Prime Minister Abhisit Opposed To Amnesty For Thaksin

[animatic]

One can understand how and why the middle class, predicated on their middle class values of democracy, education, economic opportunity, rewards for sincere efforts to self improve, felt separated and alienated from Thaksin's focus on the agrarian poor to the utter dismissal of the concerns, values and priorities of the rising and increasing middle class.

Had Thaksin not demolished democracy, had Thaksin not redistributed the middle class's hard earned wealth willy nilly without any consideration or compensatory offerings to the middle class, perhaps the middle class would not have responded so well to a clown such as Sondhi, or to the coup.

That's the standard PAD tag line although it's ironic that the middle class values you encapsulate were wrapped up in a quasi-fascist, racist, intolerant, undemocratic package.I'm afraid your proposition is unsustainable and in fact the middle class would have prospered under a Thaksin banner - do you really believe an uber capitalist espoused a redistributive socialism? Many decent middle class people were genuinely shocked by facets of Thaksin's rule but the underlying fear was that of greater political and economic influence of the Thai people as a whole.Over and above this a fearful and greedy elite fed the middle class indignation.But when the PAD attack dog had served its purpose or perhaps showed signs of independence, it was swiftly marginalised.

Thaksin was right that the middle classes would have to pay more attention to the majority, a policy continued by the present government.And why on earth should there be compensatory offerings to the middle class.They have had a very good run and will continue in their largely Chinese tradition to prosper, but they hold no veto power any more and ultimately the majority (with suitable checks an balances) will call the shots.Get used to it.

There was and remains a case for giving the majority a fairer deal, a process that took place in Europe decades ago.Are you one of those that feel Thais shouldn't have such a deal?

Ah yes, someone disagrees, and so they are PAD through and through.

Not so, but why let that get in the way of a good pro Thaksin rant.

You do use your occasionally elegant prose and hints at scholarship to try and turn intolerance on it's head,

but in the end the argument still comes down to supporting the person who caused more harm than good,

and resting your invalid aclaim on ideas that didn't work then, and are still causing problems now.

But heck it MUST be ALL PAD's fault, Thaksin is a demi-god of rights of the poor and fairness for all.

Yes the middle classes who are so recently raised from the lower classes would truly be thrilled to death,

watching Thaksin take from them and slowly push them back down, in exchange for creating a lower class

fully ready and trained up to loath them for their industriousness.

Thaksin hasn't raised the lower classes, he just used modern communications, and the super-biased control of it,

to create a political machine that was easier to manipulate than the middle classes,

and not coincidentally had more voting power when harnessed.

But those lower classes essentially traded one elite for another.

A newer elite in sheep's clothing, but with, no scruples, bigger teeth and a greater hunger.

The 1st was entrenched in age old ways, but at least was consistent and did as expected,

while gradually changing. The newer Thaksin-Elite was even more rapacious, but paid some

small attentions towards the under-clases, but solely for reasons of manipulation.

A faux take on socialism, and redistribution of wealth:

take from the middle classes to feed the poor a few more crumbs,

but with much greater trumpeting of this fact.

Not the classic Marxian otheoruy of take from the rich to feed the nation egalitarian.

In reality the Thaksin cronies were just as disparaging in actions towards the lower

classes as the old guard. But most cynically used different window dressing.

Yes the Uber-Capitalist espoused socialism,

as a tool to hide his actual proto-facism and capitalist aggressiveness.

He hid his intentions in a cloak of populism, but that could only stay hidden for a time,

he needed to take control of more of socielties facets before the average Somchai

got wind of his deception's. In that need to gain all the reins he over-reached

and fell from Olympus lofty heights,and has never lost his lust foir those perches of power.

So how does he care for the little people, he can sacrifice some little people to get back to the top.

By telling them his win is their win, and he will fix everything for them, it's ALL for THEM.

He is as cynical a man as exists. But don't let that stop your more good times for Thaksin rants.

[Tenchu]

In that need to gain all the reins he over-reached

and fell from Olympus lofty heights,and has never lost his lust foir those perches of power.

So how does he care for the little people,

Reading my post before, you'll see he cares for the little people because they are the ones who'll vote for him.

More so, how does an idealist (Abhisit) care for those with differing opinions to his own? How does he care for the little people when they want something different than him? Who is the better democrat?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Tenchu

[way2muchcoffee]

In that need to gain all the reins he over-reached

and fell from Olympus lofty heights,and has never lost his lust foir those perches of power.

So how does he care for the little people,

Reading my post before, you'll see he cares for the little people because they are the ones who'll vote for him.

You failed to answer the question. The question was 'how did he care for the little people?', not 'why did he care for their votes'.

Edited January 10, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Dustybin]

In that need to gain all the reins he over-reached

and fell from Olympus lofty heights,and has never lost his lust foir those perches of power.

So how does he care for the little people,

Reading my post before, you'll see he cares for the little people because they are the ones who'll vote for him.

You failed to answer the question. The question was 'how did he care for the little people?', not 'why did he care for their votes'.

Looks to me like he cared for the little people by giving them a vote and getting them to use it.

Something the current government want to take away.

[RegularReader]

In that need to gain all the reins he over-reached

and fell from Olympus lofty heights,and has never lost his lust foir those perches of power.

So how does he care for the little people,

Reading my post before, you'll see he cares for the little people because they are the ones who'll vote for him.

You failed to answer the question. The question was 'how did he care for the little people?', not 'why did he care for their votes'.

Looks to me like he cared for the little people by giving them a vote and getting them to use it.

Something the current government want to take away.

The "little people" as you condesendingly call the the electorate already had the vote. He was very clever in getting the local puu yais to "influence" that "free vote". But more, a large majority of the people saw more benefit than harm, in voting for Thaksin/TRT/PPP etc., and voted accordingly.

The current government has given no indication it wants to change the voting process - although I am sure they would like to be able to "influence" the puu yais where neccessary, as well as, the people who are more independant with their thinking, to turn their vote into the winning one.

The PAD backed party might want to "reduce" the power of "one person, one vote" - but they are not the government.

Get your facts right.

Edited January 10, 2010 by RegularReader

[animatic]

Quoting out of context with the original above,

doesn't make your points well, it only partly answers

part of the question.

It never addressed the cynicism a bit.

The majority of the world is little people, as opposed to those who are big wheels,

self appointed big deals, movers and shakers and bigger than life.

ie

the simple average human being,

not those who seek to aggrandize themselves for ego, power and profit.

[Publicus]

In that need to gain all the reins he over-reached

and fell from Olympus lofty heights,and has never lost his lust foir those perches of power.

So how does he care for the little people,

Reading my post before, you'll see he cares for the little people because they are the ones who'll vote for him.

More so, how does an idealist (Abhisit) care for those with differing opinions to his own? How does he care for the little people when they want something different than him? Who is the better democrat?

Is Aung San Suu Kyi an idealist? Mandella? deKlerk? Havel? Walesa? Bishop Desmond Tutu?  Are these great leaders and others silly idealists?

They are Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. Suu Kyi next door in Burma. Idealists? All are practical and realistic people who devised and innovated ways out of complex and contradictory dilemmas. 

When and where is Thailand's Nobel Peace Laureate? Would it be Thaksin whom you espouse to be the 'democrat' or Abhisit whom you summarily dismiss as an idealist?

It is neither, nor is there anyone in Thailand who could approach serious consideration to be a Nobel Peace Laureate. Thaland hasn't any idealists and few democrats. Neither has Thailand the pragmatists other cultures can and have produced in moments of crisis and transformation. 

In Thailand there are only the old dogmas and their decrepit verities or the new totalitarian/authoritarian, equally corrupt, democrats. The choice is between two evils, not the arrogant and inept idealists or the new corporatist 'democrats'.

[Publicus]

Don't American Presidents over-rule the courts and give pardons to people.

So that must set a precedent in democracies.

Mostly only to their friends, but then the other side pardon their pals..

US presidents have the sole and exclusive right to grant a pardon or an amnesty, the former of course being for an individual, the latter for a group or class of individuals.

US presidents also are subject to removal from office "for high crimes or other misdemeanors" in addition to being subject to the electorate. Richard Nixon resigned rather than face and accept the certainty that the Congress would impeach and convict him, thus removing him from office. His unelected but constitutionally chosen successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned Nixon "for any crimes he committed or may have committed" against the United States, after which Ford promptly lost the next election.

In Thailand Thaksin decimated and raped the checks and balances, balance of powers provisions of the 1997 landmark constitution and purchased a parliament that could neither censure nor gather up a vote of no confidence. So once again Thailand removed its outlaw leader by the usual, traditional, predictable extraconstitutional (outlaw) means. The institutional answer to wrongs by Thai governments is the institution of the army, the military. Two wrongs however don't make a right, which is the endless 'answer' or 'solution' in the LOS. So many wrongs have been committed to make a 'right' over such a long period of time that the tangled web of contradictions long ago became impossible to unweave or unwind.

So the chaos continues.   

[animatic]

I can add that in USA States, crimes of state statue can also be pardoned by Governors.

And they are also subject to voter recall if they think the decision a poor one.

And yes this is but ONE of the Checks and Balances still in effect in USA,

and similar more recently re-installed with apparently more teeth in Thailand.

Sucj checks and balances been one of the main differences between 1997 and 2007 constitutions

and the ones most in dispute with opposition parties at this time.