Thaksin To Set Up Govt In Exile If Coup Staged

[mca]

You say that Samak et al weren't democraticaly elected but to prove that statement you would need to show evidence that the majority of the majority of people who elected them had been bought and I doubt that you could do that or in fact that it is true.

And it begs the question would the people who's votes were bought have voted differently anyhow if money never came into the equation?

" Wouldn't it be highly unlikely that the masses of " uneducated/ricefarmers/red shirts/insert your own stereotype here " voters would suddenly think " Thaksin's not giving me any cash. The Dems aren't giving me any cash. fuc_k it I might as well vote for the other lot for some weird reason. "

And we conveniently forget that not every TRT/PPP voter worked in the rice paddies with his or her hand out for 500 baht and a free t-shirt.

Some of the folks in my village who voted TRT/PPP were a bank manager, a 100k baht a month engineer for Chevron and a headteacher at one of the biggest high schools in KK.

Now unless the immediate vicinity of where I live is some strange aberration and we spread that out over Isaan there'll be quite a few people who voted red because they wanted to.

Sure there's an awful lot of people round my way whose life looks like it came straight from a Luk Tung VCD.

But there's an awful lot of people who don't too.

[steveromagnino]

There is only one instance where everybody is sure that massive vote buying took place and that was when the Elite/Military and the Democrat Party bought Newin Chitbob and forty Phue Thai party MPs. How many millions of votes did those forty MPs represent and how many millions of baht were they bought for? Or do you think that they were bought for Baht 200 each?

I think you overlook that buying candidates has been standard practice for many years, hence why factions would switch from being pro this side, to pro that side etc etc and swing with the wind; Banharn probably the most expert at that in switching sides. In fact for all the claims of kit mai tum mai, TRT came into power with an unprecedented budget to build a set of godfather factions alongside genuine campaigning with young turks in the cities (well the first time around anyhow, they weren't successful by the second outing) plus an actual electoral manifesto of things they planned to do (the first time around only), subsequent PPP/TRT electioneering was based on refering to the first time set of new ideas; a new idea in itself to talk about the new ideas. The vote buying of end voters....well it is well documented that the budgets shot up with the TRT entrance into politics but I am not really sure that this was the secret to their electoral success, at least not in the sense of guys wandering around with a wad of 100s.

So in terms of vote buying, there are two approaches;

1)buy the end voters off (illegal) or

2a) create a new candidate (expensive unless they are famous) or

2b) persuade a candidate to switch sides or stand for you for a given price, which the candidate could use to get votes or shore up support (legal).

The only issue with buying candidates from other sides is the risk they will change sides again on you (the Teddy Sheringham approach to club allegiance) and with the 90 day period of the 1997 constitution, that's why TRT called elections with less than 90 days, to avoid the exodus problem that might occur if candidates were able to switch teams easily - think of it is as a transfer period in EPL, TRT made sure their players eligible to be released just after the transfer period had finished; this is why Sanoh in 2005 I think it was described being part of TRT as being like a slave, and why apparently people in his constituency would vomit at the mere mention of Thaksin. Subsequently, he is now a friend of Thaksin (pee nong gun). THAT'S money well spent. Legally. Sort of. And also why the red shirts haven't gone after the Alpine Golf Course issue in talking of double standards. Which is one of those ironic double standards in itself. But I digress.

Generally, if the party pays to a faction or a candidate that is well known - say Sam Yuranan - for that investment in the candidate, the candidate would then be expected to toe the party line, and to generally wait in line for their skim. This approach is partly why it is so hard to see decent young turks coming into power on either side of the house, outside of BKK. In the case of Sam, let's assume, for argument's sake, that he needs say 50mb personal payment to him to become a TRT candidate and stop that TV stuff...but in return TRT pays less to get him elected as he just walks around Din daeng and the shop owners say WOW a DARA in our neighbourhood...i must vote for him! Less billboards, less banners, less ads needed; he sweeps the seat, and then does a wonderful job of masterful inactivity, thus depriving the opposition of a potential seat/censure vote in the house, and also ensuring that his masters can get on with their busy jobs. Plus possibly delivering the odd contact to a some hot dara action perhaps. One can dream, even when one is as ugly and repulsive as some of the past government officials with a suite at the Conrad and a hankering for some hot channel 3/7 live movie action, with Sam all roads lead to a nice suite in the Conrad with a starlet. Maybe. Although Sam himself, it is said, would be more interested in the stars of the back half of Image than the stars on the cover.

And lest it be said Dems are the only ones vote buying in BKK.....Chalerm's base is on the other side of the river in BKK. Pimol Srivikorn TRT used to be in Bangkapi. No doubt there are candidates who try their luck with direct investment strategies in BKK and I don't wish to cast aspersions on good people like Chalerm whose son is widely respected as Mr Happy Toilet and son number 2 for being able to serve 1 year for alledgely murdering a cop, running, then being found not guilty when all the witnesses didn't want to testify no more, or Pimol, one of the few TRT candidates who couldn't hold their seat in 2006 despite standing unopposed.

I don't know anyone that earns 50,000b+ that would take 100b to vote for someone, so really it isn't worth it so much in the big cities to adopt this approach; better as a party to choose a worthwhile candidate who presses the flesh and talks themselves up, does something positive and has some results to boast about. Kind of like....democra...demcara...what is that Dem word that people use to describe someone who represents the people? Of course, BKK gets its share of deadbeats as well, proof that THailand really is a democracy since that's one sign of a goodun, when you get some knobs in power too. If Italy can have a pornstar, then we deserve some twits here too.

Alledgedly, voter blocks such as gamblers, police, military, farmers, villagers, unions etc - can be purchased by speaking to the leaders and promising them stuff (sometimes legal, sometimes illegal). Taxis aren't a bad group to have on your side; media also. Some party should try to get control of these influencer groups, that would definitely pay off. I am sure of it Ted. I bet no one thought of that before. Advertising on free buses is another good one. Use government money to buy votes. Again, I bet no one has ever done that.

As for knowing who votes for what, you need to spend time in the provinces on the night of the howling dogs. Deals are done and often payouts occur on both sides. There are ways in certain areas for the canvassers to know WHO voted which way, or the belief from the money receipients that this information can be found out....therefore people tend to vote as agreed ahead of time but not always. My own belief is it is money poorly spent; people would have voted that way anyhow, and this is like a reward for doing so.

Personally, I resent the idea that the red shirt voters are a bunch of moronic paid off twits. I don't doubt that there are morons paid off amongst them, particularly at the top, but there are many who are fed up with being ignored for years; they have perceived that they were given opportunities that they now believe they will only get if Thaksin is somehow involved with their lives. I believe there will always be a group of voters who think this way; and some are very rich; the majority based on past voting are poor and tend to be the poor from the North and Northeast. They have their right to their say just as everyone else has a right to theirs. If there was no budget, I think what you would find is that the red shirt candidates would change very drastically; Chalerm and his ilk go to where the cash is; not from any ideology. And THIS is why the government would change; there would be no PT without the cashflow; it is the cashflow, not any ideology, that holds together TRT/PPP/PT and other factional parties. Which is why they can be broken so easily.

In fact, my greatest hope is that there WOULD be a block of rural voters who COULD get a group of MPs in to genuinely represent their interests. HOwever, to do that would require beating the godfather system, which I think most people accept is very very difficult; possible to replace one regional godfather with another, but almost impossible to replace with an independent non connected young turk...simply because you need budgets, manpower, 'muscle' and support from the local employers, govt and so on to win a provincial seat.

And of course bigger budgets will beat smaller budgets; you can just sledgehammer your way to victory with media control, billboard campaigns etc. Photogeneic and well spoken candidates (or posturing strongmen in the provinces) reduces that amount of cash potentially to zero in the provinces.

I have no idea where you got this proof of this massive buyout for Newin Chitbob (sic); I presume you are referring to the fact that they got an unprecedented number of cabinet seats....in exactly the same way Banharn switched sides in the 2007 election (having promised to stand by the Dems) in order to get cabinet 'influence'? That's perfectly legal, and this is what the next election will depend on because PT (the 'Thaksin' party) is not going to get more than they did in 2007 and most likely considerably less; therefore either side will have to woo (you know, to pick up sluts in the bar approach) their bedfellows with cabinet seats and so on. I presume when PT did that to become a government it's legal, but when others do it then it's not?

As far as I am concerned, leaving a party that openly cheated in the election thinking they would have wound the constitution back in time is not exactly an act of treason. It's self preservation. And that's what the provincial MPs are good at. Some city MPs aren't bad either. To edit an old Thai saying, if you see a rural MP coming at you at the same time as a snake covered in baby oil, then make sure you try to grab the snake; it is a lot easier to grab a slippery snake, than it is to grab a rural MP.

And BTW, much as I have enjoyed your writing, if you do wish to make statements unsupported by identified facts in your writings, then you might like to bear in mind that the royal 'everybody' includes me, and a lot of others who may not agree with your statements of 'fact' and 'everybody'.

Edited January 26, 2010 by steveromagnino

[animatic]

Well the Dem 19 man Executive Committee just voted to NOT back charter changes.

Lets see which way Banharn flips this time.

I think Newin wants more time he has people on the inside now,

and doesn't want to go up against PTP while Thaksin still has some sort of war chest,

And not before he is fully able to stock up his own and not befor PTP goes down

with a violent Reds with Thaksin last stand for his cash...

especially AFTER he loses it... cause losing the money will make him 'lose it' in general for a spell.

Banharn is much shorter viewing in time frame.

What can I get NOW or force them to give me soon.

[otherstuff1957]

How will the voters vote in the next election? I don't know and, quite frankly, I don't think that anyone else does. Here is how they voted by province in the last election:

The north and northeast are mostly, not not solidly red. I suspect that Thaksin's antics in Cambodia may cost him a red province or two in central Thailand.

[RegularReader]

if there's an election in the near future and Phue Thai are elected with a working majority, as is very, very likely

Anyone who claims to know how the Thai population would vote at the next election is very, very likely to be speaking unsubstaniated nonsense based simply on their own personal preferences - otherwise known as wishful thinking.

Well said Rialex.

To the posters who picked up on my ignorance of the British system, I presume they are from there, or at least have a more thorough knowledge of the workings of government there, than I do?

I accept the premise, a significant number voted the way they did, because they wanted Thaksin back.

There is also a point in saying, changing sides in the manner the BJT did, is unethical - it would be considered the same in my home country, as well. But, when this whole rag bag of politics, is so full of low ethical standards by all sides, doing the "right thing", gets little attention - by all sides, either. It's somewhat like playing a football game and seeing what you can get away with, behind the referee's back. If he doesn't see it, it must be okay...or an "honest mistake" ?

The unsubstanciated nonsense that you refer to is in fact demographic fact i.e. 30% of the Thai population live in Issan and the vast majority of people in Issan would vote for Phue Thai. Also a very large percentage of the Thai population live in the North and again the vast majority of them would vote for Phue Thai. If you add these percentages together with the percentage of Phue Thai supporters in other parts of Thailand Phue Thai will win the next election. This is why Abhisit can't call an election because he knows he would lose. If you doubt that look back at the results of the last elections.

It is a nice piece of understatement to call the actions of Bhumjaithai unethical but whatever you call them the majority of voters in Thailand believe that they have been robbed of their votes three times and the longer Abhisit stays in power the more their resentment will grow. His coalition government is looking shaky

and I think that he will have to call an election soon - as an example look at what is happening with Constitution amendment. Abhisit does not want to change the Constitution but he is being told by Bhumjaithai that he has to.

There are now two bad scenarios laying ahead. a) Abhisit doesn't call an election and resentment boils over into a violent uprising Abhisit calls an election and loses and the Military stages a coup and again there is a violent uprising which would be supported by international oppinion.

Please read

I might not agree with your opinions, but I am not going to debate you on them and I made no mention of them either.

Steveromagnino might be worth a debate, though ?

However, you seem to be wanting to pick a fight with me, when I have no general comments about your facts and figures.

I never said your comments or anything about your post was "unsubstanciated nonsense" - please go back and read it again.

Edited January 26, 2010 by RegularReader

[animatic]

So 50% of voters think they were robbed of their votes,

yet Thaksin's PPP ONLY won a LARGER MINORITY last time,

and most all of those MP's are still in parliament so the peoples votes

are still represented in the government. But not reflected in the cabinet.

Newins region of the country still has full representation they can't complain.

So it's only those pols who think they should be in the cabinet that have a grievance.

So is Newin less ethical than Banharn or Sanoh for examples?

How about Chalerm... Newin more or less ethincal?

BuhmJai just lost getting the charter through the Dems they voted no tonight.

SO lets see how ethical the next few weeks get.

A party that only won 30% + or - of the electorate can NOT claim a majority of the voters got robbed,

when they NEVER had a majority in the last 8 years, period.

[termad]

There is only one instance where everybody is sure that massive vote buying took place and that was when the Elite/Military and the Democrat Party bought Newin Chitbob and forty Phue Thai party MPs. How many millions of votes did those forty MPs represent and how many millions of baht were they bought for? Or do you think that they were bought for Baht 200 each?

I think you overlook that buying candidates has been standard practice for many years, hence why factions would switch from being pro this side, to pro that side etc etc and swing with the wind; Banharn probably the most expert at that in switching sides. In fact for all the claims of kit mai tum mai, TRT came into power with an unprecedented budget to build a set of godfather factions alongside genuine campaigning with young turks in the cities (well the first time around anyhow, they weren't successful by the second outing) plus an actual electoral manifesto of things they planned to do (the first time around only), and supposedly all parties like to engage in the more typical vote control which to be honest, is hit and miss, and that's why TRT used the other approach far more second time around they only referred to the first time's manifesto, PPP they also only really referred to the first time around - they didn't quite get the idea of changing or coming up with new ideas; their new idea the later times was to refer to the time they had a new idea; equally effective and a lot less costly in terms of cabinet seats).

So in terms of vote buying, there really are only two approaches; buy the end voters off (illegal) or create a new candidate (expensive unless they are famous) or persuade a candidate to switch sides or stand for you for a given price, which the candidate could use to get votes or shore up support (legal). The only issue with buying candidates from other sides is the risk they will change sides again on you (the Teddy Sheringham approach to club allegiance) and with the 90 day period of the 1997 constitution, that's why TRT called elections with less than 90 days, to avoid the exodus problem that might occur if candidates were able to switch teams easily - think of it is as a transfer period in EPL, TRT made sure their players eligible to be released just after the transfer period had finished; this is why Sanoh in 2005 I think it was described being part of TRT as being like a slave, and why apparently people in his constituency would vomit at the mere mention of Thaksin. Subsequently, he is now a friend of Thaksin (pee nong gun). THAT'S money well spent. Legally. And also why the red shirts haven't gone after the Alpine GOlf Course issue in talking of double standards. Which is one of those ironic double standards in itself. But I digress.

Generally, if the party pays to a faction or a candidate that is well known - say Sam Yuranan - for that investment in the candidate, the candidate would then be expected to toe the party line, and to generally wait in line for their skim. This approach is partly why it is so hard to see decent young turks coming into power on either side of the house, outside of BKK. In the case of Sam, let's assume, for argument's sake, that he needs say 50mb to become a TRT candidate...but in return TRT pays less to get him elected as he just walks around Din daeng and the shop owners say WOW a DARA in our neighbourhood...i must vote for him! Less billboards, less banners, less ads needed; he sweeps the seat, and then does a wonderful job of masterful inactivity, thus depriving the opposition of a potential seat/censure vote in the house, and also ensuring that his masters can get on with their busy jobs. Plus possibly delivering the odd contact to a some hot dara action perhaps. One can dream, even when one is as ugly and repulsive as some of the past government officials with a suite at the Conrad and a hankering for some hot channel 3/7 live movie action.

And lest it be said Dems are vote buying in BKK.....Chalerm's base is on the other side of the river in BKK. Pimol Srivikorn used to be in Bangkapi. No doubt there are candidates who try their luck with direct investment strategies in BKK; I don't know anyone that earns 20,000b+ that would take 100b to vote for someone, so really it isn't worth it so much in the big cities to adopt this approach; better as a party to choose a worthwhile candidate who presses the flesh and talks themselves up, does something positive and has some results to boast about. Kind of like....democra...demcara...what is that Dem word that people use to describe someone who represents the people? Of course, BKK gets its share of deadbeats as well, proof that THailand really is a democracy since that's one sign of a goodun, when you get some knobs in power too. If Italy can have a pornstar, then we deserve some twits here too.

Alledgedly, voter blocks such as gamblers, police, military, farmers, villagers, unions etc - can be purchased by speaking to the leaders and promising them stuff (sometimes legal, sometimes illegal). Taxis aren't a bad group to have on your side; media also. Some party should try to get control of these influencer groups, that would definitely pay off. I am sure of it Ted. I bet no one thought of that before. Advertising on free buses is another good one. Use government money to buy votes.

As for knowing who votes for what, you need to spend time in the provinces on the night of the howling dogs. Deals are done and often payouts occur on both sides. There are ways in certain areas for the canvassers to know WHO voted which way, or the belief from the money receipients that this information can be found out....therefore people tend to vote as agreed ahead of time but not always. My own belief is it is money poorly spent; people would have voted that way anyhow, and this is like a reward for doing so.

Personally, I resent the idea that the red shirt voters are a bunch of moronic paid off twits. I don't doubt that there are plenty of morons paid off amongst them, particularly at the top, but there are many who are fed up with being ignored for years; somehow they have perceived that from 2001 they were given opportunities that they now believe they will only get if Thaksin is somehow involved with their lives. I believe there will always be a group of voters who think this way; and some are very rich; the majority based on past voting are poor and tend to be the poor from the North and Northeast. They have their right to their say just as everyone else has a right to theirs. If there was no budget, I think what you would find is that the red shirt candidates would change very drastically; Chalerm and his ilk go to where the cash is; not from any ideology.

In fact, my greatest hope is that there WOULD be a block of rural voters who COULD get a group of MPs in to genuinely represent their interests. HOwever, to do that would require beating the godfather system, which I think most people accept is very very difficult; possible to replace one regional godfather with another, but almost impossible to replace with an independent non connected young turk...simply because you need budgets, manpower, 'muscle' and support from the local employers, govt and so on to win a provincial seat.

And of course bigger budgets will beat smaller budgets; you can just sledgehammer your way to victory with media control, billboard campaigns etc. Photogeneic and well spoken candidates (or posturing strongmen in the provinces) reduces that amount of cash potentially to zero in the provinces.

I have no idea where you got this proof of this massive buyout for Newin Chitbob (sic); I presume you are referring to the fact that they got an unprecedented number of cabinet seats....in exactly the same way Banharn switched sides in the 2007 election (having promised to stand by the Dems) in order to get cabinet 'influence'? That's perfectly legal, and this is what the next election will depend on because PT (the 'Thaksin' party) is not going to get more than they did in 2007 and most likely considerably less; therefore either side will have to woo (you know, to pick up sluts in the bar approach) their bedfellows with cabinet seats and so on. I presume when PT did that to become a government it's legal, but when others do it then it's not?

As far as I am concerned, leaving a party that openly cheated in the election thinking they would have wound the constitution back in time is not exactly an act of treason. It's self preservation. And that's what the provincial MPs are good at. Some city MPs aren't bad either. To edit an old Thai saying, if you see a rural MP coming at you at the same time as a snake covered in baby oil, then make sure you try to grab the snake; it is a lot easier to grab a slippery snake, than it is to grab a rural MP.

And BTW, much as I have enjoyed your writing, if you do wish to make statements unsupported by identified facts in your writings, then you might like to bear in mind that the royal 'everybody' includes me, and a lot of others who may not agree with your statements of 'fact' and 'everybody'.

A Thai politician who is elected as an MP is expected to look after his constituents even between elections so if some little farmer is in serious financial trouble and goes to se his MP it's doubtful if he would come away empty handed this is the patronage system that has always existed in Thailand but it could be considered as vote buying. You say that it is possible to buy the end voters can you explain how that is possible? If I give farmer Nok 200 Baht to vote for me how do I know that he will? I can't look over his shoulder to make sure that he does so because there are now international observers.

You could say that Thaksin bought the Rural vote by going directly to them (which nobody had done before) and promising to help them which he did. e.g.OTOP, 30 Baht Hospital fee etc. The thing is he kept his promises and because of that he still has their loyalty.

I don't understand why you say the Red Shirts haven't gone after the Alpine golf course scandal because they have at least that's what was in my newspapers.

It is not the same thing for a political party to switch sides as it is for a group of forty MPs to dump the people who elected them and form a completely new party.

As to how much money Newin and his boys received from the military I think that you must be one of the few people in Thailand who believe that there wasn't large sums of money involved.

You know what...... I'm looking at your long closely typed paragraphs full of irrelavant folksy sayings and stories and I can't be bothered to write any more

Edited January 26, 2010 by termad

[termad]

I want to see this grown man to cry when the verdict comes and he loses a lot of money

when I saw a speach of Khun Thaksin yesterday he looked already like near crying and breaking into tears.

All he wants is BACK TO THE MONEY and every day counts. Atm other people filling their pockets. Doesnt matter, at least he did something

in Thailand for what many Thais liked him.....what Abhisit did since he came to power ????????????????? RIGHT, NOTHING!!!!!!!

Thaksin did nothing either. It was Abhisit who bought legally more fire and rescue equipment for the poor provinces as well as spend more than a 1 billion baht on job training and education for the poor provinces as well while Thaksin lined his pockets from subway construction and bts delays while Abhisit has them opening up on schedule while under Thaksin they were delayed. Thaksin publicly denied that 9/11 attacks ever happened and not one Thai baht or condolence was made from his government to the U.S. Under Thaksin, thai education went from one of the best in se asia to dead last. Thaksin used martial law to murder over 10,000 "drug dealers" while he had business interests with North Korean, Burmese drug mafia. he wanted to control the market himselves.

Are you on medication?

[animatic]

When the TRT suborned Election Commission was removed and jailed,

the following E.C. quickly banned telephones with cameras and cameras,

in the voting booths, because people were being paid and then told to

carry the recording device into the voting both, hold a dated record next to their vote

and take a picture as PROOF that they took the money and voted as directed.

Edited January 26, 2010 by animatic

[Thai at Heart]

Thaksin did nothing either. It was Abhisit who bought legally more fire and rescue equipment for the poor provinces as well as spend more than a 1 billion baht on job training and education for the poor provinces as well while Thaksin lined his pockets from subway construction and bts delays while Abhisit has them opening up on schedule while under Thaksin they were delayed. Thaksin publicly denied that 9/11 attacks ever happened and not one Thai baht or condolence was made from his government to the U.S. Under Thaksin, thai education went from one of the best in se asia to dead last. Thaksin used martial law to murder over 10,000 "drug dealers" while he had business interests with North Korean, Burmese drug mafia. he wanted to control the market himselves.

Now of all the things that Thaksin may have been accused of taking

"one of the best" education systems "in se asia to dead last"

is grossly untrue, since patently that the Thai education system has ever been classed as "one of the best" at anything.

I know daddy told it you was so, but believe me it isn't ,and never was, true. You'll get over it.

Don't be disheartened anyway, Thailand at least sits above Burma and Laos in the rankings I am sure.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[Nuchanart]

<br />Thaksin has been Thailands best Prime Minister by a country mile, do you really think the current government is squeaky clean? They only got in through the back door and were certainly not elected.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

To me, Mark govt is clean enough. Cleaner than Thaksin's anyway. (minus Newin & Banhan)

[CLOD]

<br />Thaksin has been Thailands best Prime Minister by a country mile, do you really think the current government is squeaky clean? They only got in through the back door and were certainly not elected.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

To me, Mark govt is clean enough. Cleaner than Thaksin's anyway. (minus Newin & Banhan)

Evidently not the view of the Human Rights Watch.

[Siripon]

I want to see this grown man to cry when the verdict comes and he loses a lot of money

when I saw a speach of Khun Thaksin yesterday he looked already like near crying and breaking into tears.

All he wants is BACK TO THE MONEY and every day counts. Atm other people filling their pockets. Doesnt matter, at least he did something

in Thailand for what many Thais liked him.....what Abhisit did since he came to power ????????????????? RIGHT, NOTHING!!!!!!!

I know you Thai Visa posters all seem to hate Thaksin for some reason. I for one hate the little smug spineless Oxford boy who has sold himself out to the military and appears to have done nothing in Government except worsen Thailands Human rights record (as reported previously on Thai Visa) I saw him interviewed on TV on Sunday and I just wanted to punch his little smug Super Elite face in, does anyone feel the same?

There's nothing spineless about Apisit, he told Manit to go, incurring the wrath of Pumjaithai and he's just done the same by rejecting the changes to the constitution that would assist vote buying.

He smiles a lot not because he's smug but because he doesn't cling to power, he'd rather do the right thing and risk house dissolution rather than please greedy coalition allies at any price.

That is not spineless but ethical behaviour.

Thailand needs more intelligent, articulate and professional politicians like Apisit.

[animatic]

I know you Thai Visa posters all seem to hate Thaksin for some reason. I for one hate the little smug spineless Oxford boy who has sold himself out to the military and appears to have done nothing in Government except worsen Thailands Human rights record (as reported previously on Thai Visa) I saw him interviewed on TV on Sunday and I just wanted to punch his little smug Super Elite face in, does anyone feel the same?

There's nothing spineless about Apisit, he told Manit to go, incurring the wrath of Pumjaithai and he's just done the same by rejecting the changes to the constitution that would assist vote buying.

He smiles a lot not because he's smug but because he doesn't cling to power, he'd rather do the right thing and risk house dissolution rather than please greedy coalition allies at any price.

That is not spineless but ethical behaviour.

Thailand needs more intelligent, articulate and professional politicians like Apisit.

Hear hear!

Lets not forget the Police chief dabacle too, not 100% settled,

but his guy is IN the job and he certainly stood up to the entrench police interests.

And he stands up to old school Suthep and his coalition tweaking,

or mollifying efforts regularly too.

There is a pretty hardcore group here that dislike or hate Abhisit,

some for logical reasons others seemingly because he looks too good,

is soft spoken and quiet, and NOT an old school political dino.

Or most ludicrously because he is very well educated.

Some sort of FoxNews / BNP biaes' there I suspect.

Edited January 27, 2010 by animatic

[zzaa09]

<br />Thaksin has been Thailands best Prime Minister by a country mile, do you really think the current government is squeaky clean? They only got in through the back door and were certainly not elected.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

To me, Mark govt is clean enough. Cleaner than Thaksin's anyway. (minus Newin & Banhan)

Evidently not the view of the Human Rights Watch.

Consider the source, first. Their model isn't so sterling.

[scorecard]

when I saw a speach of Khun Thaksin yesterday he looked already like near crying and breaking into tears.

There's nothing spineless about Apisit, he told Manit to go, incurring the wrath of Pumjaithai and he's just done the same by rejecting the changes to the constitution that would assist vote buying.

He smiles a lot not because he's smug but because he doesn't cling to power, he'd rather do the right thing and risk house dissolution rather than please greedy coalition allies at any price.

That is not spineless but ethical behaviour.

Thailand needs more intelligent, articulate and professional politicians like Apisit.

Agree, I think PM Abhisit is quite brave to dig his heels in and fight for what ultimately is ehtical and time will eventually show that he (along with Korn) are the team which turned the corner to get Thailand into a new modern civil society.

Don't stop PM Abhisit, hand in there. The more wins he has the more likelihood that many more capable and sincere Thais (and there are many) will come forward to join his team.

[animatic]

Weirdly enough Thakasin may get credit in history for opening the door to political modernization,

both as a new look at the world, and as the obvious reason to replace his old school side.

He took on the world as a business proposition but with dinosaur ethics,

and in doing it like that also made it so obvious that Thailand now need

Intelligent, Respectable, Competent, Honestly leaning leadership.

Without Thaksin before him Abhisit would likely not have stood a chance.

Sondhi was Thaksin's Phi Krasu or doppleganger; (Evil begat by evil to counteract it?),

but Abhisit is his through the looking glass opposite.

[geriatrickid]

PM Abhisit has now been canonized by those that know the "truth". Huzzah. Huzzah, let the children throw flower petals before him as he walks amongst the peasantry.

Oh wait, sorry, he doesn't mingle with the masses does he? Wrong politician. It was that PM overthrown in a military coup that did that.

I'm sure, some of the Hmong children that were deported have great affection in their hearts for PM Abhisit. Perhaps they can draw pictures and send it to the PM's detractors? Assuming of course those children are still alive and that they have access to writing materials. I'm sure PM Abhisit made sure the children were well looked after, since he is such a kind and compassionate man.

[webfact]

3 posts deleted - reason:

6) Not to post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

sorry for the 2 innocent bystanders who replied to it. They had to go too

[animatic]

Canonized. how drole, as if sainthood is ever on any politicians list of expectations.

Not ripping him apart is seemingly enough to earn disrespect in some quarters.

No points for good efforts only hard facts and deeds done to someones arbitray benchmark

is the only criteria valuable to some. Well giving it the good cold college try in real world terms,

is not enough for success, it is better than nothing and nothing we have gotten more than enough,

so far from most.

We have an government and it is doing it's job of 'governance'.

Not spending most of it's time trying to get it's puyai reinstated to power.

Thaksin and his ragtag bunch can set up anything they want in name,

but it won't replace what's already on the ground, functioning in tough hands on situations.

Thaksin has nothing much to offer in comparison anymore, except some popularity in 1/3 or less of the populace.

The sooner he is removed from viable power broker status the better for the country.

Because all he can front now is the absolute ineffectual dregs of 2 governing parties,

and sorry Charlie Tuna, that doesn't get the Sunkist approval to run the country.

PPP proved that they couldn't in their time in office, and PTP is no PPP, let alone a TRT.

SO WHERE IS HE GONNA GIT DEM GOVERNMENT MINISTERS FROM????

Oh yeah, the banned 111 TRT guys after he takes over the country

and rolls everything back to his rules, his way.

Edited January 27, 2010 by animatic

[rixalex]

if there's an election in the near future and Phue Thai are elected with a working majority, as is very, very likely

Anyone who claims to know how the Thai population would vote at the next election is very, very likely to be speaking unsubstaniated nonsense based simply on their own personal preferences - otherwise known as wishful thinking.

Well said Rialex.

The unsubstanciated nonsense that you refer to is in fact demographic fact i.e. 30% of the Thai population live in Issan and the vast majority of people in Issan would vote for Phue Thai. Also a very large percentage of the Thai population live in the North and again the vast majority of them would vote for Phue Thai.

Facts require substaniating evidence, do they not? Predicting how the vast majority of people think in a given area and how they would vote at some as yet unspecified time in the future is simply a prediction. It bears no resemblence to a fact in any shape or form.

[Oberkommando]

To me, Mark govt is clean enough. Cleaner than Thaksin's anyway. (minus Newin & Banhan)

So you are saying aside from the very dirty parts of Mark's government it is clean?

Abhist won his Parliamentary chair and is a legitimate Minster of Parliament.

That gives him every right to legally be a Prime Minister.

He needs NO other vote from the people to get that, until his elected term expires.

He was voted in by OTHER legally elected Ministers of Parliament.

They used the typical and legal horse trading for coalition partnerships

and cabinet posts based on their numbers and perceived power.

There is no other criteria that is valid.

You neglect to mention that the "legal horse trading" was done with a banned politician in order to get the necessary majority in order for him to become PM and get the Dems in office.

Unethical? Barely legal? Questionable? You betcha.

The earlier point does stand though, this government doesn't have a mandate from the people. It will have to win a general election to achieve that.

[Oberkommando]

Facts require substaniating evidence, do they not? Predicting how the vast majority of people think in a given area and how they would vote at some as yet unspecified time in the future is simply a prediction. It bears no resemblence to a fact in any shape or form.

In this case they require a general election.

I think you know why we will not get one now or in the near future, and that certainly seems to corroborate the continuing popularity of Thaksinomics, especially in the NE.

[way2muchcoffee]

You neglect to mention that the "legal horse trading" was done with a banned politician in order to get the necessary majority in order for him to become PM and get the Dems in office.

Unethical? Barely legal? Questionable? You betcha.

The earlier point does stand though, this government doesn't have a mandate from the people. It will have to win a general election to achieve that.

Do you not remember that the 'horse trading' involved all sides. It ran right up until the wire, neck and neck. If it had gone the other way, would you still be demanding immediate elections? If not, why not?

Also, is not horse trading a necessary aspect of a coalition government. Remember, the PPP only garnered 36% of the constituency votes compared with 30% for the Dems. And the Dems beat the PPP in proportional voting. That is certainly no clear mandate for any party.

Edited January 27, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Oberkommando]

Do you not remember that the 'horse trading' involved all sides. It ran right up until the wire, neck and neck. If it had gone the other way, would you still be demanding immediate elections? If not, why not?

Also, is not horse trading a necessary aspect of a coalition government. Remember, the PPP only garnered 36% of the constituency votes compared with 30% for the Dems. And the Dems beat the PPP in proportional voting. That is certainly no clear mandate for any party.

Horse trading with banned politicians is never necessary, unless there's no other possible way to win, and it is never ethical.

[way2muchcoffee]

Do you not remember that the 'horse trading' involved all sides. It ran right up until the wire, neck and neck. If it had gone the other way, would you still be demanding immediate elections? If not, why not?

Also, is not horse trading a necessary aspect of a coalition government. Remember, the PPP only garnered 36% of the constituency votes compared with 30% for the Dems. And the Dems beat the PPP in proportional voting. That is certainly no clear mandate for any party.

Horse trading with banned politicians is never necessary, unless there's no other possible way to win, and it is never ethical.

Actually, in this case it was entirely necessary. That banned politician commanded the voting block of MP's who determined the makeup of the coalition government. It could have gone either way. Such is the case when there is a plurality of the vote and coalition governments are necessary.

Edited January 27, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[steveromagnino]

You say that it is possible to buy the end voters can you explain how that is possible? If I give farmer Nok 200 Baht to vote for me how do I know that he will? I can't look over his shoulder to make sure that he does so because there are now international observers.

You could say that Thaksin bought the Rural vote by going directly to them (which nobody had done before) and promising to help them which he did. e.g.OTOP, 30 Baht Hospital fee etc. The thing is he kept his promises and because of that he still has their loyalty.

I don't understand why you say the Red Shirts haven't gone after the Alpine golf course scandal because they have at least that's what was in my newspapers.

It is not the same thing for a political party to switch sides as it is for a group of forty MPs to dump the people who elected them and form a completely new party.

As to how much money Newin and his boys received from the military I think that you must be one of the few people in Thailand who believe that there wasn't large sums of money involved.

You know what...... I'm looking at your long closely typed paragraphs full of irrelavant folksy sayings and stories and I can't be bothered to write any more

Just to point out:

It's well known and has been reported on CNN etc in past elections that payouts of 200b (more and less) were made to secure votes and there are countless stories here of spouses, villagers nearby and others receiving such cash from various parties; that's what is called paying for the end voter to vote the way you want them to. And yes, there are ways to avoid controls which is why past elections have refused to have foreign observers and have restricted media at times in relation to elections; 2001 I think was widely considered to be a rather dirty election; 2004 less so, 2007 less so again (so things are going in the right direction which is good).

BTW OTOP was not directly a brand new Thaksin initative; it was a rework of the royal projects schemes, and there some question as to whether it has been relative to the amount of money spent marketing it; in fact for some villages it has been a negative, with various products copied; the DEP growth rates suggest on average it has grown at sub 5% year on year and while still in place is neither here nor there with regards to many rural voters. 30b healthcare universal healthcare scheme was indeed a great promise and delivered on time. It replaced another universal healthcare scheme introduced already by the democrats so it was hardly the first UH program; initially it was somewhat unworkable; it has since been modified and now actually works.

I do agree though, TRT had 3 key promises in 2001, he delivered on all of them, and that is a vote winner; I don't call it 'buying votes' since it is policy based; popularist to be sure, and puts money in people's pockets, but that's why we elect officials and it is quite legal. Non sustainable but perfectly legal. I believe that this is a very good legacy of TRT; it has forced politicians to become PR agents as well with a platform and policies; however whether this can exist alongside the faction/godfather system is difficult to say.

I presume you are quite aware that this 'rural vote' you refer to does not not have as you claim 'their loyalty' to Thaksin as if that were the case we would have seen 2007 results with PPP sweeping all the rural seats. Which the graph shown earlier clearly shows to not be the case; with all parties failing to secure a majority of any sort, and PPP not particularly strong in central or southern Thailand.

Please post the articles linking the red shirts to Alpine Golf. I've yet to see any; but i openly admit I am not well read. Links please, unless of course you are confused with the mini rally of 2,000 people at another golf course last weekend. Totally different story, different course. In the words of that old Japanese golf joke 'what do you mean, wrong hole?'

As for your 40 MPs dumping their old party and switching sides, coalition govt is like that. Matchimathapathai was dissolved for electoral fraud, and when reformed, some members moved to the Dems side of the house along with the other minority parties (as is their right); Puea Pandin had already officially broken away from PPP in mid 2008 as the Samak government went into free fall (well Suwit left, the rest stayed around a bit longer) so for the life of me I have no clear idea where this number of 40 or their alledged misdeeds of ditching some party came from? You mean breaking from a coalition and crossing the house or something more sinister? I am a little unclear here.

I welcome any post that tells me something I didn't know. Therefore, I look forward to reading about the red shirts rallies and activities relating to protesting against the Alpine Golf Course case, and also further elaboration on the 40 politicians who were bought off by the military; with direct reference to the 40 who are 'newin and his boys' as my maths aren't quite strong enough to keep up with why this adds up to 40.

As for 'buying MPs' of course that is a game that two can play.

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?sec=1&id=3065

As for folk tales and writing too much, if you think I am posting drivel, don't read it :-)

Edited January 27, 2010 by steveromagnino

[ballpoint]

In this case they require a general election.

I think you know why we will not get one now or in the near future, and that certainly seems to corroborate the continuing popularity of Thaksinomics, especially in the NE.

There are a number of reasons why "we" will not get a general election now, or in the near future, not the least of which is there is no legal reason for one. Some more?

-It would be criminal, given the current situation, to stir things up by calling for an election in which no side is able to freely campaign throughout the country. Despite my asking the "elections at all costs" brigade a number of times, I have yet to get any answer as to how elections could be fairly held right now.

-Arguably, the most important legal decision for a number of years will be made public next month. Why destabilise what is already looking like being a difficult time, by dissolving parliament?

-Thanks to good works by an internationally recognised finance minister, the current government have brought the country through, hopefully, the worst of the recession. But it's not over yet. The country doesn't need the turmoil of a dissolved parliament and elections right now.

-If, as we are for ever told here, the PPP would resoundingly win, then what does Abhisit have to gain by calling elections? I personally think we'd end up with roughly the same people in parliament as we currently have, but say the PPP would win. Why should any sitting PM call elections when he's not ready for them?

Now, could anyone please put forward an argument as to why elections are necessary right now, and a method to ensure said elections would be free, fair and the results respected by all sides?

[TAWP]

And how do you know it is "fact" that Abhisit and his coalition will be out the door? What polls are you citing? Thaksin's supporters had their chance in the last election - when they were in power - and they could not get a majority of MP's elected.

Wrong! Thaksin's supporters did get the majority of MPs elected.

No, they did not.

[ballpoint]

Horse trading with banned politicians is never necessary, unless there's no other possible way to win, and it is never ethical.

Oh, the irony! The entire redshirt call for reconciliation is simply an attempt to blackmail the Democrats into "horsetrading" with the ultimate banned politician. We are agreed that it is unnecessary then? And certainly not ethical.