Double Standard In Thailand

[mauGR1]

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"?

Thank you,ThNiner,i couldn't have said it better..

I really cannot understand how some honest and intelligent people can support that guy..

I hope Khun Abhisit can work in peace for a few months,but maybe it's just a dream..

[dbrenn]

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

I'm still waiting you know.

I've answered your question so many times in this thread already.

At the risk of repeating myself, whatever you think of Thaksin and the TRT, they were an elected government. The only way that the yellow lot could depose Thaksin was by various forms of force, rather than at at the ballot box, which quite obviously is going to raise questions about what support the PAD really has, and raise the ire of those who voted for Thaksin's lot.

In spite of street protests, a military coup, and another election, we saw Thaksin's lot get reelected. We then saw chaos at the airport, and the judicial exclusion of Thaksin's lot so that they could not return to power. Then came the PAD proposing a system whereby representatives are appointed, rather than elected, diluting the popular vote. Why would the PAD need to suggest such a seemingly undemocratic change if the majority of Thai people support their cause? How do you expect people to react who voted for Thaksin's lot to all these obvious efforts to thwart the party that they voted for?

Whatever you think about Thaksin, the popular vote put him in power, and the popular vote should have been used to remove him. Look at the mess Thailand is in now. Look at the boiling resentment on both sides of a country that has become dangerously divided along class lines. Where will it end?

Edited April 19, 2009 by dbrenn

[Orac]

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"?

Thank you,ThNiner,i couldn't have said it better..

I really cannot understand how some honest and intelligent people can support that guy..

I hope Khun Abhisit can work in peace for a few months,but maybe it's just a dream..

I haven't seen the OP state anywhere that Thaksin goverment was any better that the current one however it is not good enough to say that the Thai people need better than Thaksin as this would not be difficult, what they need is something MUCH better and this is where I can see that the double standards argument holds some water.

The argument that Thaksin was worse is no defence for the present government not to introduce change.

[ThNiner]

I've answered your question so many times in this thread already.

At the risk of repeating myself, whatever you think of Thaksin and the TRT, they were an elected government. The only way that the yellow lot could depose them was by force, not at the ballot box, which quite obviously is going to raise questions about what support the PAD really has, and raise the ire of those who voted for Thaksin's lot. We then saw the PAD proposing a system whereby representatives are appointed, rather than elected, diluting the popular vote. Why would the PAD need to suggest such a seemingly undemocratic change if the majority of Thai people support their cause?

Whatever you think about Thaksin, the popular vote put him in power, and the popular vote should have been used to remove him. Look at the mess Thailand is in now. Look at the boiling resentment on both sides. Where will it end?

So your reason is they "got elected." So they represented "democracy" regardless of their conducts? That's your argument? Suddam Hussein and the Chinese gov't got elected too. That made them democartic? That made their countries democratic?

Why didn't you bother to answer all the points I raised about Thaksin's "democracy"? Don't wanna offend you but Dbrenn how could you be this naieve and simple-minded? Elections equal democracy? Come on.

PS. Thanks krab khun mauGR1. I too hope that Khun Abhisit will be able to keep this coalition gov't (who were all elected in the same election that put PPP in power na krab khun Dbrenn) and restore the peace and stability in the country krab.

[ThNiner]

I haven't seen the OP state anywhere that Thaksin goverment was any better that the current one however it is not good enough to say that the Thai people need better than Thaksin as this would not be difficult, what they need is something MUCH better and this is where I can see that the double standards argument holds some water.

The argument that Thaksin was worse is no defence for the present government not to introduce change.

So would you care to elaborate how khun Abhisit is not a clearly much better choice to lead this country than the fugitive Thaksin? I'm anxious to read it. And don't just say that he's a puppet...the truly eilte are controlling everything, he's equally corrupt blah blah blah without any concrete evidence...that's just a bunch of rumours and conspiracy BS.

For a starter, Abhisit has never had a history of corruption in one bit.

Abhisit has never had a history of cronyism or seeking more money for himself and his family.

He is well educated...never is a mumbling idiot in front of any foreign press.

He never suppresses the press. The Dstaion and some local radio stations that got blocked was because there was clear evidence that they were inciting more and more violence and mayhem in this country. This will be proved in the court of law later with some of their leaders in custody.

He leads the only political party that emphasises education. A policy which will take a long long time to bear fruit unlike some populist policies.

He never appoints his family and relatives into key military, political or police positions.

He never has a history of being a pathological liar.

He is polite and well mannered. Never incites and praises the public to detroy his own country by causing mayhem.

He never buys other MPs to join his party. Never buys votes or ever gets accused of committing electoral fraud EVER.

Should be more but that's all I can think of right now.

Edited April 19, 2009 by ThNiner

[dbrenn]

So your reason is they "got elected." So they represented "democracy" regardless of their conducts? That's your argument? Suddam Hussein and the Chinese gov't got elected too. That made them democartic? That made their countries democratic?

Why didn't you bother to answer all the points I raised about Thaksin's "democracy"? Don't wanna offend you but Dbrenn how could you be this naieve and simple-minded? Elections equal democracy? Come on.

PS. Thanks krab khun mauGR1. I too hope that Khun Abhisit will be able to keep this coalition gov't (who were all elected in the same election that put PPP in power na krab khun Dbrenn) and restore the peace and stability in the country krab.

Yes, I do believe that elections are the nearest thing that we have to democracy. The alternative is a system where the minority chooses who should rule us, and I've already explained why this is a dangerous situation to get into. A situation where a select few make the decisions that affect the many and a situation from which the many have no way of escape. Democracy is an imperfect system, as I have already said, but it is the best of a bad lot.

I really do share your hope that there will be peace and stability, so at least we have something in common Khun ThNiner. The problem is, peace and stability seems further off than ever. There have been riots perpetrated by both sides, disruptions to travel, assassination attempts, and chaos - all this at a time when Thailand should be looking after its citizens by tackling the economic crisis. Right now there is an uneasy truce, but not a peace deal. Things will probably flare up again soon because the issue has now become a what looks horribly like a class struggle. Thailand, it seems, has become divided and lacks unity, and what is needed is reconciliation with no double standards.

I don't recall free and fair elections in Saddam Hussein's government, so I have no comment on that.

[OxfordWill]

OP your point is unenlightening, we all know the PM is never 100% in charge. Its got nothing to do with Abhisit. What a boring post.

[dbrenn]

So would you care to elaborate how khun Abhisit is not a clearly much better choice to lead this country than the fugitive Thaksin? I'm anxious to read it. And don't just say that he's a puppet...the truly eilte are controlling everything, he's equally corrupt blah blah blah without any concrete evidence...that's just a bunch of rumours and conspiracy BS.

For a starter, Abhisit has never had a history of corruption in one bit.

Abhisit has never had a history of cronyism or seeking more money for himself and his family.

He is well educated...never is a mumbling idiot in front of any foreign press.

He never suppresses the press. The Dstaion and some local radio stations that got blocked was because there was clear evidence that they were inciting more and more violence and mayhem in this country. This will be proved in the court of law later with some of their leaders in custody.

He leads the only political party that emphasises education. A policy which will take a long long time to bear fruit unlike some populist policies.

He never appoints his family and relatives into key military, political or police positions.

He never has a history of being a pathological liar.

He is polite and well mannered. Never incites and praises the public to detroy his own country by causing mayhem.

He never buys other MPs to join his party. Never buys votes or ever gets accused of committing electoral fraud EVER.

Should be more but that's all I can think of right now.

It's your right to like Abhisit and you can exercise this right by voting for him. Just as people who like Thaksin's lot should be able to exercise that right too.

May the most popular man win!

[ThNiner]

Yes, I do believe that elections are the nearest thing that we have to democracy. The alternative is a system where the minority chooses who should rule us, and I've already explained why this is a dangerous situation to get into. A situation where a select few make the decisions that affect the many and a situation from which the many have no way of escape. Democracy is an imperfect system, as I have already said, but it is the best of a bad lot.

I really do share your hope that there will be peace and stability, so at least we have something in common Khun ThNiner. The problem is, peace and stability seems further off than ever. There have been riots perpetrated by both sides, disruptions to travel, assassination attempts, and chaos - all this at a time when Thailand should be looking after its citizens by tackling the economic crisis. Right now there is an uneasy truce, but not a peace deal. Things will probably flare up again soon because the issue has now become a what looks horribly like a class struggle. Thailand, it seems, has become divided and lacks unity, and what is needed is reconciliation with no double standards.

I don't recall free and fair elections in Saddam Hussein's government, so I have no comment on that.

Neither do I under Thaksin-led governments. Go back and read the verdict that disbanded TRT. It was obvious how they were obstructive and a serious danger to our democracy. If you can't see this, I can only hope the majority of Thais aren't like you.

And please learn more about democracy. It's not just about having free and fair elections. It does go beyond that. Don't be naive and simple-minded...please. If you are indeed Thai and can say this much in English, I do believe that you have the capacity to educate yourself more about the real democarcy. Don't behave like a glass full of water (Ya Tam Tua Muan Nam Tem Kaew.)

And I can only hope.

Edited April 19, 2009 by ThNiner

[ThNiner]

It's your right to like Abhisit and you can exercise this right by voting for him. Just as people who like Thaksin's lot should be able to exercise that right too.

May the most popular man win!

It's really dam_n funny and ironic and you can keep saying how our country is so corrupt and how everyone has to be equally corrupt as Thanksin by using the example of corrupt traffic warden. Yet you can't help but keep proclaiming how Thaksin won the elctions fair and square (even after the courts have ruled that they committed electroal fruads). Everyone is dirty and corrupt except when Thaksin won the elections?

Can't you how tragically funny and ironic your position is?

Edited April 19, 2009 by ThNiner

[dbrenn]

Neither do I under Thaksin-led governments. Go back and read the verdict that disbanded TRT. It was obvious how they were obstructive and a serious danger to our democracy. If you can't see this, I can only hope the majority of Thais aren't like you.

And please learn more about democracy. It's not just about having free and fair elections. It does go beyond that. Don't be naive and simple-minded...please. If you are indeed Thai and can say this much in English, I do believe that you have the capacity to educate yourself more about the real democarcy. Don't behave like a glass full of water (Ya Tam Tua Muan Nam Tem Kaew.)

And I can only hope.

You have still not explained what is a 'real democracy' in your view. Is it one where the military deposes a government that was elected by the so called 'uneducated' class of people? I suppose that kind of 'democracy' has been so common in Thailand, it would be hard for some people to contemplate another kind, the kind where we all have to put up with a (however imperfect) government, simply because the majority has elected it into power. In any case, who among us educated Bangkokians wants to be run by the masses upcountry?

The problem is, Thai people have had a taste of the other kind of democracy, seen how it benefitted them personally, and just don't seem to be putting up with the status quo anymore. You can't put the genie back into the bottle.

[ThNiner]

Dbrenn, seriously...none of your relatives who live upcountry (I think you must have some) ever told you about how TRT paid them and gave them a free bus ride to the poll to vote for Thaksin? None? Ever? And another myriad of similar stories?

You sort of admitted that Thaksin is corrupt (by trying to paint other politicians with the same dirty filthy brush)...yet you still believe that every single election his parties won were all fair and square? Are you serious?

Edited April 19, 2009 by ThNiner

[ThNiner]

You have still not explained what is a 'real democracy' in your view. Is it one where the military deposes a government that was elected by the so called 'uneducated' class of people? I suppose that kind of 'democracy' has been so common in Thailand, it would be hard for some people to contemplate another kind, the kind where we all have to put up with a (however imperfect) government, simply because the majority has elected it into power. In any case, who among us educated Bangkokians wants to be run by the masses upcountry?

The problem is, Thai people have had a taste of the other kind of democracy, seen how it benefitted them personally, and just don't seem to be putting up with the status quo anymore. You can't put the genie back into the bottle.

Dbrenn, if you somehow still can't get some sort of idea of what a real democry should be from what I posted earlier, then I can't really help you much.

Here's what I said earlier:

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"?

Edited April 19, 2009 by ThNiner

[dbrenn]

It's your right to like Abhisit and you can exercise this right by voting for him. Just as people who like Thaksin's lot should be able to exercise that right too.

May the most popular man win!

It's really dam_n funny and ironic and you can keep saying how our country is so corrupt and how everyone has to be equally corrupt as Thanksin using the example of corrupt traffic warden. Yet you can't help but keep proclaiming how Thaksin won the elctions fair and square (even after the courts have ruled that they committed electroal fruads). Everyone is dirty and corrupt except when Thaksin won the elections?

Can't you how tragically funny and ironic your position is?

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.

All I am saying is that the yellow lot, if they are so popular and squeaky clean, and if they have such support for purging Thailand of all these bad elements, should put it to the test and hold an election. Oops, I forgot. They already tried that after the coup, and Thaksin's lot got back in again

Now that is a tragically funny irony ..

[dbrenn]

Dbrenn, seriously...none of your relatives who live upcountry (I think you must have some) ever told you about how TRT paid them and gave them a free bus ride to the poll to vote for Thaksin? None? Ever? And another myriad of similar stories?

You sort of admitted that Thaksin is corrupt (by trying to paint other politicians with the same brush)...yet you still believe that every single election his parties won were all fair and square? Are you serious?

Er yes, and pretty much the same thing happens every election. You don't win elections in Thailand unless you appeal to the country folk, and all the parties do it. The Democrats might not have to these days - they use the army to oust elected governments instead.

[monkfish]

General Anupong Paochinda, coerced several PPP MPs to defect to the Democrat Party, allowing Abhisit to form a government and become Prime Minister

That's democracy? I wonder what was said?

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

[ThNiner]

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.

All I am saying is that the yellow lot, if they are so popular and squeaky clean, and if they have such support for purging Thailand of all these bad elements, should put it to the test and hold an election. Oops, I forgot. They already tried that after the coup, and Thaksin's lot got back in again

Now that is a tragically funny irony ..

I see. So you can't argue with reasons about Thaksin's "democracy", and now have to resort to a straw-man argument.

Guess I was wrong into thinking that you might be someone whom I could reason with.

[ThNiner]

General Anupong Paochinda, coerced several PPP MPs to defect to the Democrat Party, allowing Abhisit to form a government and become Prime Minister

That's democracy? I wonder what was said?

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

Using wikipedia where everyone can edit as your source of reference is pretty lame, I think.

And Dbrenn, you still can't explain about Thaksin's democracy I guess?

[dbrenn]

General Anupong Paochinda, coerced several PPP MPs to defect to the Democrat Party, allowing Abhisit to form a government and become Prime Minister

That's democracy? I wonder what was said?

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

Using wikipedia where everyone can edit as your source of reference is pretty lame, I think.

And Dbrenn, you still can't explain about Thaksin's democracy I guess?

I've already put forward various arguments, and all you do is tell me that I can't be reasoned with, or tell me that my arguments are invalid without explaining why.

Rather than get into a circular 'who gets the last word' type of discussion, let's agree to disagree ThNiner. In a free society we are at liberty to do that. I've already said that it's your right to like Abhisit, and it's your right to hate Thaksin, and let's hope that nobody takes those rights away from you.

[dbrenn]

General Anupong Paochinda, coerced several PPP MPs to defect to the Democrat Party, allowing Abhisit to form a government and become Prime Minister

That's democracy? I wonder what was said?

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

The military does call the shots, as is eveident from their use of coups to steer politics in their chosen direction. Mind you, defections are nothing new in Thai politics. If Thaksin was back in favour, they would all defect back again. That's what makes me laugh when people say that one side is different from the other in Thai politics, when many of its members have at one time or another been on the other side.

[ThNiner]

I've already put forward various arguments, and all you do is tell me that I can't be reasoned with, or tell me that my arguments are invalid without explaining why.

Rather than get into a circular 'who gets the last word' type of discussion, let's agree to disagree ThNiner. In a free society we are at liberty to do that. I've already said that it's your right to like Abhisit, and it's your right to hate Thaksin, and let's hope that nobody takes those rights away from you.

Your "various arguments" were the single repetitions of them being "elected" government. Various....yeah right.

[dbrenn]

Your "various arguments" were the single repetitions of them being "elected" government. Various....yeah right.

That's right - this thread is about a very simple concept - the existance of a double standard.

ThNiner, the difference between us seems to be that you obviously support the Democrat Party and dislike Thaksin's lot, whereas I dislike both sides. Look back and you will see that I do not have a high opinion of Thaksin.

All that I support are the principles whereby power is attained and retained through a majority mandate of the voting population, and that no government should retain power via a double standard, this being a recipe for resentment and consequent disaster.

Since I do not share your support for the Democrat party, let's agree to disagree. As I've already said, it's your right to support Abhisit, and long may you continue to enjoy that right.

Edited April 19, 2009 by dbrenn

[Ulysses G.]

A lot of us have no great regard for Thaksin, but feel that he is pretty much like every other politician in Thailand and that he should not have been removed from power illegally.

On the other hand, the Thaksin haters - that appears to be their only motivation - seem to feel that he is the most evil man who ever walked the earth - except maybe Adolf Hitler and George Bush - and anything it takes to get rid of him is justified including twisting the truth, lying their heads off and just flat out making stuff up to make him sound much worse than he is.

To tell the truth, I just cannot figure out why they are so obsessed with this man.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[Orac]

A lot of us have no great regard for Thaksin, but feel that he is pretty much like every other politician in Thailand and that he should not have been removed from power illegally.

On the other hand, the Thaksin haters - that appears to be their only motivation - seem to feel that he is the most evil man who ever walked the earth - except maybe Adolf Hitler and George Bush - and anything it takes to get rid of him is justified including twisting the truth, lying their heads off and just flat out making stuff up to make him sound much worse than he is.

To tell the truth, I just cannot figure out why they are so obsessed with this man.

Because it is easier to focus all Thailands problems on him rather than look deeper at a system run by a group of unelected elites and shady career politicians.

I do hope that Abhisit can do something to change things as, repeating what the OP said in his original post, he does seem to be a decent guy however he does need to get his message out as Thailand needs something positive now to focus on rather that the constant 'colourful' arguments and rabid hatred of Thaksin.

[ozzydom]

Maybe military coups are illegal , but the subsequent court case that found Thaksin guilty must offer some justification for the action. As well ,further proof of his raping and pillaging of the Thai nation for his own ends which has surfaced since his removal further prove some justification.

The incessant bleating for new elections would at this stage do nothing for the nation, should elections be held and the Democrats won then judging by the attitudes of the red shirt sympathisers on this forum the result would still not be accepted by them .

Abhisit only took over 4 months ago , I would humbly suggest that all parties give him a fair go in his endeavours to get Thailand back on track , He can hardly stuff things up more than they are and there will be ample time to change the Government through the ballot box should he fail.

Another point for the election seekers is that since December, 25 by-elections have been held and the Democrats have won 21 of them , most of the by-elections were called because the sitting members were removed from office for electoral offences .This to my mind would indicate a distinct change in voter thinking.

[ozzydom]

I have lived in a village in the heart of red shirt country for a long time and from my observations it will only take a couple of populist policies giving the ordinary people a little bit bigger slice of the pie and the current divisions will fade into memory.

All they want is some reward for their efforts and to not feel ripped off by the powers that be.

[dbrenn]

A lot of us have no great regard for Thaksin, but feel that he is pretty much like every other politician in Thailand and that he should not have been removed from power illegally.

On the other hand, the Thaksin haters - that appears to be their only motivation - seem to feel that he is the most evil man who ever walked the earth - except maybe Adolf Hitler and George Bush - and anything it takes to get rid of him is justified including twisting the truth, lying their heads off and just flat out making stuff up to make him sound much worse than he is.

To tell the truth, I just cannot figure out why they are so obsessed with this man.

Because it is easier to focus all Thailands problems on him rather than look deeper at a system run by a group of unelected elites and shady career politicians.

I do hope that Abhisit can do something to change things as, repeating what the OP said in his original post, he does seem to be a decent guy however he does need to get his message out as Thailand needs something positive now to focus on rather that the constant 'colourful' arguments and rabid hatred of Thaksin.

It is rather strange why the yellows hate Thaksin so much, and so dispropotionately vilify him like the devil. As you say, it's like they are trying to deflect attention from some perceived threat to the staus quo that Thaksin symbolises. There is still this elephant in the room, the real problem that people are afraid to confront but will remain whatever happens to Thaksin.

[dbrenn]

Maybe military coups are illegal , but the subsequent court case that found Thaksin guilty must offer some justification for the action. As well ,further proof of his raping and pillaging of the Thai nation for his own ends which has surfaced since his removal further prove some justification.

The incessant bleating for new elections would at this stage do nothing for the nation, should elections be held and the Democrats won then judging by the attitudes of the red shirt sympathisers on this forum the result would still not be accepted by them .

Abhisit only took over 4 months ago , I would humbly suggest that all parties give him a fair go in his endeavours to get Thailand back on track , He can hardly stuff things up more than they are and there will be ample time to change the Government through the ballot box should he fail.

Another point for the election seekers is that since December, 25 by-elections have been held and the Democrats have won 21 of them , most of the by-elections were called because the sitting members were removed from office for electoral offences .This to my mind would indicate a distinct change in voter thinking.

That says it all: "Most of the by-elections were called because the sitting members were removed from office for electoral offences." Presumably this left the electorate no other choice but to vote for the people that the judiciary left standing. I mean, how many of the Democrat party have been removed from office for electoral offences lately? Oh, I forgot, they don't need to buy votes and just ask the army to throw a coup when they fail to get elected fair and square.

With tempers running so high, Abhisit may not get the chance to put things right now - unless he comes clean and goes to the country for a popular mandate. It might take more than the crumbs of 'one or two populist policies' this time, and anything that the Dems do to suck up to the masses now will just make them look like they are copying Thaksin and attract yet more derision from the rural folk. Besides, Abhisit looks decidedly uncomfortable when he talks to the 'uneducated'. He appears stuck up to them and they don't like him. Where is the reconciliation that he promised and that was his reason for snatching power?

Edited April 19, 2009 by dbrenn

[Ulysses G.]

Posters like dbrenn educate us all with honest, straightforward posts that teach us what is going on behind the scenes in Thai politics.

Bless you dbrenn.

[Heng]

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.

I didn't assume that all Thais were born equal. I was saying that if you go back 5-10 generations between someone with the last name of Sophonpanich and one name Krakatoke, you'd find that their ancestors were living relatively humble daily wage type lives. There was a time when the playing field was more level (but I don't believe that any playing field is completely level), and that those who figured how how to run it first are the ones who got to run with it the whole way. They didn't suddenly become the elite overnight... it took generations. The same way that it would and should take generations for someone born into grinding poverty to transcend their class. What makes them deserving of a short cut?

If you're a poor Issanite who wants a better future for your family line, the first thing you should do is stop dreaming about taking a company public. Freeing oneself from a wage earner life, paying off a house, etc. things like that should be first and foremost. Of course it'll sound impossible if you throw out pie in the sky goals for piss poor Thais. But in reality, everyone had to build what they have step by step.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Heng