Pad Agrees To Set Up Party

[geriatrickid]

I think Sondhi's financial empire is in tatters and creditors are banging at the door. I have the impression that he might be preparing to liquidate his assets and screw his creditors under the guise of sacrificing for the nation.

snipped for brevity

Last time they campaigned as Thaksin proxy, in the days when Thaksin still had a relatively clean image of a coup victim. Situation has changed dramatically, their one year stint in power didn't convince anyone of their abilities, and Thaksin has bored everyone to death with his self-serving agenda and bloody revolutions.

Seems to me that it's sort of hard to govern when PAD and its military backers are sabotaging everything and fomenting civil unrest.

Oh well, I'm sure the PAD apologists and the blame Thaksin brigade of Thai Visa have it all figured out.

[Plus]

hard to govern when PAD and its military backers are sabotaging everything and fomenting civil unrest.

They didn't even try, they spent all their time trying to push through Const amendments. There were loud cries that PTP couldn't even set up parliamentary committees in three months.

They had seven months before PAD occupied govt house, they had plenty of time to prove they were really working for the country. They didn't.

And I'm sure everyone remembers Samak's own assessement of his cabinet - "ugly".

[samgrowth]

Sondhi has been officially declared bankrupt. It's a big question if he is even eligible for running, even if it happened ages ago.

PAD can judge its popularity by the number of ASTV subscriptions in each constituency, btw.

Phue Thai is a headless chicken, without credible leaders and a platform. Last time they campaigned as Thaksin proxy, in the days when Thaksin still had a relatively clean image of a coup victim. Situation has changed dramatically, their one year stint in power didn't convince anyone of their abilities, and Thaksin has bored everyone to death with his self-serving agenda and bloody revolutions.

Now some of their MPs openly protest against Thaksin's choice while others say that it's time they found a leader on their own.

I don't think even their supporters believe that PTP can revive golden age of TRT.

PTP is heading for a huge electoral disaster.

Sondhi's company has been officially declared bankrupt. Not Sondhi himself. Even if he himself was bankrupt, after 3 years, he had already returned as a normal man. So the bankrupt do not stick to him anymore.

[Plus]

Hmm, he might still be disqualified, similar to people who were in prison once but are free now.

It will be clear soon enough, in about a month or so.

I don't have much faith in PAD party. If they set it up as normal politicians would do, it would fail miserably. If they set it up so that their new politics proposal gets a proper stage, I don't know how it would blend with their other goals as politicians.

One thing is clear - one way or another new politics must come through parliament, and so far no one picked the discussion there. It makes sense for PAD to get elected so that they can raise this issue as legitimate lawmakers.

NP discussion is what would actually be the measure of their progress, not the number of seats.

[Thai at Heart]

Hmm, he might still be disqualified, similar to people who were in prison once but are free now.

It will be clear soon enough, in about a month or so.

I don't have much faith in PAD party. If they set it up as normal politicians would do, it would fail miserably. If they set it up so that their new politics proposal gets a proper stage, I don't know how it would blend with their other goals as politicians.

One thing is clear - one way or another new politics must come through parliament, and so far no one picked the discussion there. It makes sense for PAD to get elected so that they can raise this issue as legitimate lawmakers.

NP discussion is what would actually be the measure of their progress, not the number of seats.

Well I sincerely hope they decide what "new politics" is in actuality. I am all for new ideas, but nowhere in the rhetoric did I see anything that represented anything actually new. Rehashing systems from parts of the world such as Hong Kong as was mentioned before is no more relevant than saying that pure democracy won't work in Asia because the culture is "different". The system there doesn't work either in terms of representing people.

A democratic system needs to be clean and simple before it can be effective. One man one vote of equal value is a basic prerequisite.

I see the catharsis that is occurring in the UK to be a great positive which may bring about a improvement on what was already a stable and pretty good system. Politics in most parts of the world is based around selling one's sole and ideology to get into power. If that is the assumption, I haven't seen a plan that is better than to continuously try to move towards more democracy and representation as opposed to less.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[HagenvonTronje]

The Sondhi/PAD version of the Shroud of Turin. The clothes Sondhi was wearing at the day of the assassination attempt, framed and on display.

for more pictures of the event, it's really worth to take a look, go to manager online. there you can click through a couple of galleries of the festivities to celebrate their 193 days of final wars for democrazy.

here few pics as preview.

to watch them all you have to go here.

Nick Nostitz, don't report only about the red shirts, so he was also there, his report and photos at new mandala: PAD celebrates decision to found political party

[Plus]

Well I sincerely hope they decide what "new politics" is in actuality.

Errrm, it's a proposal for the society to improve politics. I bet you have heard that explanation before but still not satisfied.

If you want clear cut, easily explained set of rules you can accept with all of your Thai heart, maybe you should try China or North Korea. PAD hopes that NP will be shaped by people, not assigned by Sondhi, as some kind of homework.

I am all for new ideas, but nowhere in the rhetoric did I see anything that represented anything actually new. Rehashing systems from parts of the world such as Hong Kong as was mentioned before is no more relevant than saying that pure democracy won't work in Asia because the culture is "different".

There's not a single country in Asia where western style democracy works. That's a fact.

I guess PAD have enough intellegence to realise that no matter how many times you try to poop, bananas won't come out of your ass.

Something needs to be changed.

A democratic system needs to be clean and simple before it can be effective. One man one vote of equal value is a basic prerequisite.

That is faulty reasoning. It just doesn't follow. All democratic countries I can think of lived for hundreds of years without unversal suffrage. One way to look at it is that every "one man" had to work hard to deserve that equal value. In the US only white male landholders were qualified initially, for example. And let's not mention Greece.

I don't want to debate history of democratic development, just point out that "one man one vote of equal value" might NOT be a basic prerequisite at all and it doesn't make much sense historically, and it's been proven wrong to assume that democracy here would develop in exactly the same way as in the west, so we don't need exactly same basic prerequisites.

[jayboy]

That is faulty reasoning. It just doesn't follow. All democratic countries I can think of lived for hundreds of years without unversal suffrage. One way to look at it is that every "one man" had to work hard to deserve that equal value. In the US only white male landholders were qualified initially, for example. And let's not mention Greece.

I don't want to debate history of democratic development, just point out that "one man one vote of equal value" might NOT be a basic prerequisite at all and it doesn't make much sense historically, and it's been proven wrong to assume that democracy here would develop in exactly the same way as in the west, so we don't need exactly same basic prerequisites.

There is a fascinating discussion to be had on this subject but I don't think it's one that can be held on this forum - nothing to do with forum rules, unless a strikingly different tone is adopted.Obviously any system of democracy has to be consistent with Thai culture and tradition.I'm not inclined to believe this means compromising with one vote having a different value from any other.The fact that democracy took centuries to evolve in the West is rather beside the point.That's like saying Thailand should develop its own aircraft manafacturing industry rather than buying from Boeing or Airbus.The fact is that countries have the ability to leapfrog on the backs of others to achieve democracy.Japan and South Korea are good examples.My feeling is that ,without ascribing other than the best motives, PAD may be looking at the problem the wrong way round.The emphasis should be on establishing a system which strongly discourages corruption and supports competence.Once PAD starts on the track of identifying certain large groups in Thai society as below par this will be the road to ruin.We know from wghat was said at PAD rallies that there was a strong element of racism, and urban Chinese triumphalism: whether this is a hardwired feature in the movement I have no way of knowing.

[hammered]

That is faulty reasoning. It just doesn't follow. All democratic countries I can think of lived for hundreds of years without unversal suffrage. One way to look at it is that every "one man" had to work hard to deserve that equal value. In the US only white male landholders were qualified initially, for example. And let's not mention Greece.

I don't want to debate history of democratic development, just point out that "one man one vote of equal value" might NOT be a basic prerequisite at all and it doesn't make much sense historically, and it's been proven wrong to assume that democracy here would develop in exactly the same way as in the west, so we don't need exactly same basic prerequisites.

There is a fascinating discussion to be had on this subject but I don't think it's one that can be held on this forum - nothing to do with forum rules, unless a strikingly different tone is adopted.Obviously any system of democracy has to be consistent with Thai culture and tradition.I'm not inclined to believe this means compromising with one vote having a different value from any other.The fact that democracy took centuries to evolve in the West is rather beside the point.That's like saying Thailand should develop its own aircraft manafacturing industry rather than buying from Boeing or Airbus.The fact is that countries have the ability to leapfrog on the backs of others to achieve democracy.Japan and South Korea are good examples.My feeling is that ,without ascribing other than the best motives, PAD may be looking at the problem the wrong way round.The emphasis should be on establishing a system which strongly discourages corruption and supports competence.Once PAD starts on the track of identifying certain large groups in Thai society as below par this will be the road to ruin.We know from wghat was said at PAD rallies that there was a strong element of racism, and urban Chinese triumphalism: whether this is a hardwired feature in the movement I have no way of knowing.

I also agree with this although it should be pointed out that it could be argued that in US senate elections individuals votes are weighted very differently, so by definig a constituency in a certain way even in the most "developed" countries a certain unleveling of the playing field is not exactly unknown. If we look at less developed countries we see that Lebannon has an upcoming election in whcih a system rules a shia vote as less important than a sunni or christian vote.

Im not sure what system Thailand will end up with but it certainly isnt unique to find someone's vote valued higher than another persons in many countries, so even if that occurs it wont be unique. Persoanlly I would favour the most demcoratic system of all where all votes are exactly equal: ie single constituency proportional representation. However, nobody in Thailand seems to want to move away from the local "owned" constituency system.

Interesting debate indeed and as I have touched on the US senate elections not effectively being OMOV I should I guess point out that exists because of local "tradition" and developed over time from non-elected to directly elected but with unequal OMOV weighting. Thailand is a developing democracy of only some 70 years existence and has a no doubt a few more change to evlove through more than these latest ones. Perfection will not be achieved over night. Similalrly the UK has an unelected upper house which until recently was mostly hereditary, so Thailand isnt the only country in which further democratic development is indicated. Mind you only a few years ago papers were appearing about democracy in crisis referring to western democracy so maybe we will start to see more of a retrenchment away from more to less!

[Samuian]

Hmm, he might still be disqualified, similar to people who were in prison once but are free now.

It will be clear soon enough, in about a month or so.

I don't have much faith in PAD party. If they set it up as normal politicians would do, it would fail miserably. If they set it up so that their new politics proposal gets a proper stage, I don't know how it would blend with their other goals as politicians.

One thing is clear - one way or another new politics must come through parliament, and so far no one picked the discussion there. It makes sense for PAD to get elected so that they can raise this issue as legitimate lawmakers.

NP discussion is what would actually be the measure of their progress, not the number of seats.

Well I sincerely hope they decide what "new politics" is in actuality. I am all for new ideas, but nowhere in the rhetoric did I see anything that represented anything actually new. Rehashing systems from parts of the world such as Hong Kong as was mentioned before is no more relevant than saying that pure democracy won't work in Asia because the culture is "different". The system there doesn't work either in terms of representing people.

A democratic system needs to be clean and simple before it can be effective. One man one vote of equal value is a basic prerequisite.

I see the catharsis that is occurring in the UK to be a great positive which may bring about a improvement on what was already a stable and pretty good system. Politics in most parts of the world is based around selling one's sole and ideology to get into power. If that is the assumption, I haven't seen a plan that is better than to continuously try to move towards more democracy and representation as opposed to less.

Well, then let's wait and see..... obviously here on this TV-Forum

there are quite a few people who seem to believe that they

got the solution to something which cannot just ushered in, but like a

seed needs to be planted, nursed, taken good care of and time will tell...

Here are way too many factors which need to be taken care of,

then just founding a new party...

look at PD, TRT, PPP and - enjoy the show!

At least the PAD including Sondhi and Chalerm will get a chance to prove their worth!

And a chance to realize for themselves, that if there is a opposition,

blocking any effort for changes...they won;t get anywhere!

The Thaksin affair won't be off the stage unless it has been properly being dealt with!

[hammered]

Interesting that David Cameron has "done a PAD" and announced the UK needs "New Politics". Bit of a PR gift for the PAD!

[jayboy]

Interesting that David Cameron has "done a PAD" and announced the UK needs "New Politics". Bit of a PR gift for the PAD!

There's certainly a common theme in that nobody really knows what "New Politics" means in either case! To be fair to Cameron he has given rather more detail than the PAD.

Interesting that Cameron has dismissed proprtional representation and is a firm believer in first past the post.

Cameron however is an interesting and brave politician.He would have been a contemporary of Abhisit at Eton though two years younger.

[hammered]

Interesting that David Cameron has "done a PAD" and announced the UK needs "New Politics". Bit of a PR gift for the PAD!

There's certainly a common theme in that nobody really knows what "New Politics" means in either case! To be fair to Cameron he has given rather more detail than the PAD.

Interesting that Cameron has dismissed proprtional representation and is a firm believer in first past the post.

Cameron however is an interesting and brave politician.He would have been a contemporary of Abhisit at Eton though two years younger.

Neither big party in the UK is going to back PR as it would give away their power when they win!

It is interesting to see the discrediting of polticians in general. We have had Berlusconi's law to avoid court cases, this UK stuff and Obama won on a pretty discredited Republican party although that admittedly is one party ratrher than something systemic.

Sondhi is aiming at discredited polticians from the outside. Cameron from the inside. New politcs does seem to be looking like a bigger deal than just Thailand. Maybe Sondhi should have copyrighted it!

[HagenvonTronje]

At least the PAD including Sondhi and Chalerm will get a chance to prove their worth!

And a chance to realize for themselves, that if there is a opposition,

blocking any effort for changes...they won;t get anywhere!

The Thaksin affair won't be off the stage unless it has been properly being dealt with!

Do you know who Chalerm is?

and what is "properly being dealt with"? the Sondhi Lim Ill way?: "Where is the army? This talk is enough to bring [Thaksin] to the execution post."

[Plus]

I don't particularly care for OMOV system and putting blind trust in it. Forget US Senate, even direct presidential votes are not equal in the US, thanks to Electoral College.

How about deciding what we need parliament for in the first place? I don't think many people in this country understand roles of executive and legislative branches. Politicians certainly don't, they all want to govern.

I bet people on the streets will have hard time telling what the parliament is there for, what's its use, apart from picking the government.

And if government positions are so important for both people and politicians, maybe that should be sorted first. What should be the process for selecting Ministers? I believe everyone realises that simply being the most popular bloke in Buriram doesn't make one qualified to run country's finances. It's a sure road to disaster.

How to reconcile popular politics with professionalism? The both need to be present and work seamlessly together.

[Plus]

The fact that democracy took centuries to evolve in the West is rather beside the point.That's like saying Thailand should develop its own aircraft manafacturing industry rather than buying from Boeing or Airbus.

So you propose Thailand should import its govenment?

Since it's not possible, they have to set up local manufacturing, like they do with cars.

And if auto industry is used as an example - some models are developed specifically for Thailand, others are heavily modified, some don't have western equivalents at all, and very few are direct imports.

Japan and South Korea are good examples

I don't think Japan is a good democratic example. It's more like Singapore, just softer on opposition. And Korea (and also Taiwan) have lived with current democracy not much longer than Thailand - with all their dictatorial regimes.

[hammered]

I don't particularly care for OMOV system and putting blind trust in it. Forget US Senate, even direct presidential votes are not equal in the US, thanks to Electoral College.

How about deciding what we need parliament for in the first place? I don't think many people in this country understand roles of executive and legislative branches. Politicians certainly don't, they all want to govern.

I bet people on the streets will have hard time telling what the parliament is there for, what's its use, apart from picking the government.

And if government positions are so important for both people and politicians, maybe that should be sorted first. What should be the process for selecting Ministers? I believe everyone realises that simply being the most popular bloke in Buriram doesn't make one qualified to run country's finances. It's a sure road to disaster.

How to reconcile popular politics with professionalism? The both need to be present and work seamlessly together.

You are right about the need for the development of a democratic ethos and civil society. That however, can take a long long time and cant just be parachuted in. Role of government, parliament, opposition plus all those checks and balances are all cruical as is public accountability between elections.

The electoral system is just part of democracy.

Interesting to watch the debate raging in the UK right now which is the oldest democracy in the world and is in a bit of a crisis where exactly the points you mention are being debated. Democracy is a work in progress that will never reach completion but hopefully will go through stages of improvement and refinement is maybe the way to look at it.

[Plus]

You are right about the need for the development of a democratic ethos and civil society. That however, can take a long long time and cant just be parachuted in. Role of government, parliament, opposition plus all those checks and balances are all cruical as is public accountability between elections.

Until the system is properly set up it's wide open to abuse, and I don't mean just corruption.

I'm talking about some bloke from Buriram promising his voters heaven on earth, while his real ambition is to be a minister. In the end the voters don't their representation and the country get a shitty government.

Also OMOV means representation, but very few people elect their representatives, they elect best benefits for themselves, and those are very different things that need to be reconciled. Splitting local/national votes was a step in the right direction but it's not nearly enough as in the end they are all dumped together anyway, and MPs who promised local development get to dictate national level policies.

And then there's "quota" system...

[Thai at Heart]

You are right about the need for the development of a democratic ethos and civil society. That however, can take a long long time and cant just be parachuted in. Role of government, parliament, opposition plus all those checks and balances are all cruical as is public accountability between elections.

The electoral system is just part of democracy.

Interesting to watch the debate raging in the UK right now which is the oldest democracy in the world and is in a bit of a crisis where exactly the points you mention are being debated. Democracy is a work in progress that will never reach completion but hopefully will go through stages of improvement and refinement is maybe the way to look at it.

I would also add a free and varied press into the equation alongside a reasonable civil libel law as opposed to criminal. I doubt very much that if the PAD hadn't had ASTV they would have been able to topple the PPP, likewise Thaksin meddled with the media far too much for his own ends. Having the armed forces in ownership of TV stations isn't exactly a good start is it?

The only reason the British are having their clear up of the expenses system is because the newspapers (mainly the Torygraph/Telegraph) printed it. It may be a politically motivated story, but it is catching it's fair share of politicians from both sides. I did love seeing the speaker trying to defend the indefensible and the subsequent squirming that went on. When was the last time anyone dared to snitch on the pooyai in Thailand?

The publication of stories like this is one of the simplest ways to increase transparency and accountability, but it can only work if the journalist believes that he won't bankrupt his employer because he will get slapped with a 200bn baht defamation/loss of face injunction and a criminal charge or a bullet in the head.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[Plus]

The publication of stories like this is one of the simplest ways to increase transparency and accountability

I'm not really following that one, but I've read that the information would have become a public domain in a couple of months anyway, and that the way Telegraph obtained it now was not exactly kosher.

I think people go too far when they call it "investigative journalism", like that BP pest Burin did the other day.

There are some serious questions put before Thai media now. Nation had a couple of interesting opinions on the matter, referring to a recent seminar where Rosana Toracul talked about "toxic" media that needs to be controlled. It's in some other thread here, though.

I'm not sure that we need more propaganda sources like ASTV/Dstation, actually I'm sure we don't. It would be just a deafening "who's got the loudest mouthpiece" competition.

[Thai at Heart]

The publication of stories like this is one of the simplest ways to increase transparency and accountability

I'm not really following that one, but I've read that the information would have become a public domain in a couple of months anyway, and that the way Telegraph obtained it now was not exactly kosher.

I think people go too far when they call it "investigative journalism", like that BP pest Burin did the other day.

There are some serious questions put before Thai media now. Nation had a couple of interesting opinions on the matter, referring to a recent seminar where Rosana Toracul talked about "toxic" media that needs to be controlled. It's in some other thread here, though.

I'm not sure that we need more propaganda sources like ASTV/Dstation, actually I'm sure we don't. It would be just a deafening "who's got the loudest mouthpiece" competition.

How they obtained it and whether it was absolutely kosher is irrelevant. It is an open and shut case about dubious use of public funds and so deserves to be published. I am sure the telegraph isn't expecting any gagging orders anytime soon.

They got caught completely with their pants down buying ornamental fountains, flat screeen TV's and avoiding capital gains on their dubiously classified 1st/2nd properties. The system will get cleaned up, strengthened and the country will move on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...e-of-leaks.html

I would love to see the police trying to say there is a public interest in prosecuting the whistle blower!

I don't know if there isn't a need for more ASTV or DSTV like stations, but there is a place for them all and the more the merrier. If someone wants to start a 3rd, 4th or 5th that is better than having the government legislate whether they should exist or not. I don't like Fox News. Some do, that is choice.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[DaleBlue]

No brainer. Sondhi should name the party: All u can eat PAD Thai party.

Corruption will soon reappear.

[Plus]

there is a place for them all and the more the merrier

Why do you think so? The more the merrier?

Are you so confident that people would withstand the barrage of lies and propaganda and see through it all on each and every issue?

I think brainwashed red shirts is a perfect example of freedom gone terribly wrong. Do you seriously want more mobs, each with its own TV station?

Or do you mean - let them believe in what they want, it's not an issue, the elections will determine who is right and who is wrong.

Do you advocate freedom of propaganda?

[Thai at Heart]

there is a place for them all and the more the merrier

Why do you think so? The more the merrier?

Are you so confident that people would withstand the barrage of lies and propaganda and see through it all on each and every issue?

I think brainwashed red shirts is a perfect example of freedom gone terribly wrong. Do you seriously want more mobs, each with its own TV station?

Or do you mean - let them believe in what they want, it's not an issue, the elections will determine who is right and who is wrong.

Do you advocate freedom of propaganda?

If the red's TV channel was swimming in a sea of dozens of other informative independent channels, it wouldn't get a look in. It would only take one channel set up with something akin to editorial independence than those around today and it would become trusted and respected in a minute.

People don't trust the media here because they are sophisticated enough to know it is filtered by any one of the army, government, big business or one person or another with an axe to grind. It is the incessant meddling in the media by these 4 that makes people believe that the "reds" channel may have truth to it.

If I was a red, why would I believe a single word that comes from news channels owned by the army whether it is true or not? Likewise if I was a yellow, would I have believed anything that NBT broadcast knowing that Thaksin owned it?

If you split the mobs into 50, it certainly wouldn't make much of a national movement would it. So the issue is, follow the government and ASTV or nothing?

I think brainwashed red shirts is a perfect example of freedom gone terribly wrong.

.

I'll leave you to contemplate quite how patronising thinking like that is in reality. All hard core reds are delusional, all hard core yellows are ???? Better to squash freedom obviously because all these poor delusional people are simply ill informed. Off to the re-education camps then or will increasing freedom and access to more information set people free?

[Plus]

So they are not delusional? Just misguided?

If enough people come out to attack the PM, you don't want to call them delusional, do you?

If two weeks later they all believe the PM wasn't in the car they are what - "undeluded"? How about their firm believe in hundreds killed and hidden by the army? It's like UFO cult now. And they are bloody dangerous.

It would only take one channel set up with something akin to editorial independence than those around today and it would become trusted and respected in a minute.

Oh you are so naive.

As soon as your channel exposes someone's lies, that someone would set up another TV station preaching exactly opposite of anything your "trusted" media report. If they got better soaps and more people tune in, pretty they'll have a lot wider following that your "trusted" media would ever have.

Someone recently quoted Hitler - if you make your lie big and simple and repeat it often enough, people will take it as truth. And that guy knew a thing or two about manipulating public opinion.

>>>>

Or just look at Thai PBS - they are as independent as they come, with Jon Ungpakorn on the board, they even reportedly played republican songs on the royal background once, stil no one is watching.

[Thai at Heart]

So they are not delusional? Just misguided?

If enough people come out to attack the PM, you don't want to call them delusional, do you?

If two weeks later they all believe the PM wasn't in the car they are what - "undeluded"? How about their firm believe in hundreds killed and hidden by the army? It's like UFO cult now. And they are bloody dangerous.

It would only take one channel set up with something akin to editorial independence than those around today and it would become trusted and respected in a minute.

Oh you are so naive.

As soon as your channel exposes someone's lies, that someone would set up another TV station preaching exactly opposite of anything your "trusted" media report. If they got better soaps and more people tune in, pretty they'll have a lot wider following that your "trusted" media would ever have.

Someone recently quoted Hitler - if you make your lie big and simple and repeat it often enough, people will take it as truth. And that guy knew a thing or two about manipulating public opinion.

>>>>

Or just look at Thai PBS - they are as independent as they come, with Jon Ungpakorn on the board, they even reportedly played republican songs on the royal background once, stil no one is watching.

Who is "they?"

So we are to simply give up on freedom as speech as a concept on the basis that no one is interested or that "they" aren't capable of understanding? Well, in the last 2 years we have seen people glued to ASTV for hours, and likewise there we people glued to whatever the red's channel was.

Believe it or not, people are far more interested than you believe so I would support hundreds of sources being available than fewer. I don't believe that the reds channel or ASTV has a monopoly on the truth. Of course a TV channel shouldn't promote civil unrest as people say the red's channel did, but then didn't ASTV campaign for supporters to join up, at various illegal assemblies?

It would actually be better for the level of understanding of the nation if they banned soap operas as opposed to news channels and they were bombarded with hundreds of news channels and opinions.

As long as the majority of the TV news is in the hands of the government, people won't believe it completely. The pathetic statements to classify new channels as "toxic" says it all. I much prefer knowing that Thai PBS is there with no-one watching it, than it to be banned because a given bureaucrat of the day decides he doesn't like it.

I much prefer a world out there with millions of messages being conveyed than having them strained through a government filter.

[carriemai]

So they are not delusional? Just misguided?

If enough people come out to attack the PM, you don't want to call them delusional, do you?

If two weeks later they all believe the PM wasn't in the car they are what - "undeluded"? How about their firm believe in hundreds killed and hidden by the army? It's like UFO cult now. And they are bloody dangerous.

It would only take one channel set up with something akin to editorial independence than those around today and it would become trusted and respected in a minute.

Oh you are so naive.

As soon as your channel exposes someone's lies, that someone would set up another TV station preaching exactly opposite of anything your "trusted" media report. If they got better soaps and more people tune in, pretty they'll have a lot wider following that your "trusted" media would ever have.

Someone recently quoted Hitler - if you make your lie big and simple and repeat it often enough, people will take it as truth. And that guy knew a thing or two about manipulating public opinion.

>>>>

Or just look at Thai PBS - they are as independent as they come, with Jon Ungpakorn on the board, they even reportedly played republican songs on the royal background once, stil no one is watching.

Who is "they?"

So we are to simply give up on freedom as speech as a concept on the basis that no one is interested or that "they" aren't capable of understanding? Well, in the last 2 years we have seen people glued to ASTV for hours, and likewise there we people glued to whatever the red's channel was.

Believe it or not, people are far more interested than you believe so I would support hundreds of sources being available than fewer. I don't believe that the reds channel or ASTV has a monopoly on the truth. Of course a TV channel shouldn't promote civil unrest as people say the red's channel did, but then didn't ASTV campaign for supporters to join up, at various illegal assemblies?

It would actually be better for the level of understanding of the nation if they banned soap operas as opposed to news channels and they were bombarded with hundreds of news channels and opinions.

As long as the majority of the TV news is in the hands of the government, people won't believe it completely. The pathetic statements to classify new channels as "toxic" says it all. I much prefer knowing that Thai PBS is there with no-one watching it, than it to be banned because a given bureaucrat of the day decides he doesn't like it.

I much prefer a world out there with millions of messages being conveyed than having them strained through a government filter.

Whilst I very much agree with the tenor of your post, I would ask that everyone put aside their idea of whatsoever 'illegalities' of the demonstrations by the PAD against Taksin's return, and try very hard to imagine what would have happened if he had?

I believe we have a great deal to be thankful to those who gave up their time and comfort over a period of many months to ensure this DID NOT happen.

[Plus]

So we are to simply give up on freedom as speech as a concept on the basis that no one is interested or that "they" aren't capable of understanding?

"They" was read shirts.

In their case they completely surrendered their braincells to propaganda (and Dtv is NOT a news channel, no matter what they call themselves).

I'm not singling out reds, I'm just making an example. 30 years ago thousands of people were comandeered to Sanam Luang to lynch some students. Six years ago people believed killing people in the name of drug war was ok, while "englightened" US was absolutely convinced that Saddam was behind 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction.

The power of media to brainwash people into believing practically any nonsense is undeniable, it's behind ANY bloody conflict.

I can't even consider seriously "Let them do whatever they want, it's all "freedom of speech" argument. It's deeply irresponsible.

[jasreeve18]

So we are to simply give up on freedom as speech as a concept on the basis that no one is interested or that "they" aren't capable of understanding?

"They" was read shirts.

In their case they completely surrendered their braincells to propaganda (and Dtv is NOT a news channel, no matter what they call themselves).

I'm not singling out reds, I'm just making an example. 30 years ago thousands of people were comandeered to Sanam Luang to lynch some students. Six years ago people believed killing people in the name of drug war was ok, while "englightened" US was absolutely convinced that Saddam was behind 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction.

The power of media to brainwash people into believing practically any nonsense is undeniable, it's behind ANY bloody conflict.

I can't even consider seriously "Let them do whatever they want, it's all "freedom of speech" argument. It's deeply irresponsible.

Your loved ones in the army own the TV stations and threaten the newspapers here (and are behind the bloody conflicts too).

Plus, you're so boring and silly...

DTV is not a news station, but ASTV is???

You're so extremely irrational and polarized, you symbolize everything that's awful in Thai politics...

Oh God, I promised myself I wouldn't reply to your crap... be strong Jas18, be strong.

Edited May 28, 2009 by jasreeve18

[sriracha john]

So we are to simply give up on freedom as speech as a concept on the basis that no one is interested or that "they" aren't capable of understanding?

"They" was read shirts.

In their case they completely surrendered their braincells to propaganda (and Dtv is NOT a news channel, no matter what they call themselves).

I'm not singling out reds, I'm just making an example. 30 years ago thousands of people were comandeered to Sanam Luang to lynch some students. Six years ago people believed killing people in the name of drug war was ok, while "englightened" US was absolutely convinced that Saddam was behind 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction.

The power of media to brainwash people into believing practically any nonsense is undeniable, it's behind ANY bloody conflict.

I can't even consider seriously "Let them do whatever they want, it's all "freedom of speech" argument. It's deeply irresponsible.

Your loved ones in the army own the TV stations and threaten the newspapers here (and are behind the bloody conflicts too).

Plus, you're so boring and silly...

DTV is not a news station, but ASTV is???

You're so extremely irrational and polarized, you symbolize everything that's awful in Thai politics...

Oh God, I promised myself I wouldn't reply to your crap... be strong Jas18, be strong.

Whatever happened to that poster, jasreeve17?

Oh yeah, that's right... he was banned.

Not very imaginative to come back with jasreeve18.

Edited May 28, 2009 by sriracha john