Defeated Thai PM 'Lacked Common Touch'

[webfact]

Defeated Thai PM 'lacked common touch'

BANGKOK (AFP) - Thailand's outgoing premier Abhisit Vejjajiva came to power thanks to the courts, not the people, and always struggled to strike a chord with ordinary voters.

The Oxford-educated career politician hinted Sunday he might stand down as leader of the establishment Democrat Party after conceding defeat in pivotal elections, saying: "I know the answer to my political future."

When Abhisit was appointed two and a half years ago he pledged to reunite Thailand after violent turmoil triggered by the ouster of the hugely popular premier Thaksin Shinawatra in a military coup.

But the 46-year-old failed to garner support among the kingdom's disenfranchised rural poor who mostly remained loyal to Thaksin and his political allies, who scored a convincing victory in Sunday's ballot.

With a leadership style often described as cold and distant, observers say Abhisit lacked the common touch of his rivals.

Even in the final days of campaigning, he seemed ill at ease mingling with the crowds and kissing babies -- in stark contrast to his main rival Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin's sister.

"I think he comes across as a very cold leader in an ivory tower," said Thai academic Pavin Chachavalpongpun of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. "He looks so uncomfortable every time he goes to the rice fields."

But experts said Abhisit is unlikely to disappear from the political stage altogether.

"He's a young man. I do think there's a role for him in the long haul," said Thailand analyst Michael Montesano.

Abhisit was handed the country's top job in a 2008 parliamentary vote after a court ruling threw out the previous administration.

Despite his pledge to work towards national reconciliation, under his watch the divisions have only deepened, and he was accused by his foes of being an unelected puppet of the military and the Bangkok-based elite.

His party has failed to expand its traditional base in the capital and southern Thailand to reach out to voters in impoverished parts of the rural north and northeast.

The scion of an influential family whose name means "privilege", Abhisit was born in the northern English city of Newcastle while his parents were studying medicine.

His CV includes an elite education at Britain's Eton College and Oxford University.

He stormed into political life in 1992 when, aged 27, he became the youngest person to win a seat in the Thai parliament.

He rapidly climbed the ranks in Thailand's oldest party with a reputation for clean politics and an idealism rarely seen here.

Abhisit declared his ambition to be prime minister as far back as 2006 when a movement first began against then-premier Thaksin.

Despite being the country's oldest party, the Democrats have not won a general election in nearly two decades.

Observers said the vote outcome should prompt the Democrats to do some soul-searching.

"They need now to think about reinventing themselves," said Montesano.

In an interview with AFP shortly before the vote, Abhisit defended his record during a premiership marked by street protests and a military crackdown on an anti-government rally last year that left about 90 people dead.

"I am confident that what we've done for the country has been the right thing," he said.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-07-04

[Huey]

Farewell PM Abhisit, anyone who isn't a terrorist, or terrorist sympathiser, with more than a 3rd grade education, knows that you were the best choice for the Kingdom. But sadly all good things must come to a end. I wish you the best of luck.

[hammered]

He wasnt a natural populist poltician. He was in a dated party with very conservative traditions. He cut deals to get where he wanted that undermined him and his reputation. He had a bunch of killings on his watch that werent the acceptable kind like "drug dealers". His party couldnt run an election campaign if they tried. Oh and he didnt come across as manly enough. Etc etc

Abhisit oddly enough may have made a good poltician in a developed country.

I would love to hear the analysis of party elder Chuan on Abhisit. I would guess it would be an analysis of disappointment

[Sydebolle]

How could he make ends meet when some others kept on moving the ends... ?

[atyclb]

"a reputation for clean politics and an idealism rarely seen here." Likely caused his failure and eventual demise in a system that rewards the opposite(not Abhisit)

Edited July 4, 2011 by atyclb

[TamieAnthas]

Let's wait and see how much more damage will Yingluck government do to the country......I can only pray for Thailand and its people....

[Credo]

A nice man, a good man, but not a good leader. I must say, however, that leading Thailand is a little like herding cats.

I wish him the best of luck.

[xtr3mx7]

Most probably he would have been perceived as a good leader if he was giving back some state money to northern people, being more corrupted than the said opposition ex-leader?

[whybother]

Most probably he would have been perceived as a good leader if he was giving back some state money to northern people, being more corrupted than the said opposition ex-leader?

Give BACK some state money? When did they give any money to the state?

[dobadoy]

Abhisit oddly enough may have made a good poltician in a developed country.

Interestingly, I've heard this view from one or two educated Bangkokian Thais, who were rather disappointed that their once favoured son was so compromising, reasonable, fair, open-minded, and considerate to his opponents as PM (Rachaprasong being a case in point. Televised debate! Good lord, an thems newly empowered reds want to accuse him of unnecessary violence! Anyways, I digress...)

When I pointed out that Abhisit's qualities are just those that Thais normally try to instil in their children, and Thaksin's are far more typical of your average jai rorn farang that so gets up your average Thai citizen's nose, I got a shrug and a 'But Thailand needs a strong leader who can get things done'.

Go figure that contradiction!

Edited July 4, 2011 by dobadoy

[Thai at Heart]

He wasnt a natural populist poltician. He was in a dated party with very conservative traditions. He cut deals to get where he wanted that undermined him and his reputation. He had a bunch of killings on his watch that werent the acceptable kind like "drug dealers". His party couldnt run an election campaign if they tried. Oh and he didnt come across as manly enough. Etc etc

Abhisit oddly enough may have made a good poltician in a developed country.

I would love to hear the analysis of party elder Chuan on Abhisit. I would guess it would be an analysis of disappointment

I was joking the other day, that he would probably fit in perfectly well with Dave and Boris in the UK. I really think he found the whole idea of campaigning on a national level quite horrible. I watched him trying to sit in a boat, spooning pad thai into someones bowl at a floating market a few weeks ago.

He looked like a fish out of water. Sweat in his eyes, shirt rolled up, kneeling very awkwardly in a tiny boat, petrified to drop the noodles, and petrified not to fall in. It was a joke of a photo op.

I have a sneaking suspicion, he didn't even want to win, if it meant having to get back in with BJT and the rest of the jokers in his party. Even he must have known that no matter how hard he denied it, the coalition was a marriage made in a barracks. I do wonder though, if he had been given better PR, does he really have it in him to even attempt to reach out to the whole country? Maybe he realised his goose was cooked after last year, or maybe he really does lack empathy for the poorer echelons of the country?

He desperately wanted to explain his policies, but there were no debates, just photo ops, the odd snippet on TV and of course the useless Rajprasong rally. Just all round poor campaigning.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Thai at Heart

[Artisi]

Unfortunately, the democrats need a rocket up where the sun never shines - far too conservative - need to get down to the grass root level - connect with the ordinary people - the mums and dads - the farmers - the elderly. Over 100 more members of the opposition elected in the north east - surely that must say something - they are dead in the water. Lets hope this kick in the behind is a wake call for them.

[moe666]

He wasnt a natural populist poltician. He was in a dated party with very conservative traditions. He cut deals to get where he wanted that undermined him and his reputation. He had a bunch of killings on his watch that werent the acceptable kind like "drug dealers". His party couldnt run an election campaign if they tried. Oh and he didnt come across as manly enough. Etc etc

Abhisit oddly enough may have made a good poltician in a developed country.

I would love to hear the analysis of party elder Chuan on Abhisit. I would guess it would be an analysis of disappointment

I was joking the other day, that he would probably fit in perfectly well with Dave and Boris in the UK. I really think he found the whole idea of campaigning on a national level quite horrible. I watched him trying to sit in a boat, spooning pad thai into someones bowl at a floating market a few weeks ago.

He looked like a fish out of water. Sweat in his eyes, shirt rolled up, kneeling very awkwardly in a tiny boat, petrified to drop the noodles, and petrified not to fall in. It was a joke of a photo op.

I have a sneaking suspicion, he didn't even want to win, if it meant having to get back in with BJT and the rest of the jokers in his party. Even he must have known that no matter how hard he denied it, the coalition was a marriage made in a barracks. I do wonder though, if he had been given better PR, does he really have it in him to even attempt to reach out to the whole country? Maybe he realised his goose was cooked after last year, or maybe he really does lack empathy for the poorer echelons of the country?

He desperately wanted to explain his policies, but there were no debates, just photo ops, the odd snippet on TV and of course the useless Rajprasong rally. Just all round poor campaigning.

Abhisit reminded me of Al Gore when he ran for president against Bush. A very smart man but unable to communicate at a level that people could relate to. As I predicted 2 weeks ago he would lose because of this and just a poor election run. They should have been running video of central world burning and the red shirt flunkies screaming for the destruction of Bangkok at every ralley, but no we will take the high road and lose.

[Thai at Heart]

He wasnt a natural populist poltician. He was in a dated party with very conservative traditions. He cut deals to get where he wanted that undermined him and his reputation. He had a bunch of killings on his watch that werent the acceptable kind like "drug dealers". His party couldnt run an election campaign if they tried. Oh and he didnt come across as manly enough. Etc etc

Abhisit oddly enough may have made a good poltician in a developed country.

I would love to hear the analysis of party elder Chuan on Abhisit. I would guess it would be an analysis of disappointment

I was joking the other day, that he would probably fit in perfectly well with Dave and Boris in the UK. I really think he found the whole idea of campaigning on a national level quite horrible. I watched him trying to sit in a boat, spooning pad thai into someones bowl at a floating market a few weeks ago.

He looked like a fish out of water. Sweat in his eyes, shirt rolled up, kneeling very awkwardly in a tiny boat, petrified to drop the noodles, and petrified not to fall in. It was a joke of a photo op.

I have a sneaking suspicion, he didn't even want to win, if it meant having to get back in with BJT and the rest of the jokers in his party. Even he must have known that no matter how hard he denied it, the coalition was a marriage made in a barracks. I do wonder though, if he had been given better PR, does he really have it in him to even attempt to reach out to the whole country? Maybe he realised his goose was cooked after last year, or maybe he really does lack empathy for the poorer echelons of the country?

He desperately wanted to explain his policies, but there were no debates, just photo ops, the odd snippet on TV and of course the useless Rajprasong rally. Just all round poor campaigning.

Abhisit reminded me of Al Gore when he ran for president against Bush. A very smart man but unable to communicate at a level that people could relate to. As I predicted 2 weeks ago he would lose because of this and just a poor election run. They should have been running video of central world burning and the red shirt flunkies screaming for the destruction of Bangkok at every ralley, but no we will take the high road and lose.

Well, I agree with most of it, other than Al Gore being a very smart man.

[animatic]

It parallels the very competent, patrician, 'presidential' and astute John Kerry losing to

the good ole boy, word manglingly inept, man o the people, George Bush.

Gore lost simply because of Clinton's pecker;

He lost his own super conservative-religious Tennesse state vote

because of his assumed association with Clintons philandering.

Or at least not condemning Clinton enough from the stump at home.

Edited July 4, 2011 by animatic

[dobadoy]

It parallels the very competent, patrician and astute John Kerry losing to

the good ole boy, word manglingly inept, man o the people, George Bush.

Nah, dubbya was always entertaining to watch (even if you were just laughing at him). Thaksin's never anything less than slightly sinister or half-unhinged, and always transparently self-obsessed.

Edited July 4, 2011 by dobadoy

[animatic]

It parallels the very competent, patrician and astute John Kerry losing to

the good ole boy, word manglingly inept, man o the people, George Bush.

Nah, dubbya was always entertaining to watch (even if you were just laughing at him). Thaksin's never anything less than slightly sinister or half-unhinged, and always transparently self-obsessed.

Well yes, but I was meaning Yingluck vs Abhisit...

For, slightly sinister or half-unhinged, and always transparently self-obsessed,

we have the VP "Dick" Cheney... even shot his friend/donor in the face 'by accident' hunting.

And always was the man in the shadows making too much money with Halliburton.

Bushism were fun, but mostly from 'black comedy', most of the time he gave angina.

Edited July 4, 2011 by animatic

[atyclb]

He really wasn't allowed to lead, just follow orders.

If he had been allowed to lead, it would have been like shoveling sand against the tide, the tide being the old boy system and mentality in addition to the "handout" mentality Many people are akin to intellectual invalids, never having learned how to think or reason or plan. Just "what can we get for free" along with the cheating and corruption at every level on society.

IMO the people re-elected taksin. taksin via proxy. Whenever i saw yingluck i saw taksin. Anyone see otherwise?

[hyperdimension]

Abhisit oddly enough may have made a good poltician in a developed country.

That is why many of us here who are from developed countries feel that Abhisit was the better choice, as he had the professionalism, honesty, integrity, education, intelligence and excellent communication skills for the international stage (but not for low class uneducated rural folk who are the majority of Thai people).

Unfortunately, well executed propaganda campaigns over the past few years over radio, television, print, internet and on rally stages tailored for the uneducated and ignorant masses of this undeveloped country have been highly successful.

Edited July 5, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hammered]

Unfortunately, the democrats need a rocket up where the sun never shines - far too conservative - need to get down to the grass root level - connect with the ordinary people - the mums and dads - the farmers - the elderly. Over 100 more members of the opposition elected in the north east - surely that must say something - they are dead in the water. Lets hope this kick in the behind is a wake call for them.

Exactly true. But they will probably worry more about the face of the camapign team losers and the relative strength to dominate the party of the southern and bangkok based groups that compete for internal power rather than shake the whole thing up and try to become a viable alternative to the PTP which is what the country needs.

[Jingthing]

I can accept Abhisit lacked the common touch, but it could be said that masses of red voters lacked the COMMON SENSE touch. The masses are going to expect the moon now, and Thailand can afford a bus ticket to Udon ... (because the Thai people on the whole have very low education and skill levels which translates into low productivity compared to their global competition), to improve that, takes a focused dedication and yes decades, oh no, REAL work?!?!

The good news, Thailand has lots and lots of rice, and is good at building trucks.

But that's the Thaksinistas problem, to deliver on their literally impossible promises even a little bit.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[badmedicine]

The good news, Thailand has lots and lots of rice, and is good at building trucks.

Well, if Yingy ups the price to 15k/ton as promised, Thailand will still have lots of rice cos everyone else will be buying from Vietnam where its half the price.

Daft is as daft does.

Edited July 5, 2011 by badmedicine

[Beechboy]

I get the impression that far too many Thai's fashion their politics on the short-term view of what is best for them rather than what is best for the Country and that they are unable to work out that if the Country prospers they will too in the long run.

This is , of course , true of everywhere, but there is an overwhelming preponderance of Thais who are only capable of thinking in this one-dimensional way. Another example of the "Live for today mentality" that we constantly come across.

Generalisatons galore, I know, but I genuinly feel that this attitude fashions Thai politics, to the detriment of the Country as a whole. By this I mean that it leads to the "hand out" mentality, for example, when this money could be used more astutely. The creation of a sound welfare state and health service, for example.

The creation of these is surely more pertinent than fancy rail-extensions etc., although creating the latter series of semi-follies is probably a more obvious, populist and vote-winning route. Another round about version of the "hand-out" mentality IMHO. Give them fancy airports to be proud of at the expense of the millions of needy who are in need of State assistance.

As you can guess, I am a devout Socialist. Please come back at me at will.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Beechboy

[badmedicine]

I get the impression that far too many Thai's fashion their politics on the short-term view of what is best for them rather than what is best for the Country and that they are unable to work out that if the Country prospers they will too in the long run.

same as in every democratic country i've ever known (and i've lived in a few).

[animatic]

I get the impression that far too many Thai's fashion their politics on the short-term view of what is best for them rather than what is best for the Country and that they are unable to work out that if the Country prospers they will too in the long run.

same as in every democratic country i've ever known (and i've lived in a few).

Yeah,

but the view point time frame is about 1/32th of the other countries.

[Beechboy]

I get the impression that far too many Thai's fashion their politics on the short-term view of what is best for them rather than what is best for the Country and that they are unable to work out that if the Country prospers they will too in the long run.

same as in every democratic country i've ever known (and i've lived in a few).

I did say that it was true of everywhere. Humans are humans.

It is, however, a matter of degree and this is related to the Thai mentality.

Us English always take into account selfish reasons when deciding where to put our X, but I feel we are more capable of considering the bigger picture too eg: the Health Service, the employment level, the defence budget to name a few current voter concerns.

The main reason for the Draconian cut-backs being made by the present Government is a universal desire not to leave future generations with massive debts. We are prepared to suffer a bit now for our grand children. Do Thais think very much along these lines? Tell me.

[Gary A]

Abhisit took that job with both his hands tied behind his back. How would anyone expect him to govern efficiently while having to please TOO many masters. Pleasing the army, yellow shirts, the courts and the Bangkok elite was mission impossible.