Wonder What Thaksin's Amassing His Troops For?

[webfact]

Wonder what Thaksin's amassing his troops for?

By THE NATION

Published on October 21, 2009

Fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra's Pheu Thai Party seems to be reshuffling its forces and rethinking its strategy by adding more soldiers to fight in the political battlefield.

Apart from former PM General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, retired senior military officers and Thaksin's former classmates, some 20 of them, from the Pre-Cadet Class 10, seem to be lining up to join the party's army.

The only name in the troops that raised an eyebrow was that of former deputy army chief Lt-General Jiradet Kocharat, who was close to ex-deputy secretary-general of the Council for National Security General Saprang Kalayanamitr. After the 2006 coup, Jiradet got promoted to deputy Army chief, but he ended up switching camps.

Jiradet's reason for joining Pheu Thai is that he wants to help clear up misunderstandings among military officers who question the loyalty opposition figures have toward the monarchy.

As for Chavalit, he said he had decided to return to the political field because he could no longer allow the unprecedented social divisions to persist. He also vowed to safeguard the country's revered royal institution from being adversely affected by the political animosity.

Though the two new Pheu Thai members seem to be loudly declaring that they want to enhance reconciliation, in reality though they seem to be creating more conflict as evidenced by the heated exchange between Chavalit and President of the Privy Council General Prem Tinsulanonda.

Prem had warned Chavalit, who was once the privy councillor's close aide, to be prudent about his actions because he could risk being accused of "betraying the country". However, it's clear that Chavalit and Prem are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Another noteworthy event is that all these ex-soldiers-turned-politicians, with Thaksin's clan in attendance, took off to meet the former PM in Dubai recently. Obviously, one might wonder what their real boss has in mind, and why he's summoning his troops. Perhaps the Thaksin camp's next move will soon become clearer.

As we all know, the Pheu Thai's main goal is to bring down this government and they've been trying to create chaos by opposing amendments to the charter and staging rallies all this month - the "Daeng Thang Deun" (Month of the Reds).

"We aim to intensify our [Pheu Thai and red-shirts] campaign, especially over the next two months, with the aim of winning the game in January and February. We should have at least 400,000 to 500,000 supporters by then and don't think the government will have any power to stay on," one of the Pheu Thai leaders declared.

As for us simple denizens, perhaps we should adopt the "let's wait and see" attitude.

piyanart(at)nationgroup.com

-- The Nation 2009/10/21

[TheGoodDoctor]

Probably not invited to the other side and realize that this is their best chance for profit.

[Serpico]

Maybe he's planning on being Prime Minister again?

After all, a majority of Thais will vote for him again.

Why should a military Junta decide what's best for the country?

[webfact]

One post deleted

Politicians, former politicians, convicted politicians and public figures we dislike have proper names.

Please use them.

[Meridian007]

Maybe he's planning on being Prime Minister again?

After all, a majority of Thais will vote for him again.

Why should a military Junta decide what's best for the country?

You should ask him that. I think it's come to the point where Thaksin is willing to get into bed with those he was formerly opposed to. This is a win at any cost measure, and a dangerous one at that.

If he thinks he can get in to the PM position using military connections without the military controlling him in the end, then he hasn't payed attention to Thai history and what happened to the PAD. I've said before that TRT and PAD are similar, with different backers. Now he's trying to bridge that gap as his personal power wanes.

Maybe he thinks he can become a "Dear leader"?

[jayjayjayjay]

Maybe he's planning on being Prime Minister again?

After all, a majority of Thais will vote for him again.

Why should a military Junta decide what's best for the country?

Give them the chance, we'll see.

[h90]

Maybe he's planning on being Prime Minister again?

After all, a majority of Thais will vote for him again.

Why should a military Junta decide what's best for the country?

He didn't win one clean election without vote buying.

[otherstuff1957]

Maybe he's planning on being Prime Minister again?

After all, a majority of Thais will vote for him again.

Will they? I suspect that a lot of people are getting fed up with both the Reds and the Yellows. The rabid Reds will probably be disappointed in the next election. I predict that no party will win more than 30% of the vote and the smaller parties will be waiting to see who offers them the best incentive to join a coalition.

[LawnGnome]

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? (Hey it worked once!)

[givenall]

Maybe he's planning on being Prime Minister again?

After all, a majority of Thais will vote for him again.

Why should a military Junta decide what's best for the country?

He didn't win one clean election without vote buying.

These people are in disarray and seem to be desperate to make changes so may be one would work. But this is Thailand and Money rules and they don’t

[GarryP]

It was my understanding that a lot of the officers concerned were quickly promoted under Thaksin but put out to grass when he was overthrown. Maybe its time for them to show their support for him. It can't really harm them as they are all retired now and whatever power base they had has long gone. With Thaksin back in power they may find themselves in a stronger position or at least have some influence over military affairs.

[skipvice]

What ever he dose, I hope he waites untill after the end of October, because I won't be here any longer

[PoorSucker]

Maybe he's planning on being Prime Minister again?

After all, a majority of Thais will vote for him again.

Why should a military Junta decide what's best for the country?

When did a majority vote for Thaksin?

The most seats in parliamentary TRT had was 248, three from majority.

[TAWP]

After all, a majority of Thais will vote for him again.

Again? And last election his proxy got a CLEAR minority of the votes.

Why should a military Junta decide what's best for the country?

They don't anymore, a MAJORITY of the PEOPLE VOTED for OTHER parties.

And so will they in the next election.

And I couldn't help but giggle at the number 500k supporters in the OP.

500K nationwide at home (nothing) or 500K on location to show their support (yeah right)?

[hammered]

Getting back to the OP, the military currently and for the foreseeable future have a very important role to carry out as thiungs change. PTP recognise this and beleive that without at least some military sympathy for them they could be outmanouvered. To date though the military sign ups disregarding Jiradet are not very powerful. The main class ten figures are either on the fence or with Anupong and a new and undivided class is really controlling the actual military these days. How the leader of this class moves will settle how the situation unfolds. For now though PTP see the need to make sure they have a voice to the military.

[rogercw]

"He didn't win one clean election without vote buying."

All significant Thai political parties have bought votes in all elections, h90. Back in America we have pretty clean elections compared to Thailand but overt vote buying still takes place in some areas. Example: In the inner-city Black areas Democratic politicians pass out "street money" the last few days before election. Does this mean that Obama is not a legitimate President because his party "bought" votes?

As far as I know in both Thailand and America the politicians pass out the money to "buy" votes but do not get to watch the voters cast their vote. My assumption is that many voters take the money (why not?) and then vote for the vote buyer's opponent.

[hammered]

As far as I know in both Thailand and America the politicians pass out the money to "buy" votes but do not get to watch the voters cast their vote. My assumption is that many voters take the money (why not?) and then vote for the vote buyer's opponent.

Dont know about the US tbh but that is conventioanl wisdom on Thailand. However it was defied in the Asia Institute survey which found over half the people felt vote buying affected outcomes in their area even though most felt vote buying money didnt create obligation.

[way2muchcoffee]

Back in America we have pretty clean elections compared to Thailand but overt vote buying still takes place in some areas. Example: In the inner-city Black areas Democratic politicians pass out "street money" the last few days before election. Does this mean that Obama is not a legitimate President because his party "bought" votes?

I think you misunderstand 'street money'. Street money is given to the campaign volunteers and footsoldiers in the days leading up to an election. It is to help defray some of their personal costs, and to provide an incentive to work hard to get out the vote on the last few days of the campaign. It is not handed out to citizens to buy their votes as you suggest. It is interesting to note that Obama refused to engage in this tradition during his campaign.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/11/na...a-streetmoney11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_money

Edited October 21, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[h90]

"He didn't win one clean election without vote buying."

All significant Thai political parties have bought votes in all elections, h90. Back in America we have pretty clean elections compared to Thailand but overt vote buying still takes place in some areas. Example: In the inner-city Black areas Democratic politicians pass out "street money" the last few days before election. Does this mean that Obama is not a legitimate President because his party "bought" votes?

As far as I know in both Thailand and America the politicians pass out the money to "buy" votes but do not get to watch the voters cast their vote. My assumption is that many voters take the money (why not?) and then vote for the vote buyer's opponent.

I don't know the situation in USA.

In Thailand for example the record of the Democrats is almost complete clean (a few real minor cases).

The times of simply money handouts is long gone.

It started a 20-30 years ago where voter got a left "shoe" and after the party won in that area they got the right shoe. Than we had the time they wanted to see a picture with the mobile phone camera. Now latest were shops you can buy on credit, if PPP wins, you never have to pay back the credit.

But there are 100 different versions.

[steveromagnino]

it is pretty basic PR, he is building his case for being a peaceful, pro monarchy, fair and nice guy ahead of the summit when all eyes will be on Thailand.

All the ingredients; people on the streets; a bit of an angry mob perhaps pushing and hoping for army/police retaliation; another revisit of the petition; his ground swell of support from all quarters (army support (class 10), statesmen support (Chavalit), grass roots support (big rural crowd smiling and wearing red shirts).

How could any foreign leader not believe this guy simply has been victimised and wants a fair deal and just asks for basic democractic rights having done nothing at all wrong?

PR 101 - make yourself newsworthy, and set a clear message and a clear platform to get your message heard. Easy peasy.

After all, somehow this is no longer a fight to clear his name/stand for reelection/get his cash back......only someone as stupid as me would think that.....no no this is a fight for democracy and apparently, in Thailand, only Thaksin fights for true democracy.

Ah well, what do I know.

IMHO a fiscally responsible leader doesn't need to buy votes with popularist policies or cash payments; instead they win through leading a team that complies with the letter and spirit of the law and generates then implements policies creating genuine long term sustainable growth across all sectors of the economy and society which leads to a position of moral leadership as they are recognised among their peers as a truly worthy person to lead a country.

Whether Thaksin or many of his predecessors pass such a definition of leadership is doubtful. Certainly most fail on the vote buying. Most fail on not implementing sustainable policies. Most have no morals and nor do their team.

Edited October 21, 2009 by steveromagnino

[wayfarer108]

Maybe he's planning on being Prime Minister again?

After all, a majority of Thais will vote for him again.

Why should a military Junta decide what's best for the country?

When did a majority vote for Thaksin?

The most seats in parliamentary TRT had was 248, three from majority.

Obviously Serpico hasn't followed electoral events closely.

Aside from outright vote-buying, Col Thaksin bought candidates, and he made it clear, as has been mentioned in other threads, that if districts and provinces didn't vote TRT, he would withdraw all government aid from that district or province. Meanwhile he bought the only independent TV station, along with a substantial share of The Nation, and intimidated other media with ShinCorp/AIS advertising power and the threat of lawsuits, deportation, etc. Nothing to do with real democracy.

Edited October 21, 2009 by wayfarer108

[jayboy]

IMHO a fiscally responsible leader doesn't need to buy votes with popularist policies or cash payments; instead they win through leading a team that complies with the letter and spirit of the law and generates then implements policies creating genuine long term sustainable growth across all sectors of the economy and society which leads to a position of moral leadership as they are recognised among their peers as a truly worthy person to lead a country.

Whether Thaksin or many of his predecessors pass such a definition of leadership is doubtful. Certainly most fail on the vote buying. Most fail on not implementing sustainable policies. Most have no morals and nor do their team.

Forget Thaksin.Do you honestly think Abhisit meets the criteria you specify? I hope that he might eventually but too early to say right now, and there's no moral leadership he can lay claim to.He's certainly borrowed a lot of the populist TRT policies though to some extent this has been hidden by necessary stimulus measures.He has yet to demonstrate his genuine independence, though his recent action on police appointments was encouraging.It's not just his peers that count by the way (some people continue to have problems in grasping this) but the people of Thailand.This will be tested by an election, assuming that the military and the courts don't attempt to rig matters again.I'm not of the school that demands an immediate election but I would have thought a vote of confidence (or otherwise) from the people of Thailand is needed by this time next year.

[steveromagnino]

IMHO a fiscally responsible leader doesn't need to buy votes with popularist policies or cash payments; instead they win through leading a team that complies with the letter and spirit of the law and generates then implements policies creating genuine long term sustainable growth across all sectors of the economy and society which leads to a position of moral leadership as they are recognised among their peers as a truly worthy person to lead a country.

Whether Thaksin or many of his predecessors pass such a definition of leadership is doubtful. Certainly most fail on the vote buying. Most fail on not implementing sustainable policies. Most have no morals and nor do their team.

Forget Thaksin.Do you honestly think Abhisit meets the criteria you specify? I hope that he might eventually but too early to say right now, and there's no moral leadership he can lay claim to.He's certainly borrowed a lot of the populist TRT policies though to some extent this has been hidden by necessary stimulus measures.He has yet to demonstrate his genuine independence, though his recent action on police appointments was encouraging.It's not just his peers that count by the way (some people continue to have problems in grasping this) but the people of Thailand.This will be tested by an election, assuming that the military and the courts don't attempt to rig matters again.I'm not of the school that demands an immediate election but I would have thought a vote of confidence (or otherwise) from the people of Thailand is needed by this time next year.

Rephrase for clarity:

Whether Thaksin or any of his predecessors or those who have come since pass such as definition of leadership is doubtful.

And yes, within next 12 months a mandate needs to be given to whoever will run the country; hopefully by then the person taking the reigns won't inherit the Banharn/Chavalit/Chatchai style messes that got handed onto the next person in power.

[ratcatcher]

IMHO a fiscally responsible leader doesn't need to buy votes with popularist policies or cash payments; instead they win through leading a team that complies with the letter and spirit of the law and generates then implements policies creating genuine long term sustainable growth across all sectors of the economy and society which leads to a position of moral leadership as they are recognised among their peers as a truly worthy person to lead a country.

Whether Thaksin or many of his predecessors pass such a definition of leadership is doubtful. Certainly most fail on the vote buying. Most fail on not implementing sustainable policies. Most have no morals and nor do their team.

Forget Thaksin.Do you honestly think Abhisit meets the criteria you specify? I hope that he might eventually but too early to say right now, and there's no moral leadership he can lay claim to.He's certainly borrowed a lot of the populist TRT policies though to some extent this has been hidden by necessary stimulus measures.He has yet to demonstrate his genuine independence, though his recent action on police appointments was encouraging.It's not just his peers that count by the way (some people continue to have problems in grasping this) but the people of Thailand.This will be tested by an election, assuming that the military and the courts don't attempt to rig matters again.I'm not of the school that demands an immediate election but I would have thought a vote of confidence (or otherwise) from the people of Thailand is needed by this time next year.

Rephrase for clarity:

Whether Thaksin or any of his predecessors or those who have come since pass such as definition of leadership is doubtful.

And yes, within next 12 months a mandate needs to be given to whoever will run the country; hopefully by then the person taking the reigns won't inherit the Banharn/Chavalit/Chatchai style messes that got handed onto the next person in power.

Was that a Freudian slip or typo? He who reigns as opposed to he who holds the reins

Edited October 21, 2009 by ratcatcher

[Crushdepth]

One post deleted

Politicians, former politicians, convicted politicians and public figures we dislike have proper names.

Please use them.

Awww... you mean I can't call him Boxhead or Uncle Takky anymore?

I could call him the Criminal Fugitive Formerly Known as Prime Minister Thaksin but it doesn't exactly slip off the tongue :-)

[Rumfoord]

I think you misunderstand 'street money'. Street money is given to the campaign volunteers and footsoldiers in the days leading up to an election. It is to help defray some of their personal costs, and to provide an incentive to work hard to get out the vote on the last few days of the campaign. It is not handed out to citizens to buy their votes as you suggest. It is interesting to note that Obama refused to engage in this tradition during his campaign.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/11/na...a-streetmoney11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_money

that is just an PR show too. funny thing is that the wikipedia, the free encyclopedia didn't had an entry on 'street money' before the 22. april 2008. it was obviously not importent enough for all those wikipedians. not until Obama refused to pay 'street money'. with that moment 'street money' was suddendly relevant enough for that wikipedia encyclopedia. a PR strategy.

the Obama campaign was the most expensive ever. if i remember right over 800.000.000 $ spend on PR just for Obama. for TV and internet advertising, for a travelling political kermis. 2-3 million dollar every day. of course all money came from donatations, Obama could had made the use of TAX money, but he refused. cool. just donations by his supporters.

but isn't that an odd waste of resources? i am not envy, i don't want spoil they party, it is their money. but the daily reports on the race who collected the most donations and spend them for geegaw and flitter i perceived as an outsider, as non us-american, very bizarre.

[Johpa]

i am not envy, i don't want spoil they party, it is their money. but the daily reports on the race who collected the most donations and spend them for geegaw and flitter i perceived as an outsider, as non us-american, very bizarre.

The only thing bizarre here in the US is the number of myths that are perpetuated by certain sectors to explain the election of Obama by anything other than his being elected by the free will of the majority of the public. There is no vote buying here in the US in the same manner that there is in Thailand. Local banks in the US do not run out of smaller denomination notes in the days before an election as has happened in Thailand.

Thaksin's brilliance was recognizing that by promising to throw a few crumbs to the masses from the national coffers, he could capture their hearts and minds in a more substantive manner than by having his local political lieutenants pay out baat notes on election day, not that such activities did not happen, but that tired game is played by all sides.

But the newest movements in the jockeying for position in the game are simply signs that closer to the real power there are movements and changes occurring that are not being reported. It is clear that last week some people prematurely placed some bets and lost and now must place a new wager to stay in the game.

[hammered]

But the newest movements in the jockeying for position in the game are simply signs that closer to the real power there are movements and changes occurring that are not being reported. It is clear that last week some people prematurely placed some bets and lost and now must place a new wager to stay in the game.

A very inciteful comment imho

Agree on US too.

[Rumfoord]

i am not envy, i don't want spoil they party, it is their money. but the daily reports on the race who collected the most donations and spend them for geegaw and flitter i perceived as an outsider, as non us-american, very bizarre.

The only thing bizarre here in the US is the number of myths that are perpetuated by certain sectors to explain the election of Obama by anything other than his being elected by the free will of the majority of the public. There is no vote buying here in the US in the same manner that there is in Thailand.

i didn't compared it to thailand with a focus on vote buying. the spectacle oversea has its own quality.

i am not belonging to certain sectors, but there in the kindergarten overthere exist also the myth that the choice of a big chance was on offer, that now some achivements are scored. spnding money on give aways of balloon that sport an fancy 4 colour process print, instead of using an less expensive two-tone method. put online advertising here and there in animated flash graphics. smile like sunshine on TV. gimcrack religions are big business. an d believer collectives are the last place where individuals can look for a free will. that show was so hip like the super bowl, nobody outside that few northern timezones is interested in. thrilling like the pepsi coke challenge. and win that way, a predictable outcome, with the Generation Free Willy & Free Willy 2 and Generation Free Willy 3 now entitled to vote. against some old man, who had to take the blame for someone else. that was easy. how can that make people so überproud? hubris got a new lick of paint. scarry. if i don't get irrational drunk and a flush of the victory i must be envy and belong to 'certain sectors'. a bizarre thing is maybe that Obama got slandered as socialist, even more bizarre is that socialists celebrate him as HOPE and a joke is Obamamists think they are liberals.

other countries holding theier elections too, without selling it as the global solution and Guinness Book of Obscure Records Entries of Firsts and Mosts and combo breakers.

Baghdad, see you later BeBe. Hey Kabul , here we come. We believe We can do. We have changed.

did you know that according to a certain factbook, a guinness book alike statistic, at the Hindu Kush is the geographic center of population of the world with an average distance of 5,200 kilometers (3,200 mi) to all humans. what for an extraordinary destination to demonstrate us-american free will at this place, right? furthermore, focus, keep the things in perspective, the kids just woke me up, a three-day weekend is coming up and Bo's* birthday!.

it's your right, if you want, that WE in you can believe in change. a while ago the american poet Iggy Pop wrote a song about that, the song is called "1969"

and hey, there is that new fresh Thaksin topic, difficult to say something whitout becoming redundant. sometimes makes me think The Nation orientated their editorial line on what gets the highest click rates in the self-help group expat forum.

but what makes the government meanwhile, the bearer of various nicknames, that cannot be spelled out, jetted from smaller airports to other smaller airports in a small plane and now other powerless B and C figurines hitting the headline? isn't the mainstream opinion that his time is over, the red protesters a minor splinter group?

once in a while, we should also have a look at the people in charge. Abhisit, the handsome Etonian, he is good for comic relief as well. and what does his cabinet? it is a big miss to lose sight of them. all of them are busy as hel_l. acting enough to be good for to get in the news.

ps. free will oohh. always good for a smile, if not a laugh. i like to discuss the behaviorist aspects of it with the cat, neutered, that shares the flat with me.

*if your are more in Politics interested, than on home stories about the dear prez, you maybe don't know that Bo is a dog. what is a dog on the global scale? public health hygienist consider dogs as risks to humans, dogs feces can cause a number of human diseases, dogs eat dogs feces, dogs can bite and bite humans. the large mulim population of the world sees dogs as unclean for ritual reasons, but those religious practises and taboos are born out of sanitaries and hygienic considerations, reasonable. in other parts of the world dog is a dish, food. people in east asia, south east asia, parts of africa and native american dog meat is part of the diet, a delicacy. in other parts of the world people have nothing to eat, not even dogs or dog food.

for the white man, dog is the best friend since the hunter-gatherer society of the stonge age, if have cattle, herd sheeps or slaves it's good to have the help of a dog friend. some still keep that habit in modern cities. dog feces are an annoyance and health risk for other citizens. and the resident of the White House has a dog. his name is Bo. dogs are on #53 of the List of Stuff White People Like. white us-american people. and because the resident of the White House is also the president of all the white people in the US of A, it's cool if he has a dog, white people love that. it humanise the president, they say, because the white people love dogs. and if the president puts things in (a white people of us-america) perspective and dogs birthday comes first, there is it all alright for white people of the US of A in the US of A. the US of A is for the white people of the US of A the center of the universe and all should, must follow their free will. errm WE hope we can change believes believe.

patriot "We believe" us-americans are proud to have a black president who loves dogs, knows the the birthday of his dog, smiles and the "We believes" think "We can change the world" if the "We believe in" dropping bombs at the geographic center of population of the world in the Hindu Kush.

how i can dare to say that is "BIZARRE". i also have my doubts with the 'free will thingy'

[cyberia]

Rumfoord or whatever your name is,

are you drunk?