Thailand Under Threat Within And Without?

[Roadman]

"Sondhi’s remarks about being surrounded reflect his personal frustration at not being able to silence opposition to the way things have traditionally been run in the country. Sondhi believes that destruction of the nation and the imminent collapse of Thai society will result should the public not conform to his version of how to pay homage to the king."

Amazing how the topic always sways to Thaksin and his risk to the country yet equally depraved idiots like Sondhi with his agenda's are not equally condemned.

Large proportions of my thai family and friends would continue to vote for TRT and its off spring parties but placed far above that loyalty is their love of His Royal Highness the King.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Roadman

[Harcourt]

The problem with democracy is that it is majority rule: Look at a bell curve and you see that the majority is the average, thus democratic rule is rule by the average man. Not much different to organised, placid mob rule. The average man makes only average decisions,

When it comes to a country's welfare, wouldn't it be better to have the best decisions made?

[Harcourt]

.......

PS. TO EVERYONE - read lots of great stuff on wikipedia on Thai politics, 2005-2006 Thailand crises, 2008-2009 Thailand crises, yellow shirts, red shirts, Thaksin, Sondhi. No one in Thai politics is pure. And the country is in its democratic infancy. Also great to hear of other good sites to read too. (Questions about validity of Thaksin's convictions on wikipedia.)

The problem with Wiki is that it can be edited by any interested party. There is no guarantee that it's articles are properly or accurately peer-reviewed.

[zzaa09]

PS. TO EVERYONE - read lots of great stuff on wikipedia on Thai politics, 2005-2006 Thailand crises, 2008-2009 Thailand crises, yellow shirts, red shirts, Thaksin, Sondhi. No one in Thai politics is pure. And the country is in its democratic infancy. Also great to hear of other good sites to read too. (Questions about validity of Thaksin's convictions on wikipedia.)

Absorbing Wikipedia is fine, as long as you've a inkling of weariness and caution.

[mc2]

Sondhi believes that destruction of the nation and the imminent collapse of Thai society will result should the public not conform to his version

ya. imminent destruction of the nation if we all don't listen to Sondhi and do what he says.

every cult leaders oldest trick in the book. "we are all dooooomed if you dont do what i say".

[zzaa09]

Sondhi believes that destruction of the nation and the imminent collapse of Thai society will result should the public not conform to his version

ya. imminent destruction of the nation if we all don't listen to Sondhi and do what he says.

every cult leaders oldest trick in the book. "we are all dooooomed if you dont do what i say".

Cult leaders here. Would be a bit of a crowded house.

[Plus]

Sondhi is linking reds and their supporters among foreigners as working for the republicans. There were several theories of how republicans want to play it out, with Thaksin 2 plan even being mentioned in mainstream media.

You could say it's a lot of smoke, but there are plenty of red leaders who want to "adjust" the role of monarchy in this country, and there are plenty of supporters among foreign journalists who think it should be made more in line with current times.

They want changes, without actually spelling out their agenda or even visions of what Thailand would look like to the general public - they don't allow democracy mess with their dreams. Democracy and openness should only apply to the elites, not to progressive thinkers.

[redscouse]

I think you forgot to include 'elected' in your list. Cue comments about vote buying etc as though nobody else does it, Thai politics stinks whichever side of the fence you sit on.

Like I say I am not a supporter or a non supporter of Thaksin, but I have a question that I hope people can answer putting bias aside, lets see.

Was Thailand a more stable, better performing country with Thaksin in charge than it has been since the coup to remove him?

read up on your history a little bit more.

He wasn't an elected anything at the time of the coup. All he was was a caretaker PM who had refused to call elections for 6 months leading up to the coup, cause if he called them, he'd lose, again.

The local village chief had more democratic legitimacy than he did.

maybe your history is a little clouded, I do recall him calling a general election however the opposition parties were cajoled into not standing against him by the PAD, is this correct? Please don't try and gloss over this with reasons but you state that he never called a general election, I am saying he did call one. which is correct?

[NanLaew]

And what would be so bad about the "Democratic Republic of Thailand" anyway?

[samran]

I think you forgot to include 'elected' in your list. Cue comments about vote buying etc as though nobody else does it, Thai politics stinks whichever side of the fence you sit on.

Like I say I am not a supporter or a non supporter of Thaksin, but I have a question that I hope people can answer putting bias aside, lets see.

Was Thailand a more stable, better performing country with Thaksin in charge than it has been since the coup to remove him?

read up on your history a little bit more.

He wasn't an elected anything at the time of the coup. All he was was a caretaker PM who had refused to call elections for 6 months leading up to the coup, cause if he called them, he'd lose, again.

The local village chief had more democratic legitimacy than he did.

maybe your history is a little clouded, I do recall him calling a general election however the opposition parties were cajoled into not standing against him by the PAD, is this correct? Please don't try and gloss over this with reasons but you state that he never called a general election, I am saying he did call one. which is correct?

You forget that Thaksin was on the nose through out 2005, and massively pissed of the electorate in 2006 for his sale of Shitcorp to...wait for it....foreginers (so much for his proclaimed loved of the Thai people). Personal wealth before nation has always been his modus operandi.

The dems April 2006 election boycott was thoroughly constitutional. How could the cajole themselves? It was dirty politics, but no dirtier than Thaksin played it.

The Democrat opposition chose not to stand and thus ensured that the 20% quota was not obtained in uncontested seats, especially in the south. It also meant that Thaksin had a depleted election fund war chest.

The election was declared null and void. So unless we are playing cricket, if he didn't win those elections, then he had lost them.

A subsequent election was called by the election commission, not Thaksin. Dear Leaders behind the scenes mechanations meant that the orginial october date was moved back, and no doubt he would have tried to move it back again. Any democratically minded politician would have said 'fukc it, another election can be organised in 4 weeks, lets go for it to break the deadlock, whatever the result'. But he didn't.

I mean, he was a PM still, and wasn't elected. Just how he envisaged things would always be one day, right?

Edited August 4, 2009 by samran

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Truth be told, they don't want democracy, that's why they are unable to process straight forward thought and responsibilities - the Dictator takes away all of the need for reckoning.

They are like children, they need a discipline that keeps them in line! Try and give them free thought and speech and they are to be honest "buggerred"

If no one tells them what to do or think......what do they do? they are a lost cause!

I'm sorry to say you hit the nail pretty much on the head. It is sustained by poor education (deliberate) and a culture built on fear (also deliberate).It is not going to change inside of 2 or 3 generations - if they start now. There is precious little difference between Burma and Thailand in reality.

Kev

[Jingthing]

Maybe a Thai version of a Democracy for Dummies book would be a big hit in Thailand? Better yet, a video. Better yet, free to watch. Better yet, get paid to watch.

[Ulysses G.]

quote name='redscouse' post='2917901' date='2009-08-04 01:29:28'

maybe your history is a little clouded, I do recall him calling a general election however the opposition parties were cajoled into not standing against him by the PAD, is this correct?

The answer is yes.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[redscouse]

quote name='redscouse' post='2917901' date='2009-08-04 01:29:28'

maybe your history is a little clouded, I do recall him calling a general election however the opposition parties were cajoled into not standing against him by the PAD, is this correct?

The answer is yes.

yes it seems my friend a few posts back would rather try and deflect the truth of the matter with lengthy posts full of hyperbole. The fact is Thaksin called a General Election before the coup which was in the end a non event due to the PAD cajoling opposition parties to not stand against the TRT candidates in the hope it would make the election void. Also if I recall rightly based on the people who did vote Thaksin would have been re elected. Not bad for someone who apparently has never won an election in his life. Added to the recent 3 by election victories it would appear that people still believe in the TRT policies.

[Plus]

After April elections fiasco, the EC scheduled next ones for October 15, but then the commissioners were jailed themselves. Elections were postponed indefinitely. New commissioners were selected, there were no concrete proposals for the date, "in a couple of months". The coup happened one day before new EC was about to take office.

Also, after April elections Thaskin has publicly resigned and his first deputy was in charge of the government. No one asked him to come back but he did.

[samran]

After April elections fiasco, the EC scheduled next ones for October 15, but then the commissioners were jailed themselves. Elections were postponed indefinitely. New commissioners were selected, there were no concrete proposals for the date, "in a couple of months". The coup happened one day before new EC was about to take office.

Also, after April elections Thaskin has publicly resigned and his first deputy was in charge of the government. No one asked him to come back but he did.

exactly. Thaksin made no moves to call an new election, which he should have, and his cronies in the EC behind delaying a new one.

[samran]

quote name='redscouse' post='2917901' date='2009-08-04 01:29:28'

maybe your history is a little clouded, I do recall him calling a general election however the opposition parties were cajoled into not standing against him by the PAD, is this correct?

The answer is yes.

yes it seems my friend a few posts back would rather try and deflect the truth of the matter with lengthy posts full of hyperbole. The fact is Thaksin called a General Election before the coup which was in the end a non event due to the PAD cajoling opposition parties to not stand against the TRT candidates in the hope it would make the election void. Also if I recall rightly based on the people who did vote Thaksin would have been re elected. Not bad for someone who apparently has never won an election in his life. Added to the recent 3 by election victories it would appear that people still believe in the TRT policies.

you are missing my points which were:

Thaksin wasn't an elected anything at the time of the September coup. You said he was 'elected'.

The April 2006 election (which you are right, he did call) was annulled. Thaksin dragged his feet by not calling another one (which he should have). He was increasingly unpopular at the time (otherwise why did he call the April 2006 election, only one year into a 4 year term). I'm talking about this later, non-existant 'election' which he supposedly had called, all the while showing off as a caretaker PM during HM's celebrations that year.

Edited August 4, 2009 by samran

[redscouse]

quote name='redscouse' post='2917901' date='2009-08-04 01:29:28'

maybe your history is a little clouded, I do recall him calling a general election however the opposition parties were cajoled into not standing against him by the PAD, is this correct?

The answer is yes.

yes it seems my friend a few posts back would rather try and deflect the truth of the matter with lengthy posts full of hyperbole. The fact is Thaksin called a General Election before the coup which was in the end a non event due to the PAD cajoling opposition parties to not stand against the TRT candidates in the hope it would make the election void. Also if I recall rightly based on the people who did vote Thaksin would have been re elected. Not bad for someone who apparently has never won an election in his life. Added to the recent 3 by election victories it would appear that people still believe in the TRT policies.

you are missing my points which were:

Thaksin wasn't an elected anything at the time of the September coup. You said he was 'elected'.

The April 2006 election (which you are right, he did call) was annulled. Thaksin dragged his feet by not calling another one (which he should have). He was increasingly unpopular at the time (otherwise why did he call the April 2006 election, only one year into a 4 year term). I'm talking about this later, non-existant 'election' which he supposedly had called, all the while showing off as a caretaker PM during HM's celebrations that year.

if you think he had called another election it would have been held or would the opposition be forced to not stand again by the PAD, what would have been the point? This is very similar to the 'PAD never closed' the airport belief when in fact they made it certain the airport would have to close, just as they made calling another election pointless. Thaksin took it to the Polls but the PAD made it impossible to hold an election, he did what was right but the PAD knew TRT would get re elected so they did what they do best, cause chaos carte blanche in the knowledge they could cause this chaos with impunity.

[samran]

if you think he had called another election it would have been held or would the opposition be forced to not stand again by the PAD, what would have been the point? This is very similar to the 'PAD never closed' the airport belief when in fact they made it certain the airport would have to close, just as they made calling another election pointless. Thaksin took it to the Polls but the PAD made it impossible to hold an election, he did what was right but the PAD knew TRT would get re elected so they did what they do best, cause chaos carte blanche in the knowledge they could cause this chaos with impunity.

I guess the point would have been that the opposition democrats could have continuted to maintain their right to boycott elections against a party that they saw as corrupt and dishonest.

People tend to forget that it was a fairly big risk for the Dems to do what they did. What if TRT got the 20% quotas and the dems didn't run? It would have been a 420 odd seat TRT majority in a 500 seat parliament. They were risking the possibility of electoral and representative oblivion for the next 4 years.

The dems said they'd run in a subsequent election, which was being pushed back. They'd dented TRT's electoral war chest, which was the realpoltik reason for boycotting the first election. Dirty, but entirely in the rules.

Edited August 4, 2009 by samran

[Plus]

Dems promiesed to run in the next elections no matter what. They boycotted April because it was called for unjust and frivolous reasons - resolve one man's issues with the law. Next elections would have been necessary as the country didn't have a working parliament or senate.

The point of all that was to remove Thaksin. That was also the point of PAD protests. It's not about democracy or elites or the poor. No Thaksin, no problems, as simple as that.

[hammered]

Doubt Thailand is really under threat from anywhere. The country ids going through a few rought times politically but as the story points out most Thais dont indulge in politics.

At some point the powerful ones will have to come to an agreement. Hopefully that would be one that excluded all the political lunatics, wannabe coupists, egomaniacal monsters and other associated detritus. However, at the end of the day that will be up to the Thai people in what they will as a group agree is acceptable

[citizen33]

if you think he had called another election it would have been held or would the opposition be forced to not stand again by the PAD, what would have been the point? This is very similar to the 'PAD never closed' the airport belief when in fact they made it certain the airport would have to close, just as they made calling another election pointless. Thaksin took it to the Polls but the PAD made it impossible to hold an election, he did what was right but the PAD knew TRT would get re elected so they did what they do best, cause chaos carte blanche in the knowledge they could cause this chaos with impunity.

I guess the point would have been that the opposition democrats could have continuted to maintain their right to boycott elections against a party that they saw as corrupt and dishonest.

People tend to forget that it was a fairly big risk for the Dems to do what they did. What if TRT got the 20% quotas and the dems didn't run? It would have been a 420 odd seat TRT majority in a 500 seat parliament. They were risking the possibility of electoral and representative oblivion for the next 4 years.

The dems said they'd run in a subsequent election, which was being pushed back. They'd dented TRT's electoral war chest, which was the realpoltik reason for boycotting the first election. Dirty, but entirely in the rules.

No doubt the next chapter in your version of history is how Pua Thai's election victory (after the banning of TRT) was really a defeat! Going back to the OP, I think the problem of explanation now for the 'old money' faction is why there is still significant support for TRT/PT when there doesn't seem to be enough money left to pay all of them. The argument from the anti-Thaksin group was that ideology and longer-term political interest played no role, old-style politics still dominated and the rural masses would happily accept the restoration of the old order once vote buying stopped. The counter-argument was that the genie was out of the bottle and Isaan and the North were not going to forget that their votes had been stolen. We will see in the next couple of years who is right.

Edited August 4, 2009 by citizen33

[Datsun240Z]

If the people don't get smarter or stand up against the goverment ( richer people ), will always rule them, and the majority will always be poor. This has been going on for centuries. Don't forget Thailand is a Constitutional Monarchy, this is not something you need for freedom of speech and power to the people.

[Plus]

Pua Thai's election victory (after the banning of TRT) was really a defeat!

It depends on your angle. Yes, it was a victory for the people who elected the government of their choice. I don't know why you assume that the elites would be against it, though. They fight Thaksin, not the people.

If you look at it from Thaksin's point of view - did they get him off the hook? Did they grant amnesty to banned TRT execs? Did they re-write the constitution? No, nothing. What kind of victory was that?

And if you looked at it from elites point of view - they let people have their government and they kept Thaksin at bay. Was it a defeat?

I, personally, don't care very much who runs the government here, as long as it works for the country and not for Thaksin, or any other particular individual. It's just different flavours of governing styles, some are more inept than others, I can live with that, it's- not a big deal if you compare it to Thaksin's revoluiton.

So, if PTP gets some 40 more seats that Democrats - go ahead, celebrate your "victory", if that's your version of a good time. I wouldn't care, and Bangkok Pundit thinks that PAD would actually be happier in opposition than trying to govern together with the likes of Suthep and Newin.

Different people go into elections with different goals. Victory of defeat mean different things to them.

[samran]

No doubt the next chapter in your version of history is how Pua Thai's election victory (after the banning of TRT) was really a defeat!

Not really. They won the most seats in a generally above board election. I voted in it and had no issues with the way my polling booth was handled.

They couldn't help it though that when they formed government they got an incompetent like Samak to come and run it. They simply shot themselves in the foot then.

That they can't muster a majority in parliament now, well that is something else. If we all agree that the election was fair and representative, then we have to accept the fact that members of parliament can change alleigences and support a democrat led government.

An I have no doubt that the dems will get stabbed in the back as well at some point. And that will be fine.

But that is democracy isn't it?

Edited August 5, 2009 by samran

[redscouse]

No doubt the next chapter in your version of history is how Pua Thai's election victory (after the banning of TRT) was really a defeat!

Not really. They won the most seats in a generally above board election. I voted in it and had no issues with the way my polling booth was handled.

I couldn't help though that when they formed government they got an incompetent like Samak to come and run it. They simply shot themselves in the foot then.

That they can't muster a majority in parliament now, well that is something else. If we all agree that the election was fair and representative, then we have to accept the fact that members of parliament can change alleigences and support a democrat led government.

An I have no doubt that the dems will get stabbed in the back as well at some point. And that will be fine.

But that is democracy isn't it?

You voted? I didn't realise you are Thai

[samran]

No doubt the next chapter in your version of history is how Pua Thai's election victory (after the banning of TRT) was really a defeat!

Not really. They won the most seats in a generally above board election. I voted in it and had no issues with the way my polling booth was handled.

I couldn't help though that when they formed government they got an incompetent like Samak to come and run it. They simply shot themselves in the foot then.

That they can't muster a majority in parliament now, well that is something else. If we all agree that the election was fair and representative, then we have to accept the fact that members of parliament can change alleigences and support a democrat led government.

An I have no doubt that the dems will get stabbed in the back as well at some point. And that will be fine.

But that is democracy isn't it?

You voted? I didn't realise you are Thai

and Australian who's happened to have voted in a British election as well.

I think i'm one of the few who's been able to vote in all three!!

Edited August 5, 2009 by samran

[redscouse]

No doubt the next chapter in your version of history is how Pua Thai's election victory (after the banning of TRT) was really a defeat!

Not really. They won the most seats in a generally above board election. I voted in it and had no issues with the way my polling booth was handled.

I couldn't help though that when they formed government they got an incompetent like Samak to come and run it. They simply shot themselves in the foot then.

That they can't muster a majority in parliament now, well that is something else. If we all agree that the election was fair and representative, then we have to accept the fact that members of parliament can change alleigences and support a democrat led government.

An I have no doubt that the dems will get stabbed in the back as well at some point. And that will be fine.

But that is democracy isn't it?

You voted? I didn't realise you are Thai

and Australian who's happened to have voted in a British election as well.

I think i'm one of the few who's been able to vote in all three!!

Well you certainly have a lot to answer for

[samran]

Well you certainly have a lot to answer for

yes, blame me. My wife does all the time.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Well you certainly have a lot to answer for

yes, blame me. My wife does all the time.

Mixed marriages...... ......men and women.