Thaksin: 'democracy Is Not My Goal'

[Plus]

The idea, based on a flawed understanding of genetics, was that human progress would be advanced by capitalising on "good genes" whether in a "superior race" or social class.

So you figured "new politics" out, huh?

Just like that, you take the idea and find a familiar mold to put it into.

By that logic everyone with toothbrush moustache is a Hitler, because he was the only guy around who had one when you grew up.

This logis also reminds me of My fat Greek Wedding - father's attempt to explain greek origins of the word "kimono". He was succesfull, btw, but it's still a comedy.

>>>

Smithson, I disagree with forcing people into artificial state of equality, it has nothing to do with democracy. It's about empowering people, not clipping their wings to fit into drunk Somchai's shoes.

[Smithson]

The idea, based on a flawed understanding of genetics, was that human progress would be advanced by capitalising on "good genes" whether in a "superior race" or social class.

So you figured "new politics" out, huh?

I don't think anyone has figured it out, there is no clear explanation, doctrine or manifesto. However from what you've written it seems to be about not aiming for equality through voting but rather accepting that inequality is the 'natural order' of things. At best this is elitism, at worst something much more sinister.

[Plus]

I don't see it as sinister as long as people have equal rights to prove themeselves.

Just as we don't expect people to be paid equally for every job existing out there, we only give them equal chance to succeed (or try to give them equal chance).

It's illogical to allow people to grow freely in every field of human activity, but not in politics.

[younghusband]

The idea, based on a flawed understanding of genetics, was that human progress would be advanced by capitalising on "good genes" whether in a "superior race" or social class.

So you figured "new politics" out

I'm not so barmy to think PAD is promoting eugenics, but isn't the motivating fear the same - a deep seated worry about the avenging masses.

[younghusband]

I don't see it as sinister as long as people have equal rights to prove themeselves.

Just as we don't expect people to be paid equally for every job existing out there, we only give them equal chance to succeed (or try to give them equal chance).

This begs the question completely.Giving people the equal right to prove themselves is the whole point.That laudable aim is just a bad joke in the Thai context until for example educational and medical resources are equally shared.Actually in practice it would require a kind of positive discrimination towards the rural majority given that resources have been skewed to the urban middle class for so long.The TRT government tried to do something about this and the screams of outrage from the Bangkok middle class are still reverberating.

[Plus]

The NP will force farmers into parliament, I bet they will be represented far better than doctors or lawyers.

The potential to succeed is spread evenly across the population, the best of farmers is supposed to be as smart as the best of doctors, even if in absolute terms doctors get more years of better schooling. Remeber that there's no minimum educational/wealth requirements - only that you are recognised by your peers (and not by elites, as many seem to assume).

[Smithson]

The NP will force farmers into parliament, I bet they will be represented far better than doctors or lawyers.

The potential to succeed is spread evenly across the population, the best of farmers is supposed to be as smart as the best of doctors, even if in absolute terms doctors get more years of better schooling. Remeber that there's no minimum educational/wealth requirements - only that you are recognised by your peers (and not by elites, as many seem to assume).

Where are you getting the info from? Is there a document the defines the NP? What ratio of farmers to doctors will there be?

[hammered]

Sorry to interject on this three way conversation.

Just my take but with new politcs votes are wieghted. Then again in a constituency system votes are also weighted to where only those in swing constituencies really mean much. Admittedly constituency systems are accepted as democratic systems even if they do have some equal OMOV problems.

Why not just go to national party list pure PR and ditch all those constituencies? Then hey everyone has an exactly equal vote which is more democratic and in fact more democratic than most of the world in pure terms. The funny thing with this is that if it had been done before the last election we would probably have a Dem led coalition now (party list vote was almost even and that would have given the Dems the in). The irony is that if the coup makers had trusted democracy in a very pure form they may well have ended up with what they wanted. Instead they tried to do things the old way and well the rest is history. Now we have the PAD trying to restrict things even more when if they trusted democracy it is still possible to come up with a system that is fair more democratic and one in which the PPP would struggle to control things if they could at all, if that is what is wanted. Gaining complete control under pure PR is extremely difficult.

If I can think of this why cant any of Thaksin's opponents? Admittedly I cant see PPP proposiong this as it would severly impact on their ability to control but that it has never ever ben mentioned by their opponents is quite honestly amazing.

[Smithson]

Sorry to interject on this three way conversation.

Just my take but with new politcs votes are wieghted. Then again in a constituency system votes are also weighted to where only those in swing constituencies really mean much. Admittedly constituency systems are accepted as democratic systems even if they do have some equal OMOV problems.

Why not just go to national party list pure PR and ditch all those constituencies? Then hey everyone has an exactly equal vote which is more democratic and in fact more democratic than most of the world in pure terms.

This can lead to a tyranny of the majority, the constituency system allows for different areas to be represented.

If I can think of this why cant any of Thaksin's opponents? Admittedly I cant see PPP proposiong this as it would severly impact on their ability to control but that it has never ever ben mentioned by their opponents is quite honestly amazing.

This is why ppl question what the PAD is trying to achieve. It seems they are also trying to create a system that can be controlled.

[Plus]

The NP will force farmers into parliament, I bet they will be represented far better than doctors or lawyers.

The potential to succeed is spread evenly across the population, the best of farmers is supposed to be as smart as the best of doctors, even if in absolute terms doctors get more years of better schooling. Remeber that there's no minimum educational/wealth requirements - only that you are recognised by your peers (and not by elites, as many seem to assume).

Where are you getting the info from? Is there a document the defines the NP? What ratio of farmers to doctors will there be?

There are links to Sondhi and Suriyasai's interviews, there are a couple of articles describing the proposal when it was first introduced.

The exact ratio of farmers to doctors - the composition of appointed/selected MPs is a technical detail, PAD has left it to the society to work out these things. Most likely there will be another CDA where various members will propose various numbers, and eventually they agree on something.

Current voting system is very complex - with zones and multi candidate constituencies. It's not exactly one man one vote - some people get better representation, some worse - because the number of MPs varies from constituency to constituency. Some get to vote for two MPs, some for three.

[quiksilva]

Apologies for dredging up a seven year old old thread, but I think its useful to reflect on just what Thaksin is actually fighting for, and where a lot of this sentiment has come from. Seven years is a long time, and its understandable if some people forget what he told he the world what he actually wants.

It sure as heck is not Democracy. He does not give a hoot about democracy now, or when he was in power. Its all rhetoric. The only thing he cares about is regaining a strangle hold on the reins of power.

Remember too how he also once said “my government will work for those who vote for me”. This is the guy many people on here want to see regain the seat of power in this country. Scary stuff.

[Samuian]

Apologies for dredging up a seven year old old thread, but I think its useful to reflect on just what Thaksin is actually fighting for, and where a lot of this sentiment has come from. Seven years is a long time, and its understandable if some people forget what he told he the world what he actually wants.

It sure as heck is not Democracy. He does not give a hoot about democracy now, or when he was in power. Its all rhetoric. The only thing he cares about is regaining a strangle hold on the reins of power.

Remember too how he also once said “my government will work for those who vote for me”. This is the guy many people on here want to see regain the seat of power in this country. Scary stuff.

Well done!

It shows clearly that this mans aim will never ever change, he want's it all, all and nothing less then all!

THAILAND INC.

CEO - Thaksin Shinawatra

...it fit's so well with his propaganda these day's..

[Mitker]

Apologies for dredging up a seven year old old thread, but I think its useful to reflect on just what Thaksin is actually fighting for, and where a lot of this sentiment has come from. Seven years is a long time, and its understandable if some people forget what he told he the world what he actually wants.

It sure as heck is not Democracy. He does not give a hoot about democracy now, or when he was in power. Its all rhetoric. The only thing he cares about is regaining a strangle hold on the reins of power.

Remember too how he also once said "my government will work for those who vote for me". This is the guy many people on here want to see regain the seat of power in this country. Scary stuff.

Would be the same guy but worse coz revengeful. More than scary.

Including for farangs who could prove pretty convenient scapegoats for someone who likes smoke screen.

[lannarebirth]

Apologies for dredging up a seven year old old thread, but I think its useful to reflect on just what Thaksin is actually fighting for, and where a lot of this sentiment has come from. Seven years is a long time, and its understandable if some people forget what he told he the world what he actually wants.

It sure as heck is not Democracy. He does not give a hoot about democracy now, or when he was in power. Its all rhetoric. The only thing he cares about is regaining a strangle hold on the reins of power.

Remember too how he also once said "my government will work for those who vote for me". This is the guy many people on here want to see regain the seat of power in this country. Scary stuff.

I can't find a link, but this all fits with the talk he gave about how corruption is a very normal part of how a government functions. Tin pot dictator aspirant.

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

Someone should have the original interview on audio tape/file..... burn it on a CD, then drive a pickup or better a 10-wheel truck with HUGE speakers near the reds' camp site and play the speech in repeat. Let them hear their idol contradict himself, this noble "fighter for democracy" who's goal so clearly is NOT democracy.

Taken from the horse's mouth maybe even the hardcore Thaksin fans will begin to understand that they are only being used by a billionaire megalomaniac. As soon as the reds drop Thaksin i can imagine their actual support will only grow as many of their other issues (poverty, education etc) are quite real and worth the debate/protest.

Even i myself would wear red if Thaksin was out of the picture.

Best regards.....

Thanh

Edited March 22, 2010 by Thanh-BKK

[MellowYellow]

Hi.

Someone should have the original interview on audio tape/file..... burn it on a CD, then drive a pickup or better a 10-wheel truck with HUGE speakers near the reds' camp site and play the speech in repeat. Let them hear their idol contradict himself, this noble "fighter for democracy" who's goal so clearly is NOT democracy.

Taken from the horse's mouth maybe even the hardcore Thaksin fans will begin to understand that they are only being used by a billionaire megalomaniac. As soon as the reds drop Thaksin i can imagine their actual support will only grow as many of their other issues (poverty, education etc) are quite real and worth the debate/protest.

Even i myself would wear red if Thaksin was out of the picture.

Best regards.....

Thanh

Yes! And then record every single one the posts extolling New Politics and "you don't deserve equal voting power you poor schmuck" spiel and play that right after.

Then you can see the hypocrisy on BOTH sides not just one side.

Oh...Wait! NVM. All that wear yellow be good! All that wear red be bad! It's much simpler that way for you.

[quiksilva]

It is also too simplistic to view this as a merely Red vs Yellow issue.

[Ricardo]

Hi.

Someone should have the original interview on audio tape/file..... burn it on a CD, then drive a pickup or better a 10-wheel truck with HUGE speakers near the reds' camp site and play the speech in repeat. Let them hear their idol contradict himself, this noble "fighter for democracy" who's goal so clearly is NOT democracy.

Taken from the horse's mouth maybe even the hardcore Thaksin fans will begin to understand that they are only being used by a billionaire megalomaniac. As soon as the reds drop Thaksin i can imagine their actual support will only grow as many of their other issues (poverty, education etc) are quite real and worth the debate/protest.

Even i myself would wear red if Thaksin was out of the picture.

Best regards.....

Thanh

Yes! And then record every single one the posts extolling New Politics and "you don't deserve equal voting power you poor schmuck" spiel and play that right after.

Then you can see the hypocrisy on BOTH sides not just one side.

Oh...Wait! NVM. All that wear yellow be good! All that wear red be bad! It's much simpler that way for you.

I think you're over-simplifying this, to equate the then-PM's clear undemocratic-stance, with a few speakers on the stage of a rally by a pressure-group which still hasn't even stood for election yet ?

Hardly comparing like with like, IMO.

[MellowYellow]

Hi.

Someone should have the original interview on audio tape/file..... burn it on a CD, then drive a pickup or better a 10-wheel truck with HUGE speakers near the reds' camp site and play the speech in repeat. Let them hear their idol contradict himself, this noble "fighter for democracy" who's goal so clearly is NOT democracy.

Taken from the horse's mouth maybe even the hardcore Thaksin fans will begin to understand that they are only being used by a billionaire megalomaniac. As soon as the reds drop Thaksin i can imagine their actual support will only grow as many of their other issues (poverty, education etc) are quite real and worth the debate/protest.

Even i myself would wear red if Thaksin was out of the picture.

Best regards.....

Thanh

Yes! And then record every single one the posts extolling New Politics and "you don't deserve equal voting power you poor schmuck" spiel and play that right after.

Then you can see the hypocrisy on BOTH sides not just one side.

Oh...Wait! NVM. All that wear yellow be good! All that wear red be bad! It's much simpler that way for you.

I think you're over-simplifying this, to equate the then-PM's clear undemocratic-stance, with a few speakers on the stage of a rally by a pressure-group which still hasn't even stood for election yet ?

Hardly comparing like with like, IMO.

No. They havent stood for election but they put the government in the hands of the current ruling party who so very willingly accepted the power.

[quiksilva]

No they didn't. It had nothing to do with PAD's protests. (Aside from timing)

Democrats gained power through the formation of a coalition government following the lawful disbandment of TRT for electoral fraud.

Edited March 22, 2010 by quiksilva

[Moonrakers]

It is also too simplistic to view this as a merely Red vs Yellow issue.

Although for many, if you don't think that Thaksin is fit to be PM then you simply must be a yellow.

[MellowYellow]

It is also too simplistic to view this as a merely Red vs Yellow issue.

Although for many, if you don't think that Thaksin is fit to be PM then you simply must be a yellow.

AH perfect summary with some minor substituiton. It appears to me that 80% of the posters here presuppose that by finding the current government illegitimate you must be not only RED but a huge Thaksinite.

Carry on with the one sided dance.

[moo9]

Well. these call for democracy are crazy. You see, 5 yrs Mr. T. denied the need for real democracy, now after 5 yrs, having bought and pulled the people on his side, he insists on it.

Frankly speaking, the issue with "democracies" in countries like Thailand is, that the average population is simply not educated and mature enough to value and excute the worth of a democracy. I do not want to blame the people, but all the leaders of the past, who never took care of this.

It might take, to be realistic at least 1-2 generations, until the country will be ready for a real democracy. Until then we will continue to experience those fights for power and influence with all possible negative impacts.

I can't see any leader now, who could direct Thailand on to the right way. They are all too busy with their individual struggle for power, money, face.

If people glorify Mr. Thaksin, they should take a look in to their bankbooks and question themselves whether they really see any substantial pay increase during his period? They won't.

[anotherpeter]

No. They havent stood for election but they put the government in the hands of the current ruling party who so very willingly accepted the power.

Didn't they get elected in the 2007 election?

[lannarebirth]

It is also too simplistic to view this as a merely Red vs Yellow issue.

Although for many, if you don't think that Thaksin is fit to be PM then you simply must be a yellow.

AH perfect summary with some minor substituiton. It appears to me that 80% of the posters here presuppose that by finding the current government illegitimate you must be not only RED but a huge Thaksinite.

Carry on with the one sided dance.

Or, one might be sympathetic towards those who identify themselves in the Red movement, feel Thaksin is tyrannical divisive element to Thai society and feel no one is better able to help the "Reds" achieve their stated aims than the current government.

[MellowYellow]

No they didn't. It had nothing to do with PAD's protests. (Aside from timing)

Democrats gained power through the formation of a coalition government following the lawful disbandment of TRT for electoral fraud.

Whih followed the lawful coup, the lawful forced rewrite of the constitution at the hands of a military junta, who also lawfully disbanded their political rival party, and the lawful riotous yellow mobs.

Yeah, totally lawful and pure election process.

Edited March 22, 2010 by MellowYellow

[Samuian]

Hi.

Someone should have the original interview on audio tape/file..... burn it on a CD, then drive a pickup or better a 10-wheel truck with HUGE speakers near the reds' camp site and play the speech in repeat. Let them hear their idol contradict himself, this noble "fighter for democracy" who's goal so clearly is NOT democracy.

Taken from the horse's mouth maybe even the hardcore Thaksin fans will begin to understand that they are only being used by a billionaire megalomaniac. As soon as the reds drop Thaksin i can imagine their actual support will only grow as many of their other issues (poverty, education etc) are quite real and worth the debate/protest.

Even i myself would wear red if Thaksin was out of the picture.

Best regards.....

Thanh

Yes! And then record every single one the posts extolling New Politics and "you don't deserve equal voting power you poor schmuck" spiel and play that right after.

Then you can see the hypocrisy on BOTH sides not just one side.

Oh...Wait! NVM. All that wear yellow be good! All that wear red be bad! It's much simpler that way for you.

I strongly think that this PAD stance is blown out of context and over estimated!

The calm, independent observer knows what was meant with this not very carefully crafted statement!

This statement is the direct result of what is the basics of the speech at the beginning of this thread!

Plus the result of the "democratic achievements"of the TRT-Thaksin run Government - in those days it wasn't important, nowadays all the Thaksin supporting faction scream of an "democratic elected"government and an illegal one at present...

And those see no contradictions in what they are trying to sell as the "Truth Today", tomorrow, after tomorrow, yesterday and in eternity!

Cause the "only truth there is, is red and it's as WE say it, understood and this is democracy, understood!"?

If not, we help you, with some threads, some black magic, some cursing, some blood spilling, intimidation, paid protesters, threads, mobbing, shootings, killings, faeces throwing, some grenades fired in the obscurity of the night, some shots fired... some this, some that!

Democracy... "my Democracy is edible"!

And then "huh!" what do you want?

"I give you freedom and wealth - I'll lift you out of poverty, look at me!"

Who needs democracy?

[anotherpeter]

No they didn't. It had nothing to do with PAD's protests. (Aside from timing)

Democrats gained power through the formation of a coalition government following the lawful disbandment of TRT for electoral fraud.

Whih followed the lawful coup, the lawful forced rewrite of the constitution at the hands of a military junta, who also lawfully disbanded their political rival party, and the lawful riotous yellow mobs.

Yeah, totally lawful and pure election process.

The disbanding of the PPP was lawful. The evidence seems to show that they committed electoral fraud.

Not many have said that the coup was lawful or the yellow shirt occupation of the airport was lawful.

The PPP (thaksin supporters) seemed to think that the 2007 election was lawful, as long as they were in power.

[Thai at Heart]

Well. these call for democracy are crazy. You see, 5 yrs Mr. T. denied the need for real democracy, now after 5 yrs, having bought and pulled the people on his side, he insists on it.

Frankly speaking, the issue with "democracies" in countries like Thailand is, that the average population is simply not educated and mature enough to value and excute the worth of a democracy. I do not want to blame the people, but all the leaders of the past, who never took care of this.

It might take, to be realistic at least 1-2 generations, until the country will be ready for a real democracy. Until then we will continue to experience those fights for power and influence with all possible negative impacts.

I can't see any leader now, who could direct Thailand on to the right way. They are all too busy with their individual struggle for power, money, face.

If people glorify Mr. Thaksin, they should take a look in to their bankbooks and question themselves whether they really see any substantial pay increase during his period? They won't.

The major issue is that it was at least perceived that the person you elected would act more or less as you believed and he would hopefully work in your interests.

When parties stated before hand that they wouldn't partner with PPP and then did, and then another that was believed that it would partner with PPP, ran the other way, people rightly or wrongly feel that they have been cheated. I would doubt if many voter would even believe that this was possible, but that is what happened and it is legal, so that is it.

In more sophisticated systems coalition partners are often affirmed before elections begin or alliances are at least public and relatively strong. The risk of backing out of them is often political suicide as supporters desert you next time around.

The party system isn't that sophisticated over here, with none of them having very distinct manifestos. If for no other reason than this, the remaking of coalitions in mid term through back room dealings might mean the local overlord will not be able to wield quite so much control over his local electorate. Newin and Banharns duplicity might be the start of truly national broad spectrum politics. When dodgy buggars like this are the kingmakers in elections, how low can it go anyway?

I often wonder how Abhisit even sits at the same table with some of these people.

[MellowYellow]

It is also too simplistic to view this as a merely Red vs Yellow issue.

Although for many, if you don't think that Thaksin is fit to be PM then you simply must be a yellow.

AH perfect summary with some minor substituiton. It appears to me that 80% of the posters here presuppose that by finding the current government illegitimate you must be not only RED but a huge Thaksinite.

Carry on with the one sided dance.

Or, one might be sympathetic towards those who identify themselves in the Red movement, feel Thaksin is tyrannical divisive element to Thai society and feel no one is better able to help the "Reds" achieve their stated aims than the current government.

I think you may have stated my position.

I definitly favor the red causes vice the elite "HiSo" factions.

I definitly think Thailand is far better without Thaksin involved.

I definitly think class is a very big part of this discussion despite the government (and it's supporting military and judicial cohorts) saying it isn't.

I also definitly think I don't know how to spell definitly.