Thailand's Democrats Seek Ban On Thaksin Party

[Siam Simon]

Executives 'officially' make the decisions for a large entity.

You can have a executive title on the name plate, and not make a single decision, and sit at the table as emeritus former PM and all decisions defer to you. See Singapore till last month.

Of course you don't need to be the president to have actual control of something and such as predominant investor dictating to the board, without being on the board.

Having illegal control of a political party is the question at hand.

A question that you and others on TVF were loathe to ask in Newin's case when his group of MP's were propping up the last government.

[rubl]

I give you the fact that the website I mentioned is not in Thai but the the website you referred me to had no relevant information that I could find. If you can show me that there is a part of the legislation that widens the scope of the Act as I have read it then I will be happy to accept that but for now I remain suspicious that advice has been sought from the EC as to whether the legislation as enacted can be widened in scope to include Thaksin's activities which do not appear to infringe the law

I have no regard for either party in this election but I suspect that there is a plan to change the rules with a judicial ruling which will cause yet more division in Thai society at a time when there is a greater need for reconciliation.

Don't be so obtuse, dear pastitche. Whatever I may say is not valid in Thailand. As I indicated ONLY the official THAI version is valid. Find it and read it, or find it and have it translated and stamped/endorsed by the MinistryOfInterior or whatever ministry.

Just to be sure, whatever information the Dem's may have given the EC to support their request for investigation will have been in THAI. This being Thailand, etc., etc.

Sorry no provision for farang who are not educated enough to be able to read and understand something as simple as a Thai law in Thai

Edited July 10, 2011 by rubl

[wolfmanjack]

This thread has been going for a very long time with many posters claiming that they are supporting the rule of law but apparently none can say how that law has been broken

Because supporting the rule of law doesn't mean saying how or even whether a law has been broken. That is for the people with the expertise and with the job of investigating the matter. The investigation is what is being supported here... by some.... not by others.

By quoting only the final sentence of my post you have ignored the question I asked and implicitly aligned me with those who do not support an investigation. That is not the case

I asked what the legal definition of "involved in politics while banned" because it must be rather more than this vague phrase which could be interpreted in so many ways that it is meaningless; I thought that one of you protagonists might know; it appears that you certainly don't so why did you bother to respond?

there are other laws where the exact definition is not spelled out in the law. look at the computer crimes act that says is is illegal to post items that in the opinion of the police are pornographic. What is deemed pornographic or not can vary widely based on the person being asked. So in this case it would be the election commissions opinion that counted to see if it gets passed on to the courts. then it would be the courts opinion that counted to see if they are convicted for it. It is as simple as that.

[wolfmanjack]

From what I see on here the main point of contention is that Thaksin is banned from entering politics etc but he was quite blatant in being active in the election. Yet knowing this the people still voted as they did.

Of course my view would be completely different if Thaksin had been more clandestine and worked behind the scenes. The fact that he was quite openly involved and the people still voted the way they did would indicate the public interest should take precedence.

But that's just my opinion on it. I doubt I'll change yours and I doubt you'll change mine. So I'll go and have a few ales and hope the future outcome, whatever it is, doesn't escalate to violence.

Maybe (some of) the people would have voted differently had Thaksin not been involved.

Of course, we don't know that, but it's irrelevant how the people voted. The fact is, it is against the law for Thaksin to be involved, and if he was involved with PTP knowledge (which no one is really denying) then that should be investigated, and if found guilty, they should be banned.

So you are happy to disregard the will of the people.

It isn't the will of ALL THE PEOPLE so it is not disregarding the will of the people. It is only disregarding the will of some of the people.

[wolfmanjack]

But let Democrats busy themselves cleaning up politics, while PTP govern, then the Thai people can all move on together corruption free......... should be interesting times

This statement somehow disqualifies you from a serious discussion, I'm afraid.

Edit: Couldn't resist to add smiley.

But if you had bothered to read and follow the thread.....this is the aim of the investigation.......corruption free politics, and it starts here.....according to TVisa experts....every complaint should be investigated and appropriate punishment applied. A new start......don't you see.....a new dawn......every noodle serving politician banned......yes even a bowl of noodles will bring down the whole might of the law...........be careful who you feed if you are thinking of entering Thai politics......give out noodle soup and you could be in the soup

This isn't just an attack on Thaksin because he may have broken the rules (and along the way defeated the democrats).....no.....this is the start of something BIG.....a corruption free Thailand, where everybody will obey the law or suffer the appropriate punishment....the impeccable, corruption free, law abiding posters on Tvisa have spoken.............but of course this is only opinion and conjecture as it is illegal for foreigners to be involved in Thai politics....

I was originally going to say that i thought that the law banning giving away food was not a good law but then i thought what if they were giving away lobster? or 50 KG bags of Rice ? or ? or ? It was easier for the law to be written to ban all food than it would have been to list all of the possibilities.

[Siam Simon]

From what I see on here the main point of contention is that Thaksin is banned from entering politics etc but he was quite blatant in being active in the election. Yet knowing this the people still voted as they did.

Of course my view would be completely different if Thaksin had been more clandestine and worked behind the scenes. The fact that he was quite openly involved and the people still voted the way they did would indicate the public interest should take precedence.

But that's just my opinion on it. I doubt I'll change yours and I doubt you'll change mine. So I'll go and have a few ales and hope the future outcome, whatever it is, doesn't escalate to violence.

Maybe (some of) the people would have voted differently had Thaksin not been involved.

Of course, we don't know that, but it's irrelevant how the people voted. The fact is, it is against the law for Thaksin to be involved, and if he was involved with PTP knowledge (which no one is really denying) then that should be investigated, and if found guilty, they should be banned.

So you are happy to disregard the will of the people.

It isn't the will of ALL THE PEOPLE so it is not disregarding the will of the people. It is only disregarding the will of some of the people.

If you can come up with a better democratic system, I'm (and I'm sure a lot of other people are) all ears.

[whybother]

Maybe (some of) the people would have voted differently had Thaksin not been involved.

Of course, we don't know that, but it's irrelevant how the people voted. The fact is, it is against the law for Thaksin to be involved, and if he was involved with PTP knowledge (which no one is really denying) then that should be investigated, and if found guilty, they should be banned.

So you are happy to disregard the will of the people.

It isn't the will of ALL THE PEOPLE so it is not disregarding the will of the people. It is only disregarding the will of some of the people.

If you can come up with a better democratic system, I'm (and I'm sure a lot of other people are) all ears.

Democracy isn't about the majority of people saying it's OK to break the law. The majority can change the law, but they can't break it.

And in this case, it shouldn't be the will of the minority that decides whether it's OK to ignore the law.

[jayboy]

[quote name='Siam Simon' timestamp='1310322468' post='4549931'

A question that you and others on TVF were loathe to ask in Newin's case when his group of MP's were propping up the last government.

Yes the hypocrisy and dishonesty are astonishing.Fundamental issue is of course that the Democrats are almost always unable to win elections, hence the drubbing they have just received.Therefore they (or to be precise the unelected elite elements behind them) rely on military coups, judicial intervention, rigged constitutions and other non electoral means of thwarting the Thai peoples wishes.The encouraging news however is that the more intelligent elements in the unelected elite realise the game is up and are serious about compromise.The alternative - ie the usual pattern of intervention - is generally understood would bring the country a disaster on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

[philw]

I give you the fact that the website I mentioned is not in Thai but the the website you referred me to had no relevant information that I could find. If you can show me that there is a part of the legislation that widens the scope of the Act as I have read it then I will be happy to accept that but for now I remain suspicious that advice has been sought from the EC as to whether the legislation as enacted can be widened in scope to include Thaksin's activities which do not appear to infringe the law

I have no regard for either party in this election but I suspect that there is a plan to change the rules with a judicial ruling which will cause yet more division in Thai society at a time when there is a greater need for reconciliation.

Section 97 Where a political party has been dissolved due to the violation of

Section 42 paragraph two, Section 82 or Section 94, a person who was previously a

member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party shall not, within a

period of five years from the date of the dissolution, apply for the formation of a new

political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or

promote a new political party.

http://www.ect.go.th...20by%20IFES.pdf

From 2007 Organic Act On Political Parties

I think in this instance the word " promote" means to act as founder or initiator.

The word is used in that sense when a Ltd Company is created.

It is "promoted" by the initial shareholders or "promoters".

I think your inference is incorrect.

[Thaddeus]

I give you the fact that the website I mentioned is not in Thai but the the website you referred me to had no relevant information that I could find. If you can show me that there is a part of the legislation that widens the scope of the Act as I have read it then I will be happy to accept that but for now I remain suspicious that advice has been sought from the EC as to whether the legislation as enacted can be widened in scope to include Thaksin's activities which do not appear to infringe the law

I have no regard for either party in this election but I suspect that there is a plan to change the rules with a judicial ruling which will cause yet more division in Thai society at a time when there is a greater need for reconciliation.

Section 97 Where a political party has been dissolved due to the violation of

Section 42 paragraph two, Section 82 or Section 94, a person who was previously a

member of the Executive Committee of the dissolved political party shall not, within a

period of five years from the date of the dissolution, apply for the formation of a new

political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of a political party, or

promote a new political party.

http://www.ect.go.th...20by%20IFES.pdf

From 2007 Organic Act On Political Parties

I think in this instance the word " promote" means to act as founder or initiator.

The word is used in that sense when a Ltd Company is created.

It is "promoted" by the initial shareholders or "promoters".

I think your inference is incorrect.

Well, you would.

Having ones face on election posters is not seen as promoting then, strange definition of the word that wouldn't include that.

TT,PTA... is also exempt?

[Ricardo]

If you look back in the Political threads, there seems to be many Farang that would never and could never stay in Thailand if Thaksin came back.

I wonder how many of those are planning to leave now....................

I hope 100%.

Nah at least only 98% I can think of a couple who have gone a bit quiet so may be intending to stay....

More-likely 'on holiday', similarly many pre-election pro-Red posters are silent, wonder when the holiday-season ends & they all return ?

[wolfmanjack]

Maybe (some of) the people would have voted differently had Thaksin not been involved.

Of course, we don't know that, but it's irrelevant how the people voted. The fact is, it is against the law for Thaksin to be involved, and if he was involved with PTP knowledge (which no one is really denying) then that should be investigated, and if found guilty, they should be banned.

So you are happy to disregard the will of the people.

It isn't the will of ALL THE PEOPLE so it is not disregarding the will of the people. It is only disregarding the will of some of the people.

If you can come up with a better democratic system, I'm (and I'm sure a lot of other people are) all ears.

That isn't the point. The point is the will of the 44% of the 75% that voted is not any more important than the will of the 56% of the 75% that voted. Sure the Pardon Thaksin Party won and they have the right to form the next government and they will form the next government but it does not give them the right to step on the rights of the rest of the people in thailand by disregarding any laws they may feel like disregarding. I for one am tired of all the "THE THAI PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN" "THAILAND HAS SPOKEN" ETC ETC ETC when they did not even get a simple majority (50%+1) of the popular vote and saying "THE THAI PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN" is blatantly disregarding the will of the other 56% that did not speak in favor of Thaksin or his party. For the record i would feel the same way no matter who won. The governments job is to run thailand for the benefit of ALL thai people including those that did not even bother to vote or can not vote for whatever reason.

[pastitche]

OK, as a foreigner I read the Act in the IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems) website. It said that a banned politician could not be a leader or executive member of a political party but made no mention of any other activity... what I want to know and have been asking is what is the alleged infringement that Thaksin has committed if the Act does not have provision for "acting in a manner to suggest that he holds such a position" . Why has nobody thought of this?

Surely the Democrats must know that without a ruling on their case is doomed without such a proviso; I believe that they know perfectly well and have consulted the EC and been given the go-ahead

Care to provide a link?

Thaksin as the de facto leader of both the reds and the PTP has never much been in dispute. The only people that can make the final calls on this are the EC and the Constitution court. The wording you are giving is certainly up to interpretation in English in several ways. "cannot be a leader or..." could mean exactly what it says. If you are the one picking the #1 position on the party-list, then you ARE the leader and whatever the by-laws of the organization says are moot. If the party MP's bypass the executive committee and fly to see you for cabinet level positions, then again, you ARE the leader if you have the power to make that decision.

I don't know what you are implying with your last line, the first 1/2 is opinion and the second half looks like innuendo ....

I provided the source in which I read the Act; it has a disclaimer on the accuracy of translation, presumably for legal reasons. You might want to find the Thai version of the Act to see how they compare but that is beyond my Thai abilities.

I agree with you that there is an irrefutable case that Thaksin and Pheua Thai are inextricably tied but his role is ex officio - to exploit this apparent loophole, I suspect.

All political parties have expert advisers, including experts in law so they will realise that their case requires an interpretation of the law that is not in the Act . I was not indulging in innuendo when I suggested that the Dems might well have sought confirmation that their complaint was prima facie sustainable. That is perfectly reasonable and legitimate; indeed it would be astounding if they had not done so.

[rixalex]

A question that you and others on TVF were loathe to ask in Newin's case when his group of MP's were propping up the last government.

Yes the hypocrisy and dishonesty are astonishing.

Hypocrisy and dishonesty from whom? If you are talking about posters on ThaiVisa, i can't obviously speak for anyone else, but i have never understood how it is that Newin has remained such an influential figure considering his ban, and were this thread about a complaint lodged against him by the red side following his flip over to the Dems, i for one would not have been making the argument that just because the red side happily worked with him just prior to the flip, that makes them hypocritical and as such an investigation unfair.

If by hypocrisy and dishonesty you were referring to the Dems, i agree that they are but disagree that should have any bearing on the complaint or how it is treated. How much opposing would an opposition in Thailand be able to do, were it disallowed from bringing forward any cases of irregularity, cases of corruption, cases of law-breaking, cases of abuse of power, if they themselves had once been guilty? Not much i would say.

[rixalex]

Fundamental issue is of course that the Democrats are almost always unable to win elections, hence the drubbing they have just received.Therefore they (or to be precise the unelected elite elements behind them) rely on military coups, judicial intervention, rigged constitutions and other non electoral means of thwarting the Thai peoples wishes.The encouraging news however is that the more intelligent elements in the unelected elite realise the game is up and are serious about compromise.The alternative - ie the usual pattern of intervention - is generally understood would bring the country a disaster on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

As fundamental in my mind as the Democrats inability to win elections, is the inability of Thaksin in all his guises, be it TRT, PPP or PTP, to actually govern without law breaking.

Now granted, there are times i'm sure in Thai politics when a politician has little choice but to bend the rules a bit, get hands dirty etc. Handing out money (otherwise known as vote-buying) on the campaign trail is perhaps one example. Nature of the beast and when everyone else is doing it, you have a choice of taking the moral high-ground and losing, or doing what everyone else is doing, have a shot at winning, and then perhaps trying to do something about changing the system from within (the last part i admit is a bit of fanciful thinking on by part and probably without much truth in most cases).

Anyway, what i'm saying is that whilst i don't agree with any illegal practice and will always argue against it, i understand why some of it exists and why they feel the need to do it. In the case of Thaksin however, time and time again, he pushes rules to the limit, and often simply blatantly breaks them, when it seems so unnecessary and in the long-term only serves to damage his cause.

All of the non electoral means that you mention that have been used to trip him up - or thwart the Thai people's wishes as you see it - have come about from stupid decisions he has made in breaking laws that i feel he really didn't need to break.

Take the coup. Whatever reasons you feel there were for staging it, the fact is that were it not for all the business of Thaksin having laws changed days before the sale of his business to foreigners, the dodgy share dealing that went with it, plus the real cherry on the cake, the tax dodge that saved him millions, the generals i believe would not have dared even thinking about a coup, and had they, the public reaction to it would have been very different. As it was though, although in the eyes of his die-hard fans he could still do no wrong, to most other Thais they really didn't seem to care about him being given the boot.

Why did he have to sell his business then? Why not wait until his term in office had ended? And if he was really set on selling it at that time, why not take into consideration that as PM the deal would certainly be scrutinized more than all other deals, so make it all clean and above board? He couldn't wait, and nor could he make it clean and above board. He paid the price, as did Thailand.

The latest problem for him, that once again has opened the door for those hidden forces you speak of to get a foot in, is also a prime example of this same arrogant and idiotic thinking. Why not respect the fact that he was banned, and really take a step back from it, and let his sister - or whoever PTP chose for leader - to run their own campaign against the Dems? Stop with the phone-in crap, the daily messages, the interviews, and just let PTP get on with the job without him. The Dems are unelectable right? So what was the problem? Why couldn't he bring himself to keep his head down? Surely he knew that there would be problems after the election because of his involvement? Of course he did. He may make stupid decisions at times, but he isn't stupid.

My guess is he felt that never mind about law-breaking, let's just get in with the biggest majority we can, and then we'll use the electoral mandate to make these problems go away. Let's see if my enemies dare to challenge me once i have that grip on power back. He took a gamble. Will it pay off? I think it might well do. I'm not sure there is anyone ready to put their neck on line and take him on. If they do, it will probably be the disaster on a hitherto unimaginable scale that you mention, but , should that happen, i wouldn't consider Thaksin as the innocent bystander in it all, but as the catalyst who started it all by putting his own personal interests ahead of everything else. Again.

[hanuman1]

Morality is often invoked by the military cheerleaders to trump the legal framework and justify the last coup.

Now, when sticking to the letter of the law in order to dethrone yet another popularly elected government seems like it could push the country toward chaos like we've never seen before, the moral argument which suggests that adhering to the letter of the law could produce far more violence and hardship than allowing this government to govern, is ignored by the same people.

Their sense of morality is highly selective.

[tonbridgebrit]

A question that you and others on TVF were loathe to ask in Newin's case when his group of MP's were propping up the last government.

Yes the hypocrisy and dishonesty are astonishing.Fundamental issue is of course that the Democrats are almost always unable to win elections, hence the drubbing they have just received.Therefore they (or to be precise the unelected elite elements behind them) rely on military coups, judicial intervention, rigged constitutions and other non electoral means of thwarting the Thai peoples wishes.The encouraging news however is that the more intelligent elements in the unelected elite realise the game is up and are serious about compromise.The alternative - ie the usual pattern of intervention - is generally understood would bring the country a disaster on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

I totally agree !!

(sorry, my computer is playing up, this is response to a post from somebody called 'Jayboy'

Edited July 13, 2011 by tonbridgebrit

[jdinasia]

Morality is often invoked by the military cheerleaders to trump the legal framework and justify the last coup.

Now, when sticking to the letter of the law in order to dethrone yet another popularly elected government seems like it could push the country toward chaos like we've never seen before, the moral argument which suggests that adhering to the letter of the law could produce far more violence and hardship than allowing this government to govern, is ignored by the same people.

Their sense of morality is highly selective.

Huh?

There was no "legal framework" for Thaksin hanging onto power in 2006, nor was there a legal framework for the coup. BOTH were extra-constitutional. Currently there is a legal framework to use.

(BTW --- there is a difference between "ethics" and "morality")

The use of "military cheerleaders" is still cute though!

In 2006 there was no "popularly elected government", but there was an extra-constitutional caretaker government. When the courts dissolved PPP there wasn't a popularly elected government. Today there still isn't one --- but as soon as the EC ratifies the elections and the formalities are finished there will be. They may be disbanded (PTP) as a party but it is unlikely to have much consequence to the government other than weakening it slightly. Yingluck (assuming she is ratified and assumes the PM slot) will not be affected and assuming they hold their MP's and get them into the next Thaksin proxy party she should be a shoo-in as PM.

Rule-of-law is a tricky thing and yes the coup violated that as did the caretaker government before the coup, as did Thaksin whilst he was PM.

[jdinasia]

Re Newin ----

It is hypocrisy on both sides. PTP tried to go after the Dems for working with Newin's BJT --- the problem is that before there was BJT there were the "friends of Newin" in the PPP government. Had PPP gone straight at Newin instead of the Dems they may have won.

It looks fairly clear that BJT will be disbanded so the Dems now can go straight at PTP for Thaksin's involvement in PTP. Until now they had no reason to aim at PTP about Thaksin, and it may have backfired against their strongest coalition ally. (Who is no longer a consideration)

[rixalex]

Morality is often invoked by the military cheerleaders to trump the legal framework and justify the last coup.

Amended and added to for better accuracy (in my opinion):

Morality Law breaking (by the party ousted) is often invoked by the military cheerleaders those without a pro-Thaksin agenda to trump the legal framework and justify explain exactly what gave rise to the last coup and the reason why it was so readily accepted by the public in general.

[AleG]

Morality is often invoked by the military cheerleaders to trump the legal framework and justify the last coup.

Now, when sticking to the letter of the law in order to dethrone yet another popularly elected government seems like it could push the country toward chaos like we've never seen before, the moral argument which suggests that adhering to the letter of the law could produce far more violence and hardship than allowing this government to govern, is ignored by the same people.

Their sense of morality is highly selective.

If the letter of the law would had been followed all along Thaksin wouldn't had been PM at the time of the coup; the court decided not to press the charges over the asset concealment case so as not to cause unrest in the country. As you see, discretionary use of laws is at the genesis of the problem.

[lannarebirth]

Morality is often invoked by the military cheerleaders to trump the legal framework and justify the last coup.

Now, when sticking to the letter of the law in order to dethrone yet another popularly elected government seems like it could push the country toward chaos like we've never seen before, the moral argument which suggests that adhering to the letter of the law could produce far more violence and hardship than allowing this government to govern, is ignored by the same people.

Their sense of morality is highly selective.

If the letter of the law would had been followed all along Thaksin wouldn't had been PM at the time of the coup; the court decided not to press the charges over the asset concealment case so as not to cause unrest in the country. As you see, discretionary use of laws is at the genesis of the problem.

Amen! If there's a hunger in the populace to review all illegalities stemming from the "Thaksin Years" and roll back injustices, 2001 is the natural starting point.

[yoshiwara]

A question that you and others on TVF were loathe to ask in Newin's case when his group of MP's were propping up the last government.

Yes the hypocrisy and dishonesty are astonishing.Fundamental issue is of course that the Democrats are almost always unable to win elections, hence the drubbing they have just received.Therefore they (or to be precise the unelected elite elements behind them) rely on military coups, judicial intervention, rigged constitutions and other non electoral means of thwarting the Thai peoples wishes.The encouraging news however is that the more intelligent elements in the unelected elite realise the game is up and are serious about compromise.The alternative - ie the usual pattern of intervention - is generally understood would bring the country a disaster on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

I totally agree !!

(sorry, my computer is playing up, this is response to a post from somebody called 'Jayboy'

I have a problem with Thaksin apologists who have a go at the 'elite' as if this term does not include Thaksin himself. One assumes that the term is a petty-bourgeois misrepresentation of more accurate terms such as 'ruling class' or 'bourgeois'. I know they are reading from a script and like to think of Thaksin as more Robin Hood or Father Christmas than a nasty ruling class opportunist on the make, but why oh why are the forum contributors so shy when it comes to discussing Thaksin's class position?

Edited July 14, 2011 by yoshiwara

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I have a problem with Thaksin apologists who have a go at the 'elite' as if this term does not include Thaksin himself. One assumes that the term is a petty-bourgeois misrepresentation of more accurate terms such as 'ruling class' or 'bourgeois'. I know they are reading from a script and like to think of Thaksin as more Robin Hood or Father Christmas than a nasty ruling class opportunist on the make, but why oh why are the forum contributors so shy when it comes to discussing Thaksin's class position?<br />

Wow, so many assumption there it's hard to know where to start. I'm not a Thaksin apologist, but I suppose if "petty-bourgeois" covers everyone in between barely-surviving-paycheck-to-paycheck and what I consider a valid target for the term "elite" - the small number of families that own 80-90% of the capital of a country, then I qualify.

No of course he's not altruistic, doesn't really have the welfare of the poor or even of the country at the forefront of his mind, but then again I don't think any effective politician here or back home does. And of course he and some of his backers are elite, the real battle is between two groups fighting for dominance.

The point is that a relatively democratic system forces "those that own the gold" to at least go through the motions of making the common people *think* they care, even if it's just by throwing them some scraps from the table. My perception of Thaksin's opponents is that they are insulted by this idea, they feel they shouldn't even have to do that, the poor should just sit back and shut up and let them run the show. Having to take the needs of the rural masses into account is beneath them and they would be losing too much face to have to play the game democracy requires, providing bread and circuses, going to some trouble to at least pretend to respond to the real needs of the voters.

At least Thaksin is encouraging the common people's rising political/economic awareness and expectations, helping to move the country toward greater empowerment of the have-nots. Of course his populism is a power-grabbing hypocritical charade, but at least he's going to the trouble to *make them think* he cares. If the Dem's were smart they would have positioned themselves in that space while they were in power, they had plenty of time and opportunity to do so, but they didn't, and thus abdicated their right to govern.

Maybe it'll be a disaster, but they'll have to take that chance, intervening and blocking the result will certainly be one, and most likely a much worse one in the long run. All just one fools' opinion of course, realizing I'm just a guest bystander. . .

[hammered]

A question that you and others on TVF were loathe to ask in Newin's case when his group of MP's were propping up the last government.

Yes the hypocrisy and dishonesty are astonishing.Fundamental issue is of course that the Democrats are almost always unable to win elections, hence the drubbing they have just received.Therefore they (or to be precise the unelected elite elements behind them) rely on military coups, judicial intervention, rigged constitutions and other non electoral means of thwarting the Thai peoples wishes.The encouraging news however is that the more intelligent elements in the unelected elite realise the game is up and are serious about compromise.The alternative - ie the usual pattern of intervention - is generally understood would bring the country a disaster on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

I totally agree !!

(sorry, my computer is playing up, this is response to a post from somebody called 'Jayboy'

I have a problem with Thaksin apologists who have a go at the 'elite' as if this term does not include Thaksin himself. One assumes that the term is a petty-bourgeois misrepresentation of more accurate terms such as 'ruling class' or 'bourgeois'. I know they are reading from a script and like to think of Thaksin as more Robin Hood or Father Christmas than a nasty ruling class opportunist on the make, but why oh why are the forum contributors so shy when it comes to discussing Thaksin's class position?

Who knows what motivates Thaksin or anyone else for that matter. Main points are the poor like and continue to reelect any party linked in any way to him and rejecting any party not. There are some of the elite who clearly get that sorting out the inequalities that pervade the country is a paramount issue even if it will cost them some lost opportunity or money and that for a smooth future this is indeed needed. There are some of the elite who clearly dont think doing anything for the poor is necessary. There are also clearly divides in the elite over whether accepting the electoral wishes of the majority should be done. Sure maybe Thaksin having seen the desire for change wanted by the poor and played it to his advantage first is now gaming thing sin a very self centered manner and that the altruistic nature of his oppnents is even starting to be activated. But the poor contiune to support his representatives and allies and reject the reps and allies of his opponents. When you are sitting on a tinderbox of social inequality linked to the formation of street movements and those people see the best chance of their being helped comes from one particular party, it is best not interfere in that parties role in demcoracy. Whether Thaksin is linked to PTP or not is really quite irrelvent as the PTP is the party selcted to run the country and to try and interfere in this is to reject democracy and deny those at the bottom either astake in the countires system or any way to express their desires. That is dangerous

[lannarebirth]

A question that you and others on TVF were loathe to ask in Newin's case when his group of MP's were propping up the last government.

Yes the hypocrisy and dishonesty are astonishing.Fundamental issue is of course that the Democrats are almost always unable to win elections, hence the drubbing they have just received.Therefore they (or to be precise the unelected elite elements behind them) rely on military coups, judicial intervention, rigged constitutions and other non electoral means of thwarting the Thai peoples wishes.The encouraging news however is that the more intelligent elements in the unelected elite realise the game is up and are serious about compromise.The alternative - ie the usual pattern of intervention - is generally understood would bring the country a disaster on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

I totally agree !!

(sorry, my computer is playing up, this is response to a post from somebody called 'Jayboy'

I have a problem with Thaksin apologists who have a go at the 'elite' as if this term does not include Thaksin himself. One assumes that the term is a petty-bourgeois misrepresentation of more accurate terms such as 'ruling class' or 'bourgeois'. I know they are reading from a script and like to think of Thaksin as more Robin Hood or Father Christmas than a nasty ruling class opportunist on the make, but why oh why are the forum contributors so shy when it comes to discussing Thaksin's class position?

Who knows what motivates Thaksin or anyone else for that matter. Main points are the poor like and continue to reelect any party linked in any way to him and rejecting any party not. There are some of the elite who clearly get that sorting out the inequalities that pervade the country is a paramount issue even if it will cost them some lost opportunity or money and that for a smooth future this is indeed needed. There are some of the elite who clearly dont think doing anything for the poor is necessary. There are also clearly divides in the elite over whether accepting the electoral wishes of the majority should be done. Sure maybe Thaksin having seen the desire for change wanted by the poor and played it to his advantage first is now gaming thing sin a very self centered manner and that the altruistic nature of his oppnents is even starting to be activated. But the poor contiune to support his representatives and allies and reject the reps and allies of his opponents. When you are sitting on a tinderbox of social inequality linked to the formation of street movements and those people see the best chance of their being helped comes from one particular party, it is best not interfere in that parties role in demcoracy. Whether Thaksin is linked to PTP or not is really quite irrelvent as the PTP is the party selcted to run the country and to try and interfere in this is to reject democracy and deny those at the bottom either astake in the countires system or any way to express their desires. That is dangerous

hi hammered,

When do you think the poor will understand that the leaders of their own villages are selling them out 200-300 votes at a time They have to see they live in nicer house than them. Do they think it was because they were so good in some past life?

[hammered]

hi hammered,

When do you think the poor will understand that the leaders of their own villages are selling them out 200-300 votes at a time They have to see they live in nicer house than them. Do they think it was because they were so good in some past life?

I will leave to the poor to judge and assign relative value to the inequalities they see around them and afar from them.

[scorecard]

I have a problem with Thaksin apologists who have a go at the 'elite' as if this term does not include Thaksin himself. One assumes that the term is a petty-bourgeois misrepresentation of more accurate terms such as 'ruling class' or 'bourgeois'. I know they are reading from a script and like to think of Thaksin as more Robin Hood or Father Christmas than a nasty ruling class opportunist on the make, but why oh why are the forum contributors so shy when it comes to discussing Thaksin's class position?<br />

Wow, so many assumption there it's hard to know where to start. I'm not a Thaksin apologist, but I suppose if "petty-bourgeois" covers everyone in between barely-surviving-paycheck-to-paycheck and what I consider a valid target for the term "elite" - the small number of families that own 80-90% of the capital of a country, then I qualify.

No of course he's not altruistic, doesn't really have the welfare of the poor or even of the country at the forefront of his mind, but then again I don't think any effective politician here or back home does. And of course he and some of his backers are elite, the real battle is between two groups fighting for dominance.

The point is that a relatively democratic system forces "those that own the gold" to at least go through the motions of making the common people *think* they care, even if it's just by throwing them some scraps from the table. My perception of Thaksin's opponents is that they are insulted by this idea, they feel they shouldn't even have to do that, the poor should just sit back and shut up and let them run the show. Having to take the needs of the rural masses into account is beneath them and they would be losing too much face to have to play the game democracy requires, providing bread and circuses, going to some trouble to at least pretend to respond to the real needs of the voters.

At least Thaksin is encouraging the common people's rising political/economic awareness and expectations, helping to move the country toward greater empowerment of the have-nots. Of course his populism is a power-grabbing hypocritical charade, but at least he's going to the trouble to *make them think* he cares. If the Dem's were smart they would have positioned themselves in that space while they were in power, they had plenty of time and opportunity to do so, but they didn't, and thus abdicated their right to govern.

Maybe it'll be a disaster, but they'll have to take that chance, intervening and blocking the result will certainly be one, and most likely a much worse one in the long run. All just one fools' opinion of course, realizing I'm just a guest bystander. . .

Part quote: "At least Thaksin is encouraging the common people's rising political/economic awareness and expectations, helping to move the country toward greater empowerment of the have-nots..."

I totally disagree with this comment. It's true that the rural North-East and the North are in the spotlight, but for one reason - numbers. The numbers that thaksin needs to gain strongly from his nasty immoral manipulation games.

Suggestion that large numbers of the rural poor are now really political aware is rubbsh, with all due respect to the rural poor.

We saw the emergence of hundreds of 'democracy schools'. Ask around, these 'schools' didn't teach anything about democracy, they gave out no literature whatever about democracy, they were just meetings of locals to hear again and again the rantings and hate messages of jatuporn and his ilk, and the lying mother of all manipulators.

Edited July 15, 2011 by scorecard

[scorecard]

Morality is often invoked by the military cheerleaders to trump the legal framework and justify the last coup.

Now, when sticking to the letter of the law in order to dethrone yet another popularly elected government seems like it could push the country toward chaos like we've never seen before, the moral argument which suggests that adhering to the letter of the law could produce far more violence and hardship than allowing this government to govern, is ignored by the same people.

Their sense of morality is highly selective.

If the letter of the law would had been followed all along Thaksin wouldn't had been PM at the time of the coup; the court decided not to press the charges over the asset concealment case so as not to cause unrest in the country. As you see, discretionary use of laws is at the genesis of the problem.

Amen! If there's a hunger in the populace to review all illegalities stemming from the "Thaksin Years" and roll back injustices, 2001 is the natural starting point.

Excellent point. It would be interesting to hear the likes of a HardTalk journalist put this point to thaksin and push him hard. Unfortunately no Thai journalist would be brave enough, and I don't blame them.

[lannarebirth]

Morality is often invoked by the military cheerleaders to trump the legal framework and justify the last coup.

Now, when sticking to the letter of the law in order to dethrone yet another popularly elected government seems like it could push the country toward chaos like we've never seen before, the moral argument which suggests that adhering to the letter of the law could produce far more violence and hardship than allowing this government to govern, is ignored by the same people.

Their sense of morality is highly selective.

If the letter of the law would had been followed all along Thaksin wouldn't had been PM at the time of the coup; the court decided not to press the charges over the asset concealment case so as not to cause unrest in the country. As you see, discretionary use of laws is at the genesis of the problem.

Amen! If there's a hunger in the populace to review all illegalities stemming from the "Thaksin Years" and roll back injustices, 2001 is the natural starting point.

Excellent point. It would be interesting to hear the likes of a HardTalk journalist put this point to thaksin and push him hard. Unfortunately no Thai journalist would be brave enough, and I don't blame them.

And no foreign jounalist knows much about Thailand's politics. They are vociferously ignorant at best and patronizing at their worst.