now prevailing.

[dave111223]

What I'm tired of is the ongoing statements that the TRT, TTT (thaksin, Samak, Somchai) governments were democratically elected.

They were not democatically elected, they came to power through massise rampant vote buying. And there's lots of evidence.

vote buying, whether direct or indirect, exists worldwide. always has, always will be. you think people in western countries vote for someone if there wasn't some sort of economic incentive to do so?

think of all the "let's vote for change" americans that chose obama. if you don't think vote buying was involved (i.e., massive campaigning, advertising, etc. promising a better economy, more jobs, monetary bailouts, etc. in return) isn't vote buying you're fooling yourself.

Very good point which many people seem to miss when claiming votes were bought.

Essentially every vote is 'bought', whether it be with promise of a cash "bung" now, or the promise of Tax breaks, putting money towards your health care, or into your schools....

Why would you vote for a party which was going to give you nothing in return?

I've argued several times that i don't see the problem with vote buying, it's your vote, and if you think that getting cash now from a party is worth it then so be it.

[ballbreaker]

Which of the PAD leaders are awaiting a court appearance for the chaos that they caused by closing down the international airport? Are they in custody? Talking about levels of violence, we should bear in mind that both sides used violence - the PAD were fighting and shooting in the streets too, and laid siege to the airport. Both sides behaved disgracefully, but only one side is held to account.

From what I've read Sondhi was scheduled for trail on April 29. Perhaps the trial date will now be delayed because someone tried to impose their own sentence in recent days without a trial. Others charged also have dates scheduled just for your information.

Of course I read all this in what you consider biased newspapers so perhaps Sondhi wasn't shot after all.

[PeaceBlondie]

It is rule by the elites. never was a democracy, may never be

[ballbreaker]

My point is about the double standard, that Abhisit is an unelected opportunist, and that the problem has not gone away simply because the current cycle of violence has abated.

Seems to me that Abhisit was put in office in the same manner Somchai became PM. Required number of MP votes to win PM seat.

[dbrenn]

I'm tired of hearing how the elites rule the country as if that's a bad thing. As Jon Stewart said... "Doesn't elite mean GOOD?"

Elite being a good thing really depends on what makes one elite in the first place Heng. In Thailand, the elite by and large were born elite, and generally couldn't care less about the lot of their less well off countrymen. Now if you are in the minority that calls itself the elite, that's fine, but you can't then claim that Thailand is a democracy when the rest of the country elects a govenrment that opposes you, and you hae to throw it out to stay in power. If you are happy with that and trust the elite simply because they are elite, then that's up to you.

What we really have in Thailand is minority that calls itself the elite, and is seeking to prolong its rule indefinitely by claiming that the rest of their countrymen are unfit through what they perceive as a lack of education. We are left with a military junta that resembles those in South America. Granted, Thailand has a monarch, and a very good one at that, but after his reign is over the future looks much less clear without a democratic system in place. I think that this transition is what people have in mind at the moment.

At some time in the past, even the typically elite family line was made up of commoners. The difference over generations is that the elite (or upper middle class, middle class, or lower middle class guy with his minimart and two rundown unpainted for decades shophouses) worked to get ahead. They made the right decisions, made the right friends, bought the right property, selected the right products to sell, etc. etc. as per the nature of business and economics anywhere.

From the "have not" point of view, the result is that after years and years, the playing field is decidedly uneven and unfair. The fact that it's fairly difficult if not impossible to overcome a generations+ lead is also unfair. After awhile, people translate unfair to = "wrong." IMO, that's not right, as it discounts the accomplishments of those who put in the time and effort to build up their family lines.

To say that all that makes one elite in Thailand is hard work and making all the right decisions assumes that all Thais were born equal, and that the ones that succeeded did so through hard work and ingenuity against a backdrop of equal rights. That's not really the case - while there are some exceptions, the general rule is that a Thai of humble origins finds it almost impossible to transcend the class boundary and make it into the elite class. Thailand is still a largely feudal society, where patronage rules supreme and where the poor are given few opportunities and no assistance from the state to find a way out of a subsistence life of grinding poverty.

Having had a taste of representation, all that might be changing of course. Thaksin started a fire that might prove very hard for the elite to put out.

Edited April 19, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

What I'm tired of is the ongoing statements that the TRT, TTT (thaksin, Samak, Somchai) governments were democratically elected.

They were not democatically elected, they came to power through massise rampant vote buying. And there's lots of evidence.

vote buying, whether direct or indirect, exists worldwide. always has, always will be. you think people in western countries vote for someone if there wasn't some sort of economic incentive to do so?

think of all the "let's vote for change" americans that chose obama. if you don't think vote buying was involved (i.e., massive campaigning, advertising, etc. promising a better economy, more jobs, monetary bailouts, etc. in return) isn't vote buying you're fooling yourself.

Very good point which many people seem to miss when claiming votes were bought.

Essentially every vote is 'bought', whether it be with promise of a cash "bung" now, or the promise of Tax breaks, putting money towards your health care, or into your schools....

Why would you vote for a party which was going to give you nothing in return?

I've argued several times that i don't see the problem with vote buying, it's your vote, and if you think that getting cash now from a party is worth it then so be it.

Absolutely true. All politicians the world over buy votes in one way or another. By way of example, look at how much the Americans just spent on marketing their politicians to the general public. At the end of the day. it's your vote to do what you like with.

[dbrenn]

It is rule by the elites. never was a democracy, may never be

Maybe, maybe not. In some countries the elite rule on and on, in others they are overturned by pressure from the majority.

The divisions across Thailand seem to be the worse that they have been for many years now. We now have a colour coded country, where large percentages of the population are in violent disagreement with each other. Too many people don't believe in the system anymore, and don't see what's in it for them. It's hard to see how the old status quo will be resumed for very long, unless of course it is held in place by repression, which may be difficult to maintain across the country as a whole.

It might be too late for Abhisit to introduce the reforms that are necessary for the reconciliation that he claims to represent. Tempers are running too high, and people are losing patience with what they see as the loss of their democratic rights. Now we see attempted assassinations, and Abhisit hiding for fear of his life. So much for reconciliation.

An election would go a long way towards convincing people that Abhisit really does have a majority mandate. I wonder why he lacks the confidence to call one.

[ThNiner]

I stopped reading Dbrenn's comment after having seen him try to mislead people to believe that Thaksin and his cronies did nothing wrong more than hosting a little cooking show. Can you guys somehow educate yourselves about all the charges (about 17 of them) Thanksin's facing before making generalization like everyone is corrupt, the eilte have it against the poor blah blah blah? Can anyone care to look at the facts rather than silly rumors, propaganda and usual BS from Thaksin and his cronies?

And by the way, the PAd leaders have been charged with occupying the airports, and they have not gone into hiding and creating false rumors like the other side.

Also, can any of you care to present the evidence that would be able to show that "the other side" is equally corrupt" as Thaksin and co?

[dbrenn]

My point is about the double standard, that Abhisit is an unelected opportunist, and that the problem has not gone away simply because the current cycle of violence has abated.

Seems to me that Abhisit was put in office in the same manner Somchai became PM. Required number of MP votes to win PM seat.

Not really BB. Somchai replaced Samak as party leader when Samak was disqualified from his post by the judiciary for appearing on a TV cookery show.

That's a far cry from how Abhisit got to power - a mob shutting down the international airport and paralysing parts of the economy, disbansion of the TRT with more than 100 of the Thaksin clique being banned from politics for 'corruption'. The yellow lot make out that corruption is such an unusual thing in Thai politics, and only Thaksin's lot are guilty of it. How many Abhisit's side faced the same fate during this purge of corrupt elements? None, of course. And Abhisit seems genuinely suprised that people are so bitterly resentful.

The reason why Sonthi formed the PAD in the first place was because Thaksin's lot no longer favoured him in business. They used to be friends, but fell out over money and business. So much for the moral high ground.

Edited April 19, 2009 by dbrenn

[ballbreaker]

It is rule by the elites. never was a democracy, may never be

I don't know where you hail from but in my part of the world it may not be elites but it is special interest groups that control policy.

[Orac]

What I'm tired of is the ongoing statements that the TRT, TTT (thaksin, Samak, Somchai) governments were democratically elected.

They were not democatically elected, they came to power through massise rampant vote buying. And there's lots of evidence.

vote buying, whether direct or indirect, exists worldwide. always has, always will be. you think people in western countries vote for someone if there wasn't some sort of economic incentive to do so?

think of all the "let's vote for change" americans that chose obama. if you don't think vote buying was involved (i.e., massive campaigning, advertising, etc. promising a better economy, more jobs, monetary bailouts, etc. in return) isn't vote buying you're fooling yourself.

Very good point which many people seem to miss when claiming votes were bought.

Essentially every vote is 'bought', whether it be with promise of a cash "bung" now, or the promise of Tax breaks, putting money towards your health care, or into your schools....

Why would you vote for a party which was going to give you nothing in return?

I've argued several times that i don't see the problem with vote buying, it's your vote, and if you think that getting cash now from a party is worth it then so be it.

Absolutely true. All politicians the world over buy votes in one way or another. By way of example, look at how much the Americans just spent on marketing their politicians to the general public. At the end of the day. it's your vote to do what you like with.

Also look at the subsidies that are paid to farmers in US and EU because they are powerful voting lobbies. These have come about because those working in agriculture tend to be very poorly paid and incomes can flucuate wildly. Looking at figures only 0.6% of working population in US are in Farming, fisheries and forestry and 1.4% in agriculture in the UK. Thailand has 42.6% working in agriculture (figures from cia factbook and are a few years old but the principle is there). It is one of the main tasks of any government to look after the poorest in society, especially when there is a large accumulation of wealth at the top. I think Thailand has a very long way to go to deal with this disparity and the the poorer elements are now developing into a strong lobbying group that didn't exist before. There seems very little difference to me between vote buying (illegal) and redistribution of wealth (worthy aim) apart from one being done before voting and the other after power has been gained - if the poor were promised money AFTER power had been gain how would it be viewed???

[ThNiner]

And in what way did Thaksin ever show that he did indeed represent "democracy"?

Thaksin bought all the MP's from other parties to run his authoritarian parliament to make sure that the opposition would never have enough votes to even ask for a censure debate in the parliament. When some senates requested to question him in the parliament, he just ignored them completely. Where was the check and balance in his "democracy"?

Thaksin alwasy said that he would only help the people and the provinces that voted for his party. He turned a blind eye to the South after the Tsunamis. That's "democracy"?

He tampered with the independent investigative bodies by replacing their key figures with his relatives and cronies. That's "democarcy."

He suppressed and tried to destroy the press and any ordinary folks who dared to criticise him and his government by using the internal revenue department. That's "democracy"?

Somchai, a lawyer who ahd the evidence against one of Thaksin's company evading taxes and was about to espose it to the police, has disappeared and believed to be dead and to this day is believed to have been killed. His case had long been sidetracked during "PPP" administration. The case has only been resurrected under the current gov't. That's what you call "democracy"?

The extrajudical killings of Muslims and supposedly "drug sellers and traffickers." That's "democarcy"?

Not to mention all the pending corruption cases which cleary show us how Thaksin has abused his executive power inly to enrich himself and his cronies at the expense of the entire country. That's "democracy"?

[ballbreaker]

Not really BB. Somchai replaced Samak as party leader when Samak was disqualified from his post by the judiciary for appearing on a TV cookery show.

Hate to rain on your parade but Somchai was nominated by a coalition of parties with numbers sufficient to win the vote in parliament. This is exactly the same way Abhisit became PM. What is different?

[ThNiner]

Double standard is when one side got killed and thrown at with bombs on a daily basis while protesting peacefully be it at either the airports or the gov't house. Yet, when the other side basically caused mayhem in the capital and got close to killing the prime minister and his assistants by savagely assulting their cars, and they still got treated with free buses to go back home. That's more like double standard to me.

[dbrenn]

I stopped reading Dbrenn's comment after having seen him try to mislead people to believe that Thaksin and his cronies did nothing wrong more than hosting a little cooking show. Can you guys somehow educate yourselves about all the charges (about 17 of them) Thanksin's facing before making generalization like everyone is corrupt, the eilte have it against the poor blah blah blah? Can anyone care to look at the facts rather than silly rumors, propaganda and usual BS from Thaksin and his cronies?

And by the way, the PAd leaders have been charged with occupying the airports, and they have not gone into hiding and creating false rumors like the other side.

Also, can any of you care to present the evidence that would be able to show that "the other side" is equally corrupt" as Thaksin and co?

Actually, believe it or not, appearing on a cookery show was the reason why Samak got expelled from office as PM. There was an issue with him receiving a few thousand Baht in payment for his appearance. Now if the hand of justice were equally applied, that would be a good thing, but in the Thai political world, an infraction like that being used to topple a PM looks hopelessly trivial, and is completely unprecedented.

To ask how I know that both sides of the Thai political fence are equally corrupt sounds rather strange. Have you not noticed that corruption is a way of life in Thailand, and is the way that government employees from all sides supplement their meagre incomes if they can possibly get away with it? From the traffic cop asking for 100 Baht, right up to the most senior politicians - they are all at it. I'm not asking you to believe what I say, and I'm not asking you to believe what the newspapers say - just look around. Ask anyone who does business in the Public Sector, and you will get the same answer, regardless of which party is in power. Look around at what goes on. And bear in mind also that elements of the current government are Thaksin's people who jumped ship when it looked like he was finished. Why haven't they been prosecuted for corruption?

Thai politics are corrupt from top to bottom, but only one side is allowed to get away with it.

[dbrenn]

Double standard is when one side got killed and thrown at with bombs on a daily basis while protesting peacefully be it at either the airports or the gov't house. Yet, when the other side basically caused mayhem in the capital and got close to killing the prime minister and his assistants by savagely assulting their cars, and they still got treated with free buses to go back home. That's more like double standard to me.

Both sides were as bad as each other. The PAD took to the streets, were fighting with guns and other weapons, intimidating people who did not support them, so it's not reasonable to imply that they were victims of violence. And let's not trivialise the way in which the siege of the aiport decimated the tourist industry, scared away foreign investment, cost jobs and made Thailand a laughing stock, just as laying siege to the ASEAN summit will no doubt do.

I guess the only thing that stands out against the PAD, is that it started this extremely dangerous cycle of mob rule that Thailand now finds itself in. I've said this before, but instead of trying to beat Thaksin's lot in the streets with violent tactics like mob rule, why didn't the PAD get rid of him at the ballot box, peacefully and decisively? If they had general popular support, this would have been an easy thing to do, right? All these terrible things that Thaksin represented doing could have been halted by voting him out. What happened instead? There was a coup and then Thaksin's side got reelected. Doesn't that tell you something about what they majority of Thais want?

Edited April 19, 2009 by dbrenn

[ThNiner]

Actually, believe it or not, appearing on a cookery show was the reason why Samak got expelled from office as PM. There was an issue with him receiving a few thousand Baht in payment for his appearance. Now if the hand of justice were equally applied, that would be a good thing, but in the Thai political world, an infraction like that being used to topple a PM looks hopelessly trivial, and is completely unprecedented.

To ask how I know that both sides of the Thai political fence are equally corrupt sounds rather strange. Have you not noticed that corruption is a way of life in Thailand, and is the way that government employees from all sides supplement their meagre incomes if they can possibly get away with it? From the traffic cop asking for 100 Baht, right up to the most senior politicians - they are all at it. I'm not asking you to believe what I say, and I'm not asking you to believe what the newspapers say - just look around. Ask anyone who does business in the Public Sector, and you will get the same answer, regardless of which party is in power. Look around at what goes on. And bear in mind also that elements of the current government are Thaksin's people who jumped ship when it looked like he was finished. Why haven't they been prosecuted for corruption?

I know Samak's case. I watched it on tv live when the judges was handing out the verdict. (I'm THAI) The amount of money that Samak got from the cookery show was in the region of hundreds of thousand of Baht. (Also please stop distorting facts, numbers and figures. It only makes your side of argument less and less believable. Try to get some facts straight before you comment...please. I can't be bothered to correct every single one of your "facts".) The constitution clearly stated about the conflict of interest cases that all prime ministers ought to avoid. It had been written before PPP won the election. Samak accepted it. He knew it. So the question is why did he still violate it? It's not as if the law was written after he had done the show. Any PM who had done the same thing, would have got the same verdict.

And again I am asking you to present evidence of Abhisit's admin being as equally corrupt as Thanksin's and his cronies. This is a serious charge and it should not be defended by simply telling stories about corrupt traffic wardens. If you have the evidence, present it here. I'm willing to listen.

Edited April 19, 2009 by ThNiner

[dbrenn]

Actually, believe it or not, appearing on a cookery show was the reason why Samak got expelled from office as PM. There was an issue with him receiving a few thousand Baht in payment for his appearance. Now if the hand of justice were equally applied, that would be a good thing, but in the Thai political world, an infraction like that being used to topple a PM looks hopelessly trivial, and is completely unprecedented.

To ask how I know that both sides of the Thai political fence are equally corrupt sounds rather strange. Have you not noticed that corruption is a way of life in Thailand, and is the way that government employees from all sides supplement their meagre incomes if they can possibly get away with it? From the traffic cop asking for 100 Baht, right up to the most senior politicians - they are all at it. I'm not asking you to believe what I say, and I'm not asking you to believe what the newspapers say - just look around. Ask anyone who does business in the Public Sector, and you will get the same answer, regardless of which party is in power. Look around at what goes on. And bear in mind also that elements of the current government are Thaksin's people who jumped ship when it looked like he was finished. Why haven't they been prosecuted for corruption?

I know Samak's case. I watched it on tv live when the judges was handing out the verdict. (I'm THAI) The amount of money that Samak got from the cookery show was in the region of hundreds of thousand of Baht. (Also please stop distorting facts, numbers and figures. It only makes your side of argument less and less believable. Try to get some facts straight before you comment...please. I can't be bothered to correct every single one of your "facts".) The constitution clearly stated about the conflict of interest cases that all prime ministers ought to avoid. It had been written before PPP won the election. Samak accepted it. He knew it. So the question is why did he still violate it? It's not as if the law was written after he had done the show. Any PM who had done the same thing, would have got the same verdict.

And again I am asking you to present evidence of Abhisit's admin being as equally corrupt as Thanksin's and his cronies. This is a serious charge and it should not be defended by simply telling stories about corrupt traffic wardens. If you have the evidence, present it here. I'm willing to listen.

I'm Thai too

I already agreed that it is a good thing if the hand of justice were to be equally applied. But it isn't to the satisfaction of the geeral population, and that's what is at issue here.

Edited April 19, 2009 by dbrenn

[ThNiner]

Both sides were as bad as each other. The PAD took to the streets, were fighting in the streets with guns and other weapons, intimidating people who did not support them, so it's not reasonable to imply that they were victims of violence. And let's not trivialise the way in which the siege of the aiport decimated the tourist industry scared away foreign investment, cost jobs and made Thailand a laughing stock, just as laying siege to the ASEAN summit will no doubt do.

I guess the only thing that stands out against the PAD, is that it started this extremely dangerous cycle of mob rule. I've said this before, but instead of beating Thaksin in the streets with violent tactics of mob rule, why didn't the PAD get rid of him at the ballot box, peacefully and decisively? All these terrible things that Thaksin was doing could have been halted by voting him out. What happened instead? Their was a coup and then Thaksin's side got reelected. Doesn't that tell you something about what they majority of Thais want?

That's a couple of sad lies. The PAD only reacted with violence after some people thrown grenades at their rallies at the Govt House. And those incidents which ended up killing a few people still have not been pursued by the police to this day. The PAD never instigated the violence unlike the UDD or the red shirts. If you have evidence indicating otherwise, show it to everyone here. Don't just say it.

[ThNiner]

I'm Thai too

I already agreed that it is a good thing if the hand of justice were to be equally applied. But it isn't, and that's what is at issue here.

Where and when was the law not equally applied then?

And could you care to elborate on Thaksin's "democracy"? RE: my comment on it earlier?

Edited April 19, 2009 by ThNiner

[ozzydom]

What I'm tired of is the ongoing statements that the TRT, TTT (thaksin, Samak, Somchai) governments were democratically elected.

They were not democatically elected, they came to power through massise rampant vote buying. And there's lots of evidence.

vote buying, whether direct or indirect, exists worldwide. always has, always will be. you think people in western countries vote for someone if there wasn't some sort of economic incentive to do so?

think of all the "let's vote for change" americans that chose obama. if you don't think vote buying was involved (i.e., massive campaigning, advertising, etc. promising a better economy, more jobs, monetary bailouts, etc. in return) isn't vote buying you're fooling yourself.

Wrong again. One is vote buying which is illegal , the other is called pork barreling which is not illegal.

[dbrenn]

That's a couple of sad lies. The PAD only reacted with violence after some people thrown grenades at their rallies at the Govt House. And those incidents which ended up killing a few people still have not been pursued by the police to this day. The PAD never instigated the violence unlike the UDD or the red shirts. If you have evidence indicating otherwise, show it to everyone here. Don't just say it.

I think that it's fair to say that the PAD instigated mob rule. After all, they were the first group to take to the streets. Now history shows us that mob rule often escalates into violence as people become angry at having their lives and livelihoods disrupted, and we saw this happen on occasions when both the PAD and then the Reds were causing chaos. I am condemning violence on both sides, as I have already said.

The fact that the PAD ignored democratic principles and took to the streets, causing disruption, was an open invitation for the other side to counter and do exactly the same thing, which is exactly what happened.

Why didn't the PAD simply beat Thaksin at the ballot box? Then there would be concrete and irrefutable evidence that they had popular support. Why did they have to take to the streets in the first place?

[Orac]

What I'm tired of is the ongoing statements that the TRT, TTT (thaksin, Samak, Somchai) governments were democratically elected.

They were not democatically elected, they came to power through massise rampant vote buying. And there's lots of evidence.

vote buying, whether direct or indirect, exists worldwide. always has, always will be. you think people in western countries vote for someone if there wasn't some sort of economic incentive to do so?

think of all the "let's vote for change" americans that chose obama. if you don't think vote buying was involved (i.e., massive campaigning, advertising, etc. promising a better economy, more jobs, monetary bailouts, etc. in return) isn't vote buying you're fooling yourself.

Wrong again. One is vote buying which is illegal , the other is called pork barreling which is not illegal.

Since pork barreling seems to mean "I will vote for you if you give me something in return" there seems to be a very fine line between the two.

[dbrenn]

What I'm tired of is the ongoing statements that the TRT, TTT (thaksin, Samak, Somchai) governments were democratically elected.

They were not democatically elected, they came to power through massise rampant vote buying. And there's lots of evidence.

vote buying, whether direct or indirect, exists worldwide. always has, always will be. you think people in western countries vote for someone if there wasn't some sort of economic incentive to do so?

think of all the "let's vote for change" americans that chose obama. if you don't think vote buying was involved (i.e., massive campaigning, advertising, etc. promising a better economy, more jobs, monetary bailouts, etc. in return) isn't vote buying you're fooling yourself.

Wrong again. One is vote buying which is illegal , the other is called pork barreling which is not illegal.

Since pork barreling seems to mean "I will vote for you if you give me something in return" there seems to be a very fine line between the two.

Right - there is no real difference. It's just semantics. Pols the world over buy votes in one way or another.

[ThNiner]

I think that it's fair to say that the PAD instigated mob rule. After all, they were the first group to take to the streets. Now history shows us that mob rule often escalates into violence as people become angry at having their lives and livelihoods disrupted, and we saw this happen on occasions when both the PAD and then the Reds were causing chaos. I am condemning violence on both sides, as I have already said.

The fact that the PAD ignored democratic principles and took to the streets, causing disruption, was an open invitation for the other side to counter and do exactly the same thing, which is exactly what happened.

Why didn't the PAD simply beat Thaksin at the ballot box? Then there would be concrete and irrefutable evidence that they had popular support. Why did they have to take to the streets in the first place?

How's a peaceful protest a "mob rule" when it's clearly legally supported by any democratic constitutions. When did it ever become "undemocratic"? Is it only a "mob rule" when it's against your opinion or position? So in your "democracy", differing opinions have to be suppressed with threats and bombs like what the PAD faced? You have to be angry and respond to the differing opinions in the worst possible way (by killing them.) That's your "democracy"?

And when will you care to eleborate on "democratic" Thanksin? Huh?

Why didn't the PAD simply beat Thaksin at the ballot box?

Because the PAD is simply a political movement by the people. (Karn Muang Pak Prachachon) In democracy, anyone can do so without having to form a political party. But I guess in your "democracy", it's entirely different right?

Edited April 19, 2009 by ThNiner

[Orac]

That's a couple of sad lies. The PAD only reacted with violence after some people thrown grenades at their rallies at the Govt House. And those incidents which ended up killing a few people still have not been pursued by the police to this day. The PAD never instigated the violence unlike the UDD or the red shirts. If you have evidence indicating otherwise, show it to everyone here. Don't just say it.

I think that it's fair to say that the PAD instigated mob rule. After all, they were the first group to take to the streets. Now history shows us that mob rule often escalates into violence as people become angry at having their lives and livelihoods disrupted, and we saw this happen on occasions when both the PAD and then the Reds were causing chaos. I am condemning violence on both sides, as I have already said.

The fact that the PAD ignored democratic principles and took to the streets, causing disruption, was an open invitation for the other side to counter and do exactly the same thing, which is exactly what happened.

Why didn't the PAD simply beat Thaksin at the ballot box? Then there would be concrete and irrefutable evidence that they had popular support. Why did they have to take to the streets in the first place?

Though I agree with most of what you have posted so far I would disagree that PAD ignored democratic principals when they took to the streets - in a free society people should be able to PEACEFULLY demonstrate and express there opinions.

The problem was that they overstepped the mark when the took over GH and the airport and basically disregarded the law. This escalation was then followed by the 'red' protest which was also wrong.

[ThNiner]

Hey Dbrenn, you still haven't answered me about your Thaksin's "democracy."

I'm still waiting you know.

Edited April 19, 2009 by ThNiner