Thaksins Audio Recording Of Interview Requested

[TAWP]

Still red-shirt leaders and Phua Thai MP's have fled over the border this morning (chasing the satang, no doubt).

"fled over the border"? Going to Cambodia to talk to Thaksin, yes - but fled?

They didn't flee.

They traveled to meet the man they are not puppets of nor take instructions from. I wonder what instructions he will give his puppets.

Edited November 12, 2009 by TAWP

[Steve2UK]

Note that Abhisit himself has been very careful about what he has said on this. I think he asked for clarification. Of course others in the government havent been quite so measured in response. However, to date the only LM charge brought has come form outside government. I suspect the government apart from requesting the tape dont really need to push this one as others will do that and also every time the other sdie play a defence it still attracts people with the "what did he really say reaction". I also suspect there will be several versions of what was said out there as word spreads. True the technical LM case is very difficult from an international perspective but I suspect the local political import of this will play out on a very different playing field.

Not getting at you, Hammered, but I think we should be clear. If by "others in the government" you mean Abhisit's many spokesmen (he seems to be getting more all the time) then let's recognise that they are speaking for him. OK, it's standard operating procedure for a political leader to put out the bad word/stick the knife in on a non-attributable "lobby" basis - but Abhisit's people are speaking openly (usually on camera), very much "on the record" - and for him. That includes Thepthai Senpong saying* "Thaksin's comments were offensive to the monarchy, and may warrant 'seven generations of beheading'" . If you mean the likes of Kasit, doesn't at least some form of cabinet responsibility apply - making a PM responsible for what his ministers say unless he refutes it? Granted, either way Abhisit gets out the word he wants and that becomes the effective reality.

Fully agree about the "different playing field" - and Abhisit must be counting his lucky stars that he got handed two extra balls to play with (no pun intended) - in the shape of the Times article (as printed and now spun for all it's worth) and Thaksin's IMO vanity-driven acceptance of the economic adviser post.

* http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/S...ory_452395.html

[caf]

In the Times matter, let Thaksin sue in a British court of law. Thaksin for sure will be sued in Thailand and will be hard pressed to win either cause.

As Crispin points out in his piece today, since Thaksin's appointment by Hun Sen to the Cambodian government and Thaksin's arrival in Cambodia, Abhisit's popularity has tripled to popular support of his government coalition by as much as 2/3 the population. If another scientific public opinion research organization can confirm this shift, which includes voters in the North and Northeast, Abhisit and the Democrat party should drive forward to exploit Thaksin's unintended gift to them. (That abrupt 'pow' in the distance is Thaksin shooting himself in the other foot.)

With fools and idiots such as Hun Sen and Thaksin to play against, Abhisit should be able to run with it. By the time the imminent APEC and Asean stuff is over and done with, Abhisit will look all the more a statesman and multilateralist leader.

as much as 2/3 the population.

you don't believe that do you publicus?

and can you expand on multilateralist? what sides are you talking about? or did you not mean multilateralism?

Abhisit, the ______________ leader.

a. multilateralism

b. multilateraler

c. multilateralist

d. multilateralor

e. multilateral

f. multilateraling

Also, to reiterate the above post, if another scientific survey research organization can confirm the shift...

I think you've lost everyone with that reply

However it seems you accept the fraction can not be two thirds.

[awd]

Read Seth Mydans latest column in the NYT for a more credible summary of the current likelihood of Abhisit winning an election (approximately 0%).

[TAWP]

Read Seth Mydans latest column in the NYT for a more credible summary of the current likelihood of Abhisit winning an election (approximately 0%).

Wow, that is a nice miss-representation of both the article and the truth.

Are you payed to spread disinformation?

[awd]

Are you paid to mangle the English language at every opportunity?

[Publicus]

In the Times matter, let Thaksin sue in a British court of law. Thaksin for sure will be sued in Thailand and will be hard pressed to win either cause.

As Crispin points out in his piece today, since Thaksin's appointment by Hun Sen to the Cambodian government and Thaksin's arrival in Cambodia, Abhisit's popularity has tripled to popular support of his government coalition by as much as 2/3 the population. If another scientific public opinion research organization can confirm this shift, which includes voters in the North and Northeast, Abhisit and the Democrat party should drive forward to exploit Thaksin's unintended gift to them. (That abrupt 'pow' in the distance is Thaksin shooting himself in the other foot.)

With fools and idiots such as Hun Sen and Thaksin to play against, Abhisit should be able to run with it. By the time the imminent APEC and Asean stuff is over and done with, Abhisit will look all the more a statesman and multilateralist leader.

as much as 2/3 the population.

you don't believe that do you publicus?

and can you expand on multilateralist? what sides are you talking about? or did you not mean multilateralism?

Abhisit, the ______________ leader.

a. multilateralism

b. multilateraler

c. multilateralist

d. multilateralor

e. multilateral

f. multilateraling

Also, to reiterate the above post, if another scientific survey research organization can confirm the shift...

I think you've lost everyone with that reply

However it seems you accept the fraction can not be two thirds.

Stop misrepresenting me. As with most observers, I would like to see a second poll to the Abac poll that would be similar to the Abac poll, which would thus confirm the general validity of the Abac survey's findings. I say confirm.

[Ricardo]

Still red-shirt leaders and Phua Thai MP's have fled over the border this morning (chasing the satang, no doubt).

"fled over the border"? Going to Cambodia to talk to Thaksin, yes - but fled?

Perhaps 'travelled swiftly in the hope of arriving before the man with the cheque-book departed' might have been more appropriate ?

[Publicus]

Still red-shirt leaders and Phua Thai MP's have fled over the border this morning (chasing the satang, no doubt).

"fled over the border"? Going to Cambodia to talk to Thaksin, yes - but fled?

Perhaps 'travelled swiftly in the hope of arriving before the man with the cheque-book departed' might have been more appropriate ?

[TAWP]

Are you paid to mangle the English language at every opportunity?

No, I'm doing that for free.

But I am sure you understand me if I switch to one of four other languages?

Now how about you respond to the point at hand, that you use disinformation in your posts and incorrectly states what the article said?

[Steve2UK]

As with most observers, I would like to see a second poll to the Abac poll that would be similar to the Abac poll, which would thus confirm the general validity of the Abac survey's findings. I say confirm.

You say confirm. Would the similarity of your desired second poll extend to asking the same "push" question immediately before the Abhisit support question as ABAC did in their 6 November version? Not mentioned by The Nation or Bangkok Post or, as I now see, by Crispin in his article. Following up information on the Siam Report and the ABAC websites, I posted about this previously ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3124520 ). Perhaps you missed it? Then again, I see there's a post of yours following right after mine just a few minutes later..........

Tedious to repeat what I wrote there (and anyway, you can click on the link), but to summarise as briefly as possible........

Question 1: "Do you know about Hun Sen's interview in which he attacked the fairness of the Thai judicial system?"

Question 2: "Do you support the Abhisit government?"

Still happy about "the general validity of the Abac survey's findings"? I doubt Abhisit is - he must know the difference between a properly conducted opinion survey and what amounts to a Hun Sen v. Thai PM beauty contest with all Thai judges. IMO the only surprise in the November 6 poll's overall rating of 68.6% support for Abhisit (effectively as opposed to Hun Sen) was that the figure wasn't much, much higher. I suspect Abhisit may be worried by that and I'd be surprised if they aren't conducting extensive private polling with proper methodology to establish a reliable picture for themselves. It certainly wasn't provided by this poll.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Steve2UK

[Publicus]

As with most observers, I would like to see a second poll to the Abac poll that would be similar to the Abac poll, which would thus confirm the general validity of the Abac survey's findings. I say confirm.

You say confirm. Would the similarity of your desired second poll extend to asking the same "push" question immediately before the Abhisit support question as ABAC did in their 6 November version? Not mentioned by The Nation or Bangkok Post or, as I now see, by Crispin in his article. Following up information on the Siam Report and the ABAC websites, I posted about this previously ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3124520 ). Perhaps you missed it? Then again, I see there's a post of yours following right after mine just a few minutes later..........

Tedious to repeat what I wrote there (and anyway, you can click on the link), but to summarise as briefly as possible........

Question 1: "Do you know about Hun Sen's interview in which he attacked the fairness of the Thai judicial system?"

Question 2: "Do you support the Abhisit government?"

Still happy about "the general validity of the Abac survey's findings"? I doubt Abhisit is - he must know the difference between a properly conducted opinion survey and what amounts to a Hun Sen v. Thai PM beauty contest with all Thai judges. IMO the only surprise in the November 6 poll's overall rating of 68.6% support for Abhisit (effectively as opposed to Hun Sen) was that the figure wasn't much, much higher. I suspect Abhisit may be worried by that and I'd be surprised if they aren't conducting extensive private polling with proper methodology to establish a reliable picture for themselves. It certainly wasn't provided by this poll.

Yes, I well recall your post in this matter as I've been involved in scientific public opinion survey research albeit not recently (back in the States).

So I repeat for the umpteenth time that I would like to see another scientific public opinion survey research organization poll the population concerning their views towards the Abhisit coalition government. More than one other such organization would be even better but not necessarily reqired. The reason is that one lone such survey, while it can be strongly suggestive, is not necessarily conclusive; that because of varying methodologies one survey does not a consensus make, that several surveys can contribute to a more accurate picture of public opinion and, moreover, identify any single 'outlier' survey which due to faulty anything can produce a result which is an abberation.

No one has quite identified any wrongdoing in the methodology of the ABAC survey, including especially yourself. The sequence of questioning as you present it has context - that is, time, place, circumstance. Question number 1 accomplishes several tasks, among which are whether the sampling surveyed is aware of Hun Sen's statements, whether the representative sampling is aware of Dr. Thaksin's formal trial, conviction, sentencing and avoidance of the justice imposed on him. and of the present Hun Sen-Thaksin conflict of interest tandem in Cambodia.

Moreover, both the survey and a developing body of much anecdotal evidence at TV forum are consistent in their rejection of Thaksin's presence in Cambodia and of the reports of his unprecedently to Thais out of bounds statements in the Times interview. Accordingly, for these and other reasons, I give presumptive credence and credibility to the ABAC survey sampling and, especially, to its predicated methodology.

Don't try to put words in my mouth by asking me if I'm "still happy" with the results of the ABAC scientific survey research sampling. The sequence of questions in the ABAC methodology is, as I've pointed out, determined by context, ie, time, place and circumstance. Given the three core criteria of determining people's judgements, a person or personality is of distant consequence or significance.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Publicus

[brahmburgers]

I would assume, therefore, that the Thaksin camp has a copy of the recording and that the published transcript is identical with the text supplied by Thaksin's press representative.

Doubtful. If the transcript of the interview was identical (verbatim), there would be innumerable haltings, then starting again in mid-sentence, mid-phrase, mid-word.

There would be many 'umm' 'uhhh' 'you know' 'everybody know' 'ah' 'you see'

...and probably a few of the Thai equivalent filler words , 'lakah' 'arai na'

....unwittingly used by people (most of us, actually) who cannot speak without stuttering, false starts, and useless filler words.

Once in awhile, you will hear an interview with a person who can speak in whole, uninterrupted sentences and actually make sense in the process. It's not only people in broadcast (who are trained to do so), but it's the rare person who can think clearly, and convey that through language. Scripted, memorized, or tele-prompt dialog doesn't count in this context.

T is a befuddled and bumbling orator when left to using his own brain and vocal chords. He's probably more adept when speaking Thai. Even so, having English as a 2nd language is a partial excuse, but still there are non-native English speakers who can speak in relatively clear and concise sentences. T is not one of them. It reflects his jumbled (dare I say; distraught) state of mind, among other things.

[plachon]

Come on, if you take the Thaksin-obsessed up at every such jab then we'd never get anywhere.

There is no one so obsessed with Thaksin as the moon-faced man himself......................

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

No one has quite identified any wrongdoing in the methodology of the ABAC survey, including especially yourself.

<snip>

Don't try to put words in my mouth by asking me if I'm "still happy" with the results of the ABAC scientific survey research sampling. The sequence of questions in the ABAC methodology is, as I've pointed out, determined by context, ie, time, place and circumstance. Given the three core criteria of determining people's judgements, a person or personality is of distant consequence or significance.

You might have the beginnings of a case if I had actually asked if you're "still happy" with the results. But, of course, I didn't - I asked "Still happy about 'the general validity of the Abac survey's findings'?" The validity - not the results. So, who's trying to put words in whose mouth? In all your wordy response, you still sidestep the key factor - the skewing produced by that first "push" question. "No one has quite identified any wrongdoing"? Just what would constitute "wrongdoing" (I actually said "dodgy methodology") for you if not what has already been identified? Do you think Gallup, Mori et al would be happy with the validity of ABAC's methodology?

To re-state the obvious (but briefly): yes, the more polls the better the likely accuracy - but their methodology has to be less dodgy and result-skewing than the 6 November ABAC version.

Moving back to the thread's subject, I daresay Abhisit is "happy with" the general Thai reaction to what they have been told The Times' article contains. I'll also be surprised if the tape of the interview and an authorised court-ready Thai-language transcript ever see the light of day in Thailand - though it can't be long before an unofficial Thai translation of the transcript joins the article translation which is already circulating. The differences between what was reported (first in The Times article then in Thailand reporting/commenting on The Times article) and what the transcript shows Thaksin to have actually said would IMO only weaken an LM case as well as undermine the boost Abhisit is currently enjoying.

To those who say that even mentioning the succession is an obvious affront to Thai sensibilities, the high institution etc - I would ask why the same criteria were/are not applied to German magazine Der Spiegel's April 2009 interview with M.R. Sukhumbhand Paribatra - Democrat Governor of Bangkok - in which he gives frank answers to questions on that subject among others. While there's clearly nothing dangerous in the article, given current nervousness, I won't provide a link here but it's easy enough to Google. Personally, I found the candour of his comments about the coup and other matters very refreshing - and something of a surprise given his background. Just goes to show again that we shouldn't simply lump people into convenient pro/con groupings.

[hammered]

<snip>

No one has quite identified any wrongdoing in the methodology of the ABAC survey, including especially yourself.

<snip>

Don't try to put words in my mouth by asking me if I'm "still happy" with the results of the ABAC scientific survey research sampling. The sequence of questions in the ABAC methodology is, as I've pointed out, determined by context, ie, time, place and circumstance. Given the three core criteria of determining people's judgements, a person or personality is of distant consequence or significance.

You might have the beginnings of a case if I had actually asked if you're "still happy" with the results. But, of course, I didn't - I asked "Still happy about 'the general validity of the Abac survey's findings'?" The validity - not the results. So, who's trying to put words in whose mouth? In all your wordy response, you still sidestep the key factor - the skewing produced by that first "push" question. "No one has quite identified any wrongdoing"? Just what would constitute "wrongdoing" (I actually said "dodgy methodology") for you if not what has already been identified? Do you think Gallup, Mori et al would be happy with the validity of ABAC's methodology?

To re-state the obvious (but briefly): yes, the more polls the better the likely accuracy - but their methodology has to be less dodgy and result-skewing than the 6 November ABAC version.

Moving back to the thread's subject, I daresay Abhisit is "happy with" the general Thai reaction to what they have been told The Times' article contains. I'll also be surprised if the tape of the interview and an authorised court-ready Thai-language transcript ever see the light of day in Thailand - though it can't be long before an unofficial Thai translation of the transcript joins the article translation which is already circulating. The differences between what was reported (first in The Times article then in Thailand reporting/commenting on The Times article) and what the transcript shows Thaksin to have actually said would IMO only weaken an LM case as well as undermine the boost Abhisit is currently enjoying.

To those who say that even mentioning the succession is an obvious affront to Thai sensibilities, the high institution etc - I would ask why the same criteria were/are not applied to German magazine Der Spiegel's April 2009 interview with M.R. Sukhumbhand Paribatra - Democrat Governor of Bangkok - in which he gives frank answers to questions on that subject among others. While there's clearly nothing dangerous in the article, given current nervousness, I won't provide a link here but it's easy enough to Google. Personally, I found the candour of his comments about the coup and other matters very refreshing - and something of a surprise given his background. Just goes to show again that we shouldn't simply lump people into convenient pro/con groupings.

According to Pundit there was second poll later (Nov 5?) without the push and there were similar percentages, which doesnt surprise me as it matches anecdotal evidence I find. I think the LM thing is a distractor. The anger I encounter is over other stuff. There has just been a poll (no link off hand) and something like 30+% think Thaksin deliberately tried to insult, 20% think he didnt and 40+ % are unsure. Thaksin needs more movement from the middle to his side. Doubt is something in electoral poltics that is damaging as negative certainty.

I have heard read there is already a red version of the transcript out. Dont know if true and I am sure considering the nature that it will be kept quiet.

Sukhumband has grown on me. He seems to be a fairly quiet man who gets on with th ejob and if asked has opinions that are his own, which sets him out from most party line polticians. His boringness though probably means he wont get reelected

[caf]

As Crispin points out in his piece today, since Thaksin's appointment by Hun Sen to the Cambodian government and Thaksin's arrival in Cambodia, Abhisit's popularity has tripled to popular support of his government coalition by as much as 2/3 the population. If another scientific public opinion research organization can confirm this shift, which includes voters in the North and Northeast, Abhisit and the Democrat party should drive forward to exploit Thaksin's unintended gift to them. (That abrupt 'pow' in the distance is Thaksin shooting himself in the other foot.)

With fools and idiots such as Hun Sen and Thaksin to play against, Abhisit should be able to run with it. By the time the imminent APEC and Asean stuff is over and done with, Abhisit will look all the more a statesman and multilateralist leader.

Abhisit, the ______________ leader.

a. multilateralism

b. multilateraler

c. multilateralist

d. multilateralor

e. multilateral

f. multilateraling

Also, to reiterate the above post, if another scientific survey research organization can confirm the shift...

Stop misrepresenting me. As with most observers, I would like to see a second poll to the Abac poll that would be similar to the Abac poll, which would thus confirm the general validity of the Abac survey's findings. I say confirm.

Could you be clear then ? Do you - yes or no - believe the two thirds figure.? You say " as Crispin says" which means you do believe it. The important word is "as" You are not just reporting , you are agreeing with a report . No misinterpretation at all. Or maybe your English is wrong. In which case rephrase your point.

[Insight]

Still red-shirt leaders and Phua Thai MP's have fled over the border this morning (chasing the satang, no doubt).

"fled over the border"? Going to Cambodia to talk to Thaksin, yes - but fled?

Apologies for the poor choice of wording. I'm a few months early.

[Publicus]

Methodology and validity are for all intents and purposes synonymous terms. That is, the more a survey's methodology is valid the more credible the survey's results are likely to be. Critical to devising the methodology is the inclusion of the three determining factors of time, place, circumstance.

Yes, the ABAC survey has the leading question you identify and no, Dr. Gallop et al would not present such a survey question to a voter sampling in a mature democracy, but check further with the Pew Center for Public Policy Research which has been doing global surveys (by country) for more than a decade. The Pew people have to frame their questions and structure their surveys to suit diverse populations in democracies and dictatorships alike, for educated and uneducated populations alike etc. If a Pew pollster (in a hypothetical mistake) came to you with a questionnaire about Obama intended for an Afghani farmer you'd be insulted........if vice versa the Afghani farmer would be completely lost. The fact is Pew's surveys are globally respected and accepted (94% of Chinese are satisfied with their form of government, for example).

In short, as with most things it's a matter of confidence. Given the time, place and circumstance of the ABAC survey, I have a reasonable level of both confidence and comfort with its methods and findings. The several news organizations that have reported the findings of the survey, and which have not publically discussed its methodology, likely think, feel and believe similarly.

Edited to respond to caf:

Your 'yes' or 'no' demand makes you sound like Joe "the Tailgunner" McCarthy. Having read this post you have my response, thanks.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Publicus

[Steve2UK]

Still red-shirt leaders and Phua Thai MP's have fled over the border this morning (chasing the satang, no doubt).

"fled over the border"? Going to Cambodia to talk to Thaksin, yes - but fled?

Apologies for the poor choice of wording. I'm a few months early.

[Steve2UK]

According to Pundit there was second poll later (Nov 5?) without the push and there were similar percentages, which doesnt surprise me as it matches anecdotal evidence I find. I think the LM thing is a distractor. The anger I encounter is over other stuff. There has just been a poll (no link off hand) and something like 30+% think Thaksin deliberately tried to insult, 20% think he didnt and 40+ % are unsure. Thaksin needs more movement from the middle to his side. Doubt is something in electoral poltics that is damaging as negative certainty.

<snip>

(I'll make this my last post on the subject (before somebody jumps in with remarks about so much going "off-topic").

Yes, I read that post from Bangkok Pundit ("Thaksin's Cambodia gambit") - it was another ABAC poll on 5 November. As he puts it: "the day after the decision to recall the Ambassador, so emotions were quite raw. Nevertheless, the answers are fairly clear.

When asked if they agreed or disagreed with the recall of the Thai Ambassador in Cambodia? 64.7% agreed, 35.3% disagreed.

When asked who they supported to be PM, 21% answered Thaksin, 60% answered Abhisit (NOTE: if we were to take the push poll then Abhisit has dropped by 8%! so hence better to ignore it)

When asked whether they would give an opportunity for the government to continue: 78% said yes and 14.5% said no."

He goes on to compare short/long term prospects - and also make the same point as you have previously i.e. "The strong man leader is a popular characteristic for Thai prime ministers" ("alpha male" in your phrase). There can be no doubt let alone surprise that the new perception of Abhisit as "strong man" and chief waver of the Thai flag currently boosts his ratings.

I actually disagree with BP that the questions as asked (i.e. the order of them) make this poll as clean as it could/should be. IMO context is highly significant (if not everything) and comparing either of the November polls (as the press and others have done) simplistically with the September poll results is - at best - partial and misleading. Voters are not asked leading questions before they go into an election booth - so why aren't the survey context/knowledge questions asked last? That IMO would be clean.

100% agree with your other points above.

[saag]

There has just been a poll (no link off hand) and something like 30+% think Thaksin deliberately tried to insult, 20% think he didnt and 40+ % are unsure.

The numbers were 44.9% unsure, 35.1% believed Thaksin had intentionally criticized, and 20% said he had no intention to do so.

On the revocation of the memorandum of understanding regarding the the maritime boundary, 41.2% agreed with the move and 36.1% disagreed.

On the plan to cut financial support to Cambodia, 41.4% agreed and 40.4% disagreed.

On the government’s request for Thakin’s extradition, 55.2% agreed with it and 29% disagreed.

Bangkok University poll conducted Nov. 11 and 12.

Edited November 13, 2009 by saag

[Publicus]

As Crispin points out in his piece today, since Thaksin's appointment by Hun Sen to the Cambodian government and Thaksin's arrival in Cambodia, Abhisit's popularity has tripled to popular support of his government coalition by as much as 2/3 the population. If another scientific public opinion research organization can confirm this shift, which includes voters in the North and Northeast, Abhisit and the Democrat party should drive forward to exploit Thaksin's unintended gift to them. (That abrupt 'pow' in the distance is Thaksin shooting himself in the other foot.)

With fools and idiots such as Hun Sen and Thaksin to play against, Abhisit should be able to run with it. By the time the imminent APEC and Asean stuff is over and done with, Abhisit will look all the more a statesman and multilateralist leader.

Abhisit, the ______________ leader.

a. multilateralism

b. multilateraler

c. multilateralist

d. multilateralor

e. multilateral

f. multilateraling

Also, to reiterate the above post, if another scientific survey research organization can confirm the shift...

Stop misrepresenting me. As with most observers, I would like to see a second poll to the Abac poll that would be similar to the Abac poll, which would thus confirm the general validity of the Abac survey's findings. I say confirm.

Could you be clear then ? Do you - yes or no - believe the two thirds figure.? You say " as Crispin says" which means you do believe it. The important word is "as" You are not just reporting , you are agreeing with a report . No misinterpretation at all. Or maybe your English is wrong. In which case rephrase your point.

Thanks for the English lecture concerning diction, semantics and the like but you need to take it somewhere else.

As we can see in the most recent postings above more data are being gathered, assessed, evaluated, compared and contrasted. The bottom line is that the thrust of the scientific survey samplings to date is that Abhisit and the coalition government have received a statistically significant boost, a very sharp spike in support.

Further, comparing and contrasting the realities of the survey data from September with the realities of the survey data of November tends to present more of, well, reality. For instance, 78% responded that they would give the present government an opportunity to continue.

Thaksin can only wish he could win even 75% of voters in a general election without having to cash out Baht 1 billion, and the Democrat Party has yet to spend a dime (satang). Any campaign manager would kill to start an election drive with a potential base of 64% to 78% popular support.

[Old Man River]

Thanks for the English lecture concerning diction, semantics and the like but you need to take it somewhere else.

As we can see in the most recent postings above more data are being gathered, assessed, evaluated, compared and contrasted. The bottom line is that the thrust of the scientific survey samplings to date is that Abhisit and the coalition government have received a statistically significant boost, a very sharp spike in support.

Further, comparing and contrasting the realities of the survey data from September with the realities of the survey data of November tends to present more of, well, reality. For instance, 78% responded that they would give the present government an opportunity to continue.

Thaksin can only wish he could win even 75% of voters in a general election without having to cash out Baht 1 billion, and the Democrat Party has yet to spend a dime (satang). Any campaign manager would kill to start an election drive with a potential base of 64% to 78% popular support.

Be that as it may, high approval ratings have a tendency to disappear at election time. At the end of the day, the election under the current electoral system will be carried by the northeast and these people will vote for whoever they trust to give them the most benefit going forward. Hence, they will vote for Thaksin and his supporters. All this stuff about Cambodia is good to talk about, but meaningless at election time.

[hammered]

Thanks for the English lecture concerning diction, semantics and the like but you need to take it somewhere else.

As we can see in the most recent postings above more data are being gathered, assessed, evaluated, compared and contrasted. The bottom line is that the thrust of the scientific survey samplings to date is that Abhisit and the coalition government have received a statistically significant boost, a very sharp spike in support.

Further, comparing and contrasting the realities of the survey data from September with the realities of the survey data of November tends to present more of, well, reality. For instance, 78% responded that they would give the present government an opportunity to continue.

Thaksin can only wish he could win even 75% of voters in a general election without having to cash out Baht 1 billion, and the Democrat Party has yet to spend a dime (satang). Any campaign manager would kill to start an election drive with a potential base of 64% to 78% popular support.

Be that as it may, high approval ratings have a tendency to disappear at election time. At the end of the day, the election under the current electoral system will be carried by the northeast and these people will vote for whoever they trust to give them the most benefit going forward. Hence, they will vote for Thaksin and his supporters. All this stuff about Cambodia is good to talk about, but meaningless at election time.

Could well be true. The other stuff not being talked about today by us and being swampoed by the Cambodia stuff (intentioanlly?) could cause electoral problems for Thaksin though

In some ways I wish he would come back and be PM. Then over time people would see his isnt the democrat or pro-poor person he claims to be and before Thailand can move on people need to see that. Ditto in many others too

[Publicus]

Thanks for the English lecture concerning diction, semantics and the like but you need to take it somewhere else.

As we can see in the most recent postings above more data are being gathered, assessed, evaluated, compared and contrasted. The bottom line is that the thrust of the scientific survey samplings to date is that Abhisit and the coalition government have received a statistically significant boost, a very sharp spike in support.

Further, comparing and contrasting the realities of the survey data from September with the realities of the survey data of November tends to present more of, well, reality. For instance, 78% responded that they would give the present government an opportunity to continue.

Thaksin can only wish he could win even 75% of voters in a general election without having to cash out Baht 1 billion, and the Democrat Party has yet to spend a dime (satang). Any campaign manager would kill to start an election drive with a potential base of 64% to 78% popular support.

Be that as it may, high approval ratings have a tendency to disappear at election time. At the end of the day, the election under the current electoral system will be carried by the northeast and these people will vote for whoever they trust to give them the most benefit going forward. Hence, they will vote for Thaksin and his supporters. All this stuff about Cambodia is good to talk about, but meaningless at election time.

Could well be true. The other stuff not being talked about today by us and being swampoed by the Cambodia stuff (intentioanlly?) could cause electoral problems for Thaksin though

In some ways I wish he would come back and be PM. Then over time people would see his isnt the democrat or pro-poor person he claims to be and before Thailand can move on people need to see that. Ditto in many others too

Yeah, as again we've seen from September to November, a few months in politics and government is a lifetime of activity and developments. Bush the father was sky high in the polling after the 1991 Gulf War, scaring off most serious challengers to his re-election bid but within 18 months had lost to the obscure governor of Arkansas, a guy named Bill Clinton. Abhisit and his party are far from home free, and surveys aren't votes, especially in such a place as this where money lubricates the electoral machinery.

The loud bang in the distance is the sound of Thaksin again shooting himself in the first foot he'd already shot last week........somebody's got to talk to the guy and take his most dangerous toys away from him. As has been pointed out, the many Thais found by the surveys to be uncertain of Thaksin's statements in the Times is a red flag to him and a green light to Abhisit. Fortunately for all, no one can take away Thaksin's lame brain or mouth, which is good because Thaksin back in power would be doomsday for Thai democracy and freedom. That's what I find most objectionable about him.

[brahmburgers]

At the end of the day, the election under the current electoral system will be carried by the northeast and these people will vote for whoever they trust to give them the most benefit going forward. Hence, they will vote for Thaksin and his supporters.

The northeast, a.k.a. Issan has played prominently in recent elections. That's because they voted pretty much as a block, so their influence was heavy. What they've done in recent years may not be what they do in upcoming years. Such things change.

Perhaps money won't as easily get results in subsequent elections, as it has in recent elections.

Possibly, enough voters will take the few hundred baht and then go ahead and vote as they please, which will quickly defuse the significance of pay-for-votes. One key factor in that scenario would be truly private voting scenario. Indeed, it would behoove Abhisit's people to do all he can to ensure 100% private voting booths for future elections. If it's not 100% private, then vote buyers can punish those who broke their promises (to vote for whom they were paid to vote for).

You say, "the northeast and these people will vote for whoever they trust to give them the most benefit going forward."

I would exchange he phrase 'most benefit' for 'most money.'

If you took the money factor away from Thaksin, he would suddenly be no more significant that your local parking lot attendant. He knows the 'promise money' button works, not just with Issan farmers, but also with gaining admiration from leaders of small countries worldwide. Whether he delivers is immaterial. All that matters is using such promises to further his lust for power and insatiable craving for more money for himself and his family.

Edited November 13, 2009 by brahmburgers

[hammered]

At the end of the day, the election under the current electoral system will be carried by the northeast and these people will vote for whoever they trust to give them the most benefit going forward. Hence, they will vote for Thaksin and his supporters.

The northeast, a.k.a. Issan has played prominently in recent elections. That's because they voted pretty much as a block, so their influence was heavy. What they've done in recent years may not be what they do in upcoming years. Such things change.

Perhaps money won't as easily get results in subsequent elections, as it has in recent elections.

Possibly, enough voters will take the few hundred baht and then go ahead and vote as they please, which will quickly defuse the significance of pay-for-votes. One key factor in that scenario would be truly private voting scenario. Indeed, it would behoove Abhisit's people to do all he can to ensure 100% private voting booths for future elections. If it's not 100% private, then vote buyers can punish those who broke their promises (to vote for whom they were paid to vote for).

You say, "the northeast and these people will vote for whoever they trust to give them the most benefit going forward."

I would exchange he phrase 'most benefit' for 'most money.'

If you took the money factor away from Thaksin, he would suddenly be no more significant that your local parking lot attendant. He knows the 'promise money' button works, not just with Issan farmers, but also with gaining admiration from leaders of small countries worldwide. Whether he delivers is immaterial. All that matters is using such promises to further his lust for power and insatiable craving for more money for himself and his family.

While thinking that money does have its role in Thai politics especially for indusing the kind of MP who would win whetver party he (and nearly all are men) stood for, I persoanlly believe that Thaksin is liked quite extensively in parts of the rural areas and his popularity there should not be underestimated. At best the government may sow some doubt bu tthey arent going to rush out and vote Dem in the Isaan (a few up north may do). The governments only hope in the Isaan is Newin or defections of power brokers. The defections dont seem to be coming. OK so Thai gossip tells us there is a red group that has defected to the PAD in the last few days but that could well be like 5 taxi drivers and overated. Newin may also have his own game and could swop sides.

Thaksin will continue to be a force in Thai politics. That cannot be denied. The problem is that while everyone concentrates on him whether they love or loathe him Thai democracy will not move ahead.

[brahmburgers]

At the end of the day, the election under the current electoral system will be carried by the northeast and these people will vote for whoever they trust to give them the most benefit going forward. Hence, they will vote for Thaksin and his supporters.

The northeast, a.k.a. Issan has played prominently in recent elections. That's because they voted pretty much as a block, so their influence was heavy. What they've done in recent years may not be what they do in upcoming years. Such things change.

Perhaps money won't as easily get results in subsequent elections, as it has in recent elections.

Possibly, enough voters will take the few hundred baht and then go ahead and vote as they please, which will quickly defuse the significance of pay-for-votes. One key factor in that scenario would be truly private voting scenario. Indeed, it would behoove Abhisit's people to do all he can to ensure 100% private voting booths for future elections. If it's not 100% private, then vote buyers can punish those who broke their promises (to vote for whom they were paid to vote for).

You say, "the northeast and these people will vote for whoever they trust to give them the most benefit going forward."

I would exchange he phrase 'most benefit' for 'most money.'

If you took the money factor away from Thaksin, he would suddenly be no more significant that your local parking lot attendant. He knows the 'promise money' button works, not just with Issan farmers, but also with gaining admiration from leaders of small countries worldwide. Whether he delivers is immaterial. All that matters is using such promises to further his lust for power and insatiable craving for more money for himself and his family.

The governments only hope in the Isaan is Newin or defections of power brokers.

Newin is almost scarier than Thaksin. At least Thaksin has policy statements, however flawed they may be. Newin, on the other hand, seems to lurk in shadows, only conversing with insider power brokers. If he stands for anything, other than pure power politics, then I haven't seen/heard of it.

I think we'll be hearing and seeing a lot more about Newin in the future - to Thailand's detriment.