The Country's Rural Poor Want A Voice, With Or Without Mr. Thaksin. Opinion

[yoshiwara]

When is the next election scheduled, why can't the Reds just wait and vote at the next election? Is the current party in power so bad? The economy here in Thailand was doing very well and now with these protests and bad public relations, tourism is down and the economy is suffering even more. Why can't the Reds understand this is hurting everyone in Thailand and solve this peacefully? Or, is this all about Thaksin loosing face muk muk, that he wants revenge by destroying Thailand's economy? It's good that Thaksin helped the rural people with medial benefits, but should Red followers be brain washed by their leaders to help destroy Thailand's economy in the name of democracy, is "democracy" really the Red leaders motivation? I don't think so...

The next election is almost 2 years away. In a Parlimentary government the governmest is supposed to schedule an election when there is no confidence in the sitting government. The opposition feel they were dis-enfranchised when the were not allowed to have an election (which is the norm for Parlimentary governments) before the Abhisit government was installed.

All of the red herring (must be a shortage by now), economy, retiring General, need to change the constitution, Thaksin should have no bearing on correcting the mistake of not allowing ALL Thais have a voice in choosing the government that represents them.

It appears that cracks are beginning to form in the government, the military, and the police similar to what happened in the Philipines when the Marco's were removed by the military. It appears that the end is approaching and as in the case of the Philipines it appears that the governments escalating crackdown on freedom of speech and movement is leading to the dis-enfranchised people of Thailand finally getting an equal voice in who represents them.

What an obfuscation.

The only objection from the Thaksin forces was the demand not to be penalised for open electoral fraud.

The Marcos family openly looted the Philippines economy.

Just like Thaksin.

Regular as clockwork the Thaksin apologists accuse the other side of Thaksin's own crimes.

Thaksin is having a laugh.

But his cheerleaders are po-faced.

Just like the above.

Edited April 9, 2010 by yoshiwara

[4223rhodes]

You don't have to win a majority of votes or even the most votes to assign a PM. There are many ways around these pesky farces some refer to as elections. You can always just have the opposing party declared null and void, or accuse them of cooking on television, or just ride in behind the infantry. Thai politics is very creative.

[dukkha]

Maybe I have it wrong, but has this current government rescinded stuff that Thaksin did for rural poor like 30 baht health and if not why the fuss if Toxinomics is still in place in some of these rural programs, maybe I am ignorant but dont hear about Dems doing away with the initiatives of Toxin....need enlightening....dukkha

[khunjamespittman]

Yes, they have a voice, but they do deserve better infrastructure. A defense against corrupt middlemen in the rice trade, better education, and health care. These aren't the focus of what's going on now, if they were, the red shirts would have more support domestically and internationally.

Even Thaksin was smart enough to see that the poor farmers of the North East wouldn't understand heady ideals like democracy or a socialist movement, I believe he is the one who coined the phrase "democracy you can eat". This is the main importance for the farmers, they want to live their lives, have enough to eat, and party once in a while. Looking at it externally, it is in their best interests to improve their education as well so that they can make up their own minds about what is going on around them, rather than have it hammered into their minds by yelling heads on a stage, day after day. Sadly, many of them don't see the added importance of this. I agree that this has at least woken up the elites to the fact that something has to be done for the rural poor. But I think the current governemnt is more likely to make lasting progress on this than any Thaksin-backed one.

Good post.

I live in Isan (hence my forum name) among the people who in general support the Reds. And no, I didn't forget Florida; I didn't want to shame Americans too much. I am British, brought up to be proud of it, and thoroughly ashamed at the way the politicians in my own country behave. But this is irrelevant; we're talking about Thailand. I don't want to "take votes away" from anybody; I just don't believe democracy is always the best form of Government... and before anyone asks me, no, I can't offer a better.

I guess you are trying to re-write history in the Florida election. There were 3 independent recounts of the ballots of the disputed election and each one showed that Al Gore had in fact by a small margin. One was totally funded but activists within the Democratic Party. As there are people here on TV that will never accept the fact that Thaksin did not create every evil in Thailand, in the US there are partisan people who will never believe the results of the election. They can never accept the fact that the numerous recounts verified the results prove they are wrong. It doesn't matter. The process worked and the result was proven fair.

I agree with you about politicians. We never get what we are promised. For the most part they are motivated by their own desires.

I also agree we haven't found a better system. At least every citizen is supposed to have an equal voice.

[tigermonkey]

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

I am sorry, I cannot let you post the false implication the that they did not win. If you are from Thailand you should know that they won a plurality of the votes which wins the election. I wish this kind insidious false insinuation were not part of this dialogue.

They should have the right to be celebrating with their duly elected, by the will of the poeple with their votes, government. Instead they are being called all kinds of names by the likes of nameless people like you.

Shame!

Can someone else confirm for me please regarding the voting system in Thailand?

My understanding of the plurality system is the one with the most votes wins. If that is the case, what is the need for coalitions?

Everything I read is that to form government in Thailand, you need a majority of the MPs. Is that correct?

If so, to "win" an election, you need to have the majority of MPs. The PPP may have got the most votes and may have got the most MPs, but that doesn't make them the winners. They were able to form government with the help of some smaller party MPs.

You are right about the system. You can 'win' the election, but not be able to form the governemnt, because you do not have a majority of MP's. This makes it extremely difficult to govern and pass legislation.

It is the same as the British/ Canadian/ Australian systems.

Howver, a winning party can go it alone , even without a coalition -- it is happening in Canada right now, with the Conservative government. It keeps a government very honest, when they must seek support every day for the things that they do.= -- one unpopular move and they are gone.

[khunjamespittman]

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

I am sorry, I cannot let you post the false implication the that they did not win. If you are from Thailand you should know that they won a plurality of the votes which wins the election. I wish this kind insidious false insinuation were not part of this dialogue.

They should have the right to be celebrating with their duly elected, by the will of the poeple with their votes, government. Instead they are being called all kinds of names by the likes of nameless people like you.

Shame!

Can someone else confirm for me please regarding the voting system in Thailand?

My understanding of the plurality system is the one with the most votes wins. If that is the case, what is the need for coalitions?

Everything I read is that to form government in Thailand, you need a majority of the MPs. Is that correct?

If so, to "win" an election, you need to have the majority of MPs. The PPP may have got the most votes and may have got the most MPs, but that doesn't make them the winners. They were able to form government with the help of some smaller party MPs.

The winner with the plurality is offered the opportunity to build a coalition to form a majority.

[anotherpeter]

When is the next election scheduled, why can't the Reds just wait and vote at the next election? Is the current party in power so bad? The economy here in Thailand was doing very well and now with these protests and bad public relations, tourism is down and the economy is suffering even more. Why can't the Reds understand this is hurting everyone in Thailand and solve this peacefully? Or, is this all about Thaksin loosing face muk muk, that he wants revenge by destroying Thailand's economy? It's good that Thaksin helped the rural people with medial benefits, but should Red followers be brain washed by their leaders to help destroy Thailand's economy in the name of democracy, is "democracy" really the Red leaders motivation? I don't think so...

The next election is almost 2 years away. In a Parlimentary government the governmest is supposed to schedule an election when there is no confidence in the sitting government. The opposition feel they were dis-enfranchised when the were not allowed to have an election (which is the norm for Parlimentary governments) before the Abhisit government was installed.

All of the red herring (must be a shortage by now), economy, retiring General, need to change the constitution, Thaksin should have no bearing on correcting the mistake of not allowing ALL Thais have a voice in choosing the government that represents them.

It appears that cracks are beginning to form in the government, the military, and the police similar to what happened in the Philipines when the Marco's were removed by the military. It appears that the end is approaching and as in the case of the Philipines it appears that the governments escalating crackdown on freedom of speech and movement is leading to the dis-enfranchised people of Thailand finally getting an equal voice in who represents them.

The PPP could have called an election before they were disbanded (knowing full well that was going to happen), and after they were disbanded, when an ex-PPP MP (not banned) was care-taker PM. In a parliamentary government should call an election when there is a *parliamentary vote* of no confidence - ie a majority vote, not just when the minority opposition thinks it should. There was no legal need to call an election when Abhisit was elected (by a majority of MPs) to be PM. Given that the people elected all of the MPs currently in parliament, they are the who the people chose.

It is actually only the minority of voters (those who voted for the PPP) that are unhappy, since a majority of elected MPs do not want them in government.

[MaiChai]

I think Abhisit is the radical politician that breaks the mould of Thai politics. He tries to do everything in a clear, transparent, accountable way and uses the law in a fair way. Compare this to previous PMs (and I don't just mean Taksin). Its not about following an ego, its more about considering all views and trying to take the correct way. I think he should be commended for the way he has dealt with the situation; very few people have died and for those who have it has not been the policy of the government that is responsible for the deaths. He will be remember as the politician that tried to do everything fairly and modernised Thai politics.

Edited April 9, 2010 by MaiChai

[anotherpeter]

The winner with the plurality is offered the opportunity to build a coalition to form a majority.

So a minority government could be in power?

[dukkha]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0925826474.html

[sailorEd]

The rural poor HAVE a voice, a vote like everyone in Bangkok... so what do they do? They sell it off to the highest bidder.

They say they want democracy, but you cannot have a real democracy without education; even then, money talks the loudest (cf. the USA, where enormous amounts of money are needed even to select the candidate! all right, I admit the vote is fair after that).

[Fred Sanford]

"In the long run however Thailand will remain politically unsettled until its elites and military give the Thai people full democracy. That means Mr. Abhisit must embrace the idea that his party could lose in a popular vote. While that might not be an appealing prospect for Mr. Abhisit, that's how democracy works.

Even if Mr. Thaksin never returns to Thailand, he has set off a democracy movement that isn't going away. The sooner Bangkok realizes that, the better. "

-----

Thanks for posting. Let's hope the WSJ site isn't soon on Abhisit's censorship list!

Let's hope it is

[anotherpeter]

Can someone else confirm for me please regarding the voting system in Thailand?

My understanding of the plurality system is the one with the most votes wins. If that is the case, what is the need for coalitions?

Everything I read is that to form government in Thailand, you need a majority of the MPs. Is that correct?

If so, to "win" an election, you need to have the majority of MPs. The PPP may have got the most votes and may have got the most MPs, but that doesn't make them the winners. They were able to form government with the help of some smaller party MPs.

You are right about the system. You can 'win' the election, but not be able to form the governemnt, because you do not have a majority of MP's. This makes it extremely difficult to govern and pass legislation.

It is the same as the British/ Canadian/ Australian systems.

Howver, a winning party can go it alone , even without a coalition -- it is happening in Canada right now, with the Conservative government. It keeps a government very honest, when they must seek support every day for the things that they do.= -- one unpopular move and they are gone.

So that would basically mean that the rest (the majority) could not come to an agreement to form a government, so the minority party did.

But if a the majority DID come to an agreement to form government, then that would be completely valid ??

[tigermonkey]

The winner with the plurality is offered the opportunity to build a coalition to form a majority.

So a minority government could be in power?

Yes, if the head of state agrees .

[lannarebirth]

I think Abhisit is the radical politician that breaks the mould of Thai politics. He tries to do everything in a clear, transparent, accountable way and uses the law in a fair way. Compare this to previous PMs (and I don't just mean Taksin). Its not about following an ego, its more about considering all views and trying to take the correct way. I think he should be commended for the way he has dealt with the situation; very few people have died and for those who have it has not been the policy of the government that is responsible for the deaths. He will be remember as the politician that tried to do everything fairly and modernised Thai politics.

I think that's largely correct and why he's barely got one friend amongst the old elite crowd and those who would wish to take their place. It will only be the character of the Thai people that could give him the mandate to proceed with his efforts and that will be in fits and starts. With recent polls suggesting up to 82% of those people are accepting of some measure of corruption, well he must feel a very lonely man. I wish him the best.

[jdinasia]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0925826474.html

Note ---- this is an OPINION piece

[LevelHead]

The best thing to do would be to educate the Elite that this is 2010 and not 1910 now.

People have access to the internet, mobile phones, overseas websites and now know the meaning of freedom.

They are no longer prepared to let the Elite be corrupt in Bangkok and take all the spoils to themselves.

They want an end to Elite corruption, Elite grip on power and control.

The peasants are revolting, but not the type the Elite normally say they are.

[anotherpeter]

The best thing to do would be to educate the Elite that this is 2010 and not 1910 now.

People have access to the internet, mobile phones, overseas websites and now know the meaning of freedom.

They are no longer prepared to let the Elite be corrupt in Bangkok and take all the spoils to themselves.

They want an end to Elite corruption, Elite grip on power and control.

The peasants are revolting, but not the type the Elite normally say they are.

In your other posts (in one of the Poll threads I think) you were going on about how few reds have internet. Changed your mind now?

[jonclark]

Can someone who is familiar with 'red politics' etc. Please answer me this questions. What policies do the 'reds' in whatever reincarnation they be, have to bridge the political divide which has trapped this country. Winning an election will not solve the problem. So Reds - What are your policies? How will you appease the democrate supporters when you come to power?

[LevelHead]

Can someone who is familiar with 'red politics' etc. Please answer me this questions. What policies do the 'reds' in whatever reincarnation they be, have to bridge the political divide which has trapped this country. Winning an election will not solve the problem. So Reds - What are your policies? How will you appease the democrate supporters when you come to power?

Democracy.

Its the Yellow Elite who cannot let Democracy happen.

The Yellow Elite need to be educated this is 2010 and not 1910 and they cannot have their own way just because that is how its always been.

Simple, Democracy, let it happen, let the people choose who they want to lead and let the country get on with it.

Stop interference from Yellows !! Easy solution.

[Redsunset]

The rural poor HAVE a voice, a vote like everyone in Bangkok... so what do they do? They sell it off to the highest bidder.

They say they want democracy, but you cannot have a real democracy without education; even then, money talks the loudest (cf. the USA, where enormous amounts of money are needed even to select the candidate! all right, I admit the vote is fair after that).

Outstanding post... it is true... with a vote comes responsibility... for example, the responsibility to put your kids through school and not spend their tuition money gambling or drinking or buying that silly 3G phone... most people want the privileges of democracy but do not want to work hard to get it... they want it handed to them for free...

[lannarebirth]

Can someone who is familiar with 'red politics' etc. Please answer me this questions. What policies do the 'reds' in whatever reincarnation they be, have to bridge the political divide which has trapped this country. Winning an election will not solve the problem. So Reds - What are your policies? How will you appease the democrate supporters when you come to power?

Democracy.

Its the Yellow Elite who cannot let Democracy happen.

The Yellow Elite need to be educated this is 2010 and not 1910 and they cannot have their own way just because that is how its always been.

Simple, Democracy, let it happen, let the people choose who they want to lead and let the country get on with it.

Stop interference from Yellows !! Easy solution.

Without the rule of law, Democracy is just another nine letter word, like barbarism for example.

Edited April 9, 2010 by lannarebirth

[Redsunset]

The so-called "poor" in the Northeast were not being exploited... they have freedom... they just choose to have a rural life, in most cases and are pretty happy with that. Those who are not, come to Bangkok and try to work.

Thaksin exploited them. He USED THEIR VOTE to get elected in a democratic system. He had NO INTENTION of giving them more voice. He only wanted their vote by bribing them. This led to them thinking "hey this democracy thing is good and we seem to be missing out!" We deserve MORE FREE MONEY!!!!

The poor's conception on democracy, therefore, is distorted. It is Thaksin's corrupt immoral version. Sad that one man's greed and selfishness has destroyed a country's true path to real democracy.

[junkofdavid2]

What's the significance of THAICOM in all of this?

Why is it a hotspot?

I thought it was owned by Thaksin (old name is Shin satellite), so why are the Reds attacking it?

[Jingthing]

If the red insurgency wins this, and then there is a reaction from people who try to use the same illegal tactics the reds are using, you can be 100 percent certain they will conveniently forget all their screaming about double standards you hear now. The rule of law is finished here if these revolutionaries succeed now.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

The rural poor have plenty to grumble about; I see examples every day. But that does not give them the right to rampage through the nation's capital.... or 100,000 protesters the right to impose their will on 60,000,000 Thais.

The Army has not helped either; it was clear days ago that force would have to be used. I know Abhisit wanted to avoid it, but a time comes when there is no other solution. The main thing is to ensure that the minimum force necessary is used, and the fewest possible people get hurt.

The poor didn't choose to have a rural life, in most cases anyway. They were born in the villages, with little or no land, and a mounting burden of debt just to keep body and soul together. Now they have more wants (TV, telephones etc), they need more money... so they get poorer. I don't in the least grudge them their wish to improve their lifestyle, but nobody yet has come up with a way to improve their incomes so that they can afford the improved lifestyle. Once again, the only answer is education.

[kmj]

The reds are not the first to use illegal tactics and probably not the last. The Muppet (Military pUPPET) government seem to be dropping the ball on this one.

[slimdog]

The winner with the plurality is offered the opportunity to build a coalition to form a majority.

So a minority government could be in power?

Whilst in theory any party can attempt to form a Government through a coalition, providing that it can obtain more than half of the current members of parliament, one of the main issues that comes into play when forming a Government is section 177 of the Constitution.

This is a ruling which basically disallows Cabinet Members who are members of Parliament from voting in either a censure motion or the annual budget.

With 36 Cabinet Ministers, this means that a Government needs in theory at least 277* seats (241 + 36) as many motions require a vote of not less than half the number of Members of Parliament (480).

After the last General election, the PPP had a total of 233 Members of Parliament, which would have meant that a Democrat led Government at that time would only be able to gain a maximum of 247 Members.

For anyone interested, the last three Prime Minister were voted in by the following:

Samak = 310 votes

Somchai = 298 votes

Abhisit = 235 votes **

* The total numer of Cabinet Ministers is 36, however only 22 are Members of Parliament.

** The total number of MP's at the time was only 437 as 43 had recently been banned by the Constitutional Court.

[jonclark]

I agree that the countries poor need a voice, but without wanting to sound like an obnoxious prick, what have they got to say.

'We are poor please help us'.

'Stop the corruption'.

'Give us a share of the countries resources.'

All fair points, but when you look at their leaders it reminds me of the old fable about the scorpion which asked the frog to take it over a river

I fear the poor will remain poor, the establishment will remain established and the scorpions will sting the frog.

[jonclark]

I agree that the countries poor need a voice, but without wanting to sound like an obnoxious prick, what have they got to say.

'We are poor please help us'.

'Stop the corruption'.

'Give us a share of the countries resources.'

All fair points, but when you look at their leaders it reminds me of the old fable about the scorpion which asked the frog to take it over a river

I fear the poor will remain poor, the establishment will remain established and the scorpions will sting the frog.