Thai Elite, Middle Class Cold To Unfavourable Poll Results

[letitbe]

Act as Pawns... Treated as Pawns.

Well said and totally true of red masses They will satay virtual slaves while Taksin and his top thugs laugh all way to the bank and worse try and impose total rule under their dear leaders or should I say dear brother as in north Korea Well done all Taksin supporters for keeping poor in serfdom if taksin wins. At least their was a chance of some decency under dems theirs not even ant pretence at decency

You're right, that the way they have been treated until now.

Now they realize their vote matters

Today it's Thaksin, tomorrow it will be someone else

Your post is so patronizing, the smart educated people (read democrats ) gave them their chance ... decency ... those poor bastard are so dumb and dirty ....

The more the democrats try to buy votes, the more people realize the true value of their vote.

And the more they're definitively going to vote.

Unfortunately probably not for the democrats

well at least you admit Taksin will do no good for the poor. As far as they see their vote counts are you kidding they know it does not count for much at all they have said at least they get something from Taksin which may or may not be true. You have a very touching faith in democracy and votes. In end the poor will not have any say in it and spoils will be shared amongst the wolves. The decent honest thai people I live with will sadly not even understand they have been totally duped. At some time but not for a long while here Thailand might have a system where its not just rich red or others who take it all. That will probably never be in my lifetime. If you knew anything about me I constantly tell our maid and staff they are equal and I mean it. Their system makes them treat me like some form of lord and no amount of me telling them I am just more lucky, have had better life chances and begging them to just have some pride does no good. They are all 100% red through to bone. Perhaps that is where answer lies. They almost to my embarrassment seem to worship me because I pay them very well for work well done. Because I give them all things I no longer need or want. Because im rich i guess. They think of Taksin in same way and because of their education their upbringing their culture thin of him as their better and worship like a god all because they think he throes them a few crumbs. Ive mixed with top hodi totally red Taksin supporters who are far more patronising than i could ever be. PAy their maids as little as they can and complain about how much we overpay ours. Do you even live here ???

[CosmicSurfer]

very true - hence the backlash - it's surprising how many posters here support this elite system. It's been my experience that 90% of farang I meet are more 'yellow' then 'red' - why is that? nothing to do with comprehension I'm convinced - but more to do with being raised and making their living in countries with wealth. More a lack of empathy? a resistance to support the oppressed? interesting...

I was quite neutral until I started working with the elite and then decided I really didn't like their attitudes to less well off people that puts me in the 10% I wonder if the other 90% have ever met the Thai elite? I doubt they would still be yellow after doing so.

ive seen same with wealthy red supporters they are all disgusting but wait and see how Taksin and his top lot treat poor just pawns fit for garbage can. I agree about a lot of rich elite what you sont see and I have is rich red supporters treating their maids and rest exactly same and saying if you treat them better they will only bite you. Look around and you might open your eyes especially if youve lived here 15 or more years like some of us. Ive met them both Taksin hiso supporters and elite and theirs nothing between them as far as treating the poor

There is No Difference between Red & Yellow.. This is NOT a Class Struggle, or any Movement to achieve Equality for the Masses...

It is, Plain and simple, A Power struggle between competing Ruling Classes, with the masses of People simply dupes or pawns, strictly expendable.

At the Top, the forces that control these competing movements, both have the same aims.. Control, Power & Money... all at the expenses of their undereducated, unknowing supporters, who don't have the capacity to know they can actually have better choices. Neither set of leaders has any real ambition to effect real change and destroy the system that feeds their spigot of corruption.. The real pot of gold at the end of the Political Rainbow.

Any systemic change just kills off the 'Fatted Calf', or the 'Golden Goose'... an unthinkable nightmare to both sides.

The only hope for real change will come from a Thai Messiah, with the charisma of a Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or a Nelson Mandela... Qualities that are lacking to anyone of any influence in Thailand at this time.... Those Mesmerized by Thaksin are hypnotized by by his Rasputin-like attributes.. as he leads them down the Dark path into the continuing Dark-Ages... and Unfortunately, a Thai White-Knight is only a Wish unfulfillable.

So Sorry... But Truth Hurts when taken out into the bright light of Realty.

CS

Edited June 24, 2011 by CosmicSurfer

[moe666]

Well the news is that it is not just Thailand. When Obama was elected many Republicans said he wasn't their president.

Edited June 24, 2011 by moe666

[whybother]

There is No Difference between Red & Yellow.. This is NOT a Class Struggle, or any Movement to achieve Equality for the Masses...

It is, Plain and simple, A Power struggle between competing Ruling Classes, with the masses of People simply dupes or pawns, strictly expendable.

At the Top, the forces that control these competing movements, both have the same aims.. Control, Power & Money... all at the expenses of their undereducated, unknowing supporters, who don't have the capacity to know they can actually have better choices. Neither set of leaders has any real ambition to effect real change and destroy the system that feeds their spigot of corruption.. The real pot of gold at the end of the Political Rainbow.

Any systemic change just kills off the 'Fatted Calf', or the 'Golden Goose'... an unthinkable nightmare to both sides.

The only hope for real change will come from a Thai Messiah, with the charisma of a Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or a Nelson Mandela... Qualities that are lacking to anyone of any influence in Thailand at this time.... Those Mesmerized by Thaksin are hypnotized by by his Rasputin-like attributes.. as he leads them down the Dark path into the continuing Dark-Ages... and Unfortunately, a Thai White-Knight is only a Wish unfulfillable.

So Sorry... But Truth Hurts when taken out into the bright light of Realty.

CS

[gregb]

I think the reaction of the anti Thaksin group has much less to do with not accepting the legitimacy of the electorate and much more to do with being incensed at the contempt that a small majority would show by returning the tyrant Thaksin to power.

The problem is not with the middle class being able or unable to accept the results, but with the red supporters being unwilling to show the responsibility that goes along with their privilege. Should Thaksin try and return, the anti Thaksin crowd has every right to demand the military step in to do something about this. I have said before as an analogy, if you rape my daughter, but then give free stuff to everyone else so that they like you, I am not obliged to accept a majority decision on whether or not you should be let go. Everyone else's vote is invalid in this case, because they failed to accept the responsibility that went along with the right.

The fact that a large group of people in this country have no moral compass does not mean that the middle class is wrong to refuse to accept their unreasonable attempts to whitewash the criminal of his crimes. I have no problem with the PT, as long as they do not press forward with their amnesty plans. Start this, and there will be huge protests, a coup, and in the end civil war if nothing else proves effective.

Democracy is about so much more than voting, and if the red brigade can not understand this, then they do not deserve the rights it offers them.

[cardholder]

I think the reaction of the anti Thaksin group has much less to do with not accepting the legitimacy of the electorate and much more to do with being incensed at the contempt that a small majority would show by returning the tyrant Thaksin to power.

The problem is not with the middle class being able or unable to accept the results, but with the red supporters being unwilling to show the responsibility that goes along with their privilege. Should Thaksin try and return, the anti Thaksin crowd has every right to demand the military step in to do something about this. I have said before as an analogy, if you rape my daughter, but then give free stuff to everyone else so that they like you, I am not obliged to accept a majority decision on whether or not you should be let go. Everyone else's vote is invalid in this case, because they failed to accept the responsibility that went along with the right.

The fact that a large group of people in this country have no moral compass does not mean that the middle class is wrong to refuse to accept their unreasonable attempts to whitewash the criminal of his crimes. I have no problem with the PT, as long as they do not press forward with their amnesty plans. Start this, and there will be huge protests, a coup, and in the end civil war if nothing else proves effective.

Democracy is about so much more than voting, and if the red brigade can not understand this, then they do not deserve the rights it offers them.

There is a danger of this sounding like "the great unwashed have no right to vote because they are not bright enough to understand the consequence of their vote".

I say give them their democratic right to vote but (somehow) ensure that whichever party wins understands the responsibility that goes with that mandate.

Democracy is ALL about voting where the electorate is concerned. Democracy is an awful lot more where elected parties are concerned.

[Groongthep]

1.) Should Thaksin try and return, the anti Thaksin crowd has every right to demand the military step in to do something about this.

2.) Democracy is about so much more than voting, and if the red brigade (people) can not understand this, then they do not deserve the rights it offers them.

Sounds like something Benito Mussolino might have said.

[lannarebirth]

I think the reaction of the anti Thaksin group has much less to do with not accepting the legitimacy of the electorate and much more to do with being incensed at the contempt that a small majority would show by returning the tyrant Thaksin to power.

The problem is not with the middle class being able or unable to accept the results, but with the red supporters being unwilling to show the responsibility that goes along with their privilege. Should Thaksin try and return, the anti Thaksin crowd has every right to demand the military step in to do something about this. I have said before as an analogy, if you rape my daughter, but then give free stuff to everyone else so that they like you, I am not obliged to accept a majority decision on whether or not you should be let go. Everyone else's vote is invalid in this case, because they failed to accept the responsibility that went along with the right.

The fact that a large group of people in this country have no moral compass does not mean that the middle class is wrong to refuse to accept their unreasonable attempts to whitewash the criminal of his crimes. I have no problem with the PT, as long as they do not press forward with their amnesty plans. Start this, and there will be huge protests, a coup, and in the end civil war if nothing else proves effective.

Democracy is about so much more than voting, and if the red brigade can not understand this, then they do not deserve the rights it offers them.

There is a danger of this sounding like "the great unwashed have no right to vote because they are not bright enough to understand the consequence of their vote".

I say give them their democratic right to vote but (somehow) ensure that whichever party wins understands the responsibility that goes with that mandate.

Democracy is ALL about voting where the electorate is concerned. Democracy is an awful lot more where elected parties are concerned.

Why should anyone respect the electorate if they choose to vote in a criminal. I'm not talking about Thaksin, but Yingluck. She's gonna get busted for perjury (or something similar) and it will have nothing to do with politics. The evidence supports the idea that she perjured herself. That makes her a crininal, not a Prime Minister. Will we soon be facing mobs to enforce the rights of criminals to high office? Oh wait a minute, we already have.

[cardholder]

Why should anyone respect the electorate if they choose to vote in a criminal.

So we now have a TV poster dictating who is allowed to vote ? :jerk:

[rubl]

Why should anyone respect the electorate if they choose to vote in a criminal.

So we now have a TV poster dictating who is allowed to vote ? :jerk:

Not really, just a poster expressing his opinion. Just as valid as your interpretation. Mind you after the sentence you quote a bit more followed to explain the opinion. :jerk:

[whybother]

Why should anyone respect the electorate if they choose to vote in a criminal.

So we now have a TV poster dictating who is allowed to vote ? :jerk:

They're allowed to vote. The question has just been asked as to why their vote would be respected if they vote in a criminal.

[gregb]

1.) Should Thaksin try and return, the anti Thaksin crowd has every right to demand the military step in to do something about this.

2.) Democracy is about so much more than voting, and if the red brigade (people) can not understand this, then they do not deserve the rights it offers them.

Sounds like something Benito Mussolino might have said.

If you think that is a fascist sentiment then you clearly do not understand what I have just said, and I urge you to read my comments again. I am not afraid of people saying that this sounds like I am against democracy. I have said on several previous occasions that the Thai people are better served by a monarchy and a patronage system. That is what they understand, and that is what they respect.

It is only the middle class who have tried to make this democracy thing work, and it is backfiring because the people of Thailand never developed the mindset and the culture that allows it to be effective. The English took several hundred years to develop democratic ideals, all the time being guided by a non elected House of Lords who kept the country from running into the ground during that critical period. Thailand has nothing like that, and anyone who tries to point this out gets accused of being against freedom. Instead, they should recognize that it takes time for a culture to become mature enough to act like a democracy, and put in place the necessary restriction to keep it from self destructing in the mean time.

I would love to see Thailand show it is mature enough to accept the ideals of democracy. That starts by punishing all people who commit crimes, not pardoning them and returning them to office. I have the moral courage to state that nobody is above the law. The reds do not. They believe that their patrons should be able to do whatever they want to whomever they want with no responsibility shown towards those they hurt.

That sentiment is much closer to Hitler and Mussolini than my own.

[lannarebirth]

Why should anyone respect the electorate if they choose to vote in a criminal.

So we now have a TV poster dictating who is allowed to vote ? :jerk:

Basic comprehension problem there I suppose. I'm not suggesting anything about who is allowed to vote, but I do wonder about who is allowed to run. If Yingluck wins she will be more than likely be disqualified on fairly legitimate grounds. Do the people who would vote for her understand that? Do they understand that criminals probably shouldn't be Prime Ministers? Would they riot if she were accused of and convicted of perjury? Assuming she's actually guilty of that crime, should she be Prime Minister even if a large percentage of the people might vote for her?

Edited June 24, 2011 by lannarebirth

[letitbe]

I think the reaction of the anti Thaksin group has much less to do with not accepting the legitimacy of the electorate and much more to do with being incensed at the contempt that a small majority would show by returning the tyrant Thaksin to power.

The problem is not with the middle class being able or unable to accept the results, but with the red supporters being unwilling to show the responsibility that goes along with their privilege. Should Thaksin try and return, the anti Thaksin crowd has every right to demand the military step in to do something about this. I have said before as an analogy, if you rape my daughter, but then give free stuff to everyone else so that they like you, I am not obliged to accept a majority decision on whether or not you should be let go. Everyone else's vote is invalid in this case, because they failed to accept the responsibility that went along with the right.

The fact that a large group of people in this country have no moral compass does not mean that the middle class is wrong to refuse to accept their unreasonable attempts to whitewash the criminal of his crimes. I have no problem with the PT, as long as they do not press forward with their amnesty plans. Start this, and there will be huge protests, a coup, and in the end civil war if nothing else proves effective.

Democracy is about so much more than voting, and if the red brigade can not understand this, then they do not deserve the rights it offers them.

well said much better than i could put it

[lannarebirth]

I. I have no problem with the PT, as long as they do not press forward with their amnesty plans. Start this, and there will be huge protests and...

Democracy is about so much more than voting, and if the red brigade can not understand this, then they do not deserve the rights it offers them.

I've got some problems with PTP, but I believe Thailand can survive their reign if they can find a way to discard Thaksin. I've seen zero evidence of that so far and that is disturbing to me.

Side note: My wife has told me for the last couple months she will be voting for Thaksin as she believes it will further her business interests. So, with the election drawing near, I asked her tonight who she would be voting for. "You know I can't vote for Thaksin, I just said that because Abhisit just seems too soft" So I said "aren't he best Thai people justa little bit too soft"? So she says "leave me alone I'm voting for Abhisit". I wonder if one of the poll takers interviewed her?

Edited June 24, 2011 by lannarebirth

[monkfish]

mmm maybe the people don't believe he is a criminal? which is why they will vote for him.

or may be they think the Military who took power by force broke the law too?

By the way he was only convicted on conflict of interest not murder.

Edited June 24, 2011 by monkfish

[Lite Beer]

An inflammatory post has been deleted

[whybother]

mmm maybe the people don't believe he is a criminal? which is why they will vote for him.

or may be they think the Military who took power by force broke the law too?

By the way he was only convicted on conflict of interest not murder.

So far.

[philw]

I think the reaction of the anti Thaksin group has much less to do with not accepting the legitimacy of the electorate and much more to do with being incensed at the contempt that a small majority would show by returning the tyrant Thaksin to power.

The problem is not with the middle class being able or unable to accept the results, but with the red supporters being unwilling to show the responsibility that goes along with their privilege. Should Thaksin try and return, the anti Thaksin crowd has every right to demand the military step in to do something about this. I have said before as an analogy, if you rape my daughter, but then give free stuff to everyone else so that they like you, I am not obliged to accept a majority decision on whether or not you should be let go. Everyone else's vote is invalid in this case, because they failed to accept the responsibility that went along with the right.

The fact that a large group of people in this country have no moral compass does not mean that the middle class is wrong to refuse to accept their unreasonable attempts to whitewash the criminal of his crimes. I have no problem with the PT, as long as they do not press forward with their amnesty plans. Start this, and there will be huge protests, a coup, and in the end civil war if nothing else proves effective.

Democracy is about so much more than voting, and if the red brigade can not understand this, then they do not deserve the rights it offers them.

There is a danger of this sounding like "the great unwashed have no right to vote because they are not bright enough to understand the consequence of their vote".

I say give them their democratic right to vote but (somehow) ensure that whichever party wins understands the responsibility that goes with that mandate.

Democracy is ALL about voting where the electorate is concerned. Democracy is an awful lot more where elected parties are concerned.

Why should anyone respect the electorate if they choose to vote in a criminal. I'm not talking about Thaksin, but Yingluck. She's gonna get busted for perjury (or something similar) and it will have nothing to do with politics. The evidence supports the idea that she perjured herself. That makes her a crininal, not a Prime Minister. Will we soon be facing mobs to enforce the rights of criminals to high office? Oh wait a minute, we already have.

How say she is a criminal ??

Likewise, a PM and Cabinet that brought troops onto the streets and removed protesters by sniper fire surely has criminal responsibility for the death of citizens to whom he has a duty of care ??

Of course, I forget, nobody really died and those that did ( but there weren't any, except those that died.........) must have shot themselves or inadvertently "ran" into some bullets...........

So says the Deputy Prime Minister, not me.

[whybother]

How say she is a criminal ??

She is a criminal for providing false documents and making false statements. Of course, it might have been just a mistake. Those sorts of mistakes seem to run in the family.

[ratcatcher]

mmm maybe the people don't believe he is a criminal? which is why they will vote for him.

or may be they think the Military who took power by force broke the law too?

By the way he was only convicted on conflict of interest not murder.

There is no such crime as 'bail jumping.' The crime is "absconding" or becoming a "Fugitive from Justice".Thus since Thaksin absconded and became a fugitive from justice, that, in most sane people's eyes, makes him a criminal.

Obviously the people that support him don't believe he is a criminal. They just don't understand.

[rixalex]

mmm maybe the people don't believe he is a criminal? which is why they will vote for him.

Electorate doesn't decide on a person's guilt, the courts do, and they told us that he is guilty. He (and the electorate) has to start by respecting that, in the same way he respected the courts when they cleared him of hiding assets, and in the same way that he declared he would before they gave their verdict. Respect the decision, take the punishment, and if you think you have been wronged, follow up using the legal channels that are there.

Running away is for cowards.

Running for PM is not for criminals.

[TAWP]

i think that Mr. Aek is absolutely right, and i also don't understand the yellows' "Vote no" campaign, what's the point of voting no? to kill democracy? i think that if pollycal situaton continues this way i better start to find another place to live in

You seem to fail to grasp what democracy means. It is *not* 'forced vote for a lesser bad choice' -- that just becomes the choice for many sadly -- so a 'No' vote to show the peoples unhappiness with poor choices of candidates are fully proper and exactly how it should be.

[Bkkorupcountry]

Why should anyone respect the electorate if they choose to vote in a criminal.

So we now have a TV poster dictating who is allowed to vote ? :jerk:

They're allowed to vote. The question has just been asked as to why their vote would be respected if they vote in a criminal.

Would the vote of an electorate (anywhere in the world, not just Thailand) be more respected if they voted in an idiot or a womaniser or an alcoholic or a rascist or a homophobic or a homosexual/lesbian or a.... or a .... or a. .....

[rixalex]

Would the vote of an electorate (anywhere in the world, not just Thailand) be more respected if they voted in an idiot or a womaniser or an alcoholic or a rascist or a homophobic or a homosexual/lesbian or a.... or a .... or a. .....

If the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, had lived their lives within the law, then yes, a vote for such a person could be respected and more importantly, would have to be accepted. If however the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, happened to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced, and then fled, then no, voting for such a person doesn't have to be respected and more importantly, should not be allowed. Electoral laws should prevent it.

[JurgenG]

Would the vote of an electorate (anywhere in the world, not just Thailand) be more respected if they voted in an idiot or a womaniser or an alcoholic or a rascist or a homophobic or a homosexual/lesbian or a.... or a .... or a. .....

If the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, had lived their lives within the law, then yes, a vote for such a person could be respected and more importantly, would have to be accepted. If however the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, happened to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced, and then fled, then no, voting for such a person doesn't have to be respected and more importantly, should not be allowed. Electoral laws should prevent it.

In some countries, being an homosexual is a crime. So you agree that in those countries, homosexuals should be sentenced, serve their time, amend their way and be banned from being elected ?

And that people should be prevented from changing the law as homosexuality is such an awful, against nature crime ?

Even if the majority of the people of this country thinks that homosexuality is not a crime, the high moral ground give the right to the minority to ignore the will of the majority and keep sending homosexual to jail then rehabilitation ?

Think about it, there isn't much difference between what I just said and the views expressed by the anti-Thaksin brigade.

[jdinasia]

Would the vote of an electorate (anywhere in the world, not just Thailand) be more respected if they voted in an idiot or a womaniser or an alcoholic or a rascist or a homophobic or a homosexual/lesbian or a.... or a .... or a. .....

If the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, had lived their lives within the law, then yes, a vote for such a person could be respected and more importantly, would have to be accepted. If however the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, happened to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced, and then fled, then no, voting for such a person doesn't have to be respected and more importantly, should not be allowed. Electoral laws should prevent it.

In some countries, being an homosexual is a crime. So you agree that in those countries, homosexuals should be sentenced, serve their time, amend their way and be banned from being elected ?

And that people should be prevented from changing the law as homosexuality is such an awful, against nature crime ?

Even if the majority of the people of this country thinks that homosexuality is not a crime, the high moral ground give the right to the minority to ignore the will of the majority and keep sending homosexual to jail then rehabilitation ?

Think about it, there isn't much difference between what I just said and the views expressed by the anti-Thaksin brigade.

Yes there is ... I just don't expect you to see it

[JurgenG]

^ To be honest, I didn't expect you to understand either

[rixalex]

Would the vote of an electorate (anywhere in the world, not just Thailand) be more respected if they voted in an idiot or a womaniser or an alcoholic or a rascist or a homophobic or a homosexual/lesbian or a.... or a .... or a. .....

If the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, had lived their lives within the law, then yes, a vote for such a person could be respected and more importantly, would have to be accepted. If however the idiot, the womaniser, the alcoholic, the racist, the homophobe, the homosexual and the lesbian, happened to have committed a crime, been convicted and sentenced, and then fled, then no, voting for such a person doesn't have to be respected and more importantly, should not be allowed. Electoral laws should prevent it.

In some countries, being an homosexual is a crime. So you agree that in those countries, homosexuals should be sentenced, serve their time, amend their way and be banned from being elected ?

And that people should be prevented from changing the law as homosexuality is such an awful, against nature crime ?

Even if the majority of the people of this country thinks that homosexuality is not a crime, the high moral ground give the right to the minority to ignore the will of the majority and keep sending homosexual to jail then rehabilitation ?

Think about it, there isn't much difference between what I just said and the views expressed by the anti-Thaksin brigade.

As long as everyone is aware of what the laws are, if you break them, you have to accept the consequences. Thaksin said that he would. He changed his mind when the courts ruled against him, despite his kind pastry box "offer".

If you don't like or agree with a law, lobby to have it changed.

[hyperdimension]

published by the UDD before the burning and shooting started last May ... sort of their manifesto ... an interesting read, in the same genre as the American Declaration of Independence:

I have little doubt that it was written by Thaksin's lobbyist Amsterdam and Peroff.