Sondhi: I'm Ready To Lead New Politics Party

[webfact]

I'm ready to lead New Politics Party : Sondhi

By The Nation

Manager newspaper founder Sondhi Limthongkul vowed on Friday he is ready to lead New Politics Party if the public supported him.

People's Alliance for Democracy which led demonstration against fugitive prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra formed the party and has presently PAD leader Somsak Kosaisuk as temporay leader.

The party's executive panel is scheduled to meet on October 6.

"I am ready to lead New Politics Party if the public support me," he said.

He was speaking after being sentenced to six months in jail on a libel suit against ex-foreign minister Noppadon Pattama.

-- The Nation 2009/10/02

[pammy123]

That would be the worst possible thing that could happen to Thailand. Please Please NO, give him another 60 years in prison. The man is an egotistical menace.

[jasreeve17]

I wish he'd clearly outline what "New Party Politics" are.

What do we know about Khun Somsak? - Please fill me in, enlightened members.

Edited October 2, 2009 by jasreeve17

[nbudhraja]

Sondhi could be a great polititian because he has never kept his words.

[Plus]

Realistically, he should certainly be the party leader, as no one else comes even close to his charisma and popularity. He's got a lot of legal hurdles to jump through - including ownership of ASTV and Manager group.

In the recent survey 24% of Thais supported the New Politics idea. If PAD can get a quarter of the voters it would be a major party, far bigger than Banharn's or Newin's outfits.

Their problem is that New Politics alone is not enough for the election platform, people need them to do day to day tasks efficiently better than their opponents, things like fixing roads, building hospitals and such.

[jasreeve17]

Nobody knows what 'New Politics' is! It's a catchphrase - it has never been clearly outlined.

How can 24% of people vote for something that doesn't exist??? That's ridiculous.

Politics here, in general, is devoid of policies, we know that. The PAD, who have always been a politically motivated movement rather than a pressure group, should clearly outline their policies, why people should vote for them and what their vision of 'New Politics' means -simple.

Edited October 2, 2009 by jasreeve17

[apetley]

Doesn't being a multi convicted criminal disqualify him from heading up a political party then?

[TAWP]

Nobody knows what 'New Politics' is! It's a catchphrase - it has never been clearly outlined.

How can 24% of people vote for something that doesn't exist??? That's ridiculous.

Politics here, in general, is devoid of policies, we know that. The PAD, who have always been a politically motivated movement rather than a pressure group, should clearly outline their policies, why people should vote for them and what their vision of 'New Politics' means -simple.

The same can be said for the red's.

So let the two donkeys play punch-out and hopefully some of the new generation of people coming up in the aftermath has caught up with the rest of the world and the concept of ideology to drive their politics.

[sunsamourai]

Sondhi could be a great polititian because he has never kept his words.

[Plus]

Nobody knows what 'New Politics' is! It's a catchphrase - it has never been clearly outlined.

How can 24% of people vote for something that doesn't exist??? That's ridiculous.

You are being ridiculous yourself

This is the question people have been asked:

3.8 The New Politics Proposal

Some people have proposed reducing the number of MPs who are

directly elected, and replacing them with MPs appointed by groups or

independent institutions. Do you agree with this proposal, or disagree?

(Q16)

23% agreed, 74% disagreed, and 3% checked "don't know/no opinion".

Now try to summarize red agenda in one sentence to see the contrast.

[RKASA]

Even the atheist are saying       Oh My God to this one!      

[lalana]

Even the atheist are saying Oh My God to this one!

I believe that atheists, when referring to such an entity type "god" with a small "g" . This entity is after all a figment of

credulous people's imagination and as fictional as the lough ness monster or a unicorn and therefore doesn't warrant a capital "g".

By the way, my signature-logo is the international symbol of Atheism

[CelticBhoy]

Even the atheist are saying Oh My God to this one!

I believe that atheists, when referring to such an entity type "god" with a small "g" . This entity is after all a figment of

credulous people's imagination and as fictional as the lough ness monster or a unicorn and therefore doesn't warrant a capital "g".

By the way, my signature-logo is the international symbol of Atheism

It's in Scotland - so it's a Loch.

[hammered]

Being cynical

Sonthi gets in some legal problems and offers to head up the party he set up.

Chavalit gets in osme legal problems and announces a return to politics

Chalerm announces an amnesty for Thaksin has been drawn up ready to be made law as soon as PTP are back.

Sure is useful to be a poltician if you wanna avoid court. At this rate they'll end up amnestying each other in some giant love in.

[mca]

^ LOL. Yeah I reckon all the drug dealers in LOS ought to start up a party called "Khon Rak Yabaa" or the local bus drivers one called "Mao Lao Mai Mee Pan Ha Party"

They'd be well sorted

[jasreeve17]

Nobody knows what 'New Politics' is! It's a catchphrase - it has never been clearly outlined.

How can 24% of people vote for something that doesn't exist??? That's ridiculous.

You are being ridiculous yourself

This is the question people have been asked:

3.8 The New Politics Proposal

Some people have proposed reducing the number of MPs who are

directly elected, and replacing them with MPs appointed by groups or

independent institutions. Do you agree with this proposal, or disagree?

(Q16)

23% agreed, 74% disagreed, and 3% checked "don't know/no opinion".

Now try to summarize red agenda in one sentence to see the contrast.

Plus, I know it's tough for you, but please attempt to be reasonable.

Is this it??? 'New Politics', according to your statement above, means elected MPs will be replaced by appointed groups. Is that it??? Is that 'New Politics'??? That is a joke, surely.

As for yourself and TAWP saying; blah blah blah but the red shirts blah blah blah... I'd just like to remind you that this thread is about Sondhi saying that he would like to head a new party - that's the topic. Simple.

All I'd like to know is; if this guy is planning to head up a new party then what are his policies? Why should people vote for him? If his only ticket is: 'vote for me, and I will take away elected MP's and appoint them instead.' then I suggest he won't get many votes. So, back to the start before you went off at a strange tangent (again): I'd be interested to know what this party offers the electorate. As for them banding around the slogan of 'New Politics', I'd like the meaning of 'New Politics' clearly outlined (details would be even better).

Edited October 3, 2009 by jasreeve17

[Plus]

Yeah, but unlike Chavalit or Chalerm Sondhi has a lot of following and is an undisputed public face of PAD. It just doesn't feel right if someone else leads that party.

Then, of course, we had Sondhi's own promises not to go into politics. He reneged - the first test is passed.

I think he'd make a great politician and parliament would be better with him around.

Bottom line for me - PAD leader must initiate some kind of reform of political system. They must bring it into the public arena, that would be the judgment of their success for me. I don't care who they sleep with and whether they are in the govt or the opposition. Meaningful political reform - that's what I expect.

[Samuian]

Why not?

Let him do, see deeds before words and let show some democratic enthusiasm BEFORE the end of the day!

Wonder why no one of his opponents mentioned the return of Gen.Chavalit to politics after the October 7th disaster and quickly joining the Puea Thai Party - no comment by Sondhi Opponents on this one?

May the Observer then believe that the killings under his Deputy-ship is condoned by the same crowd?

- Deputy Prime Minister Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh tenders his resignation on Tuesday to take responsibility on police's use of forces and tear gas on anti-government protesters.

The Nation reported.

Gen Chavalit is deputy prime minister in charge of security.

Source:

[jasreeve17]

Why not?

Let him do, see deeds before words and let show some democratic enthusiasm BEFORE the end of the day!

Wonder why no one of his opponents mentioned the return of Gen.Chavalit to politics after the October 7th disaster and quickly joining the Puea Thai Party - no comment by Sondhi Opponents on this one?

May the Observer then believe that the killings under his Deputy-ship is condoned by the same crowd?

- Deputy Prime Minister Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh tenders his resignation on Tuesday to take responsibility on police's use of forces and tear gas on anti-government protesters.

The Nation reported.

Gen Chavalit is deputy prime minister in charge of security.

Source:

Wrong thread... Stcik to this topic please - thank you.

[Xangsamhua]

All I'd like to know is; if this guy is planning to head up a new party then what are his policies? Why should people vote for him? If his only ticket is: 'vote for me, and I will take away elected MP's and appoint them instead.' then I suggest he won't get many votes. So, back to the start before you went off at a strange tangent (again): I'd be interested to know what this party offers the electorate. As for them banding around the slogan of 'New Politics', I'd like the meaning of 'New Politics' clearly outlined (details would be even better).

Jas, it's a bit dated now, but this is what PAD said about the New Politics when they announced it thirteen months ago:

For a sustainable future of the country, the PAD sees that it is necessary for new politics in the Kingdom of Thailand.

2. New politics for the Kingdom of Thailand is true democracy under a Constitutional Monarchy with the following goals:

2.1 Support for good people to manage the country and blocking of evil people from coming to power so all sectors of society are ensured justice.

2.2 The public must be allowed participation in politics. New politics will not only see politicians elected from constituencies but will see representation from all sectors, such as representatives from different vocations and groups. This will be designed by a Constitution that sees public participation to ensure a true democracy under a Constitutional Monarchy.

3. To ensure that new politics is introduced in the Kingdom of Thailand, the PAD announces the following stance:

3.1 The PAD sees its first goal as chasing out this proxy government that has sold the country. It is not necessary for negotiations with any group that sees otherwise.

We support changes to the current political situation on the condition that political reform must happen and the public must be allowed participation in politics. There must also be sincere efforts to solve the evil in the Thaksin regime through the judiciary system.

The proposal on the PAD stage of a 70 : 30 ratio of public representatives to elected representatives is merely an example of how the old-style politics should be replaced and is open to discussions. It is not a fixed formula advocated by the PAD. We are ready for a discussion from all sides on designing new politics and will respect the majority decision for new politics that is ethical, moral, and more representative of the varied social sectors to go in line with the lifestyles and culture of Thailand but still upholding democracy under a Constitutional Monarchy.

With deep respect,

People’s Alliance for Democracy

Monday, September 08, 2008

At Government House

[jasreeve17]

Thanks Xangsamhua: a starting point.

I feel uncomfortable with point 2.1, but can't discuss it...

I like most of 2.2, but it's an ideal that needs fleshing out. I'm comfortable with the premise.

3.1, the second sentence could be a problem. If, and I said if, the group they are not prepared to work with are a large group, very possibly bigger than their own, then what do you do? This is a major hurdle. Clearly, you can't say I don't respect X percentage of the electorate and refuse to engage them, no matter how large / significant the group is.

I don't like the last line too much, it sounds very nationalistic and draconian. Any time I see words like 'our ethics', 'our morals' and 'our culture' (the 'our' is inherantly implied...) I feel worried because usually the people saying 'our...' are using nationalistic rhetoric for their own unethical, unmoralistic and uncultural designs...

Thanks again for posting something on topic and relevant.

[hammered]

2.1 Support for good people to manage the country and blocking of evil people from coming to power so all sectors of society are ensured justice.

The evil wording is silly and blocking seems bizarre but if it were rewritten as

Support for good peopel to manage the country. Fair and enforcable checks and balances on elected representatives. (Constitutional/legal) Protection for minorites

It would be in line with most democracies. It is really about intent. To be honest a probably quickly worded press release from a protesting group of people really needs to be fleshed out in detail if that group becomes a poltical party. Then again the PAD wont be the only or first party in Thailand to actually have no polices if it pans out that way. There are parties in the current parliament without them! However, to fail to more clearly oputline things would imho undermine any position the PAD party may claim that they are something new. Transparency and clarity should be the first things a reforming party aims for.

[jasreeve17]

2.1 Support for good people to manage the country and blocking of evil people from coming to power so all sectors of society are ensured justice.

The evil wording is silly and blocking seems bizarre but if it were rewritten as

Support for good peopel to manage the country. Fair and enforcable checks and balances on elected representatives. (Constitutional/legal) Protection for minorites

It would be in line with most democracies. It is really about intent. To be honest a probably quickly worded press release from a protesting group of people really needs to be fleshed out in detail if that group becomes a poltical party. Then again the PAD wont be the only or first party in Thailand to actually have no polices if it pans out that way. There are parties in the current parliament without them! However, to fail to more clearly oputline things would imho undermine any position the PAD party may claim that they are something new. Transparency and clarity should be the first things a reforming party aims for.

I agree with much of what you've written above. Samak had no policies, the PPP had few if any policies, the Dems in opposition to MrT had no policies. It's a big problem here that policies are not part of an election platform, and become quite a hindrance when MPs are finally elected. That's why I'd like to see all political parties flesh out their policies (this isn't unique to Thailand, of course).

But, 'good people' just sounds childish (not from you, but the PAD statement). But, worse than that it's the type of wording that comes from fanatics; 'we're good, you're bad', 'we're black, you're white', 'we're sons of God, you're heathen'... These words create division, they are used to create division, and deserve no acceptance in a democratic society or a society that is trying to develop their democracy...

Thus, I'd suggest that it would not be inline with any democracy. I'm not trying to argue with you Hammered, so let's avoid that road.

[hammered]

2.1 Support for good people to manage the country and blocking of evil people from coming to power so all sectors of society are ensured justice.

The evil wording is silly and blocking seems bizarre but if it were rewritten as

Support for good peopel to manage the country. Fair and enforcable checks and balances on elected representatives. (Constitutional/legal) Protection for minorites

It would be in line with most democracies. It is really about intent. To be honest a probably quickly worded press release from a protesting group of people really needs to be fleshed out in detail if that group becomes a poltical party. Then again the PAD wont be the only or first party in Thailand to actually have no polices if it pans out that way. There are parties in the current parliament without them! However, to fail to more clearly oputline things would imho undermine any position the PAD party may claim that they are something new. Transparency and clarity should be the first things a reforming party aims for.

I agree with much of what you've written above. Samak had no policies, the PPP had few if any policies, the Dems in opposition to MrT had no policies. It's a big problem here that policies are not part of an election platform, and become quite a hindrance when MPs are finally elected. That's why I'd like to see all political parties flesh out their policies (this isn't unique to Thailand, of course).

But, 'good people' just sounds childish (not from you, but the PAD statement). But, worse than that it's the type of wording that comes from fanatics; 'we're good, you're bad', 'we're black, you're white', 'we're sons of God, you're heathen'... These words create division, they are used to create division, and deserve no acceptance in a democratic society or a society that is trying to develop their democracy...

Thus, I'd suggest that it would not be inline with any democracy. I'm not trying to argue with you Hammered, so let's avoid that road.

Im OK with removing good people. I didnt really look at that as it is obvious everyone wants good people. It is just the definition of good varies widely and may actually have littel to do with a text bok definition of good;)

The checks and balances and protection for minorities seem more important and if trying to be positive about the PAD are two areas they could legitimately campaign and do so without any criticism over democratic intent.

I also find it odd that they have never really looked at mechanisms that are perfectly democratic and used in some countries that limit the potential for tyranny of the majority which has been widely debated by democrats over the years. Things like 2/3 to ammend a constitution, supermajorities in a house for votes on certain issues, constittuional changes needing to be passed in every region or say 2/3 of the prvinces as well as with over 50% natioanlly, proprotional representation spring very quickly to mind. Persoanlly I feel the PAD could have a very valuable role in the development of Thai democracy but I just think they always manage to do it so badly and immediately move to extremes rather than looking at the possibilities within the system and perfectly valid ones at that. There was no need to even suggest the 70-30 thing. I know it is not a written in stone thing and just an example but what a bad example.

[TAWP]

As for yourself and TAWP saying; blah blah blah but the red shirts blah blah blah...

Please supply a quote where I wrote 'blah blah blah but the red shirts blah blah blah'.

OR

Supply a thread with news regarding reds that does NOT have posts saying 'but the yellows/PAD'.

He who is without sin...

[jasreeve17]

As for yourself and TAWP saying; blah blah blah but the red shirts blah blah blah...

Please supply a quote where I wrote 'blah blah blah but the red shirts blah blah blah'.

OR

Supply a thread with news regarding reds that does NOT have posts saying 'but the yellows/PAD'.

He who is without sin...

Your first line of your first quote on this thread: the same could be said of the reds... And, I'm not interested in red shirt blinkered posters saying: the same could be said of the yellows...

Let's have a decent discussion about the new PAD party without side-tracking; grown-ups can do that - let's lead the way.

[Thai at Heart]

2.1 Support for good people to manage the country and blocking of evil people from coming to power so all sectors of society are ensured justice.

The evil wording is silly and blocking seems bizarre but if it were rewritten as

Support for good peopel to manage the country. Fair and enforcable checks and balances on elected representatives. (Constitutional/legal) Protection for minorites

It would be in line with most democracies. It is really about intent. To be honest a probably quickly worded press release from a protesting group of people really needs to be fleshed out in detail if that group becomes a poltical party. Then again the PAD wont be the only or first party in Thailand to actually have no polices if it pans out that way. There are parties in the current parliament without them! However, to fail to more clearly oputline things would imho undermine any position the PAD party may claim that they are something new. Transparency and clarity should be the first things a reforming party aims for.

I agree with much of what you've written above. Samak had no policies, the PPP had few if any policies, the Dems in opposition to MrT had no policies. It's a big problem here that policies are not part of an election platform, and become quite a hindrance when MPs are finally elected. That's why I'd like to see all political parties flesh out their policies (this isn't unique to Thailand, of course).

But, 'good people' just sounds childish (not from you, but the PAD statement). But, worse than that it's the type of wording that comes from fanatics; 'we're good, you're bad', 'we're black, you're white', 'we're sons of God, you're heathen'... These words create division, they are used to create division, and deserve no acceptance in a democratic society or a society that is trying to develop their democracy...

Thus, I'd suggest that it would not be inline with any democracy. I'm not trying to argue with you Hammered, so let's avoid that road.

Im OK with removing good people. I didnt really look at that as it is obvious everyone wants good people. It is just the definition of good varies widely and may actually have littel to do with a text bok definition of good;)

The checks and balances and protection for minorities seem more important and if trying to be positive about the PAD are two areas they could legitimately campaign and do so without any criticism over democratic intent.

I also find it odd that they have never really looked at mechanisms that are perfectly democratic and used in some countries that limit the potential for tyranny of the majority which has been widely debated by democrats over the years. Things like 2/3 to ammend a constitution, supermajorities in a house for votes on certain issues, constittuional changes needing to be passed in every region or say 2/3 of the prvinces as well as with over 50% natioanlly, proprotional representation spring very quickly to mind. Persoanlly I feel the PAD could have a very valuable role in the development of Thai democracy but I just think they always manage to do it so badly and immediately move to extremes rather than looking at the possibilities within the system and perfectly valid ones at that. There was no need to even suggest the 70-30 thing. I know it is not a written in stone thing and just an example but what a bad example.

Implementing structures that have proven successful in other countries isn't one of Thailand's stronger points. By the time successful structures have been Thai-ified to make them fit society or appear original, they have normally been mashed and smashed beyond all recognition and deliver a completely unintended result.

Even 70:30 "New Politics" was dressed up as something uniquely Thai in construct, when in reality it is already proven to be extremely disliked by democracy activists in Hong Kong. There is a place for discussion about all sorts of democratic structures. The fundamental problem is that the discussion needs to come from a point that the people need more and better quality democratic representation and structures not less.

Then, there is still no guarantee that the "new" fangled structure will deliver a result that the higher echelons or the army can support.

[jasreeve17]

Hammered said: 'Im OK with removing good people. I didnt really look at that as it is obvious everyone wants good people. It is just the definition of good varies widely and may actually have littel to do with a text bok definition of good;)

The checks and balances and protection for minorities seem more important and if trying to be positive about the PAD are two areas they could legitimately campaign and do so without any criticism over democratic intent.

I also find it odd that they have never really looked at mechanisms that are perfectly democratic and used in some countries that limit the potential for tyranny of the majority which has been widely debated by democrats over the years. Things like 2/3 to ammend a constitution, supermajorities in a house for votes on certain issues, constittuional changes needing to be passed in every region or say 2/3 of the prvinces as well as with over 50% natioanlly, proprotional representation spring very quickly to mind. Persoanlly I feel the PAD could have a very valuable role in the development of Thai democracy but I just think they always manage to do it so badly and immediately move to extremes rather than looking at the possibilities within the system and perfectly valid ones at that. There was no need to even suggest the 70-30 thing. I know it is not a written in stone thing and just an example but what a bad example.'

My retort: Yeah, the 'good people' line was one I wouldn't have though you'd agree with. It's a ridiculous term for politics - we agree.

I like your checks and balances paragraph - much required in Thai polictics. If the PAD fought for transparency and equality that'd be a good start - agreed again.

Last paragraph, room for more agreement? I hope so : Your points are valid, IMO. Though the reason, I'd suggest, why they don't look for democratic answers is because they use the word democracy as a marketing tool whilst having zero desire to see democracy implemeted. Again IMO, they are a political group who want to have more power for themselves - they're power hungry, and don't care about democracy at all. Some elements do, but not the elements Sondhi controls.

If they were indeed a pressure group who want to help Thailand become a truly democratic nation then I'd fully support them. Even if we forget the past, which is very tough to do, but let's say we can, then how can this fractured block of anti-Thaksinites develop into a functioning and valid opposition party? Very tough... Though it has been done before in other nations. Could it be done under Sondhi's leadership? Of course not.

I can't actually see anywhere for them to go. They were used by the army, and they may choose to continue to play this role; a kind of pressure group for sale. But they are clearly rudderless without a MrT around to hate.

Thus, we come back to my consistent point: to be taken seriously they need to redefine themselves by laying out a clear set of policies that the 'new PAD party' stand for - then they can start again, and maybe be a force in politics. As it is, they're just another powerbroker to throw into the mix - benefits instability and army control, but nothing else.

Edited October 3, 2009 by jasreeve17

[hammered]

The fundamental problem is that the discussion needs to come from a point that the people need more and better quality democratic representation and structures not less.

and more and better protections and rights

The PAD could still get in from that angle if they had a desire to do so. It is perfectly possible to have greater and better representation with greater checks, balances and protections too. Basically the reds want elections ansd then few checks on what elected government can do and believe that the right of the majority is the right to do anything. The yellows want to limit or manipulate representation and have extremely restrictive checks and balances. Take th ered greater representation and by the way throw elected governors in too and take the yellow checks and balances made sensible and you have a working system. Theoretically speaking as both sides have other agendas too, and as you say whatever comes out may not be approved of by others.

[hammered]

As it is, they're just another powerbroker to throw into the mix - benefits instability and army control, but nothing else.

In reality I actually think that is correct but enjoy theorising on what could have been or could be. To my mind as I have posted before if you take the red electroal demands and the yellow checks and balances and protections and stick them together and mix them up a little then you have a functioning democracy. However, that is unlikely to happen so we will get business as usual unchecked polticos or neutered polticos depending on who wins the power struggle, or a contitunation of the debilitating politics of the present if nobody wins

By the way, what is so surprising about agreement