Another Pro-red Article On Bbc News

[dbrenn]

Just a thought.

Not defending the BBC here (and Jonathan Head esp), I'm just wondering, what if the BBC started filing reports that you and I would consider 'balanced'? My view is that the reds would shut up like clams, and cut off all access to the Beeb. No more creepy interviews with that Slimebag Jakaprop. No more incoherent crosses to Dr T in some 'unknown' location.

I mean, Thai politicians at the best of times are adverse to criticism. Dear Leader Thaksin as his cohorts took it to a new Singaporean level suing anyone in sight who got under their notoriously thin skins and gutting ITV. That the BBC is perhaps giving a bit more airtime to the reds cause than it otherwise would is perhaps understandable in this context?

Let's face it, both sides are guilty of censorship, the reds did it, then the PAD used that a reason d'etre when they stayted to rally at Suan Lum, then the yellows did it by shutting down red media.

On to your point, I don't follow your reasoning Samran. Thaksin's lot sues ITV ---> you feel that the BBC is favouring Thaksin for fear of getting sued ----> Why would the BBC worry about reprisals that may coulour its reporting red? You would think that, if the BBC is worried about censorship or getting sued, it would be reporting in favour of the yellow camp who now control the country.

It's rather early in the morning and I had a few beers last night so I may be misunderstanding you. Please explain further. Why would articles in the yellow's favour on the BBC cause the reds to shut up like clams? The BBC is not the only foreign media outlet to portray what is happening in Thailand a a double standard.

Edited April 24, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

It's too late to go back, in spite of Abhisit's belated and hypocritical efforts to censor the media and expect the masses to believe that he represents them, when they voted for his opponent.

Except only 36% of them voted for his opponent. The vast majority of Thais voted for anti Thaksin parties, and will do so again in the next elections.

So why aren't these next elections called for immediately ?

Seconded. Most of the articles is the foreign media question his legitimacy and imply that it's time for Abhisit to put up or shut up by proving his popularity at the ballot box. The media on both sides reported that parliament this week was a slanging match with no hint of reconciliation. The media reported that Abhisit is now doing a u-turn by saying that now he can't rule out a house dissolution.

Many of the foreign media reports have pointed out that after being installed into his position of the promise of reconciliation, Abhisit has failed to reach out to the other side as evidenced by riots and a deepening divide.

I don't think that bias can make much difference - seems clear from both sides of the media camp that no progress is being made.

Edited April 24, 2009 by dbrenn

[Koo82]

Fact is people still love Khun Thaksin.

[Insight]

Fact is people still love Khun Thaksin.

And many people utterly despise him.

[rixalex]

DP25 said: "Except only 36% of them voted for his opponent. The vast majority of Thais voted for anti Thaksin parties, and will do so again in the next elections. "

So if he has so much support, bring on the elections then.

You don't seem to be disputing that only 36% of Thais voted for his opponent, so can you explain why you described 36% as being "the masses"?

I enjoy reading your comments dbrenn (if not agreeing with them), but there are times when it becomes hard to believe your claim that you support no particular side in all of this and your insistence that you have no particular affection for Mr Thaksin, when you continue to use language that paints things in favour of one side.

I ask again, why do you describe 36% as being "the masses"?

"The masses" i think to most people would suggest an overwhelming majority and use of such a term is misleading. Deliberately?

[rixalex]

Fact is people still love Khun Thaksin.

So? I once met a guy who loved "Steps". At the end of the day, there's no accounting for taste.

[teletiger]

36% is more than enough to get a government elected in most democracies. ( USA apart-- a 2 party state)

Regards.

[rixalex]

So why aren't these next elections called for immediately ?

Seconded. Most of the articles is the foreign media question his legitimacy and imply that it's time for Abhisit to put up or shut up by proving his popularity at the ballot box.

From your comments it seems that you strongly believe that were there an election tomorrow, Abhisit would not win. Supposing that he didn't, who then do you think we would have to lead the country? Chalerm perhaps? Or maybe someone from Thaksin's family? Do you think these people would do a better job of running the country and healing divides? Or do you not care about that because as far as you are concerned, they would be more legitimately elected and that's all that matters. Doesn't matter if they take the country backwards because in your eyes democracy has been restored and what happens after that is just one of those things we have to live with?

I think everyone agrees that Abhisit needs to go to the polls sooner rather than later, but anyone who is demanding it happen right this instant is i think not doing it for democracry and they are certainly not doing it for the country - they are doing it because they support the other side.

The country now needs order and stability. Calling an election does nothing for either of those things because it means we have a period of uncertainty before the election when decisions can't be made nor policies implemented, and then after it would we be left with something that is better than what we have now? Either a red side or a yellow side would have power as is the case now and the divisions would remain.

Would those people who have recently become the biggest champions for the causes of democracy be satisfied? If their side gets in power then my guess is they would. That's all this is about.

[rixalex]

36% is more than enough to get a government elected in most democracies. ( USA apart-- a 2 party state)

Regards.

Agreed, but that wasn't the point.

[rixalex]

The PAD has been and is controlled by the wealthy elite.

Is there any political movement that isn't controlled by wealthy people of influence? Do you think the reds are controlled by the poor working classes? Seems to me that all the leaders of the reds are people of considerable wealth and influence.

[sabaijai]

The PAD has been and is controlled by the wealthy elite.

Is there any political movement that isn't controlled by wealthy people of influence? Do you think the reds are controlled by the poor working classes? Seems to me that all the leaders of the reds are people of considerable wealth and influence.

[dbrenn]

DP25 said: "Except only 36% of them voted for his opponent. The vast majority of Thais voted for anti Thaksin parties, and will do so again in the next elections. "

So if he has so much support, bring on the elections then.

You don't seem to be disputing that only 36% of Thais voted for his opponent, so can you explain why you described 36% as being "the masses"?

I enjoy reading your comments dbrenn (if not agreeing with them), but there are times when it becomes hard to believe your claim that you support no particular side in all of this and your insistence that you have no particular affection for Mr Thaksin, when you continue to use language that paints things in favour of one side.

I ask again, why do you describe 36% as being "the masses"?

"The masses" i think to most people would suggest an overwhelming majority and use of such a term is misleading. Deliberately?

36% is enough to get a party elected if other parties get each less than 36%. That's called democracy, and that what I was referring to when I said that the masses support the red side - the masses being the electorate.

I think that we should also bear in mind that before the coup and all the militaty meddling banning politicians from just one side, Thaksin's party was the first ever party to win an overall majority in a Thai general election - more seats than the sum of all the other parties put together. His party was also the first to run a full term in office, and was returned to office in the following general election before being kicked out by the army.

The masses like Thaksin, and no amount of military intervention or posturing by Abhisit's lot is going to change that.

[dbrenn]

So why aren't these next elections called for immediately ?

Seconded. Most of the articles is the foreign media question his legitimacy and imply that it's time for Abhisit to put up or shut up by proving his popularity at the ballot box.

From your comments it seems that you strongly believe that were there an election tomorrow, Abhisit would not win. Supposing that he didn't, who then do you think we would have to lead the country? Chalerm perhaps? Or maybe someone from Thaksin's family? Do you think these people would do a better job of running the country and healing divides? Or do you not care about that because as far as you are concerned, they would be more legitimately elected and that's all that matters. Doesn't matter if they take the country backwards because in your eyes democracy has been restored and what happens after that is just one of those things we have to live with?

I think everyone agrees that Abhisit needs to go to the polls sooner rather than later, but anyone who is demanding it happen right this instant is i think not doing it for democracry and they are certainly not doing it for the country - they are doing it because they support the other side.

The country now needs order and stability. Calling an election does nothing for either of those things because it means we have a period of uncertainty before the election when decisions can't be made nor policies implemented, and then after it would we be left with something that is better than what we have now? Either a red side or a yellow side would have power as is the case now and the divisions would remain.

Would those people who have recently become the biggest champions for the causes of democracy be satisfied? If their side gets in power then my guess is they would. That's all this is about.

I agree that Thailand needs stability, but I can't see that happening under Abhisit until he holds an election. There is always going to be this overrriding question over his legitimacy, like in parliaent this week when all that happened was a slanging match.

If you are saying that people like Chalerm would be unsuitable, then I would agree with you, but it's not what you or I think that counts. It is what the electorate thinks. You seem to be saying that a select few should get to decide, because they are more 'enlightened'. That's what the PAD says and people aren't buying it.

[rixalex]

36% is enough to get a party elected if other parties get each less than 36%. That's called democracy, and that what I was referring to when I said that the masses support the red side - the masses being the electorate.

Yes i do understand how democracy works thanks. I wasn't questioning the fact that 36% could be enough to get a party elected. I was questioning your refering to 36% as being "the masses". I think it's misleading and points to an agenda.

[rixalex]

There is always going to be this overrriding question over his legitimacy, like in parliaent this week when all that happened was a slanging match.

The question over his legitimacy won't go away even if he does win an election. They'll still be those who say he's just a puppet.

As for citing a slanging match in parliament as being another reason for needing to go to the polls - i really do think comments like this belie your stated lack of affection for the reds.

[justanothercybertosser]

Which part of the report is bias?? exactly?

Every media outlet that describes the Red Shirts as human's with grievances instead of anarchistic, uneducated and bought by Thaksin is biased in the eyes of our yellow supporters. Even if it clearly is a report about the Red Shirts primarily.

Get used to it - on Thai politics reasonable debate is simply not possible.

[dbrenn]

There is always going to be this overrriding question over his legitimacy, like in parliaent this week when all that happened was a slanging match.

The question over his legitimacy won't go away even if he does win an election. They'll still be those who say he's just a puppet.

As for citing a slanging match in parliament as being another reason for needing to go to the polls - i really do think comments like this belie your stated lack of affection for the reds.

As I have said numerous times - my affection is for democratic process, regardless of what colour shirts are worn. Now if you think that makes me a red, then that's your opinion. You have already told us that you don't want elections, and that a man selected by military intervention is fit to rule the country, so it's clear where your affections lie. It seems that there are a lot of people, in Thailand and abroad, who don't agree with you.

Allow me to explain futher - the slanging match would not a reason for going to the polls if that was the only problem that Abhisit's lot faced - in case you hadn't noticed there have been riots in the streets in Bangkok recently. The whole country is descending into a spiral of chaos, and the slanging match in parliament is just another page in a very sad story that was precipitated by the military interfering with Thailand's democratic process. If Abhisit were to go to the country for a mandate, at least he would be stronger than he is now, and may quieten the howls of protest that he is installed rather than chosen. What damage could it do him? Until he does it, he will always have an Achilles heel that thwarts his every move. He seems like a well intentioned man, but he comes across as powerless, lacking the power of the people's will that is so vital at this critical point in time.

Abhisit promised reconcilatilon, and he is not delivering it. Come to think of it, he is not delivering anything, and neither has any of the governments, red or yellow, that have followed the last coup. And you seem to think that's progress.

The army should stay in the barracks where it belongs. The tired old generals that keep pretending to know about what's best for the country are totally incompetent and completely out of touch with Thailand's economic and social development.

Edited April 25, 2009 by dbrenn

[justanothercybertosser]

yes I agree they aren't certainly aren't perfect..And I was aware many of their staff are ex BBB and CNN. Actually my views are a long way right of center.. That's why I can't abide the BBC's leftist bias...In fact all the leftist and liberal wimpering about the disadvantaged and how we should all help the poor gets right on my tits... Me ? I'm just a bloke from a workng class background who got off his arse and worked... Thru perseverance, distance learning and luck I'm now a granduate engineer with a 6 figure income.... Nowt to do with class... just the mindset and willingness to 'better' myself and no need for a handout or pity from the liberals and apologists.. If you want something.. work for it.. simple really...

Good for you that there were these generations of leftists that have fought against the establishment so that working class blokes like you were allowed to get their <deleted> up and get an education instead of being in servitude to their lords till they died.

[dbrenn]

Which part of the report is bias?? exactly?

Every media outlet that describes the Red Shirts as human's with grievances instead of anarchistic, uneducated and bought by Thaksin is biased in the eyes of our yellow supporters. Even if it clearly is a report about the Red Shirts primarily.

Get used to it - on Thai politics reasonable debate is simply not possible.

Right - All reported material is coloured by the viewpoint, character, and values of the reporter. Moreover, we apply our own viewpoint when reading an article, putting our own bias on what may actually be a factual report.

When emotions run high, and in Thailand they are running ery high indeed, the colours become more vivid. It's important to earn as much as you can about both sides of the argument, directly if possible.

[dbrenn]

36% is enough to get a party elected if other parties get each less than 36%. That's called democracy, and that what I was referring to when I said that the masses support the red side - the masses being the electorate.

Yes i do understand how democracy works thanks. I wasn't questioning the fact that 36% could be enough to get a party elected. I was questioning your refering to 36% as being "the masses". I think it's misleading and points to an agenda.

Well I'm glad you understand how democracy works, and why 36% of a population of 63 million can be described as a mass of people. If I recall correctly, before the military meddling and banning of politicians from just one side which took away the electorate's chosen representatives, the figure was higher than 36%, and was enough to give Thaksin's lot an overall majority. A point that you seem to ignore.

1) In 2001, Thaksin's lot won 248 out of 500 seats, making it the first government to win an overall majority in parliament, and the first to complete a full term in office

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

4) Later on, the PPP was winnig eections, until they were also kicked out, leaving Abhisit his chance to grab the top job unelected

Impressive numbers. You can see why Abhisit lacks the confidence to hold an election now. In any case, he doesn't need elections when he has the army to install him. Lucky man!

Edited April 25, 2009 by dbrenn

[samran]

Just a thought.

Not defending the BBC here (and Jonathan Head esp), I'm just wondering, what if the BBC started filing reports that you and I would consider 'balanced'? My view is that the reds would shut up like clams, and cut off all access to the Beeb. No more creepy interviews with that Slimebag Jakaprop. No more incoherent crosses to Dr T in some 'unknown' location.

I mean, Thai politicians at the best of times are adverse to criticism. Dear Leader Thaksin as his cohorts took it to a new Singaporean level suing anyone in sight who got under their notoriously thin skins and gutting ITV. That the BBC is perhaps giving a bit more airtime to the reds cause than it otherwise would is perhaps understandable in this context?

Let's face it, both sides are guilty of censorship, the reds did it, then the PAD used that a reason d'etre when they stayted to rally at Suan Lum, then the yellows did it by shutting down red media.

On to your point, I don't follow your reasoning Samran. Thaksin's lot sues ITV ---> you feel that the BBC is favouring Thaksin for fear of getting sued ----> Why would the BBC worry about reprisals that may coulour its reporting red? You would think that, if the BBC is worried about censorship or getting sued, it would be reporting in favour of the yellow camp who now control the country.

It's rather early in the morning and I had a few beers last night so I may be misunderstanding you. Please explain further. Why would articles in the yellow's favour on the BBC cause the reds to shut up like clams? The BBC is not the only foreign media outlet to portray what is happening in Thailand a a double standard.

Look, definetly accept your contention that both sides a guilty of censorship. Both sides are also 'guilty' of being, well, less than respectable (lets put it that way).

My contention (if you want to put it that way) is that if anyone, like the BBC, were going point out that 'hey Reds, you aren't all peaches and cream, like you say you are' they'll just stop granting access to the BBC. Hence, what may be viewed as 'sympathetic' coverage. From what I can observe the BBC has the best access to the reds out of any foregin news media (the economist may equal them I suspect). And from what I know of some of their leaders, like Jakaprop (based on first hand experience of freinds in the broadcast industry), you are either 'for' them, or you are 'against' them. In their eyes, being neutral constitutes being 'against' them.

(ed) I guess what I'm ultimately saying is that they'll do anything for a story. And if the reds are the story of the moment, they'll be nice and try and flatter them.

Edited April 25, 2009 by samran

[Ricardo]

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

Just a minor point of fact, the army did not depose the TRT-government elected in 2005, that was their leader PM-Thaksin who resigned the government at the start of 2006 and called another election, later annulled by the E.C. for vote-rigging.

The military coup wasn't until September-2006, against Thaksin in his caretaker-PM role, long after the election in April 2006 referred to as your 3rd point.

And if you really wonder why the opposition parties boycotted the April-2006 election, you might try reading some of the past threads, which covered the reasons extensively.

[samran]

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

Just a minor point of fact, the army did not depose the TRT-government elected in 2005, that was their leader PM-Thaksin who resigned the government at the start of 2006 and called another election, later annulled by the E.C. for vote-rigging.

The military coup wasn't until September-2006, against Thaksin in his caretaker-PM role, long after the election in April 2006 referred to as your 3rd point.

And if you really wonder why the opposition parties boycotted the April-2006 election, you might try reading some of the past threads, which covered the reasons extensively.

Not that it matters much now, but people tend to forget how much Thaksin was on the nose back in late 2005. He really was starting to lose support and power. The democrats, though probably violating the spirit of the constitution, but within the law (and desperate to save money), didn't contest the April 06 elections to deal TRT a financial blow more than anything, so they could possibly hope to fight the subsequent election on what they would hope was more equal financial footing.

Thaksin stayed on as 'caretaker' PM for the next 6 months. There aren't too many places in the world where governments insited on remaining in 'caretaker' mode for the next 6 months, though, with the threat of a further opposition boycott, and a further repeat of the April 06 non-election result, I guess one could argue they had little choice. So to a very large extent the coup was a circuit breaker (from my perspective, disagree if you want) and as probably as genuine a 'coup' as you could get, given that power was handed back to the very people they ousted a year later.

We then had two very ineffectual PM's following (Samak and Somchai) and this current government was formed from the parliament which was elected in 2007.

Shenanigans from both sides through the whole process. I'd argue if they put in someone competent from the very start after the coup (rather than Samak), we wouldn't have a Democrat government today.

[rixalex]

36% is enough to get a party elected if other parties get each less than 36%. That's called democracy, and that what I was referring to when I said that the masses support the red side - the masses being the electorate.

Yes i do understand how democracy works thanks. I wasn't questioning the fact that 36% could be enough to get a party elected. I was questioning your refering to 36% as being "the masses". I think it's misleading and points to an agenda.

Well I'm glad you understand how democracy works, and why 36% of a population of 63 million can be described as a mass of people.

Absolutely. 36% of 63 million is "a mass of people". What it's not is "the masses". Do you understand the distinction?

[rixalex]

There is always going to be this overrriding question over his legitimacy, like in parliaent this week when all that happened was a slanging match.

The question over his legitimacy won't go away even if he does win an election. They'll still be those who say he's just a puppet.

As for citing a slanging match in parliament as being another reason for needing to go to the polls - i really do think comments like this belie your stated lack of affection for the reds.

You have already told us that you don't want elections, and that a man selected by military intervention is fit to rule the country, so it's clear where your affections lie.

My position isn't that i don't want elections. Rather that i don't see them as necessary right at this juncture. To have them now would be to serve the interests of the reds (assuming that they won which in my opinion is a big assumption), not the interests of the country.

As for your assertion that Abhisit is selected by military intervention - that's your opinion and not one i share.

My affections? I don't support Abhisit but i do favour giving him a chance. I did the same with Thaksin and certainly gave him more than a few months before i had written him off, as you have Abhisit.

Your affections? It's my feeling that you are a reds/Thaksin supporter despite claims to the contrary, but i understand that aligning yourself with that side makes arguing your corner impossible because of all that they have done in the past. Much easier to fight for the causes of democracy and pretend to be neutral.

Perhaps i might find your claims more believable if i knew that you had fought and argued against the way that Thaksin twisted democracy and blunted all the checks and balances to get a stranglehold on power, despite already being popular with the masses - to borrow one of your favourite phrases - in this case it would have actually been near the truth. At that time he did have massive support. He didn't need to corrupt democracy, but still did. Sad and stupid.

Anyway i guess i'll never know if you did argue and fight against Thaksin's corrupt methods - but by the way you have churned out all those numbers concerning Thaksin's election victories as if to impress i think clears up any doubt i might have had.

[dbrenn]

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

Just a minor point of fact, the army did not depose the TRT-government elected in 2005, that was their leader PM-Thaksin who resigned the government at the start of 2006 and called another election, later annulled by the E.C. for vote-rigging.

The military coup wasn't until September-2006, against Thaksin in his caretaker-PM role, long after the election in April 2006 referred to as your 3rd point.

And if you really wonder why the opposition parties boycotted the April-2006 election, you might try reading some of the past threads, which covered the reasons extensively.

Oh here we go again. Vote rigging? Tell me what politician doesn't buy votes, in Thailand or elsewhere? Show me a place where the pols don't buy votes, and I will show you Utopia. How much did Barack Obama spend on his way to the White House? Hillary nearly went bankrupt trying to stand in his way. In an ideal world, he wouldn't have needed to spend anything at all, and would have been elected on his merits

Vote buying, by hook or by crook, is universal.

Edited April 25, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

There is always going to be this overrriding question over his legitimacy, like in parliaent this week when all that happened was a slanging match.

The question over his legitimacy won't go away even if he does win an election. They'll still be those who say he's just a puppet.

As for citing a slanging match in parliament as being another reason for needing to go to the polls - i really do think comments like this belie your stated lack of affection for the reds.

You have already told us that you don't want elections, and that a man selected by military intervention is fit to rule the country, so it's clear where your affections lie.

My position isn't that i don't want elections. Rather that i don't see them as necessary right at this juncture. To have them now would be to serve the interests of the reds (assuming that they won which in my opinion is a big assumption), not the interests of the country.

As for your assertion that Abhisit is selected by military intervention - that's your opinion and not one i share.

My affections? I don't support Abhisit but i do favour giving him a chance. I did the same with Thaksin and certainly gave him more than a few months before i had written him off, as you have Abhisit.

Your affections? It's my feeling that you are a reds/Thaksin supporter despite claims to the contrary, but i understand that aligning yourself with that side makes arguing your corner impossible because of all that they have done in the past. Much easier to fight for the causes of democracy and pretend to be neutral.

Perhaps i might find your claims more believable if i knew that you had fought and argued against the way that Thaksin twisted democracy and blunted all the checks and balances to get a stranglehold on power, despite already being popular with the masses - to borrow one of your favourite phrases - in this case it would have actually been near the truth. At that time he did have massive support. He didn't need to corrupt democracy, but still did. Sad and stupid.

Anyway i guess i'll never know if you did argue and fight against Thaksin's corrupt methods - but by the way you have churned out all those numbers concerning Thaksin's election victories as if to impress i think clears up any doubt i might have had.

"Your position isn't that you don't want elections", and yet you cling to the idea of an unelected Prime Minister. Think what you like, because it's the position of the general public that counts, not your position. Boring old numbers on seats that were won in elections don't impress you? What does impress you? Tanks rolling down the streets? Corrupt this, corrupt that. I suspect that you can't vote anyway, so what does your position matter?

Edited April 25, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

Just a minor point of fact, the army did not depose the TRT-government elected in 2005, that was their leader PM-Thaksin who resigned the government at the start of 2006 and called another election, later annulled by the E.C. for vote-rigging.

The military coup wasn't until September-2006, against Thaksin in his caretaker-PM role, long after the election in April 2006 referred to as your 3rd point.

And if you really wonder why the opposition parties boycotted the April-2006 election, you might try reading some of the past threads, which covered the reasons extensively.

Not that it matters much now, but people tend to forget how much Thaksin was on the nose back in late 2005. He really was starting to lose support and power. The democrats, though probably violating the spirit of the constitution, but within the law (and desperate to save money), didn't contest the April 06 elections to deal TRT a financial blow more than anything, so they could possibly hope to fight the subsequent election on what they would hope was more equal financial footing.

Thaksin stayed on as 'caretaker' PM for the next 6 months. There aren't too many places in the world where governments insited on remaining in 'caretaker' mode for the next 6 months, though, with the threat of a further opposition boycott, and a further repeat of the April 06 non-election result, I guess one could argue they had little choice. So to a very large extent the coup was a circuit breaker (from my perspective, disagree if you want) and as probably as genuine a 'coup' as you could get, given that power was handed back to the very people they ousted a year later.

We then had two very ineffectual PM's following (Samak and Somchai) and this current government was formed from the parliament which was elected in 2007.

Shenanigans from both sides through the whole process. I'd argue if they put in someone competent from the very start after the coup (rather than Samak), we wouldn't have a Democrat government today.

You are probably right that if someone competent was put there by the PPP, the Democrats wouldn't be in power today. Samak and Somchai weren't the only incompetent PMs though - we could add Surayudh to the list, and now Abhisit - whose tenures were a catalogue of nationalistic disaster in the former and are an incompetent disaster in the latter cases. What you say about Thaksin losing support may or may not be true, and should have been put to the test at the ballot box.

Coups as circuit breakers I don't understand how the country has benefitted. On the incompetent scale, the army has to beat them all. They belong in the barracks and have no idea about how to run a modern economy. From a system where people could vote a government out of office, we now have a system that is run by the army and who knows how to get rid of them if they turn nasty.

Edited April 25, 2009 by dbrenn

[Thai at Heart]

There is always going to be this overrriding question over his legitimacy, like in parliaent this week when all that happened was a slanging match.

The question over his legitimacy won't go away even if he does win an election. They'll still be those who say he's just a puppet.

As for citing a slanging match in parliament as being another reason for needing to go to the polls - i really do think comments like this belie your stated lack of affection for the reds.

You have already told us that you don't want elections, and that a man selected by military intervention is fit to rule the country, so it's clear where your affections lie.

My position isn't that i don't want elections. Rather that i don't see them as necessary right at this juncture. To have them now would be to serve the interests of the reds (assuming that they won which in my opinion is a big assumption), not the interests of the country.

As for your assertion that Abhisit is selected by military intervention - that's your opinion and not one i share.

My affections? I don't support Abhisit but i do favour giving him a chance. I did the same with Thaksin and certainly gave him more than a few months before i had written him off, as you have Abhisit.

Your affections? It's my feeling that you are a reds/Thaksin supporter despite claims to the contrary, but i understand that aligning yourself with that side makes arguing your corner impossible because of all that they have done in the past. Much easier to fight for the causes of democracy and pretend to be neutral.

Perhaps i might find your claims more believable if i knew that you had fought and argued against the way that Thaksin twisted democracy and blunted all the checks and balances to get a stranglehold on power, despite already being popular with the masses - to borrow one of your favourite phrases - in this case it would have actually been near the truth. At that time he did have massive support. He didn't need to corrupt democracy, but still did. Sad and stupid.

Anyway i guess i'll never know if you did argue and fight against Thaksin's corrupt methods - but by the way you have churned out all those numbers concerning Thaksin's election victories as if to impress i think clears up any doubt i might have had.

I fear that the fact that he has been "given" the chance on a platter is the ultimate issue that Abhisit faces. He is severely hindered in his ability to govern by the fact that he and about 40mn other voters know that he didn't win any vote. We can all sit around and say it is the democratic way, look at the UK, Gordon Brown, bla bla bla. If Gordon Brown had had enough cojones 2 years ago to go to the polls, his Prime Ministership and leadership would have been completely different.

It doesn't mean that he isn't completely incompetent, but actually WINNING elections is quite an important part of politics. And why should he be "given" a chance anyway any more than anyone else? My local somtaam lady would love to have a go at running the country, she has all the answer. I know coz I listen to her talk every night.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[dbrenn]

I fear that the fact that he has been "given" the chance on a platter is the ultimate issue that Abhisit faces. He is severely hindered in his ability to govern by the fact that he and about 40mn other voters know that he didn't win any vote. We can all sit around and say it is the democratic way, look at the UK, Gordon Brown, bla bla bla. If Gordon Brown had had enough cojones 2 years ago to go to the polls, his Prime Ministership and leadership would have been completely different.

It doesn't mean that he isn't completely incompetent, but actually WINNING elections is quite an important part of politics. And why should he be "given" a chance anyway any more than anyone else? My local somtaam lady would love to have a go at running the country, she has all the answer. I know coz I listen to her talk every night.

Well said! Abhisit needs to walk the walk. All he is doing without a mandate is talking the talk, and the som tam lady is just as qualified to do that.