Red Shirts Set Up At Sanam Luang

[TAWP]

tig28>> Your defense falters back to 'he hasn't been convicted yet of the others so therefor he is squeeky clean as the convicted case was a mere majority verdict' and 'others are bad too, waah-wah-waaaah'.

Congrats, very predictable and sad.

If you even bothered to look at my posting history or member title you would probably be able to deduct that I am against politicians in general and corruption in specific, no-matter who does it.

If there is a news-thread about police or military getting caught, I will happily write in those threads too. But this thread is not about them.

And pointing fingers to other bad apples doesn't make this apple-pie taste better.

It's just being a really bad chief.

[tig28]

tig28>> Your defense falters back to 'he hasn't been convicted yet of the others so therefor

as the convicted case was a mere majority verdict' and 'others are bad too, waah-wah-waaaah'.

Congrats, very predictable and sad.

If you even bothered to look at my posting history or member title you would probably be able to deduct that I am against politicians in general and corruption in specific, no-matter who does it.

If there is a news-thread about police or military getting caught, I will happily write in those threads too. But this thread is not about them.

And pointing fingers to other bad apples doesn't make this apple-pie taste better.

It's just being a really bad chief.

Hi TAWP

Its starting to become too surreal for me now.....

"he is squeeky clean" Duhhhhh .. ????? .. no TAWP actually i said "The fact that I ( like you) happen to believe that Thaksin was likely guilty of some/all of the other charges....."

This silliness revolves around only two points I was attempting to make :

The origional (only) conviction against T. was for a very minor matter (not fraud-- not corruption) which was brought against him only after 18 months of intensive investigation initiated by the Junta expressly to get Thaksin.

The conviction lacked conviction ( attempt at humor) as it was a weak 5--4 decision.

That is it really --- the other self evident statement I posted was the very obvious one that all other charges are mere allegations.

Anyway -- I must surrender the floor re this to you now --- I need to go research the background of the newly installed members of the National Human Rights Commission ---- likely to be really independent upstanding defenders of truth & justice.

You might remember that the dismissed members of the NHRC were impetuous enough to recommend murder charges be brought against the current police chief who is the younger brother of our current defense minister. Now that appears to have been a really bad decision. Nothing smelly here?? Noooo---- no way!!

Hang on ----- didn't PM Abhist tell reporters on 23/12/08 that if murder charges were recommended against Police General Phatcharawat Wongsuwan by the NHRC that his appiontment may be "short-lived". Well ---- he did --- and it wasnt!

I would never suggest that wrongdoings by others in anyway diminishes any actions by Thaksin -- I simply (as you raised the question of "balance") pointed out that others seem to be able to plunder the country -- instigate killings--- tamper in elections etc. without one single squeak from the "usual suspects" --- it does not seem balanced to me --- seems anything but!

good night.

[dbrenn]

You can read up these "editors" personal pages there, too. They are as biased as they come, both would feel at home among Thaivisa red posters.

And in a good tradtion of red posters, no one even attempts to explain how Democrat policies or Abhisit convictions make them center-right conservatives.

This is one of the reasons why wikipedia has to be taken with a grain of salt, and why you should not have quoted it to support your mistaken view.

To answer your question why the Democrats are not Social Democrat, but in the conservative camp:

First of all, the very strong Royalist position makes the party conservative.

Economic liberal policies follows generally accepted conservative lines.

There are no specific pro-union policies, no policies regarding the building of a welfare state. We have seen no drive towards stronger taxation of the wealthy or the corporations - all which are center policies of Social Democrats.

Last but not least - they are not part of the Socialist International, which Social Democrat and Socialist parties are internationally organized in. The Democrats are part of International Liberal. You have to understand though that nowadays "liberal" does not mean the traditional policy of upholding of civil liberties, but pure economic liberalism. Which is about as far as you can get from Social Democrat agenda.

Admittedly, like most Thai parties also the Democrats operate under a veneer of pseudo political policies, while in reality they are dominated by the same regional power politics without much political conviction other than social conservative pro status quo as any other party. They just obfuscate it for the foreign observer slightly better by placing front men that can appear as if the party is comparable to a proper political party. Nevertheless - these front men are from the conservative camp, and not from any social democrat background (just because somebody can express himself in English does not make him Social Democrat).

On the other hand, the former TRT has attracted, next to the many other political and business interests, a large amount of people with a clear Social Democrat background, such as Chaturon Chaisaeng.

Under the present political system it is almost impossible to found a socialist or social democrat party. Only very recently a socialist party has been refused registeration here. Unless the Thai state accepts that Thailand is a pluralistic society, and that the founding of a socialist or social democrat party does not mean the overthrow of the system and immediate revolution, we are stuck with what we have now - mostly conservative parties, and politicians of social democratic backgrounds being forced to go into alliances with parties they would otherwise not.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

Very well explained. Thank you for enlightening dear old Plus on the obvious traits that make the Dems conservative.

[Plus]

If you cared to read my post, last one on the previous page, you'd notice that these traits are not only not obvious, they are non-existent.

[justanothercybertosser]

I referred to Wikipedia to show that it's not only me who thinks Democrats belong to social-democratic camp, but that point went pass your's and dbrenn's head three times already, I have lost hope.

Being Royalist in Thailand doesn't make it conservative, it's not Europe.

- Economic liberal policies

Such as what? No party in the world states that it's against economic developement. Which policies disqualify them from being social democrats? Which Democrat policies do not carry a burden of social responsibility with them?

- No pro-union policies

Actually it was the Democrats that introduced laws protecting workers after 1997 crisis. Minimum six month severance payments, for example

- No welfare state

Yeah, as if free water, electricity, transport, education and what not is not part of their platform.

- No taxes for the rich

Just last week Korn was talking about introducing unitilised land holding tax, admitting that inheritance tax would take longer to implement. They plan to start collecting land taxes them from next fiscal year.

That's the reality on the ground, not yours or gr8opinionated wishful thinking.

If you refered to wikipedia to show that also other people are rather confused about political definition, then you have managed this task rather well. At least somebody did correct the mistake there, unlike with you.

Having a strong royalist position makes anyone, in any country, conservative. This is not a term that can be willingly adapted, and neither is social democracy.

There is a large debate about economic liberalism, especially now during the crises. Economic liberalism does not equate economic development. And before you come up with another mistaken definition, no, social democracy is not proposing planned economy, but social market economy.

The introduction of 6 months severence payments is not pro-union policies. That should be obvious. And all the remainder of your post has nothing to do with social democracy either.

You problem is that you basically throw around with terms you have not much idea about their definitions. Nothing of what you describe makes the democrats in any way social democratic. Just read up on the history of social democracy.

[TAWP]

Having a strong royalist position makes anyone, in any country, conservative.

No, it does not. And to claim so is just silly.

Royalists even in Europe transcends the political party-lines, even if you might have more or less in some.

[animatic]

tig28>> Your defense falters back to 'he hasn't been convicted yet of the others so therefor

as the convicted case was a mere majority verdict' and 'others are bad too, waah-wah-waaaah'.

Congrats, very predictable and sad.

If you even bothered to look at my posting history or member title you would probably be able to deduct that I am against politicians in general and corruption in specific, no-matter who does it.

If there is a news-thread about police or military getting caught, I will happily write in those threads too. But this thread is not about them.

And pointing fingers to other bad apples doesn't make this apple-pie taste better.

It's just being a really bad chief.

Hi TAWP

Its starting to become too surreal for me now.....

"he is squeeky clean" Duhhhhh .. ????? .. no TAWP actually i said "The fact that I ( like you) happen to believe that Thaksin was likely guilty of some/all of the other charges....."

This silliness revolves around only two points I was attempting to make :

The origional (only) conviction against T. was for a very minor matter (not fraud-- not corruption) which was brought against him only after 18 months of intensive investigation initiated by the Junta expressly to get Thaksin.

The conviction lacked conviction ( attempt at humor) as it was a weak 5--4 decision.

That is it really --- the other self evident statement I posted was the very obvious one that all other charges are mere allegations.

Anyway -- I must surrender the floor re this to you now --- I need to go research the background of the newly installed members of the National Human Rights Commission ---- likely to be really independent upstanding defenders of truth & justice.

You might remember that the dismissed members of the NHRC were impetuous enough to recommend murder charges be brought against the current police chief who is the younger brother of our current defense minister. Now that appears to have been a really bad decision. Nothing smelly here?? Noooo---- no way!!

Hang on ----- didn't PM Abhist tell reporters on 23/12/08 that if murder charges were recommended against Police General Phatcharawat Wongsuwan by the NHRC that his appiontment may be "short-lived". Well ---- he did --- and it wasnt!

I would never suggest that wrongdoings by others in anyway diminishes any actions by Thaksin -- I simply (as you raised the question of "balance") pointed out that others seem to be able to plunder the country -- instigate killings--- tamper in elections etc. without one single squeak from the "usual suspects" --- it does not seem balanced to me --- seems anything but!

good night.

A couple of points.

Only ONE point of that conviction of Thaksin was 5-4 most were 9-0 or 8-1

BUT the legal standard is 5-4 is 100% guilty as charged.

His charge was abuse of power in office which was corruption

and it was concerning 770 million baht.

since when is sums like this a little matter?

When someone is indicetd for a crime and brought to court,

and the court accepts the charges and commences trial,

then there was at several stages reaonable belif on prosecutorila and Judical opinions,

that there were legitimate grounds for further adjudication of the charges.

Or the charges would have been thrown out as frivolous.

All charges, except 2 or 3, HAVE passed this judicial scrutiny.,

The cfact that SOME werre thrown out, gives more credence to

the in finished issues at trial, that he is avoiding by evading the court dates.

The charges against the police chief are over the Oct 7th debacle.

I think more investigation of the whole thing needs to be done.

I am have some suspicions he was being made partly a patsy for what went on that day,

He was in a position of authority, but that DOES NOT mean he was in control at the time.

Again not saying his potential culpability should be white washed at all.

Does anyone believe that all polcie under a particular chief are actually LOYAL to THAT CHIEF

and not some other general or pol aligned with the opposition?

TIT... I can't believe ANY policeman is loyal to much more than

whomever is most improving his personal bank balance at the moment.

If the cheif sides with his army brother and the Dems, he would be a

prefect target for laying the blame of others on... n'est pas?

[justanothercybertosser]

Having a strong royalist position makes anyone, in any country, conservative.

No, it does not. And to claim so is just silly.

Royalists even in Europe transcends the political party-lines, even if you might have more or less in some.

Read my post, please. That i why i used the adjective strong.

Anyhow, are you also under the belief that the Democrat Party is a social democrat party, or do you just have the urge to say something?

[Scott]

It's nice to see this thread get some balance. It makes it much more informative. It was starting to get pretty extreme.

I think for Abhisit one of the problems is that he and the party didn't win in a popular election, therefore, he doesn't have the same base of people who checked the box and therefore believe in their leader. It's a little like swimming upstream.

[sriracha john]

I like to congratulate Koo82 for once again having posted a message that far goes above her normal level of English.

You're not alone. The disparity is glaring.

[sriracha john]

Hi TAWP

Its starting to become too surreal for me now.....

"he is squeeky clean" Duhhhhh .. ????? .. no TAWP actually i said "The fact that I ( like you) happen to believe that Thaksin was likely guilty of some/all of the other charges....."

This silliness revolves around only two points I was attempting to make :

The origional (only) conviction against T. was for a very minor matter (not fraud-- not corruption) which was brought against him only after 18 months of intensive investigation initiated by the Junta expressly to get Thaksin.

The conviction lacked conviction ( attempt at humor) as it was a weak 5--4 decision.

That is it really --- the other self evident statement I posted was the very obvious one that all other charges are mere allegations.

Anyway -- I must surrender the floor re this to you now

A couple of points.

Only ONE point of that conviction of Thaksin was 5-4 most were 9-0 or 8-1

BUT the legal standard is 5-4 is 100% guilty as charged.

His charge was abuse of power in office which was corruption

and it was concerning 770 million baht.

since when is sums like this a little matter?

When someone is indicted for a crime and brought to court,

and the court accepts the charges and commences trial,

then there was at several stages reasonable belief on prosecutorial and Judical opinions,

that there were legitimate grounds for further adjudication of the charges.

Or the charges would have been thrown out as frivolous.

A couple of other points.

Prior to his conviction and fleeing, Thaksin requested and received an untold number of delays and postponements relative to the other cases and thus was not in the country when his initial required presence to commence the trials occurred.

During all of the investigations, many crucial witnesses were uncooperative to the degree that they would have been slapped with obstruction of justice charges themselves in other countries. There was a massive thread on this that tig28 should acquaint himself with as his assertions have all been made (and dismissed) previously on the forum:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Corruption-P...46.html&hl=

Corruption Probes: Ministers Won't Point The Finger, AEC complains that it can't do its job

Between the heel dragging by witnesses and delays by Thaksin, it's no wonder that things went the way they did. It's important to note that rather than hounding Thaksin unmercifully, the AEC can easily be seen as too lenient during their brief tenure by allowing these investigative delays by Thaksin and by not being more strict with the uncooperative witnesses. Irregardless, however, and critically important in all of this is that when these stalling tactics were finally running out... that's when he ran out... of the country.

To reiterate regarding the final verdict in the abuse of power conviction, it is of course irrelevant what the numbers were of the individual judges' decisions. The only thing that matters was the guilty verdict. Defendants don't receive lesser sentences for a 5-4 verdict, just as they don't receive harsher sentences for a 9-0 verdict. They are sentenced based on guilt or innocence and Thaksin was found guilty.

Edited May 20, 2009 by sriracha john

[ballpoint]

Isn't ironic that some of the very same people who so furiously protested that supporting the red movement does not mean supporting Thaksin a few pages back, have spent those same few pages furiously supporting Thaksin?

[Koo82]

I like to congratulate Koo82 for once again having posted a message that far goes above her normal level of English.

TAWP, you made me laugh so hard.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Koo82

[DaleBlue]

I like to congratulate Koo82 for once again having posted a message that far goes above her normal level of English.

TAWP, you made me laugh so hard.

Koo is actually Thaksin himself.

[Thai at Heart]

Having a strong royalist position makes anyone, in any country, conservative.

No, it does not. And to claim so is just silly.

Royalists even in Europe transcends the political party-lines, even if you might have more or less in some.

I think comparing the situation to Europe is pretty irrelevant since the role of head of the royal heads of state in Europe is perceived by the populous there to be completely different from Thailand and their role is subject to a level of public debate that cannot be had in Thailand.

[Sandstone Art]

I like to congratulate Koo82 for once again having posted a message that far goes above her normal level of English.

TAWP, you made me laugh so hard.

Koo is actually Thaksin himself.

No Wonder!

I saw his photo with make up in one of the thread. And Koo (ala Thaksin?) was commenting on too much thick make up or some colour that he is not satisfied with!

[dbrenn]

A couple of points.

His charge was abuse of power in office which was corruption

and it was concerning 770 million baht.

Wow - 770 million! That's a lot of cash! Mind you, Thaksin is not in the lead there. Read on.

Let's look at your rationale so far in the discussion:

POSITION 1 - You began with a stance that was against corruption, period. All corrupt MPs and Thaksinite detritis, in your original viewpoint, deserved to be banned from politics, to make way for a new generation of clean yellow saviours.

POSITION 2 - When it was explained to you that Newin the Banned (an ex TRT/PPP mafia godfather, who happened to control 22 MPs) was instrumental in getting Abhisit the PM job, you morphed from having an exclusively anti-corruption stance to one that favoured the least degree of corruption, and excused it in lesser 'degrees'. You ended up telling me that all Thai pols were corrupt to some extent, which is what I had been telling you all along. Now, I presume from your comments above that 'lesser degrees' in your calculus means 'a lot less than 770 million'

Consider the case of General Saprang, one of your CDR coup heros that delivered Thailand from the evils of Thaksin. In the months that followed the coup, Saprang fired the chairman of the ToT for trying to block an 800 million Baht 'donation' from the ToT to the army. Yes, the State owned telco giving money to the army. Do we need to fight a war to get a decent telephone service? In addition, as the AoT boss, Saprang took his cronies and members of his family on a 7.2 million Baht 'fact finding' trip to Europe. That year, the AoT's profits dropped 90% in spite of a 17.9% increase in revenue. To cap it all, Sondhi L. still put his mate Saprang forward for the job of army chief.

So much for the yellow anti-corruption pretext.

Now, considering your disgust at Thaksin's 770 million Baht fiddle, how does your 'degrees of corruption' calculus reconcile the antics of Saprang and the CDR?

since when is sums like this a little matter?

Now what was that you were saying about little sums mattering?

Edited May 21, 2009 by dbrenn

[tig28]

"BUT the legal standard is 5-4 is 100% guilty as charged."

Hi TAWP

I agree with you 100%. I would never suggest any thing else!! 5 - 4 is a decision equally as binding as 9 - 1. But TAWP it is a weak verdict. It is obvious that 4 did not agree with the findings as the (other) 5.

So to the "usual suspects" ---- please relax ---- not suggesting he was innocent -- in fact stated his guilt several times!!

"His charge was abuse of power in office which was corruption

and it was concerning 770 million baht.

since when is sums like this a little matter?"

Signing a form (required by law) acknowledging that his wife was purchasing land (from a government ???? body) in her name whilst holding a government position himself ------ is corrupt??? Tough love!!!!

I am as aware as you guys of the questions raised re other matters concerning the purchase ---- but this was the only charge decided.

TAWP .... you are one bad hanging judge!!! Please !!! Now I really do ask you to spread your net a little wider. Justice in Thailand needs you.

Good morning to you --- must dash off to drop daughter to the train station.

[dbrenn]

"BUT the legal standard is 5-4 is 100% guilty as charged."

Hi TAWP

I agree with you 100%. I would never suggest any thing else!! 5 - 4 is a decision equally as binding as 9 - 1. But TAWP it is a weak verdict. It is obvious that 4 did not agree with the findings as the (other) 5.

So to the "usual suspects" ---- please relax ---- not suggesting he was innocent -- in fact stated his guilt several times!!

Right. And given that the CDR claimed to have so much eveidence to jsutify their overthrow of Thaksin's elected government, it did take rather a long time to dig up that charge and nail him for it. You would think that the charge sheet would have run into several volumes ... but just one 5 - 4 ...

Thaksin was guilty, I am sure. But he was nothing out of the ordinary for a Thai pol, and he certainly wasn't bad enough to justify pushing Thailand to the edge of a civil war for. Purge Thailand of guilty and corrupt pols, and there would likely be none left.

And where were the charges against the equally as corrupt CDR generals that installed Abhisit? Those old army generals who took directorships of state owned enterprises as their spoils of war just after the coup? You gotta hand it to the yellow lot - they conned a lot of people into believing that corruption was peculiar to Thaksin, while helping themselves to the goodies.

Edited May 21, 2009 by dbrenn

[TAWP]

"BUT the legal standard is 5-4 is 100% guilty as charged."

Hi TAWP

I agree with you 100%. I would never suggest any thing else!! 5 - 4 is a decision equally as binding as 9 - 1. But TAWP it is a weak verdict. It is obvious that 4 did not agree with the findings as the (other) 5.

So to the "usual suspects" ---- please relax ---- not suggesting he was innocent -- in fact stated his guilt several times!!

"His charge was abuse of power in office which was corruption

and it was concerning 770 million baht.

since when is sums like this a little matter?"

Signing a form (required by law) acknowledging that his wife was purchasing land (from a government ???? body) in her name whilst holding a government position himself ------ is corrupt??? Tough love!!!!

I am as aware as you guys of the questions raised re other matters concerning the purchase ---- but this was the only charge decided.

TAWP .... you are one bad hanging judge!!! Please !!! Now I really do ask you to spread your net a little wider. Justice in Thailand needs you.

Good morning to you --- must dash off to drop daughter to the train station.

That is nice - but I didn't write the post you are answering to.

[Samuian]

tig28>> Your defense falters back to 'he hasn't been convicted yet of the others so therefor

as the convicted case was a mere majority verdict' and 'others are bad too, waah-wah-waaaah'.

Congrats, very predictable and sad.

If you even bothered to look at my posting history or member title you would probably be able to deduct that I am against politicians in general and corruption in specific, no-matter who does it.

If there is a news-thread about police or military getting caught, I will happily write in those threads too. But this thread is not about them.

And pointing fingers to other bad apples doesn't make this apple-pie taste better.

It's just being a really bad chief.

Hi TAWP

Its starting to become too surreal for me now.....

"he is squeeky clean" Duhhhhh .. ????? .. no TAWP actually i said "The fact that I ( like you) happen to believe that Thaksin was likely guilty of some/all of the other charges....."

This silliness revolves around only two points I was attempting to make :

The origional (only) conviction against T. was for a very minor matter (not fraud-- not corruption) which was brought against him only after 18 months of intensive investigation initiated by the Junta expressly to get Thaksin.

The conviction lacked conviction ( attempt at humor) as it was a weak 5--4 decision.

That is it really --- the other self evident statement I posted was the very obvious one that all other charges are mere allegations.

Anyway -- I must surrender the floor re this to you now --- I need to go research the background of the newly installed members of the National Human Rights Commission ---- likely to be really independent upstanding defenders of truth & justice.

You might remember that the dismissed members of the NHRC were impetuous enough to recommend murder charges be brought against the current police chief who is the younger brother of our current defense minister. Now that appears to have been a really bad decision. Nothing smelly here?? Noooo---- no way!!

Hang on ----- didn't PM Abhist tell reporters on 23/12/08 that if murder charges were recommended against Police General Phatcharawat Wongsuwan by the NHRC that his appiontment may be "short-lived". Well ---- he did --- and it wasnt!

I would never suggest that wrongdoings by others in anyway diminishes any actions by Thaksin -- I simply (as you raised the question of "balance") pointed out that others seem to be able to plunder the country -- instigate killings--- tamper in elections etc. without one single squeak from the "usual suspects" --- it does not seem balanced to me --- seems anything but!

good night.

A couple of points.

Only ONE point of that conviction of Thaksin was 5-4 most were 9-0 or 8-1

BUT the legal standard is 5-4 is 100% guilty as charged.

His charge was abuse of power in office which was corruption

and it was concerning 770 million baht.

since when is sums like this a little matter?

When someone is indicetd for a crime and brought to court,

and the court accepts the charges and commences trial,

then there was at several stages reaonable belif on prosecutorila and Judical opinions,

that there were legitimate grounds for further adjudication of the charges.

Or the charges would have been thrown out as frivolous.

All charges, except 2 or 3, HAVE passed this judicial scrutiny.,

The cfact that SOME werre thrown out, gives more credence to

the in finished issues at trial, that he is avoiding by evading the court dates.

The charges against the police chief are over the Oct 7th debacle.

I think more investigation of the whole thing needs to be done.

I am have some suspicions he was being made partly a patsy for what went on that day,

He was in a position of authority, but that DOES NOT mean he was in control at the time.

Again not saying his potential culpability should be white washed at all.

Does anyone believe that all polcie under a particular chief are actually LOYAL to THAT CHIEF

and not some other general or pol aligned with the opposition?

TIT... I can't believe ANY policeman is loyal to much more than

whomever is most improving his personal bank balance at the moment.

If the cheif sides with his army brother and the Dems, he would be a

prefect target for laying the blame of others on... n'est pas?

Just remember the case of the "Aussie lady" who was thrown into jail

fined 1000 Baht, and got a 6 month suspended jail sentence for

"stealing" a rubber bar mat (145x45 cm)!

How many Centuries would she have to go to jail if she stole 770 mill.?

What is wrong with some peoples understanding of wrong and right?

[Plus]

If you refered to wikipedia to show that also other people are rather confused about political definition, then you have managed this task rather well. At least somebody did correct the mistake there, unlike with you.

That idiot who put "center right" there gave a wrong citation for his "fact", and even if one could somehow find support for his label, it comes from an opinion column written under pseudonym!

I wouldn't call this tampering a "correction".

Having a strong royalist position makes anyone, in any country, conservative.

In Thailand it doesn't. You apply European history of progress here, or rather only one narrow aspect of it.

You problem is that you basically throw around with terms you have not much idea about their definitions. Nothing of what you describe makes the democrats in any way social democratic. Just read up on the history of social democracy.

You say they are not social democratic because they don't have proper background. I say it doesn't matter, their platform is social democratic now, even if they came to this point in a different way and starting from a different place.

And judging by the way their policies developed in the last couple of years, they are becoming more and more socialist.

We are not in Europe, for Thailand they are as social democratic as it gets. You can read defining features of the modern social democratic platform, and Thai Democrats can put a check under each one of them.

That's the reality NOW, that's their party platform under present leadership, and it has been consistent for a couple of decades.

To fruther demonstrate your obsession with roots - you implied that TRT, a political vehicle for the big business to take over the state power, are true social democrats, because that fraud Chaturon joined them after they won the elections.

I don't think even TRT's own propaganda machine would have gone so far as to claim social democrat label.

[justanothercybertosser]

If you refered to wikipedia to show that also other people are rather confused about political definition, then you have managed this task rather well. At least somebody did correct the mistake there, unlike with you.

That idiot who put "center right" there gave a wrong citation for his "fact", and even if one could somehow find support for his label, it comes from an opinion column written under pseudonym!

I wouldn't call this tampering a "correction".

Having a strong royalist position makes anyone, in any country, conservative.

In Thailand it doesn't. You apply European history of progress here, or rather only one narrow aspect of it.

You problem is that you basically throw around with terms you have not much idea about their definitions. Nothing of what you describe makes the democrats in any way social democratic. Just read up on the history of social democracy.

You say they are not social democratic because they don't have proper background. I say it doesn't matter, their platform is social democratic now, even if they came to this point in a different way and starting from a different place.

And judging by the way their policies developed in the last couple of years, they are becoming more and more socialist.

We are not in Europe, for Thailand they are as social democratic as it gets. You can read defining features of the modern social democratic platform, and Thai Democrats can put a check under each one of them.

That's the reality NOW, that's their party platform under present leadership, and it has been consistent for a couple of decades.

To fruther demonstrate your obsession with roots - you implied that TRT, a political vehicle for the big business to take over the state power, are true social democrats, because that fraud Chaturon joined them after they won the elections.

I don't think even TRT's own propaganda machine would have gone so far as to claim social democrat label.

Again, you display a complete confusion over definitions.

No, there is no "Social Democratic as it gets". There is Social Democracy, there is Conservatism, and there is Liberalism. These are definitions that stand. Just because there is no Social Democratic party existing in Thailand, you cannot attach this label to the next best party just because you choose so, even though it simply does not qualify.

No, just because a few labor protection laws introduced does not make the Democrats social democratic in any way. The most conservative parties of Europe stand for far more Social Democratic values than the Democrats here in Thailand, if you consider those issues. But they still are not Social Democratic either.

And no, i have not described TRT as Social Democratic. Read my posts, please, and do not quote me out of context. Again, what i wrote was that TRT has attracted many politicians of Social Democratic background, in between other political and business interests. And that was in the context that a Social Democratic party is not possible in Thailand for the time being. For you to to understand, again, in easy words - No, the TRT never was Social Democratic. It was a party of widely differing factions, under which some politicians had a social democratic background.

The Democrats under present leadership went actually more conservative, and more economically liberal as previously, if that is even possible. The Democrats are what they always were, a party which traditional elites could use as the for them least offensive political vehicle to be represented in Thailand's semi-democracy. That is what they were founded for, and that is what is still their function. This never had anything to do with Social Democracy.

Lacking feasable alternatives, TRT morphed over time from a party mostly representing business interests into a party that became a party in which many of Thailand's poor and lower middle classes found their representation as well, mostly due to the populist policies. Simplifying TRT as a party only for large business interests may suit your agenda and ideology, but has nothing to do with reality. It was not a social democratic party, but a party which many politicians of social democratic values have found the least offensive vehicle for an alliance, and somewhat responsive to their policies. Of course this decision was highly controversial, as others if similar backgrounds have opposed this alliance.

Of course you cannot translate the European political scenery to Thailand, yet that does not mean that you can switch definitions around at will. The Democrats are somwhat comparable to Europe's conservative parties (yet they retain more than a fair share of the same old regional powerhouse factions all parties in Thailand are paralized by, and looking at Suthep's influence - this has maybe more importance than the small Bangkok faction), and to some extend to economic liberal parties. That is why they are part of the Liberal International, and not the International Socialist.

Is that a concept so difficult to grasp?

Edited May 21, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[rixalex]

So you accept that the coup wasn't democratic, and you justify this with a belief that Thaksin wasn't democratic either. You still haven't explained why you believe that replacing one system that you see as undemocratic, with another system that you also see as undemocratic, is worth bringing Thailand to the brink of civil war for.

Does anyone claim the coup was democratic? I don't think so, just as few would deny that Thaksin had corrupted democracy. Yet you say it's my "belief". You believe differently? You already yourself stated that Thaksin did engage in vote-buying (although of course you always rush to point out that "all politicians do" - so that's alright then).

The coup didn't bring the country to the brink of civil war - quite the opposite - it prevented a clash on the streets that was being instigated by Thaksin so he could justify a heavy-handed clamp down.

Since that crisis was narrowly avoided, Thaksin has tried again to take the country to the brink of civil war but he failed - in no small part thanks to the military.

Not as venal as Thaksin's bunch. Hmmm. Try General Saprang K.,

If Saprang is guilty of corruption, i absolutely agree that he should have his day in court. Do i think that Saprang's case compares with Thaksin's backlog of cases? Probably not, but let's allow the courts to decide that one - they are the ones privy to all the evidence.

There are probably a lot less Thaksin supporters here than you would like to believe. All you can do when your argument fails is keep tryng to convince yourself that everyone who dosn't share your viewpoint must be a rabid Thaksn supporter, and is therefore worthy of censure for having 'criminal' associations.

I don't support censure of people's views no matter what they might be or whoever they may support, i just think it's dishonest to argue from a supposed point of neutrality. Yourself and your like-minded friends on this forum go to considerable lengths to distance yourselves from Thaksin, but then go to great lengths to defend him.

It's not of course impossible to defend someone you don't support, but is slightly strange devoting so much time to a cause you have no belief in. If someone claimed that Mugabe was a pick-pocket and you suspected it to be untrue, would you spend a minute of your life defending his name against the charge?

[justanothercybertosser]

I don't support censure of people's views no matter what they might be or whoever they may support, i just think it's dishonest to argue from a supposed point of neutrality. Yourself and your like-minded friends on this forum go to considerable lengths to distance yourselves from Thaksin, but then go to great lengths to defend him.

You misinterpret this. I defend factual debate against simplifications, hyperbole and rumor mongering.

[rixalex]

I don't support censure of people's views no matter what they might be or whoever they may support, i just think it's dishonest to argue from a supposed point of neutrality. Yourself and your like-minded friends on this forum go to considerable lengths to distance yourselves from Thaksin, but then go to great lengths to defend him.

You misinterpret this. I defend factual debate against simplifications, hyperbole and rumor mongering.

So then are you saying that the simplifications, hyperbole and rumor mongering on this site is only in regard to the reds and Thaksin, because i have only ever read you "defending factual debate" on behalf of that side - never have i read you defending factual debate on behalf of the other side. Just a coincidence i guess.

[tig28]

That is nice - but I didn't write the post you are answering to.

Hi TAWP

Sorry about that ----- I should have realised that you would not be so "one-eyed" about matters. Obviously better addressed to animatic ---- but it was pretty early in the morning for me.

I shall attempt to do better next time.

[justanothercybertosser]

I don't support censure of people's views no matter what they might be or whoever they may support, i just think it's dishonest to argue from a supposed point of neutrality. Yourself and your like-minded friends on this forum go to considerable lengths to distance yourselves from Thaksin, but then go to great lengths to defend him.

You misinterpret this. I defend factual debate against simplifications, hyperbole and rumor mongering.

So then are you saying that the simplifications, hyperbole and rumor mongering on this site is only in regard to the reds and Thaksin, because i have only ever read you "defending factual debate" on behalf of that side - never have i read you defending factual debate on behalf of the other side. Just a coincidence i guess.

There is on this board more need to point out hyperbole and rumor mongering from the yellow mob, which uses these strategies to defend the indefensible - a military coup and the PAD, whose actions have undermined democracy even more than TRT did, because the yellow mob here is far more vocal. I will also not jump on the bandwagon of a lynchmob, who is mobbing the only real Red Shirt on this board, because i believe it is important to have this voice here, even though in many points this poster comes up with i do not agree with.

Yellow shirted posters here have an almost free reign to post ridiculous rubbish and propaganda, protected by a wall of supposeldy neutral posters. As long as this is so, i do chose to defend the rights of the sole Red Shirt here on this forum.

But to make you happy, not much of what the Red Shirts claim in public now, such as more than hundred dead during the Songkran riots, and all violence committed by fake red shirts i do not believe. I would prefer that the Red Shirts would concentrate on the points where there is more than enough evidence where the government has instigated violence indeed - with the setting up of the Blue Shirts in Pattaya, and where the government has clearly lied - the claims of having used just fake bullets.

Edited May 21, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[Plus]

I insist that Democrat platform perfectly reflects modern social democracy

From Wikpedia

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.

- Check on all points.

An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.

- Check, protecting the poors has become big item on their agenda in the past couple of years, thanks to TRT

Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.

- Check, in the wake of 1997 Democrats imposed laws protecting workers, even farang teachers have been known to sue their bosses and win.

Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.

- Abhisit in a hydrogen powered car?

A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.

- Tax laws are in the works already

A secular and a socially progressive policy, although this varies markedly in degree.

Immigration and multiculturalism.

- Check, one thing they can guarantee is no xenophobia and giant flag waving

Fair trade over free trade.

- Check, they always questioned Thaksin free trade deals.

A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.

- Check, on all points.

Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

- Check

>>>

[xminator]

Like the US Democrats the Thai Democrats is pretty far "right" by most European countries standards. Thaksin was closer to what a european would call "social democracy" with his "help the poor" scheme, but then again, other parts of his political platform would be called national socialism instead. Thats about as far right as you can get. Same, most countries that call themself "communist" are as far from the communist idea as possible. Countries that try to adopt the system usually end up with corrupt elites and/or terrorizing and murdering its people. Like China, communist? Hardly, a more proper definition would be "business" or state endorsed mafia. Its all about a small number of people selecting themselfs for power.

The Thai Democrats was and is where people that are attracted to power would need to go to get that power. Abhisit is a perfect example. Its something that happen in all countries where a group is powerfull enough to keep power for a long time. Like my own country Norway, where the "labour" party kept a strong power base together with the workers union. The cemented this power with the rise of Television, and pretty much monopolized the political structure from ww2 until the 1980's. Despite still having no clear policy, they still keep about 30-40% of the votes and draw most of it from their close ties to workers union. People get drawn to the party as much because of career oportunities as political ideology. The last 20 years been a bit diffrent with the oposition gaining power as people want more individual freedom.

Thats how I see the thai democrat party. The "right" career move for your above average gentlemen with ambition for power. Abhisit in a nutshell. Suits the established elite fine as they have their own people there trough years of meddling. Thats what make the thai democrat party a conservative force. Along came Thaksin. Throwing "the power"s foundation out of balance. Right or left of the elite - he was change. Thats also why you see about every political oposition "go red". Its where you go if your not on the inside of the elite. Any cynic will know that corruption will be a big part of thailand no matter who is ruling the next decades. The question is who get the bribes? Better schools? Health care for everyone and not just who can afford it? Will the state give any sort of social security for people that have no jobs? Care for the elder? In my country its hard to imagine a system where your own children where your only hope for your last years of this life - yet in Thailand you either need money or caring children.