Sunday Redshirt Rally Postponed

[Plus]

Yeah, sweet talking millions of poor to get your state impounded money back to you to enjoy is exploitation, too.

walk a single day in their shoes, might want to try that in your imagination, it might help you to see the other half of Thailand and this political equation.

How about the OTHER half of Thailand that doesn't vote for Thaksin?

Poor people live all over the place, but it's only red poor that travel to Bangkok every couple of months because the love of their lives endures such hardships living in Dubai. I won't be surprised that one day they start a campaign to donate him their money.

[noithip]

Yeah, sweet talking millions of poor to get your state impounded money back to you to enjoy is exploitation, too.

walk a single day in their shoes, might want to try that in your imagination, it might help you to see the other half of Thailand and this political equation.

How about the OTHER half of Thailand that doesn't vote for Thaksin?

Poor people live all over the place, but it's only red poor that travel to Bangkok every couple of months because the love of their lives endures such hardships living in Dubai. I won't be surprised that one day they start a campaign to donate him their money.

good idea! Let's start collecting money instead of signatures! Every "red shirt" could at least donate a shirt for a start....

[animatic]

Yeah, sweet talking millions of poor to get your state impounded money back to you to enjoy is exploitation, too.

walk a single day in their shoes, might want to try that in your imagination, it might help you to see the other half of Thailand and this political equation.

How about the OTHER half of Thailand that doesn't vote for Thaksin?

Poor people live all over the place, but it's only red poor that travel to Bangkok every couple of months because the love of their lives endures such hardships living in Dubai. I won't be surprised that one day they start a campaign to donate him their money.

Ah, that's the other 2/3rds of the country that didn't vote for Thaksin backed parties.

They got less than 33% of voters all 3 times. And under 2% difference with Democrats, 1/3 of the pie.

The rest split amongst a melange of little special interest parties and rump hangers on.

Edited August 31, 2009 by animatic

[mc2]

Yeah, sweet talking millions of poor to get your state impounded money back to you to enjoy is exploitation, too.

walk a single day in their shoes, might want to try that in your imagination, it might help you to see the other half of Thailand and this political equation.

How about the OTHER half of Thailand that doesn't vote for Thaksin?

yes, that's right, two halves make a whole. and for reconciliation you need to understand the whole. that means understanding where these poor people are really coming from.

all you are doing now is trying to bulldoze them out of the way.

[marshbags]

Just watched a news item on cable so don.t know the specific news channel.

Someone was acting as a go between for a P.Thai member who wears glasses ?? and a Thai / Chinese democrat ??

The P. Thai man had accused him of not being eligible to be a representative of the government due to him not being Thai at birth.

The democrat had with him his original B. Certificate that proves his right to be Thai and therefore eligible.

The P.Thai was arguing and wouldn,t have it anyway, but eventually said he would investigate it further and wouldn,t apologise for his insults on the Democrats family.

Sorry I cannot give names as it,s not yet mentioned elsewhere in the later media outlets.

Another low is reached in their cause to bring the exile home and discredit all and everyone who opposes them.

As the proud father of a Thai / English daughter, I know how insulting and hurtful this sort of thing can be.

How can anyone continue to believe or want to support them and have respect for their crazy lying schemes is beyond my comprehension and their obvious determination to destroy Thailand and it,s non supporting honest upright citizens, who are the vast majority I might add.

marshbags

Edited August 31, 2009 by marshbags

[mca]

Ah, that's the other 2/3rds of the country that didn't vote for Tkaksin backed parties.

So how exactly would the democratic process work in your utopia then? Let the political parties have a sort of job sharing scheme where they can be the government in proportion to how many of the votes they got?

"Well mate. You got 10% of the vote so you can have 5 weeks governing starting November 1st. How does that suit you? "

[Plus]

yes, that's right, two halves make a whole. and for reconciliation you need to understand the whole. that means understanding where these poor people are really coming from.

all you are doing now is trying to bulldoze them out of the way.

I think lots of people can provide you with explanations how the reds had turned out that way.

Being red doesn't have much to do with being poor per se.

Doesn't matter, it's a shrinking cult movement. They can still create troubles but won't make any contributions or, indeed, any difference to Thailand democratic, political, or economic development.

They have isolated themselves and have nothing to offer. And now they are also split. jatuporn and co have split not only from Jakrapob but also from Kwanchai and other regional leaders, allegedly over the control of Thaksin's money sent for demonstrations. They don't trust each other and everybody wants direct access to Thaksin and his funds.

And democracy??? You must be really naive that any of them really gives a dam_n about democracy. If they do, they think it's a dangerous thing not to be allowed even inside their organisation.

[animatic]

Ah, that's the other 2/3rds of the country that didn't vote for Tkaksin backed parties.

So how exactly would the democratic process work in your utopia then? Let the political parties have a sort of job sharing scheme where they can be the government in proportion to how many of the votes they got?

"Well mate. You got 10% of the vote so you can have 5 weeks governing starting November 1st. How does that suit you? "

Well mate, your side had the chance to take it's under 33% voting block

make a coalition with other parties and make it 50.+x % and run the country.

Lose that 50.+x% coalition as happened,

and the next biggest nearly but still under 33% got it's chance to make a 50.+x% coalition

and run the couintry... gee that's JUST what has happened.

The only times a new electionnis required is if NEITHER major party

or even others smaller can make a coalition. or when the MP's term is up.

The point above is Thaksin's side NEVER won more than 33% of ANY ELECTION.

So this OVERWHELMING MANDATE talk is just that talk, mixed with sour grapes,

and acute hunger for the trough.

[mca]

Ah, that's the other 2/3rds of the country that didn't vote for Tkaksin backed parties.

So how exactly would the democratic process work in your utopia then? Let the political parties have a sort of job sharing scheme where they can be the government in proportion to how many of the votes they got?

"Well mate. You got 10% of the vote so you can have 5 weeks governing starting November 1st. How does that suit you? "

Well mate, your side had the chance to take it's under 33% voting block

See. This is just it. They're not my side. As I've mentioned in frequent posts I consider Thaksin to be just about on the level of human dog excrement. It's just in my opinion the real powers that be here aren't happy unless the person who's their boy is in power. Their lapdog or somebody who's going to protect their interests. People go on about Thaksin's cronyism and human rights abuses etc as if these things started with him and him only.

The real powers in LOS don't want democracy. Sure they may put on a facade for the people and the international community but I consider they want the proles to be exactly where they want them. Subservient and arse kissing tugging their forelocks to their "masters"

Genuinely in your heart is that a point you'd wholeheartedly disagree with?

[Cayenne]

The point above is Thaksin's side NEVER won more than 33% of ANY ELECTION.

So this OVERWHELMING MANDATE talk is just that talk, mixed with sour grapes,

and acute hunger for the trough.

Interesting point. Despite the media always reporting that Thaksin had won a landslide election, it was Thaksin and his COALITION winning the election and you quite rightly pointed out that his party in whatever incarnation (TRT, PPP, PTP) never had more than a third of the votes in any election so they cannot claim to represent the majority of the people. Ironic that only when someone else managed to form a majority coalition did you see the red shirts movement in full force and calling the present government "undemocratic".

[Siripon]

Just watched a news item on cable so don.t know the specific news channel.

Someone was acting as a go between for a P.Thai member who wears glasses ?? and a Thai / Chinese democrat ??

The P. Thai man had accused him of not being eligible to be a representative of the government due to him not being Thai at birth.

The democrat had with him his original B. Certificate that proves his right to be Thai and therefore eligible.

The P.Thai was arguing and wouldn,t have it anyway, but eventually said he would investigate it further and wouldn,t apologise for his insults on the Democrats family.

Sorry I cannot give names as it,s not yet mentioned elsewhere in the later media outlets.

Another low is reached in their cause to bring the exile home and discredit all and everyone who opposes them.

As the proud father of a Thai / English daughter, I know how insulting and hurtful this sort of thing can be.

How can anyone continue to believe or want to support them and have respect for their crazy lying schemes is beyond my comprehension and their obvious determination to destroy Thailand and it,s non supporting honest upright citizens, who are the vast majority I might add.

marshbags

That was Prompong, the Peua Thai spokesman trying to dicredit Sirichoke from the Democrats on Sorrayut's programme last night. Prompong's allegations backfired when Sirichoke countered that Prompong (a former actor) had been accused of wife beating by his former wife, facts that are not in dispute.

Sirichoke wondered why Peua Thai employed an abuser of women as their spokesman, Prompong looked flustered and Sorayut closed the discussion!

[brahmburgers]

Notice some Thai analysts in Thai media are linking the cancellation to the backfiring of the audio thingy......

Thanks for making a reference to the OP.

That's it in a nutshell, the P.Thai and/or their operatives released that doctored audio just a week before the planned demonstration, hoping to whip up anti-gov't fervor. The PM, rather than acting characteristically timid, chose instead to react dynamically to having his words digitally twisted.

Another reason the Red rally was called off was quite likely the organizers could see that there were not enough supporters being bused in from outlying areas. Perhaps the funding didn't show up on time.

[animatic]

It was clearly an attempt to smear the PM in the same way that

Thaksin got caught at Songkran trying to smear the army saying 100's died,

and NONE are found and the only dead were witnessed as being shot by Redshirts.

They seem to want to make the common man want to hate the 'forces of order'

enough to rise up... what other reason could their be? Disorder as a method of regaining power.

They are not getting traction from repeated attempts to make the govnt fall with almost close to facts,

and or with obvious lies screeched in parliament, so now try to use the PM's own voice against him.

Amateurly done of course. Oops another cockup for the 3rd string opposition putzes.

I see argument for wealth re-distribution, a covert phrase for socialism.

I like to think it's much better to try two things in parallel.

Increase focus and targeting of services to the most needy,

with re-distribution of OPPORTUNITIES.

Any one who it a rice farmer is not afraid of hard work,

why can't we focus on:

a ) making that work pay properly

b ) making opportunities for other work types that also increase general prosperity.

a ) is problematic because of entrenched middlemen,

hoping to ride the poor workers back into puyai status during their life times.

How can a streamlined rice distribution scheme replace the current scam?

b ) yes taxes will shift focus... if they are there to be used.

OTOP if it really had been focused on sustainability might have done this,

but seems to have been co-opted and limited. And only local shows

for the leaders when they come to look.

And lacking effective training, and too focused on tourist market.

Opps no toursist no OTP profits... who'da thunk it?

Part of this is distribution chain issues also.

From harvest to international shipment, 'value added' is tacked on grossly

and negligently, vis a vis the good of the country as a whole.

No consideration give to sustainability at origin of product.

The loans to them is just another profit center. for middlemen.

More effort is bring put into protecting the NAME of Jasmine rice than to

making the rice truly competitive on the CURRENT market.

Some have mentioned localizing rice co-ops, but this is put down as nascent communism.

when it is really only middleman and rice millers protecting their fiefdoms and profit margins.

By the lower level pols who take a cut to keep things as it is.

It doesn't take higher up chairs to perpetuate this BS.

Odd that the supposed savior of the poor in Thailand is both directly aligned with said actual communists,

giving them a prominence and place at the table they have not seen in 30+ years...

and ALSO those same proto-puyai's in the rice chain up north keeping the poor poor.

And the information and mind control is SO tight and SO pervasive the people don't see.

So we get non-rallies featuring new factional splits, because the true colors of multiple red shades

are no increasingly not playing nice. Commies breaking with middle men and sycophants

and the boss getting his wrinkled pud in the wringer with family added value reduction...

Same as it ever was, but the consequences are different now that laws can actually be applied

to this crew of grossly rich over-lords, masquerading as people of the common people. And the

team of 3rd string butt lickers, pretending to be an organized opposition, with an actual plan for each issue.

LOS. Land of Shinola.... watra the hel_l?

Edited September 1, 2009 by animatic

[Old Man River]

Ah, that's the other 2/3rds of the country that didn't vote for Tkaksin backed parties.

So how exactly would the democratic process work in your utopia then? Let the political parties have a sort of job sharing scheme where they can be the government in proportion to how many of the votes they got?

"Well mate. You got 10% of the vote so you can have 5 weeks governing starting November 1st. How does that suit you? "

Well mate, your side had the chance to take it's under 33% voting block

make a coalition with other parties and make it 50.+x % and run the country.

Lose that 50.+x% coalition as happened,

and the next biggest nearly but still under 33% got it's chance to make a 50.+x% coalition

and run the couintry... gee that's JUST what has happened.

The only times a new electionnis required is if NEITHER major party

or even others smaller can make a coalition. or when the MP's term is up.

The point above is Thaksin's side NEVER won more than 33% of ANY ELECTION.

So this OVERWHELMING MANDATE talk is just that talk, mixed with sour grapes,

and acute hunger for the trough.

Animatic, while I support your conclusion, just to get the record straight, the TRT won 50% of the constituency vote and 48% of the party vote in the 2001 election. This was before Thaksin began to dismantle the country's checks and balances and his real intent became better known.

There is a great deal of wonderful info on Thai elections in the following link:

http://www.anfrel.org/report/all.asp

Scroll down to the Thailand 2001 election and see page 80 for the official election results.

[animatic]

Ah, that's the other 2/3rds of the country that didn't vote for Tkaksin backed parties.

So how exactly would the democratic process work in your utopia then? Let the political parties have a sort of job sharing scheme where they can be the government in proportion to how many of the votes they got?

"Well mate. You got 10% of the vote so you can have 5 weeks governing starting November 1st. How does that suit you? "

Well mate, your side had the chance to take it's under 33% voting block

make a coalition with other parties and make it 50.+x % and run the country.

Lose that 50.+x% coalition as happened,

and the next biggest nearly but still under 33% got it's chance to make a 50.+x% coalition

and run the couintry... gee that's JUST what has happened.

The only times a new electionnis required is if NEITHER major party

or even others smaller can make a coalition. or when the MP's term is up.

The point above is Thaksin's side NEVER won more than 33% of ANY ELECTION.

So this OVERWHELMING MANDATE talk is just that talk, mixed with sour grapes,

and acute hunger for the trough.

Animatic, while I support your conclusion, just to get the record straight, the TRT won 50% of the constituency vote and 48% of the party vote in the 2001 election. This was before Thaksin began to dismantle the country's checks and balances and his real intent became better known.

There is a great deal of wonderful info on Thai elections in the following link:

http://www.anfrel.org/report/all.asp

Scroll down to the Thailand 2001 election and see page 80 for the official election results.

I will stand provisionally corrected,

He had just renamed his coalition as encompassing TRT,

but it still was many parties disingenuously renamed 'factions'

The actual membership of straight up TRT was much smaller.

He basically purchased the likes of Snoh and Banharn BEFORE the election,

and had them rebranded, 'making a coalition' before the election.

Pure money politics, as usual, but with a bigger scale, because of his deeper pockets.

Were these guys anything but TRT ONLY by name? History proves there were not.

Just taking the cash for short term gain. When the gravy train stopped so did their support.

TRT was a coalition tacked onto a smaller party called TRT.

That actual party didn't do so well.

[hammered]

Just watched a news item on cable so don.t know the specific news channel.

Someone was acting as a go between for a P.Thai member who wears glasses ?? and a Thai / Chinese democrat ??

The P. Thai man had accused him of not being eligible to be a representative of the government due to him not being Thai at birth.

The democrat had with him his original B. Certificate that proves his right to be Thai and therefore eligible.

The P.Thai was arguing and wouldn,t have it anyway, but eventually said he would investigate it further and wouldn,t apologise for his insults on the Democrats family.

Sorry I cannot give names as it,s not yet mentioned elsewhere in the later media outlets.

Another low is reached in their cause to bring the exile home and discredit all and everyone who opposes them.

As the proud father of a Thai / English daughter, I know how insulting and hurtful this sort of thing can be.

How can anyone continue to believe or want to support them and have respect for their crazy lying schemes is beyond my comprehension and their obvious determination to destroy Thailand and it,s non supporting honest upright citizens, who are the vast majority I might add.

marshbags

That was Prompong, the Peua Thai spokesman trying to dicredit Sirichoke from the Democrats on Sorrayut's programme last night. Prompong's allegations backfired when Sirichoke countered that Prompong (a former actor) had been accused of wife beating by his former wife, facts that are not in dispute.

Sirichoke wondered why Peua Thai employed an abuser of women as their spokesman, Prompong looked flustered and Sorayut closed the discussion!

Wife beaters and misogynists in the PTP who would have believed it. Next thing you know you'll find out they have rapists too;)

[jayboy]

There is a great deal of wonderful info on Thai elections in the following link:

http://www.anfrel.org/report/all.asp

Scroll down to the Thailand 2001 election and see page 80 for the official election results.

Thank you for posting this fascinating link.It's a welcome relief to see a cool unbiased and thoughtful analysis.

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

Worth bearing in mind whatever one's views, particularly given the dishonesty and ignorance displayed by some of the more rabid Thaksinophobes.

[laukra]

Just watched a news item on cable so don.t know the specific news channel.

Someone was acting as a go between for a P.Thai member who wears glasses ?? and a Thai / Chinese democrat ??

The P. Thai man had accused him of not being eligible to be a representative of the government due to him not being Thai at birth.

The democrat had with him his original B. Certificate that proves his right to be Thai and therefore eligible.

The P.Thai was arguing and wouldn,t have it anyway, but eventually said he would investigate it further and wouldn,t apologise for his insults on the Democrats family.

Sorry I cannot give names as it,s not yet mentioned elsewhere in the later media outlets.

Another low is reached in their cause to bring the exile home and discredit all and everyone who opposes them.

As the proud father of a Thai / English daughter, I know how insulting and hurtful this sort of thing can be.

How can anyone continue to believe or want to support them and have respect for their crazy lying schemes is beyond my comprehension and their obvious determination to destroy Thailand and it,s non supporting honest upright citizens, who are the vast majority I might add.

marshbags

That was Prompong, the Peua Thai spokesman trying to dicredit Sirichoke from the Democrats on Sorrayut's programme last night. Prompong's allegations backfired when Sirichoke countered that Prompong (a former actor) had been accused of wife beating by his former wife, facts that are not in dispute.

Sirichoke wondered why Peua Thai employed an abuser of women as their spokesman, Prompong looked flustered and Sorayut closed the discussion!

Wife beaters and misogynists in the PTP who would have believed it. Next thing you know you'll find out they have rapists too;)

As for rapists, I think PTP MP and Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn thinks that that has been swept permanently under the rug.

Meanwhile, the Sirichok mentioned above is the same Democrat MP that tried desperately to protect Shipping Moo and have him testify as a prosecution witness in the tax evasion case against Shin Satellite. Unfortunately, Shipping Moo was murdered prior to being able to provide the "smoking gun" against the Shinawatra empire.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...st&p=913935

[Old Man River]

I will stand provisionally corrected,

He had just renamed his coalition as encompassing TRT,

but it still was many parties disingenuously renamed 'factions'

The actual membership of straight up TRT was much smaller.

He basically purchased the likes of Snoh and Banharn BEFORE the election,

and had them rebranded, 'making a coalition' before the election.

Pure money politics, as usual, but with a bigger scale, because of his deeper pockets.

Were these guys anything but TRT ONLY by name? History proves there were not.

Just taking the cash for short term gain. When the gravy train stopped so did their support.

TRT was a coalition tacked onto a smaller party called TRT.

That actual party didn't do so well.

You have just described every political party in Thailand, except for the Democrats.

[LawnGnome]

There is a great deal of wonderful info on Thai elections in the following link:

http://www.anfrel.org/report/all.asp

Scroll down to the Thailand 2001 election and see page 80 for the official election results.

Thank you for posting this fascinating link.It's a welcome relief to see a cool unbiased and thoughtful analysis.

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

Worth bearing in mind whatever one's views, particularly given the dishonesty and ignorance displayed by some of the more rabid Thaksinophobes.

Here comes Jayboy to elevate the discourse.

[Plus]

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

That was 2001 report, for christsakes. No one ever disputed his victory back then, and in 2005, too, which was a real landslide, and no one disputed his right to form the government, and no state agencies tried to "thwart this", whatever that means.

[jayboy]

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

That was 2001 report, for christsakes. No one ever disputed his victory back then, and in 2005, too, which was a real landslide, and no one disputed his right to form the government, and no state agencies tried to "thwart this", whatever that means.

No it wasn't, read the report referred to in the link provided.With due respect you are perhaps not the most appropriate person to comment on state agencies attempting to thwart democracy.The well documented facts speak for themselves.

[hammered]

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

That was 2001 report, for christsakes. No one ever disputed his victory back then, and in 2005, too, which was a real landslide, and no one disputed his right to form the government, and no state agencies tried to "thwart this", whatever that means.

Indeed. 2001 was probably one of the fairest elections Thailand has ever had.

As for state agencies in 2005 they were mostly pretty firmly in the grip of Thaksin at election time including the election commisioners of course and even the army chief of the time Prawit was close to TRT people at that time.

Edited to add: OMR made it clear in his post he was refering to the 2001 election. Apologies for digressing into 2005 even if the points stand.

Edited September 1, 2009 by hammered

[brahmburgers]

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

That was 2001 report, for christsakes. No one ever disputed his victory back then, and in 2005, too, which was a real landslide, and no one disputed his right to form the government, and no state agencies tried to "thwart this", whatever that means.

Indeed. 2001 was probably one of the fairest elections Thailand has ever had.

As for state agencies in 2005 they were mostly pretty firmly in the grip of Thaksin at election time including the election commisioners of course and even the army chief of the time Prawit was close to TRT people at that time.

Edited to add: OMR made it clear in his post he was refering to the 2001 election. Apologies for digressing into 2005 even if the points stand.

I recall also how widespread T's appeal appeared to be back then, when he became prominent on the Thai national scene. Lot's of optimism back then. I felt like an isolated voice, bleating feebly about how T looked crooked, but was talked down by Thais I met. One woman friend wouldn't even tolerate any non-flattering comment about T, while insisting she was related to him (I then asked her, 'if you're related, how come you're not rich?' ...which ticked her off).

I hate to ring my own bell, but I saw T as the rotten crook he is, way before the masses. Currently, many Thais who were singing his praises 8 years ago are now eerily quiet, or actively annoyed when his name is mentioned.

P.S. a bit of Thai political trivia: there were nine changes of PM in Thailand during the 1940's.

Edited September 1, 2009 by brahmburgers

[hammered]

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

That was 2001 report, for christsakes. No one ever disputed his victory back then, and in 2005, too, which was a real landslide, and no one disputed his right to form the government, and no state agencies tried to "thwart this", whatever that means.

Indeed. 2001 was probably one of the fairest elections Thailand has ever had.

As for state agencies in 2005 they were mostly pretty firmly in the grip of Thaksin at election time including the election commisioners of course and even the army chief of the time Prawit was close to TRT people at that time.

Edited to add: OMR made it clear in his post he was refering to the 2001 election. Apologies for digressing into 2005 even if the points stand.

I recall also how widespread T's appeal appeared to be back then, when he became prominent on the Thai national scene. Lot's of optimism back then. I felt like an isolated voice, bleating feebly about how T looked crooked, but was talked down by Thais I met. One woman friend wouldn't even tolerate any non-flattering comment about T, while insisting she was related to him (I then asked her, 'if you're related, how come you're not rich?' ...which ticked her off).

I hate to ring my own bell, but I saw T as the rotten crook he is, way before the masses. Currently, many Thais who were singing his praises 8 years ago are now eerily quiet, or actively annoyed when his name is mentioned.

P.S. a bit of Thai political trivia: there were nine changes of PM in Thailand during the 1940's.

Pre-2001 election my wife created quite stir by speaking out against him and his party at a village meeting up Nort. She felt that as a business man he would use the position to advantage his family and their business deals and would be corrupt. The majority opinion was that because he was a rich businessman he wouldnt need to be corrupt and that because he was a succesful businessman he wouldnt need to use his position to advantage his family businesses.

Interesting times back then. Around the turn of the millenium there was a lot of hope and optomism in Thailand as the decade has advanced that has disappeared.

[Plus]

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

That was 2001 report, for christsakes. No one ever disputed his victory back then, and in 2005, too, which was a real landslide, and no one disputed his right to form the government, and no state agencies tried to "thwart this", whatever that means.

No it wasn't, read the report referred to in the link provided.With due respect you are perhaps not the most appropriate person to comment on state agencies attempting to thwart democracy.The well documented facts speak for themselves.

In 2001 report Anfrel said that state officials were under control of political patrons and canvassers, not the other way around. It's on page 16, under "Partisan Conduct of Election Officers and Government Officials".

Maybe some othe facts speak to yourself and you can actually hear them, but it doesn't happen to me.

[noithip]

Speaking about 2001 elections, the votes might have been there but only corruption brought Thaksin into power. remember the Election Comission scandal in 2001?

Shortly before the election in 2001, it was found that Thaksin Shinawatra had earlier failed to include in his statutory declaration of assets, billions of baht that happened to be listed in the names of his housemaid, driver, cook, and gardener. If the constitutional court found that he had intentionally failed to declare these assets, he could be debarred from politics for five years.

Thaksin insisted the failure to report was an "honest mistake", a sort of clerical error by his wife, his secretary, his sister—one of the women in his entourage. He argued that he himself was not corrupt because he had plenty of money. He distinguished himself from Thailand's money politicians. They, he said, treat politics as a business from which they can make money. He, by contrast, had made his money honestly in business before he entered politics.

The constitutional court's judgement came very close to farce. The chief judge read out the preamble of the judgement, then stopped short. He didn't seem able to bring himself to announce the verdict. A journalist had to prompt him. But it hardly mattered. One of the judges had already leaked the decision, reportedly so that some people could have a last-minute gamble on Shinawatra shares before the stockmarket closed.

The verdict was split 8–7, the narrowest of possible margins in the premier's favour. None of the judges had yet provided the written rationale for their decision, and it was soon clear that the reasons were inconsistent. The press hinted that some judges had been bought. The chief judge later called Thaksin "a product of the past" who had never explained how he became so rich so quick.

Link here: pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk/honestmistakemonash.doc interesting research from 2002 on corruption and the rise of Thaksin by Chula Univ., Chris Baker

So after all it was his money that brought him to power... not the electorate

Edited September 1, 2009 by noithip

[jayboy]

Link here: pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk/honestmistakemonash.doc interesting research from 2002 on corruption and the rise of Thaksin by Chula Univ., Chris Baker

So after all it was his money that brought him to power... not the electorate

Your conclusion does not follow from your posited earlier premise.If you are going to take an interest in these matters, I suggest you absorb more thoroughly all Acharn Pasuk and Chris Baker have to say.Certainly while stern critics of Thaksin they have never argued that he brought his way into power as opposed to having the electorate's support.A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.The problem for all of us with a Western liberal position is to understand why Thaksin maintains a huge reservoir of political support.Making silly and uninformed (I'm not accusing you of dishonesty) statements really doesn't help.

[jayboy]

Maybe some othe facts speak to yourself and you can actually hear them, but it doesn't happen to me.

What's this, some kind of "voices in the head" attempt at sarcasm?

I don't dispute the 2001 background.I was talking - as I thought would have been obvious - about the 2007 elections which are dealt with in the Anfrel report.

[noithip]

Link here: pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk/honestmistakemonash.doc interesting research from 2002 on corruption and the rise of Thaksin by Chula Univ., Chris Baker

So after all it was his money that brought him to power... not the electorate

Your conclusion does not follow from your posited earlier premise.If you are going to take an interest in these matters, I suggest you absorb more thoroughly all Acharn Pasuk and Chris Baker have to say.Certainly while stern critics of Thaksin they have never argued that he brought his way into power as opposed to having the electorate's support.A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.The problem for all of us with a Western liberal position is to understand why Thaksin maintains a huge reservoir of political support.Making silly and uninformed (I'm not accusing you of dishonesty) statements really doesn't help.

Ok, can you explain me your first sentence, please, seems my english is too poor to get it.(??)

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" as of

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." (the first line of this couplet is often misquoted as "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," thus reinforcing the aptness of this very admonition, as the misquote betrays a certain want of learning.) (quote wikipedia "an essay on criticism")

Also I wouldn't see myself in a "western liberal position", but I do think to understand why Thaksin maintains to have a certain amount of support, as I stated earlier due to his brainwashing through media + populism + top level corruption. Berlosconi made it back, why Thaksin shouldn't, kind of a thing.

BTW it's nice that you refrain calling my statements dishonest, but silly instead.

This also doesn't change my perspective on the issue.

Edited September 1, 2009 by noithip