Abhisit

[dobadoy]

Who's gained the most from the talks?

While no one wedded to the color of their shirts will have changed their minds, seems to me the red shirts have given Abhisit a great PR-boost among the vast majority of neutrals. Being reasonable, comprimising and willing to listen are qualities highly valued in this society. I'd imagine Abhisit's electoral prospects have gone way up as a result.

I know there have been a lot of nonsensical comparisons between Abhisit and Obama, but one thing they both should learn: their media personalities are their partys' greatest assets, and the more these guys engage with the public like this the better their stock.

Hiding in the barracks was starting to look disastrous for Abhisit, but the Red shirts wrong-footed themselves big-time by calling him out. Playing to your opponents strengths is always a dumb move.

He didn't answer all the questions though did he?

and at one point he clearly started panicking.

Huh? You must have been watching the ละคร on the wrong channel buddy.

May be.

I guess you watched the entire debate in Thai and understood every word.

ถูกต้อง แล้วคุณล่ะ (ความจริงภรรยาช่วยเหลือให้นิดๆ )

Edited March 29, 2010 by dobadoy

[scorecard]

Well let's see if Abhisit delivers on new elections and dissolves the House. If he does this and everyone accepts results of next elections I think problem solved. Reds Win and thai people win!

Why should he dissolve the house? He is the elected Thai Pm under Thai law. Just because a few thousand People say that he should? Look for the silent majority because they won't be silent for much longer. See today at the Siam BTS most Thai people are sick of this.

Cheers, Rick

Rick ... as much as I agree that a lot are getting sick of a few thousand protestors, there were probably only a few hundred protesting against them at Siam BTS today.

What happened at Siam BTS today?

[dobadoy]

^I agree take the offer.

I've never been much of a successful fortune teller, but I'll have a go:

my guess is the red shirts will give it a day or two, then declare the protest a success for

i. forcing Abhisit out of the barracks

ii. getting the elections brought forward

They'l thank everyone for their sterling efforts at saving the nation and tell them to go home and prepare for the election in 9 months. Of course, just for a bit of extra face-saving, they'll probably make some unreasonable demands along the way about conditions, one or two will be accepted and the rest quietly forgotten. Undoubtedly they will say they are ending it to help the nation recover and for the sake of respect to HRH. But don't forget they won.

This in fact would be their best bet in my opinion at capitalising on the red shirt movement and undoing the enormous PR damage (blood letting, exagerrated claims, and clear incompetence at having any idea how to run the country) over the recent days. They'll probably stand a decent chance of winning, and even getting thaksin's dosh back, if only he could keep his mouth shut and sit tight.

Edited March 29, 2010 by dobadoy

[bendejo]

Reminds me of something I saw recently.

US comedian was sticking it to a political interest that is gaining due to rallies by some Yanks that come off like the redshirts somewhat. He's telling them to call their gov't representatives etc.

"And in case they actually answer just hold the phone up to the television, we'll take it from there."

So, can these redshirt leaders call their leader and let him listen in on the phone, and then he tells them how to respond?

I agree, going up against a career politician in negotiations is something most normal people have the good sense not to do. But I guess spending two weeks addressing throngs of cheering thousands does something to the ego.

[tigerfish]

my 2 satangs worth!

i think it was a silly idea on the governments part to sit down and the start talks. the reds for sure will see it as a sign of weakness, and try and push the issue as hard as they can.

the only problem though, is that i think they are running out of time. what i mean to say is, that as i see it they only have about 12-13 day window to get this matter resolved in their favour.

as soon as the songkran holidays kick in you will not only see a large number of reds that have come down from the north to protest going home for the new year, but also the large amount of people who come to bangkok to work also returning home that side with the red shirts. ie taxi drivers, motorbike taxis, manual workers etc...

both sides know it and if abhisits got any sence he will play a very shrewd game. stall and delay the talks hoping that the fire will eventually fizzle out of the red shirts arguement and support.

Edited March 29, 2010 by tigerfish

[plachon]

Don't forget that the real problems will surface in May when schools start. Most of the red shirts have probably spent all their money and no money for their kids to attend school. Things can get ugly if the gov isn't prepared for this.

What are you talking about? According to whom does this great theory of not money left for people to send their kids to school originate? Or do you mean that most of the Redshirts have spent all thaksin and his cronies' money? Haven't you seen the videos of 500 Baht being handed out to loyal Red supporters? They'll be laughing all the way to the karaoke halls and lottery sellers. If they're not so dumb as to lose it all there, then they should have plenty left to send their kids to school (which is free in any case, just in case you hadn't twigged). And thanks to the Democrats the number of free places in vocational type colleges has expanded. They even give the kids free lunch at many of these colleges. Can't be bad for just turning up. Seems like the present govt haave got it well covered and prepared for all eventualities. Well done the Dems!

[scorecard]

^well returning Khun T dosh to north will make them happy, but since it's from Khun T even more happier. (indirectly through Abhisit) Anyways doesnt work out to much per person if you spread it out. So I think that would back fire and doubt it would be legal nor faire for the other provinces in Thailand. Anyways holding elections early with the stipulation that everyone abide by the results (no protests) is a fair compromise. (9months from now is fine)

The problem with "the stipulation that everyone abide by the results" is that everyone, all 65 million (or voters within that), need to agree, not just the reds and Abhisit.

And what would happen if Abhisit agrees, then the reds win with some obvious cheating (example only!). Can anything be done about the cheating, or the results have to be accepted?

Ofcourse, you say "no cheating", but maybe there is something that is a bit grey (just to bring another colour into it).

Well PM Abhisiit was quite strong about constitution amendments before an election, so here's my suggestions for the amendments:

- Increase the penalties for vote buying to two years jail, 50 million Baht fine and banned for life from any form of direct or indirect political activity, plus the person(s) involved must, by law, be investigated to see whether there's any indication of unusual wealth.

- All parties must state a very specific and detailed manifesto and must describe in detail the results/outcome they would aim to achieve if they were the government.

- People must wait 2 years before they can jump to another party.

- As part of all elections mandatory for all candiates to engage in at least two public debates and with a process whereby anybody can send in anonymous questions and all questions must be answered in depth.

- PM cannot stay in the drivers seat for more than 3 years, and cannot ever have second term as PM.

- PM and/or cabinet members discovered to be involved in corruption after taking up office, 5 years jail, 200million Baht fine, and banned for life from direct or indirect political activity, plus the person(s) involved must, by law, be investigated to see whether there's any indication of unusual wealth.

- Other parliamentarians discovered to be involved in corruption after taking up office, 2 years jail, 50 million Baht fine, and banned for life from direct or indirect political activity, plus the person(s) involved must, by law, be investigated to see whether there's any indication of unusual wealth.

- Any parliamentarian who abuses his/her power or tries to interfere/intimidate the check and balance agencies suffers mandatory five years jail and banned for life.

- Laws which prohibit nepotism.

- Laws / regulations which absolutely prohibit /stop one person or a party from gaining unchallengable power.

[JohnLeech]

Brit, they don't need elections:

1) They have the support of the majority of MPs ... meaning support of the majority of Thailand.

2) They don't HAVE to have elections until the end of 2011.

3) They don't have to have elections because a few thousand people want them to.

1) One does not follow the other, either logically or in practice. The "swing vote" is controlled by Newin Chidchob, despite his personal ban from electoral office, and the "Friends of Newin Chidchob"; he was originally Thaksin's right hand man and the Democrats only gained a majoriy of seats when he changed sides. There is no reason to believe and it is highly unlikely that Thai voters changed their allegiances as and when he did.

2) Correct.

3) Also correct, although it is clearly not just "a few thousand"; Abhisit will obviously choose to have elections when he thinks he has the best chance of winning, and so far he has done very little in office other than continue those policies that the opposition started and he, personally, is far from a popular or respected figure.

Although clearly "educated and eloquent" to Western eyes (and so he should be, after all he had he best education money can buy in England) many Thais I talk to dislike and distrust him because of that and because apart from being an MP he has never done any form of work to earn a living in Thailand or anywhere else. While he may be seen as an "Obama" by many Westerners (and by Western educated Thais), many Thais see him as more of a Blair (not that most would make the comparison) in the later stages of his leadership - a puppet being manipulated by others who lacks any substance, has acheived nothing concrete or lasting, has few real policies and objectives, has little or no knowledge of the people he is supposed to be governing, and who survives by "spin".

I was singularly unimpressed by his televised and reported debating skills; while to some his demeanour appeared confident, assured, well informed, and in control, to others it was arrogant, condescending, smug and self-seeking (a typical Old Etonian in many ways). Some Thai newspapers gave considerable prominence to his statement that there was little point in early elections because even if he held elections tomorrow he didn't think that anyone else could do a better job - hardly a valid argument, even though there doesn't seem to be anyone on either side who could actually do a decent job.

The chances of holding any elections (fair or otherwise) now, in 9 months, or in two years where "everyone abide by the results (no protests)" is slightly less than non-existent given the yawning gap in outlook between the two main sides and the total lack of any current or likely leader who has any chance whatsoever of being accepted by and uniting the vast majority of the populace ..... unless, of course, someone assassinates Thaksin in which case the reds will sail in to power and democracy (and Thailand) may have a chance to flourish!

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Well PM Abhisiit was quite strong about constitution amendments before an election, so here's my suggestions for the amendments:

- Increase the penalties for vote buying to two years jail, 50 million Baht fine and banned for life from any form of direct or indirect political activity, plus the person(s) involved must, by law, be investigated to see whether there's any indication of unusual wealth. p

That would be a GREAT improvement; anything is better than banning whole parties over a local infraction, and then do it selectively. A possible concern with the above is however that it becomes far too easy to incriminate one's opponent by spreading some money around pretending to be buying votes for the opponent, and then 'get caught'.

- People must wait 2 years before they can jump to another party.

Hear hear.

- As part of all elections mandatory for all candiates to engage in at least two public debates and with a process whereby anybody can send in anonymous questions and all questions must be answered in depth.

Also a great idea. I think having the negotiations broadcast live on all channels was awesome; should be doing that between the major political parties come election time.

- PM cannot stay in the drivers seat for more than 3 years, and cannot ever have second term as PM.

Why not? 3 years is short, and when someone is successful and gets re-elected, then why not? This doesn't sound very democratic to me.

[dobadoy]

Cheers John, an interesting counterpoint. While I take your points about a different way of looking at Abhisit', I think that's really just succour to the reds (by which I mean, sure, red shirts will look at it that way), but I still think for the majority of people who don't identify themselves by the colour of their shirt, his performance came off as reasonable and measured, and I think that's counts for a lot more than in the eyes of the general public than is being appreciated.

I don't say I'm right, just my take on it.

[Oldvisitor]

With OP's " Attitude " it's obvious change will never come...

[monkfish]

Yep also agree with Johnleech and I don't see any solutions coming soon.

at least not until the divisions in society are taken care of and for which I don't have a solution.

But they could probably start with developing Thailands core industries including Farming and may be

Tourism instead of going off at a tangent with industrialization.

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

While he may be seen as an "Obama" by many Westerners (and by Western educated Thais), many Thais see him as more of a Blair (not that most would make the comparison) in the later stages of his leadership - a puppet being manipulated by others who lacks any substance, has acheived nothing concrete or lasting, has few real policies and objectives, has little or no knowledge of the people he is supposed to be governing, and who survives by "spin".

<snip>

Nice to see someone else compare Abhisit to Blair.

[mazeltov]

Why on earth did the Reds go on TV with this guy? He has been educated at one of the best universities in the world, where they debate daily at a very high level and is up against some plough pushers from up North.

You have cremated yourselves reds because you just cannot match this guy. You should have kept your arguments to the street if you wanted any success. Very bad move in my opinion. By the way Jatupurrn you just received another SMS.

Cheers Rick

555

Abhisit got some SMS too, made them part if his high lvl debate.

"THE NATION: "Wanna read sms people sent 2 me? They said they won't vote for me if I dissolve House under pressure from just one group," PM said." TVF Updates

[Sing_Sling]

^you mean Rick is tired of the Reds. Thai(s) I speak to are in full support of Reds and want elections. So it does go both ways mate.

I am tired of Thailand not being united and not growing into a first world country You are probably hoping for civil war and a weaker Baht, so your pension goes a little further.

Cheers, Rick

It will take a lot more than people to stop squabbling to make Thailand into a 'first world country'. It is a matter of social maturity, the creation of a sustainable and substantial middle class, economic development as well as political advancement . . . none of which Thailand has. None.

Malaysia has a much better chance of being 'first world' than Thailand

If you want to gauge how much support for Abhisit has accumulated over the past two days, take a look at his Facebook profile/fan page thing. It was about 100,000 people on Saturday, has currently 113,593 and I predict it'll go over 120,000 by this time tomorrow.

Obviously nothing scientific about it but he clearly is benefiting from these televised debates.

Facebook as an indicator? Good grief. First this site's members are obsessed with using Wiki as their source for info and now Facebook . . .

I find it to be irrelevant on how polished Abhisit looked on tv, it's not about looking and sounding good. It is about grassroots and feeling. Abhisit is a polished orator . . . so polished that he seems slippery.

As for the 'movement' consisting of a few thousand people . . . quite disingenuous, arrogant and completely false

[bangkokrick]

With OP's " Attitude " it's obvious change will never come...

Hey say what you see. My attitude has nothing to do with anything.

Cheers, Rick

[Cayenne]

The red shirts probably entered the negotiations trying the old good cop bad cop routine (at least I hope they had a strategy..it didn't look that way though) with Jatuporn playing bad cop, Veera the good cop, and Weng, well, the academic professor

Problem was, this was a negotiation, not a debate so they couldn't use any of their normal fiery rhetoric (not for lack of trying though) like they did on stage so they were effectively nullified. There was no chance in hel_l they were going to mount a credible response to PM Abhisit anyway.

[anotherpeter]

Brit, they don't need elections:

1) They have the support of the majority of MPs ... meaning support of the majority of Thailand.

2) They don't HAVE to have elections until the end of 2011.

3) They don't have to have elections because a few thousand people want them to.

1) One does not follow the other, either logically or in practice. The "swing vote" is controlled by Newin Chidchob, despite his personal ban from electoral office, and the "Friends of Newin Chidchob"; he was originally Thaksin's right hand man and the Democrats only gained a majoriy of seats when he changed sides. There is no reason to believe and it is highly unlikely that Thai voters changed their allegiances as and when he did.

2) Correct.

3) Also correct, although it is clearly not just "a few thousand"; Abhisit will obviously choose to have elections when he thinks he has the best chance of winning, and so far he has done very little in office other than continue those policies that the opposition started and he, personally, is far from a popular or respected figure.

<snip>

1) They currently have the support of the majority of MPs ... meaning support of the majority of Thailand.

As soon as any coaltion parties change support, then he won't have that support and either the opposition form government with the smaller parties (watch every one start complaining about that ...) or they call elections.

But, the fact is, they currently do, so they don't need to have elections.

[Insight]

Facebook as an indicator? Good grief. First this site's members are obsessed with using Wiki as their source for info and now Facebook . . .

I find it to be irrelevant on how polished Abhisit looked on tv, it's not about looking and sounding good. It is about grassroots and feeling. Abhisit is a polished orator . . . so polished that he seems slippery.

As for the 'movement' consisting of a few thousand people . . . quite disingenuous, arrogant and completely false

Given that I already add a disclaimer to my original post, can you tell me what's wrong with Facebook as an indicator?

The registration system and way the site works does a reasonably good job of ensuring accounts are unique and can be attributed to actual people, and nobody is under any financial obligation to be a part of any group. So tell me, what's wrong with using it to roughly gauge somebody's popularity?

[anothertorres]

the OP's post made me think of the movie "Idiocracy" with Luke Wilson. anyone ever seen that movie?

[Boksida]

Kind of lost me with the

up against some plough pushers from up North

snobbery.

Veera is from Songkhla and was an outstanding opposition spokesman when he was in the Democrat (Abhisit's) party. Jatuporn is from Surat Thani and last I heard, both of these provinces are in the south. I am not sure about Dr Weng as he is relatively new on the scene.

Anyway the bar has been raised for uninformed newbie drivel but, watch out, there is plenty of competition out there.

I have nothing against Abhisit, he is a nice boy but I doubt if his elitist background will ever win many votes outside Bangkok. If we discount the 2006 coup, there is also nothing very unusual or illegal about how he came to be PM of a coalition government. If Thailand is to become a "failed third world state" as some posters claim, he is probably uniquely qualified to lead us forward. After all, he was born and raised in another one and knows what can go wrong.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Facebook as an indicator? Good grief. First this site's members are obsessed with using Wiki as their source for info and now Facebook . . .

I find it to be irrelevant on how polished Abhisit looked on tv, it's not about looking and sounding good. It is about grassroots and feeling. Abhisit is a polished orator . . . so polished that he seems slippery.

As for the 'movement' consisting of a few thousand people . . . quite disingenuous, arrogant and completely false

Given that I already add a disclaimer to my original post, can you tell me what's wrong with Facebook as an indicator?

The registration system and way the site works does a reasonably good job of ensuring accounts are unique and can be attributed to actual people, and nobody is under any financial obligation to be a part of any group. So tell me, what's wrong with using it to roughly gauge somebody's popularity?

IMHO: Nothing.

Only thing to keep in mind is the slice fo the population who is on Facebook. (Or on the Internet at all, for that matter).

WTK

[Sing_Sling]

Facebook as an indicator? Good grief. First this site's members are obsessed with using Wiki as their source for info and now Facebook . . .

I find it to be irrelevant on how polished Abhisit looked on tv, it's not about looking and sounding good. It is about grassroots and feeling. Abhisit is a polished orator . . . so polished that he seems slippery.

As for the 'movement' consisting of a few thousand people . . . quite disingenuous, arrogant and completely false

Given that I already add a disclaimer to my original post, can you tell me what's wrong with Facebook as an indicator?

The registration system and way the site works does a reasonably good job of ensuring accounts are unique and can be attributed to actual people, and nobody is under any financial obligation to be a part of any group. So tell me, what's wrong with using it to roughly gauge somebody's popularity?

IMHO: Nothing.

Only thing to keep in mind is the slice fo the population who is on Facebook. (Or on the Internet at all, for that matter).

WTK

Precisely what I was alluding to. The demographics of each 'side' in this row doesn't lend itself to basing popularity on technology based indices.

The only thing you can gauge by the number of facebook 'friends' in this instance is that some (even using your stats) IT-literate people have logged on . . . whether or not they are pro or con is also another issue.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Sing_Sling

[Insight]

Precisely what I was alluding to. The demographics of each 'side' in this row doesn't lend itself to basing popularity on technology based indices.

The only thing you can gauge by the number of facebook 'friends' in this instance is that some (even using your stats) IT-literate people have logged on . . . whether or not they are pro or con is also another issue.

Regardless of demographics, 13,000 people in just over 24 hours is a surge. If you want to gauge how many of them are actually "pro" or not, take a look at the comments, of which there's a few - per minute.

Of course it's not representative of the whole country, but to me (and probably a fair few others) it's enough evidence he has done exceptionally well from this debate.

[Sing_Sling]

Doing 'exceptionally' well is gauged how? By the converted logging on to his facebook account?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

You can't simply say 'Regardless of demographics' as preaching to the converted, as it were, is hardly an indicator of how well he did in his 'debate'.

Anyway, we'll see what the next elections bring . . . if they come about

(Edited to include):

You are right, though, a ten+ per cent increase in one day is quite a bit

Edited March 30, 2010 by Sing_Sling

[StickySh1t]

Sorry if it has been said but if you substitute 'GOP' and 'Barack Obama' you have my exact response laughing at the Congressional Republican Caucus trying to match wits with the USA's Harvard Educated Constitutional Law Professor in Chief. Every time they served up some loaded question with a smug tone he swatted it out of the park like Albert Pujols against a high school pitcher.

[dttk0009]

Why not? 3 years is short, and when someone is successful and gets re-elected, then why not? This doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Seems perfectly democratic, just not American. You don't need to have the 2 term rule to be fair. Would you be opposed to 3 terms? 5? Why is 2 such a magic number? A single term appears to be perfectly fine, and many presidents and prime ministers throughout the world serve single terms.

Edited March 30, 2010 by dttk0009

[anotherpeter]

Why not? 3 years is short, and when someone is successful and gets re-elected, then why not? This doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Seems perfectly democratic, just not American. You don't need to have the 2 term rule to be fair. Would you be opposed to 3 terms? 5? Why is 2 such a magic number? A single term appears to be perfectly fine, and many presidents and prime ministers throughout the world serve single terms.

A good reason for longer (4-5 year) rather than shorter (2-3 year) terms is that the politicians inevitably worry about being voted in at the next election. With longer terms, they can stop worrying about that and look at the longer term goals of the country. Some policies may have some short term pain, but long term gain. With short terms, the politicians aren't prepared to make the decisions because they will get voted out at the next election.

With regards to a specific number of terms, I don't think it should be limited. The US president has a limited term because it's such a powerful position (IMO). Most (all?) parliamentary systems such as Thailand's, should not need a limit because the PM is not 'all powerful'. He is only there because he has the approval of the other MPs. Ofcourse, in a corrupt society, this can still be a problem. Maybe 4 or 5 terms should be a limit to make sure Thailand doesn't end up with a Mugabe ... or a Thaksin ...

Edited March 30, 2010 by anotherpeter

[Insight]

Doing 'exceptionally' well is gauged how? By the converted logging on to his facebook account?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

You can't simply say 'Regardless of demographics' as preaching to the converted, as it were, is hardly an indicator of how well he did in his 'debate'.

Anyway, we'll see what the next elections bring . . . if they come about

(Edited to include):

You are right, though, a ten+ per cent increase in one day is quite a bit

So are you saying that Thai people signing up to Facebook means they're likely to be supporters of Abhisit anyway making whatever numbers insignificant? That this increase in "fans" and ensuing comments can in no way be counted as evidence of swaying the undecided?

(Have you actually seen the page on Facebook I'm talking about? The use of the term "visitors" in your post makes me assume me otherwise.)

I don't buy it that you don't buy this, but then what does my opinion count?

[Loz]

I just saw the debate on a front page pic of local newspaper.

To anyone in politics the signs were very damning.

First of all, the red shirts were togged up to the nines in RED. They took their presentation seriously. (form over substance, a classic Thai weakness)

Apisit and his chaps came in white shirts, NO TIE. VERY INFORMAL!! their message: "This is a light hearted pub chat."

Go back and try and find footage of Apisit NOT wearing a Tie at any "formal" gathering. You won't find it. They didn't even wear jackets. They could have been down the Nag's head throwing darts for all they cared.

I love this kind of political gesture. Subtle and so easily over looked. Any western rag printing that photo will be boosting the current governments credibility to an educuated audience. The Red will look like Indian chiefs negotiating a bit of what was thier homeland from the white oppressors who became citizens of the United States. Those indian cheifs, while noble in cause, were simply out gunned by political savvy. As have the Redshirts been.