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

[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?

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.

I assume Abhisit would have more than 240 votes after the by-elections then, otherwise the PTP could get one of their people in as PM.

[dominique355]

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

The last election was unfair.

It was held under a coup appointed government.

It was held under basically martial law in many area's

PPP candidates were "watched" by government appointed teams.

The Army had a budget to "educate" the people on how to vote -

It was totally unfair and not free and was against the PPP...... and yet even with all that going on PPP still got the majority vote.

Which is why the Yellows had to use another power to get rid of them, an undemocratic one, funnily enough now called the "double standards" systems ?

The Elite love Kangeroo's in their courts now

You know, LevelHead, I really envie you. I wish my life was a simple as yours: all black and white, or all red or yellow. Nothing in between. Well, I have a surprise for you: Most people here in Bangkok are simply fed up with the Red Shirts as much as they were (and are) fed up with the Yellow Shirts.

We Bangkok people wish these Red Shirts would simply go home and demonstrate in Udon or CM or KonKaen and stop harassing us here. We then can go on with our life and earn money the government can spend in Isaan to educate people there.

This whole demonstration is long passed beyond Democracy or Corruption or whatever, it's a power play between a group of power addicted people, some in exile, some wanted by the Police and a legal and democratically elected government. If these Red Shirts believe they can get of Thaksin if or when they are in power, they are simply naive. Thaksin is much smarter and outwitted than all Red Shirts together. Maybe then they will realize that they have been used. For the moment they enjoy their cowboy and Indian games in the city without too much thinking of their own. Only repeating slogans hammered into them countless times.

Edited April 9, 2010 by dominique355

[NCFC]

Most of us who post here are born and raised in other countries, and other political cultures. To say that we do not understand Thai politics is an understatement indeed.

We judge every action of every Thai by our own experience, and our own experience is truly irrelevent.

If any of you would like a good primer on the 'what and why' of Thai politics, try reading an excellent treatise by a member of the Royal Thai Institute -- yes probably elitist and yellow, but the truth will set you free.

Read it more than once ! --and use your brain while reading, please.

WARNING -- the contents of this article could be damaging to your prejudices.

http://www.royin.go.th/th/knowledge/detail.php?ID=1606

Even the first sentence is incorrect. Do you think big business is not a major player in Thai politics? The Royal Institute evidently thinks not.

[NCFC]

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

Note ---- this is an OPINION piece

Feeling a little paranoid today, are we?

[hammered]

The poor need a voice through leaders that come from their own ranks. Until that happens they wont really get that much better treatment. They arent there yet, and still rely on outsiders to organise them and throw some scraps and maybe a little more, but they are learning. This is no different to stages many countries have gone through in the past. Until relatively recently Thailand was a feudal state. Democracy is in its infancy and these things take time. Right now there is a poltical class red, yellow, whatevr colour and the poor arent allowed into it but they have somje sway now over it. It will beinteresting to see when they make the next step and realise that those who now claim to represent them are just a new exploitative class. My guess is that will take some time.

[ovaltina]

The rural poor deserve a voice. They can join a world wide club of people who want a voice & deserve better than they have been given ; sweatshop workers, factory workers, miners, agency workers, gay people, transgendered people, women in general & in particular in Muslim cultures, disabled people, genuinely poor people (i.e. emaciated Africans with ribs poking out), etc.etc.etc.

All these people deserve equality, better working conditions & a greater voice in society. The point is that this 'voice' is achieved slowly and gradually through social osmosis, a proces that takes years and decades. It is not something that is achieved in a few weeks & it is never achieved at the barrel of a gun.

Edited April 9, 2010 by ovaltina

[KarenBravo]

This is also about how the rich elites are untouchable in the countries courts; they regularly get away with murder (literally) due to their influence, whilst the poor people get stiffed.

There is one law for the rich and another for the poor. This must end.

[CaptHaddock]

Read my post(s) before you go postal.

I have observed for a long time now that most right wing Americans who post here are pro-Thaksin/reds and most left wing Americans who post here are anti-Thaksin/reds. We both share the desire for more freedom, democracy, and equality for Thailand's poor, but feel the hope of achieving that may come from different sides. The truth is probably NEITHER side will bring that, but Americans tend to be optimistic/hopeful people.

Surely you're joking.  I am a left-wing American who supports the Red movement as the only way for the Thai majority to increase its political and economic power.  What left winger would support the military and royalist faction in any dispute?

And I certainly wouldn't consider myself either optimistic or hopeful.

I am impressed that the Reds have found a way to keep the pressure on the gov't even though they seemed to be in a hopeless position to start.  The Red movement is currently the most encouraging aspect of life in Thailand.  Whether it provokes a Burma-style repression remains to be seen.

Edited April 9, 2010 by CaptHaddock

[way2muchcoffee]

Surely you're joking.  I am a left-wing American who supports the Red movement as the only way for the Thai majority to increase its political and economic power.  What left winger would support the military and royalist faction in any dispute?

Ones who oppose the fascist nature of the redshirt leaders?

[4223rhodes]

Surely you're joking. I am a left-wing American who supports the Red movement as the only way for the Thai majority to increase its political and economic power. What left winger would support the military and royalist faction in any dispute?

Ones who oppose the fascist nature of the redshirt leaders?

I'd be another left-wing radical American supporting the Reds. That said, I'm not sure it's really useful to label ourselves. There have been a number of good papers written about foreigners and their political leanings in Thailand vis-a-vis Red-Yellow, but those academic sites have been censored by the Abhisit govt.

[anotherpeter]

This is also about how the rich elites are untouchable in the countries courts; they regularly get away with murder (literally) due to their influence, whilst the poor people get stiffed.

There is one law for the rich and another for the poor. This must end.

That applies to rich reds too. It isn't just the bangkok rich that get away with things.

Edited April 9, 2010 by anotherpeter

[vicco]

The rural poor have a voice. Unfortunately nobody has listened to it for generations.

The only way it can be heard it seems is when they drive to Bankok, shut the place down and raise hel_l.

I expect lots of Bankokians are hearing their voices now.

Many foreign residents are hearing them too, but many are tone deaf and hear only selected sounds...they repeat these sounds over and over to each other without really understanding their meaning...strange behavior.

Today the army were deployed to secure Thaicom. When the reds showed up in numbers and ordered the army out...they left.

Many soldiers walked though the crown with smiles on their faces...and were patted on the back as they left.

It's unfortunate that the reds have some bizarre leaders, but they are winning some ground and the government is looking pretty inept.

Just over three weeks ago many on this forum were predicting total failure....with lots of tasteless jokes about sticky rice and stinky fish running out. Not many gave them even a week.

The reds have been called every degrading name imaginable. They have been accused of everything short of genocide and all the while they

the have been just doing political theater and attempting to further their cause.

Some of the comments and ramblings coming out of the farang community are really disgusting. You would think that people from the so called developed world could disagree in a civil manner but it seems not. We have spend most of our own history slaughtering each other and now we act as critics and advisers to these people....who can demonstrate for weeks on end on a handful of rice and fermented fish a day, in blistering heat, and still retain relative composure.

I personally have some hope that these two sides can reach some reasonable compromise (behind the posturing)

Clearly there is a huge amount of "face" at stake so maybe I'm just doing some wishful thinking.....but I feel wishful

thinking is better than endless name calling and insulting comments from a community that can only watch from the sidelines anyway.

[Garry9999]

i speek for the majority of americans.

we dont kare, can you point me to the places where the bargirls hang out.

You got that right.

[rijit]

Having read most of the thread and still feeling somewhat bemused, added to by the useful but 'flowery' description of Thai politics by the royal society

one little factor that everyones forgotten is that Thaksin is backing this ' campaign' IMO primarily, out of self interest. Thaksin and family members under the

present regime for their crimes they will be held totally accountable and made to serve whatever sentence the courts feel suitable, where as get a new

government in, thaksin and family will , no doubt be treated somewhat more sympathetically , maybe even pardoned.

Like European and American wars being about Oil, this like all others is not about what it seems and the fundamental problems lie in the unfair division of

wealth. Thats not to say that the issue is not a political matter, it clearly is. A leader who represents the 'real' Thailand, like a Lola or Chavaz would help.

[Jingthing]

Surely you're joking.  I am a left-wing American who supports the Red movement as the only way for the Thai majority to increase its political and economic power.  What left winger would support the military and royalist faction in any dispute?

Ones who oppose the fascist nature of the redshirt leaders?

I have noticed a very clear pattern here over many months of those Americans who DO have a strong opinion on Thai politics.

Left wing Americans -- mostly anti-red/anti-Thaksin

Right wing Americans -- mostly pro-red/pro-Thaksin

Not all. Mostly. The main reason the left wing Americans are against the reds is Thaksin. He is too much like Marcos and a long crew of corrupt totalitarian dictators of any label for comfort. We see him as the opposite of pro democratic; we don't believe the Truth Today propaganda. Now American leftists are rather moderate compared to other countries. A hard core commie/Maoist, etc. type would of course be pro red and not be afraid of the dangers of a totalitarian regime.

[way2muchcoffee]

Surely you're joking.  I am a left-wing American who supports the Red movement as the only way for the Thai majority to increase its political and economic power.  What left winger would support the military and royalist faction in any dispute?

Ones who oppose the fascist nature of the redshirt leaders?

I have noticed a very clear pattern here over many months of those Americans who DO have a strong opinion on Thai politics.

Left wing Americans -- mostly anti-red/anti-Thaksin

Right wing Americans -- mostly pro-red/pro-Thaksin

Not all. Mostly. The main reason the left wing Americans are against the reds is Thaksin. He is too much like Marcos and a long crew of corrupt totalitarian dictators of any label for comfort. We see him as the opposite of pro democratic; we don't believe the Truth Today propaganda. Now American leftists are rather moderate compared to other countries. A hard core commie/Maoist, etc. type would of course be pro red and not be afraid of the dangers of a totalitarian regime.

I've noticed the same thing JT. Almost started a thread on it, but then figured there are certainly exceptions to the pattern, and given the level of discourse here, I didn't want to be their punching bag.

[ovaltina]

This is also about how the rich elites are untouchable in the countries courts; they regularly get away with murder (literally) due to their influence, whilst the poor people get stiffed.

There is one law for the rich and another for the poor. This must end.

I assume you are talking about England ? In England a Rich Elite called Mr.Tony Blair took the country's Army and used it to invade a foreign sovereign country for no reason & against the wishes of ONE MILLION English people, who marched through the streets of London protesting against the invasion, this illegal invasion by a English Ruling Elite man, led to the deaths & injuries and homelessness of NINE MILLION IRAQIS, at least one million died. This cost England's social fund £billions , while OAP's freeze to death. And the same Mr.Blair saw to it that all the gold was given away at 30% value, and the hospitals & housing estates slid backwards 50 years.

Or were you talking about ruling elites in Thailand where the current government has, in its short time in office, put through several long-term initiatives to help rural poor people.

There's ruling elites in every nation on Earth, the ones in USA and England are far worse than the ones in Thailand.

Everyone agrees anyway that "this must stop" as you correctly say, but vi lent armed rioting is not the answer to social inequality.

Plus, Fact Check; the Reds, as soon as they take office will become the new Ruling Elites , plundering the nations wealth with just as much selfish cold-hearted fervour as their hero thaksin, maybe tossing the odd scraps northward as a gesture to their former equals.

Edited April 9, 2010 by ovaltina

[Jingthing]

Confirmed in the US, different types of justice for the rich and poor, especially the African American poor. There are always exceptions though, a la Bernie Madoff.

[rainman]

The main cause here is that the lower class and poor Thais, which are sadly the majority, feel that their voices are not being heard and their will not being respected. So what if they vote for Thaksin instead of another corrupt politician. It's their choice. Don't believe for a single second that any other Thai politician isn't corrupt. The Thai people never had the choice between a sincere politician or a corrupt politician - and they know that. But they choose the politician that they think does the most good for them.

So they chose Thaksin. And so Thaksin became the only Thai PM to serve out his full term in office -and- be reelected to another term. Is he corrupt? Sure. But look where he got Thailand in just a few years.

Think of him as Thailand's Berlusconi. Everyone knows Italy's Berlusconi is corrupt. He controls the media, he bribes officials, he uses his power as PM to close business deals and much more. Why do Italians keep voting for Berlusconi? Because he does the most good for Italy.

Back to Thailand. The Thai people have found their Berlusconi in Thaksin. They vote for him. He serves out his full term. They vote for him again and he gets removed by the "elite" that has gotten used to running the country for decades and doesn't want to give up their power. Obviously, the poor Thais get angry and take to the streets. Their voices are not being heard and their votes are not being accepted. Finally, when they are getting desperate to simply get their rights back, they're being called terrorists and insurgents.

Let these people have their voices heard - or they will do whatever it takes to be heard.

[animatic]

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 during the term of an elected House, the LARGEST party of SEAT winners , not one man one vote winners,

gets FIRST chance to form a coalition. If that falls they again get first chance to form a coalition,

If in either case, as happened most recently in Israel, that largest minority party can NOT make a coalition in a reasonable time

say 2 weeks, then the SECONFD LARGEST gets that same chance. This goes on until the TERM of the MPS expires

OR the PM calls an snap election.

As in Thailand at the moment we have a round 3 change in coalition and 2nd larges as leader.

In Israel the most recent largest minority party couldn't get over 50% in a coalition and Netanyahu's

2nd place Likud party is leader of a coalition government.

All perfectly legal and accepted.

But not accepted in Thailand by the Red side and Thaksin.

If it wasn't legal and acceptable they would have succeeded to cancel it in court.

They didn't even try, because they knew they would lose.

[A_Traveller]

And so Thaksin became the only Thai PM to serve out his full term in office

Which is what the accursed 1997 constitution was designed to do. The basis of it was to place power into the centre, in the hands of the Prime Minister, so as to create an opportunity for stability, as opposed to the [bet you weren't here then] revolving door on the PM's office. The issue I had then, as I noted to a drafter of the document was the risk of creating an elective dictatorship. I was, <sigh> told by this astute senior Thai that, of course, as a foreigner I didn't understand Thailand....

But look where he got Thailand in just a few years.

You are being facetious I presume, Thailand benefited from a rising economy as well as proximity to China. Many, as any professional economist will tell you. of the supposed benefits during the first term came from the actions taken after the '97 Crisis, for which the incumbents paid the electoral price.

Let us also remember TRT's campaigning on the wickedness of foreigners creating [George Soros for example] the very crisis which their fellow travellers [Chavlit] had in point of fact created.

But you do know this, don't you, but you still have this hysterical notion of the noble agrarian, divorced from reality.

Regards

Edited April 9, 2010 by A_Traveller

[truthfulfox]

now the wsj is pro rice farmers who get paid to protest.

amerika is one fkked up country!

how do u come to the conclusion most people who post here are right wing americans. dam_n most have your point of view!

there is no democracy in USA as well, just have a look at the anti-semitism law. jews are the elites rulling in usa just like the ones of BKK

[Jingthing]

Redundant Post.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

there is no democracy in USA as well, just have a look at the anti-semitism law. jews are the elites rulling in usa just like the ones of BKK

Thanks for revealing your inner self. Always interesting to know about the rich diversity of people posting here. 'Nuff said.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Jingthing

[animatic]

And so Thaksin became the only Thai PM to serve out his full term in office

Which is what the accursed 1997 constitution was designed to do. The basis of it was to place power into the centre, in the hands of the Prime Minister, so as to create an opportunity for stability, as opposed to the [bet you weren't here then] revolving door on the PM's office. The issue I had then, as I noted to a drafter of the document was the risk of creating an elective dictatorship. I was, <sigh> told by this astute senior Thai that, of course, as a foreigner I didn't understand Thailand....

But look where he got Thailand in just a few years.

You are being facetious I presume, Thailand benefited from a rising economy as well as proximity to China. Many, as any professional economist will tell you. of the supposed benefits during the first term came from the actions taken after the '97 Crisis, for which the incumbents paid the electoral price.

Let us also remember TRT's campaigning on the wickedness of foreigners creating [George Soros for example] the very crisis which their fellow travellers [Chavlit] had in point of fact created.

But you do know this, don't you, but you still have this hysterical notion of the noble agrarian, divorced from reality.

Regards

Very much agreed.

Thaksin was in the Chavalit government at that time + or - a month...

Edited April 9, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

there is no democracy in USA as well, just have a look at the anti-semitism law. jews are the elites rulling in usa just like the ones of BKK

Thanks for revealing your inner self. Always interesting to know about the rich diversity of people posting here. 'Nuff said.

Yes Jing it takes all types,

freedom to speak freely is also freedom to make an ass of yourself in public.

[noel2499rk]

now the wsj is pro rice farmers who get paid to protest.

amerika is one fkked up country!

how do u come to the conclusion most people who post here are right wing americans. dam_n most have your point of view!

there is no democracy in USA as well, just have a look at the anti-semitism law. jews are the elites rulling in usa just like the ones of BKK

How do all these threads end up with this kind of nonsense, why do we have see this kind of b****hit.

[scorecard]

"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!

What censorship list?

Perhaps you'd like to share your source for this comment.

Personally I believe PM Abhisit has been the most open and transparent PM Thailand has probably ever seen. He has said many times (I believe totally genuinly) that he wants total freedom of speech and total freedom of expression as a pillar of a Thai democracy. About 6 weeks back he held an open session with Thai journalists, he prompted them / he encouraged them to ask him anything, he listened carefully and responded in detail to very question. Certainly different from any other PM except Khun Anand P.

[scorecard]

And so Thaksin became the only Thai PM to serve out his full term in office

Which is what the accursed 1997 constitution was designed to do. The basis of it was to place power into the centre, in the hands of the Prime Minister, so as to create an opportunity for stability, as opposed to the [bet you weren't here then] revolving door on the PM's office. The issue I had then, as I noted to a drafter of the document was the risk of creating an elective dictatorship. I was, <sigh> told by this astute senior Thai that, of course, as a foreigner I didn't understand Thailand....

But look where he got Thailand in just a few years.

You are being facetious I presume, Thailand benefited from a rising economy as well as proximity to China. Many, as any professional economist will tell you. of the supposed benefits during the first term came from the actions taken after the '97 Crisis, for which the incumbents paid the electoral price.

Let us also remember TRT's campaigning on the wickedness of foreigners creating [George Soros for example] the very crisis which their fellow travellers [Chavlit] had in point of fact created.

But you do know this, don't you, but you still have this hysterical notion of the noble agrarian, divorced from reality.

Regards

Very much agreed.

Thaksin was in the Chavalit government at that time + or - a month...

Plus, many respected economists have said:

- Thaksinomics was totally unsustainable long-term and in fact long-term would cause harm to the economy.

- Thailand's strong economy during part of Thaksin's era was mostly a result of the fundamentals put in place by the Chuan Leep Lai team.

[Johpa]

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.

Isn't that the core of US style democracy, one dollar one vote? Look most people vote for the party that is going to give them the most. Poor people will take a few hundred baat in the pocket and wealthy people will take much, much more, but cleverly hidden in the form of tax breaks and other rather nefarious incentives. And then the few of us who would like to see policies that benefit the larger society are branded as "socialists" as if that was a bad thing.

Look no surprise that the very conservative WSJ would be pro-Thaksin, he is their kind of man, totally corrupt yet wealthy enough to garner Wall Street's respect as Wall Street cares not how that wealth is earned, a very Thai sentiment indeed. The Red Shirt's vote is there for the asking. But the Yellow shirts have decided they don't want to bother to throw a few bones to the rural poor, if only because the Yellow Shirts are overwhelmingly Sino-Thai and their more newly assimilated Bangkok brethren who see the more ethnic Isaan and Khon Muang folks as lesser human beings not deserving of the spoils of State. Such lesser human beings are never invited to the table to kin muang.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Johpa