Suthichai Yoon Interviews Stephen Young

[mca]

Thaksin didn't invent vote buying, the difference is that he legitimized it.

Genuine question. If vote buying (by all parties) was taken out of the equation and the elections took place all above board who honestly thinks that a Thaksin lead or Thaksin backed party wouldn't have won?

[ThNiner]

the ultimate 1-MILLION-DOLLAR-QUESTION is:

WHO granted him that monopoly ?

Your ultimate 1-MILLION-DOLLAR-QUESTION has already been answered in another thread a while ago. And it's never been an "ultimate" secret either. Majority of informed Thais know this. I know this. But you obviously don't despite your seemingly expertise in Thailand's matters.

post #21

The Monopoly was granted by the Government under General Sunthorn Kongsompong who, on his death in 1999, had an Estate valued at over US $ 150 million including a Villa and Wine Estate in France.

Pretty good going on a Generals Salary.

Patrick

Guess you were buried by this ultimate question of yours the whole time that you could miss this galringly obvious answer.

And I can dig up a sort of photographic proof of this. Will post it later.

"the ultimate 1-MILLION-DOLLAR-QUESTION" <---

[ThNiner]

What he as a Professor completely misunderstands that it is not so much about Thaksin, yellow or red shirts, Sondhi or whatsoever - these are just symbols. It's about the inherent unfairness in the Thai system in general and clinging to status quo rather than change for the better that ppl are upset about.

If what you say is true that those reds wouldn't be running around trying to save Thaksin's money but demand that their political representatives started doing something useful.

So far I don't see that those protesters care a bit about democracy, not a step beyond fiery rhetorics.

Chunkton, Thaksin didn't invent vote buying, the difference is that he legitimized it.

Just like prostitution has existed since forever but no one presents some whore as an innocent bride.

Very well said krab.

[emsfeld]

As I indicated before, Samuian, I do in no way oppose your views - we are on the same track there. However, all I am saying is that whilst Thaksin instrumentalised the gap during his reigns and is instrumentalising it at the moment - the current establishment/ arrangement works on the same premise. The only difference being that the interests of a different group of people are being nourished (hence attempting to maintain status quo) - a point that Mr Young utterly fails to address. I dont blame him for this though, as it would be very difficult to voice that issue.

Also, I am not comparing rural Germany/US/ Italy of today with Thailands - all I am saying is that his comparison that people are better off now than in the 1950s or 60s is simply invalid, as it applies to any country. Man, during that time the African-American community in the US was still being treated as third class citizens. For sure they are better off nowadays than back then!!! This is not a valid argument. See also NTN's satirical comment on exactly this statement of his which reflects my opinion quite nicely.

To some extent I believe that there is a good side to all of this - namely that Thailand will be forced to rethink their system and way of doing things. That's what I hope for at least for the better of all Thais - not only select groups.

[ThNiner]

For LaoPo's information:

Thaksin humbly cupping his nuts in the presence of General Sunthorn Kongsompong, the 1991 Coup leader, who granted Thaksin the telecom monoploy.

Another pic of Thaksin, the champion of democracy for the reds, wishing the 1991 coup leader General Sunthorn Kongsompong a very very happy birthday. Also in the picture, General Suchinda Kraprayoon, another leader of 1991 coup.

[mca]

I think it's quite beneficial to the government and the powers that be to have Thaksin blathering on like a nutter and his handful of goons causing amok because if you took him and his lackeys out of the equation and had a genuinely sincere grass roots political party in opposition aiming for change then in an election the democrats would have their &lt;deleted&gt; fed to them on a platter.

Can you imagine a real, sincere, non corrupt man of the people whose only interest was the development of Thailand and the benefit for all the citizens as PM? Somebody who didn't play the Puu Yai game? Somebody who wanted equality for all? Somebody who was voted in on the strength of his genuine policies for the betterment of Thai folks? Somebody who did'n t kiss the arse or tug his forelock to his "betters"?

The real powers that be here would be racking their brains as to how to get him out. What law could they think of? Walking on the cracks in the pavement? Pissing on the toilet seat? Not having a dog?

[hammered]

I think it's quite beneficial to the government and the powers that be to have Thaksin blathering on like a nutter and his handful of goons causing amok because if you took him and his lackeys out of the equation and had a genuinely sincere grass roots political party in opposition aiming for change then in an election the democrats would have their &lt;deleted&gt; fed to them on a platter.

Can you imagine a real, sincere, non corrupt man of the people whose only interest was the development of Thailand and the benefit for all the citizens as PM? Somebody who didn't play the Puu Yai game? Somebody who wanted equality for all? Somebody who was voted in on the strength of his genuine policies for the betterment of Thai folks? Somebody who did'n t kiss the arse or tug his forelock to his "betters"?

The real powers that be here would be racking their brains as to how to get him out. What law could they think of? Walking on the cracks in the pavement? Pissing on the toilet seat? Not having a dog?

A good point

[emsfeld]

I think it's quite beneficial to the government and the powers that be to have Thaksin blathering on like a nutter and his handful of goons causing amok because if you took him and his lackeys out of the equation and had a genuinely sincere grass roots political party in opposition aiming for change then in an election the democrats would have their &lt;deleted&gt; fed to them on a platter.

Can you imagine a real, sincere, non corrupt man of the people whose only interest was the development of Thailand and the benefit for all the citizens as PM? Somebody who didn't play the Puu Yai game? Somebody who wanted equality for all? Somebody who was voted in on the strength of his genuine policies for the betterment of Thai folks? Somebody who did'n t kiss the arse or tug his forelock to his "betters"?

The real powers that be here would be racking their brains as to how to get him out. What law could they think of? Walking on the cracks in the pavement? Pissing on the toilet seat? Not having a dog?

Very true!

[ThNiner]

Thaksin didn't invent vote buying, the difference is that he legitimized it.

Genuine question. If vote buying (by all parties) was taken out of the equation and the elections took place all above board who honestly thinks that a Thaksin lead or Thaksin backed party wouldn't have won?

If you believe they would win regardless, then you should ask yourself these questions. Why did TRT have to rig the general election back in 2006 (after Thaksin disssolved the House to evade answering questions to the House about his ShinCorp sale)? Why did TRT have to create another nominee party (Dems and some other parties pulled out of the election to boycott it) to ensure that their MPs would be back in even if they recieved less than 20% of the votes? If TRT had been so sure about their popularity, why did they have to violate the constitution law (which ultimately led to their party dissolution) to create another nominee party back in 2006 election?

(I hope you do know that the consitution stated that if there's only one party running, a candidate must get at least 20% of the votes to be a legitimate MP. TRT was afraid of not achieving this. They created the nominee party.)

[mca]

That wasn't my question. My question was in an above board election who thinks a Thaksin party wouldn't win? I'll freely agree that Thaksin's a &lt;deleted&gt;. Unfortunately (and this is in no way endorsing him-I can't stand the prick) given the nature of Thai politics it's a sure bet if he'd played it fair the other parties wouldn't. Vote buying isn't the exclusive domain of Thaskin or his posse is it?

Now. A simple yes or no will do. Do you think a Thaksin backed party would win a a free and fair election?

Edited September 12, 2009 by mca

[Jingthing]

Now. A simple yes or no will do. Do you think a Thaksin backed party would win a a free and fair election?

Start a poll, mate.

I think they might win such an election but that it would definitely be closer than previous elections (thank Black Songkran). I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it either way.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Jingthing

[ThNiner]

Now. A simple yes or no will do. Do you think a Thaksin backed party would win a a free and fair election?

No. Clear enough?

[mca]

Perfect although a simple no would have sufficed.

[Plus]

If what you say is true that those reds wouldn't be running around trying to save Thaksin's money but demand that their political representatives started doing something useful.

So far I don't see that those protesters care a bit about democracy, not a step beyond fiery rhetorics.

Chunkton, Thaksin didn't invent vote buying, the difference is that he legitimized it.

Just like prostitution has existed since forever but no one presents some whore as an innocent bride.

eeerm...ok. Let's start out on a point we all agree on: democracy basically boils down to the political opinion of the majority being represented and acted in accordance to (to some extent of course).

Ignore the vote buying for now, the red shirts' representatives very voted democratically since the coup, but overthrown each time so that now the ruling party is an undemocratically installed one, by the powers behind the scenes.

So you reduce democracy only to having elections once in a while. Fine, let's start from there.

After PPP was dissolved all their MPs joined some other parties, they all are still there, still representing the same voters in the same Parliament, just under different banners. The places vacated by banned executives were filled via elections, too.

What is so "undemocratic" about it?

And all this talk about would they "win" or not without vote-buying. What is "win". PTP is the biggest party in parliament, and is in coalition with two other parties. They talk about their "win", which means nothing when it comes to voting for the PM in parliament.

The rest of the MPs preferred to choose Abhisit and form a bigger coalition. They've got more MPs, they won. PPP lost.

What's so "undemocratic" about that?

[mca]

And all this talk about would they "win" or not without vote-buying.

Let's say it was a 2 horse race. Get back to bare basics. A Thaksin party and the democrats. Win would mean the party that would then form the government by having the most votes.

Thaksin's lot or the democrats? Who'd be the government?

[animatic]

I think it's quite beneficial to the government and the powers that be to have Thaksin blathering on like a nutter and his handful of goons causing amok because if you took him and his lackeys out of the equation and had a genuinely sincere grass roots political party in opposition aiming for change then in an election the democrats would have their &lt;deleted&gt; fed to them on a platter.

Can you imagine a real, sincere, non corrupt man of the people whose only interest was the development of Thailand and the benefit for all the citizens as PM? Somebody who didn't play the Puu Yai game? Somebody who wanted equality for all? Somebody who was voted in on the strength of his genuine policies for the betterment of Thai folks? Somebody who did'n t kiss the arse or tug his forelock to his "betters"?

The real powers that be here would be racking their brains as to how to get him out. What law could they think of? Walking on the cracks in the pavement? Pissing on the toilet seat? Not having a dog?

If you took Thaksin's political machine out of the equasion with Thaksin,

then the division might likely NOT be anywhere as wide as you imply.

TRT won as party list because Thaksin bought up the parties BEFORE the election,

so a huge party list.

The other voting type, was nearly a tie in most places or Dems won.

But vs the pre-purchased TRT block there wasn't the available numbers at the time.

In the normal rough and tumble of small party politics it was a more fair game by far.

Thaksin threw money at greedy people and they bit.

Take his largess out of the equation and relative partiy returns.

Thaksin created an aberation of money politics.

Not true populist politics as claimed endlessly.

Not just vote buying at issue, but also suppressing OTHER voices

everywhere in your home bases must be stomped out.

Case in point the PTP can run in any election in any province even Suthep's Surat Thani,

and does NOT get beaten up or chased off. They do lose.

Why does EVERY other party suffer from these attacks up north?

You can NOT have free and fair elections if the free and fair

dissemination of information and opinion doesn't precede it.

In that case, and considering the 20% TRT could not risk not getting in 2006,

and considering the proportional votes being nearly a dead heat vs Demss,

then it is far from a foregone conclusion that PTP would beat the Dems in a fair election.

Edited September 12, 2009 by animatic

[ThNiner]

Not just vote buying at issue, but also suppressing OTHER voices

everywhere in your home bases must be stomped out.

Case in point the PTP can run in any election in any province even Suthep's Surat Thani,

and does NOT get beaten up or chased off. They do lose.

Why does EVERY other party suffer from these attacks up north?

You can NOT have free and fair elections if the free and fair

dissemination of information and opinion doesn't precede it.

In that case, and considering the 20% TRT could not risk not getting in 2006,

and considering the proportional votes being nearly a dead heat vs Demss,

then it is far from a foregone conclusion that PTP would beat the Dems in a fair election.

So true.

[Insight]

And all this talk about would they "win" or not without vote-buying.

Let's say it was a 2 horse race. Get back to bare basics. A Thaksin party and the democrats. Win would mean the party that would then form the government by having the most votes.

Thaksin's lot or the democrats? Who'd be the government?

When the average answer to why people like Thaksin is "because he has lots of money and gives us some", is this a serious question?

[emsfeld]

If what you say is true that those reds wouldn't be running around trying to save Thaksin's money but demand that their political representatives started doing something useful.

So far I don't see that those protesters care a bit about democracy, not a step beyond fiery rhetorics.

Chunkton, Thaksin didn't invent vote buying, the difference is that he legitimized it.

Just like prostitution has existed since forever but no one presents some whore as an innocent bride.

eeerm...ok. Let's start out on a point we all agree on: democracy basically boils down to the political opinion of the majority being represented and acted in accordance to (to some extent of course).

Ignore the vote buying for now, the red shirts' representatives very voted democratically since the coup, but overthrown each time so that now the ruling party is an undemocratically installed one, by the powers behind the scenes.

So you reduce democracy only to having elections once in a while. Fine, let's start from there.

After PPP was dissolved all their MPs joined some other parties, they all are still there, still representing the same voters in the same Parliament, just under different banners. The places vacated by banned executives were filled via elections, too.

What is so "undemocratic" about it?

And all this talk about would they "win" or not without vote-buying. What is "win". PTP is the biggest party in parliament, and is in coalition with two other parties. They talk about their "win", which means nothing when it comes to voting for the PM in parliament.

The rest of the MPs preferred to choose Abhisit and form a bigger coalition. They've got more MPs, they won. PPP lost.

What's so "undemocratic" about that?

I said that democratic is that the opinion of the majority is represented in parliament - nothing further. What you are addressing is a problem here in general that MPs jump from one ideology to the other as they see fit, eg which benefits them the most over the near future.

What you are reducing to "just different banners" is a problem for the electorate I would think. Coming from a multiparty political system myself where belonging to a banner means in 99% of the time belonging to it for life, I find it rather astounding how quick people can change allegiance and "implied" ideologies. This certainly is confusing for any voter as normally the MP would not ONLY represent their electorate but with that also some ideological view as to how things ought to be run. How can voters identify with an MP they just voted on the basis of him representing a particular view who then jumps ship to another camp?

This would certainly affect my opinion and vote if I could cast a new one...which was not the case.

[mca]

And all this talk about would they "win" or not without vote-buying.

Let's say it was a 2 horse race. Get back to bare basics. A Thaksin party and the democrats. Win would mean the party that would then form the government by having the most votes.

Thaksin's lot or the democrats? Who'd be the government?

When the average answer to why people like Thaksin is "because he has lots of money and gives us some", is this a serious question?

Well seeing as they're a proportion of the Thai electorate with the right to vote as they see fit none of us have the right to judge the reasoning behind their vote. If that's the way they think then that's the way they think. I personally thought that GWB was at the best an incompetent cretin and at worst downright dangerous but obviously more of the people who voted in the US thought differently. Twice.

[ThNiner]

I personally thought that GWB was at the best an incompetent cretin and at worst downright dangerous but obviously more of the people who voted in the US thought differently. Twice.

Not sure if he actually won the first time. The judges in Florida...hmmm.

And Emsfeld, most Thais in Isan and the North can care less about political parties' ideologies. They are more attached to the persons....(especially who their puu yai's in the village see fit.) PS. I'm Thai and I'm just stating the truth of the matter.

[Insight]

And all this talk about would they "win" or not without vote-buying.

Let's say it was a 2 horse race. Get back to bare basics. A Thaksin party and the democrats. Win would mean the party that would then form the government by having the most votes.

Thaksin's lot or the democrats? Who'd be the government?

When the average answer to why people like Thaksin is "because he has lots of money and gives us some", is this a serious question?

Well seeing as they're a proportion of the Thai electorate with the right to vote as they see fit none of us have the right to judge the reasoning behind their vote. If that's the way they think then that's the way they think. I personally thought that GWB was at the best an incompetent cretin and at worst downright dangerous but obviously more of the people who voted in the US thought differently. Twice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your asking if no cash was involved what way would people vote?

And I'm saying that you're pulling the main motivation by many people for voting Thaksin IMHO.

[emsfeld]

I personally thought that GWB was at the best an incompetent cretin and at worst downright dangerous but obviously more of the people who voted in the US thought differently. Twice.

Not sure if he actually won the first time. The judges in Florida...hmmm.

And Emsfeld, most Thais in Isan and the North can care less about political parties' ideologies. They are more attached to the persons....(especially who their puu yai's in the village see fit.) PS. I'm Thai and I'm just stating the truth of the matter.

Ok, just a quick question then for clarification...do you come from the Isaan/ North and are you still spending most of your time there?

[mca]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your asking if no cash was involved what way would people vote?

And I'm saying that you're pulling the main motivation by many people for voting Thaksin IMHO.

But if the main motivation was money and it was pulled why would folks jump ship simply because they weren't getting any dosh? Spite? What would be the reason to switch? Would those people really think "I'm not getting a hand out so I'm voting democrat even though they aren't giving me a handout either?" What did the democrats put on the policy table that would have made those folks want to change?

[Insight]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your asking if no cash was involved what way would people vote?

And I'm saying that you're pulling the main motivation by many people for voting Thaksin IMHO.

But if the main motivation was money and it was pulled why would folks jump ship simply because they weren't getting any dosh? Spite? What would be the reason to switch? Would those people really think "I'm not getting a hand out so I'm voting democrat even though they aren't giving me a handout either?" What did the democrats put on the policy table that would have made those folks want to change?

Trying my dam_n hardest not to sound sarcastic here, so will leave it to two words:

Election campaign...?

(specifically the type where you don't risk getting killed for campaigning on the other party's "territory")

[Rtwo]

“Foreigners don’t know the ways Thai’s think”, but ‘you’ do eh? We are expected to believe what ‘you’ tell us but to pay no attention to alternative points of view. Get real.

“Western press coverage is very superficial”, a lot less superficial than Thai press coverage is about the US or UK I’d say, at least you can say what you like about institutions in the west without risk of being jailed.

“I just went back to Ban Chiang. When I went there 43 years ago, there was no electricity, no flush toilet, and if you needed hot water, you had to boil it. Chicken was too expensive. You had to eat little fish from the pond. Today there's electricity, flush toilets, hot water and ATM machines. Most of the houses have Internet.”

Yes, it called progress; in the main, here in Thailand, brought about by the hard work of ordinary Thai people’s involvement with the commercial world. Funnily enough I think most people in Thailand still need to boil water to make it hot even now or maybe I’m just used to living simply.

“We care about Thailand”, well he can hardly say they doesn’t give a dam_n, can he?

Than he goes and spoils it by mentioning” ex-PM Field Marshal] Sarit [Thanarat],” a puppet of the CIA and the most repressive and authoritarian Prime Minister in Thai history as being close to his father. Just the sort of people you need to show you the way how to get near and close to the people.

“The roads in Ban Chiang are all cement. Before, it was dirt road.” And much of the cement covering the smaller roads was poured in Thaksin’s time, The larger roads, The Friendship Highway leading to NongKhai, The road to Ubon, to Nacho Panon were built in the 1960’s using American money, primarily for the purpose of shifting munitions, men and supplies from the new American built port of Sattahip to their new bases for which Thailand was paid handsomely. Remember in those days Thailand was the next ‘domino’ to fall and they upgraded the roads so that they could land fighter jets on them. Any improvement in the standard of living of the ordinary people was a plus but make no mistake it took a very back seat position in the whole scheme of things.

“When I first heard of him, when he started the Shin Corporation, (1983) what I heard was: he's a police major who got a contract from the government for telephones after one of the coups. Now I ask myself, back then, 1993, something like that, how do you get a contract from the government? What do you have to do to get a contract? And I noticed Khun Thaksin made more money, became more wealthy, all because he has a government licence.” All this coming from a man whose father was ‘close to Sarit’ a man who when he died owned 51 cars, a brewery, a $140 Million Trust Company and some 30 parcels of land, most of which Sarit gave to a score of mistresses. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

“He has special connections and I've seen him use many special connections” Yes this is Thailand; I think everybody who’s been here for more than a few weeks has seen things like this. He’s beginning to sound like one of those out of touch reporters who work for The New York Times, Washington Post or The Economist he was talking about at the start of his article. Remember folks this is from the son of a guy who was the American Ambassador when he first went digging in the 60’s! Does anybody honestly think that he would have managed to get the expedition of the ground if he hadn’t had the ‘connections’ he had?

“Thaksin is in exile. He wants a pardon, he wants his money back, he doesn't want the conviction. Other Thai political leaders have not acted like that, if you look back”

Just because Thai politicians have not behaved like that in the past does not make it the correct way to proceed. What he fails to acknowledge is that Thaksin was a freely democratically elected Prime Minister with the largest majority in history and who was then deposed by an unelected Military clique who imposed upon the country their form of Government and it was under this unelected Government that Thaksin’s conviction came about. The correct way to challenge Thaksin was and still is in the ballot box, the problem is that nobody has got the courage to because they know or think they know what the outcome will be.

“Thaksin has divided the Thai people and this is sad. The Thai people should not be so divided and angry. Even my family friends, the family is divided. Some of the brothers and sisters are yellow, and some are red. And around the dinner table, they argue and get angry. So I think ... sabai ... where did it go?”

Considering that it was under his father’s tenure as US Ambassador to Thailand that much of the groundwork for the divisive US involvement in SE Asia was laid, I find such a statement totally hypocritical. I suggest Mr. Young can afford to be sabai; many others haven’t had the luxury.

[mca]

Please read my post again. (Tried my hardest not to sound sarcastic there-failed miserably)

What did the democrats put on the policy table that would have made those folks want to change?

Was the democrat platform so amazingly wonderful that people would have thought " No cash from Thaksin so I'm definitely voting Dem! Look at what they're offering!"

Can't recall them offering much at all really.

[ThNiner]

Ok, just a quick question then for clarification...do you come from the Isaan/ North and are you still spending most of your time there?

I don't and I'm not. But I've interacted with a lot of people who are from Isan and the North. Let me give you one example of how I know what's going over there. One of my old classmates who's originally from Isan once told me back in early 2006 that there would defintely be a general election soon, even when Thaksin was still telling the public that he would never dissolve the House. Then I asked him how that could be possible with Thaksin's still insisting otherwise. He said, back in his hometown, the TRT people have already started handing out the money. Surely enough, a few days later, Thaksin dissolved the House and called for a new general election.

You don't have to be there to know what's going. You have friends, their families etc etc.

[ThNiner]

Please read my post again. (Tried my hardest not to sound sarcastic there-failed miserably)

What did the democrats put on the policy table that would have made those folks want to change?

Was the democrat platform so amazingly wonderful that people would have thought " No cash from Thaksin so I'm definitely voting Dem! Look at what they're offering!"

Can't recall them offering much at all really.

You didn't see the 2000 Baht/person handout to people who earn less than 15,000 Baht a month? The free education program? The new pension program? The 500 Baht/month program for the elderly? The sufficient community program..etc etc?

[mca]

The folks in my village were well happy. They had Thakins boys giving them the cash and the next day (well night actually) those upholders of decency and morality against Thaksins attempt to destroy the very fabric of Thai society the Dems were coming round doing the very same! Forget the Lao Kao! Mine's a bottle of 100 Pipers! Double payday!