'Shinawatra Factor' And Lies Played A Role In Pheu Thai Win: Korbsak

[webfact]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

'I knew we'd lose when they chose Yingluck'

By Somroutai Sapsomboon

The Nation

Korbsak says the 'Shinawatra factor' and lies played a role in Pheu Thai win

The Democrat Party's election campaign strategist, Korbsak Sabhavasu, was hardly full of praise for the rival Pheu Thai Party when he talked to The Nation earlier this week. But he did concede that the new ruling party did something right, something that helped them dethrone his camp on July 3.

"Choosing Yingluck as its prime ministerial candidate was Pheu Thai's best strategy," Korbsak said. "When I saw her name on top of Pheu Thai's party list, I was afraid we were going to lose."

Korbsak believes the reason behind Yingluck's popularity was not that she was a newcomer or a woman, but that she was a "Shinawatra".

"The 'Shinawatra' factor and people's belief that Thaksin's policies could be implemented made the party win by a majority," he said.

Korbsak said Pheu Thai's policies were the biggest factor in the competition. However, he said the party's policies were "lies".

"Pheu Thai said anything to draw votes, even if what they promised was impossible. For example, wages of Bt300 per day for labourers cannot be done. So I call these 'lie policies'," he said.

"Pheu Thai did not care what they did. But we would never behave like that, even if it meant we would lose," he said.

Korbsak said most people believed in Thaksin's policies without any doubts, since the party was able to implement them in the past.

"I was disappointed with academics, they did not do their duty. Academics should have done direct analyses and told the public which policies could or could not be implemented."

Another issue was the government's solutions to economic problems. The Democrat government was unable to solve the problem of high prices. It was attacked on issues such as the price of palm oil and selling eggs by weight, a line of attack Korbsak described as "nonsense".

"I don't know who they were but I'm sure there were 'political operatives' trying to stir up problems to blame the government for not solving economic problems," he said.

In general, the Democrat Party was criticised for being bad at the things Pheu Thai was best at. For example, villagers believed Pheu Thai was good at solving economic problems, while the Democrats were attacked on the issue during their last six months in government. People believed Pheu Thai was good at drug eradication while believing the Democrats had done a bad job of it.

"We don't have any political operatives and carry out no underground activities. Pheu Thai is flexible. The red shirts can do anything and are not considered to be violating the laws. Our party can do nothing as the Election Commission keeps an eye on us," Korbsak said.

"I never gave an interview saying my party would win. On the first day, I gave an interview and admitted the Democrats were losing, though not by a wide margin. I also said our victory or defeat did not depend so much on our party, because we were doing the best we could do," he said.

Korbsak said the party had been able to meet its targets in almost all areas. It got four of the eight seats it targeted in the Northeast.

"Did the Democrats' strategy team fail? If you ask me, this is the best I can do. If you want more, you must find someone else," he said.

"We missed the target by small numbers. The best case was that we would get 200 seats. The most likely case was that we would get 170-180 seats. We got a few less than the target. But it seemed we lost by a lot as the coalition parties also missed their targets."

Korbsak said Pheu Thai didn't take many of the Democrats' constituency MP seats. "But it took a lot on the party list. In this election, the new election system affected the way people voted, especially in the Northeast."

"We expected to get more party-list seats from the Northeast than we did. We thought they would have voted for us as they loved the farmer income-guarantee policy," he said. "But when the constituency and party-list MP candidates had the same ballot numbers, they voted for the same party-list number as the constituency candidate, as they didn't want to get confused."

-- The Nation 2011-07-21

[animatic]

The bigger the lie, the more some wish to believe it.

Propaganda is telling the BIG lie over and over again

until it eventually becomes truth for enough people

that it DOES become a reality. Reality based on a facade,

but that no longer matters to a percentage of voters.

In this case PTP ties fresh lies to the old Propaganda Legend of Thaksin, and people bought the new with the old.

Wishful thinking and no looking back at history as it REALLY was.

Edited July 21, 2011 by animatic

[asdecas]

'Tis a fine thing for a political party to have a strategist named Gobsmack.

[chmiroau]

Um, it's called pork barreling. The new government can get out of it simply by saying what other governments do all over the world. They simply say that when they made the election offers, they believed that the economy was in a much better condition than it really was. Then they simply blame the economy's condition on the previous government and use the same election promises for the next election.

[maidu]

The Democrats didn't do their political job well. Their main strategy should have been to discredit Puea Thai and the Shinawatre clan. It was easy to do, but the Democrats didn't have the mental agility and moral turpitude to do it. The Dems should also have campaigned on issues, both their accomplishments (albeit few) and future hopes for improvements to Thailand and its people. Neither party did that, other than PT making empty promises.

It's also a reflection of the majority who voted for the PT party. Voters were readily duped. They've been consistently swayed by a family that blatantly lies and cheats. When things go wrong (Thai treasury sucked out to fill Shinawatre coffers, etc) , they should only have themselves to blame.

Thais not only have a lukewarm fledgling democracy, they don't have a handle on how to run political campaigns.

[whybother]

Um, it's called pork barreling. The new government can get out of it simply by saying what other governments do all over the world. They simply say that when they made the election offers, they believed that the economy was in a much better condition than it really was. Then they simply blame the economy's condition on the previous government and use the same election promises for the next election.

Except the PTP have been saying what a bad state the Thai economy is in after 2 years of the Democrats.

[animatic]

The Democrats didn't do their political job well. Their main strategy should have been to discredit Puea Thai and the Shinawatre clan. It was easy to do, but the Democrats didn't have the mental agility and moral turpitude to do it. The Dems should also have campaigned on issues, both their accomplishments (albeit few) and future hopes for improvements to Thailand and its people. Neither party did that, other than PT making empty promises.

It's also a reflection of the majority who voted for the PT party. Voters were readily duped. They've been consistently swayed by a family that blatantly lies and cheats. When things go wrong (Thai treasury sucked out to fill Shinawatre coffers, etc) , they should only have themselves to blame.

Thais not only have a lukewarm fledgling democracy, they don't have a handle on how to run political campaigns.

"...but the Democrats didn't have the mental agility and moral turpitude to do it...."

HUH???

Moral attitude maybe you meant?

They fought the campaign mostly like gentlemen.

A big mistake IMHO.

Turpitude –noun

1.vile, shameful, or base character; depravity.

2.a vile or depraved act.

It would take moral backbone to

"to discredit Puea Thai and the Shinawatre clan."

But I doubt the Dems needed to go to depraved to fight a better campaign.

Edited July 21, 2011 by animatic

[tlansford]

Nice piece on "sour grapes"

[hammered]

Its time instead of looking for all the things others did that hurt the Dems for the Dems to look at what they can do to appeal more. It is getting boring to listen to the main opposition party talk like nothing is really wrong except what opponents do. Get over it, change and move forward in a positive way to offer the electorate an alternative and if that means breaking age old links to the establishment and reducing power of the southern and bangkok factions within the party that are more intent on maintaining their own turf than about winning elections, then so be it.

And get rid of Abhisit. Think it fair or not is irrelevant but he is an impediment to the party making inroads where they need to.

And also publically admit to past mistakes, such as not standing against the coup, which kind of undermines any parties ability to be seen as a democratic party.

Oh and ditch anyone and everyone associated with the marketing/PR stuff in the party as even compared to also ran parties it was the worst by a country mile.

All this Thaksin this Thaksin that, lies, unlucky with economy crying over spilt milk nonsense and please feel sorry for us becuase we are the honest ones and the best to run the country has resulted in defeat after defeat and quite frankly will continue to do so. Dems should learn they cant change their opponent. They should have learned that by now by all the constant attempts that have utterly failed, so look to what they can change, make a break with the past, move forward and offer the country something they can at least accept and even better want to vote for. The PTP have offered the people a lot this time and if they dont deliver there is an opportunity for them to beaten at the next poll. Making sure the Dem party is actually electable and not seen as a two region dominated, establishment backing, coup supporting party led by a man seen by many as associated with the unacceptable.

[KKvampire]

Nice piece on "sour grapes"

No, Deception on a national scale but hey not surprised Isaan fell for it

Edited July 21, 2011 by KKvampire

[Samuian]

The bigger the lie, the more some wish to believe it.

Propaganda is telling the BIG lie over and over again

until it eventually becomes truth for enough people

that it DOES become a reality. Reality based on a facade,

but that no longer matters to a percentage of voters.

In this case PTP ties fresh lies to the old Propaganda Legend of Thaksin, and people bought the new with the old.

Wishful thinking and no looking back at history as it REALLY was.

It will go on ... always was this way.. Chatichai...Banharn..Samak..

That's how "da man in Dubai" got it all in his hands in the first place and will again and again, now whre it has been proven that it works, whatsoever, no one wants to see through it, cause those "overwhelming democratic votes from the poor" come from people who not even have the education to look behind these blunt lies ..errr' "promises", to understand that economy can not support this.... it's about the Giga-Projects and much, much money to be raked into the pockets of.... na, whom?

Anyone remembering the US$ 300 Mill. for the parking house @ Suvannahbhum and who had a hand on this one.... a company run by...ah' well..

Edited July 21, 2011 by Samuian

[exbelg]

why did the democrats not rule their campaing to show thai people that the promises made by the other party were not possible in any way ?

maybe time for the dems to go back to siam in stead of whole (poor north and south) thailand ?

who in this country are paying taxes if it is not bangkok and maybe CM ???

[hungryhippo]

And get rid of Abhisit. Think it fair or not is irrelevant but he is an impediment to the party making inroads where they need to.

Why exactly? Not only has he been a politician that's fought for a non-corrupt government for over 20 years he's proven that he's willing to listen to the opposition and try reasoning things out. Compare his meetings with the redshirts to Samak's government where he just ordered the yellow shirts to be grenade attacked.

During the time he was prime minister he finally got a law in acted for higher taxes on rich land owners that been debated for over 10 years. He raised minimum wage, and put the prices up on the purchasing of crops from farmers.

So what exactly is it about Abhisit that you hate so much? He seems to be the only reasonable politican that Thailand has.

[hungryhippo]

No, Deception on a national scale but hey not surprised Isaan fell for it

Issan didn't fall for anything. They know how corrupt Taksin is. They just vote for his party because they know they'll be given priority over the rest of the country once his party is back in power. It's very selfish really, they only care about themselves rather then the country as a whole.

[Nowhereman60]

Korbsak is just another sore loser.

[animatic]

And get rid of Abhisit. Think it fair or not is irrelevant but he is an impediment to the party making inroads where they need to.

Why exactly? Not only has he been a politician that's fought for a non-corrupt government for over 20 years he's proven that he's willing to listen to the opposition and try reasoning things out. Compare his meetings with the redshirts to Samak's government where he just ordered the yellow shirts to be grenade attacked.

During the time he was prime minister he finally got a law in acted for higher taxes on rich land owners that been debated for over 10 years. He raised minimum wage, and put the prices up on the purchasing of crops from farmers.

So what exactly is it about Abhisit that you hate so much? He seems to be the only reasonable politican that Thailand has.

I believe Samak was instrumental in the early attacks on PAD at the Bridge,

He tried to force a SOE and the army turned him down flat refusing to be drawn in.

But the grenade attacks came on PAD were during Somchai's watch.

I very much doubt Somchai ordered them, he just couldn't think about stopping them.

Thaksin and the guy training grenade throwers in public, Sae Daeng, were quite cozy at the time. Sae Deang even illegally (no permission from army superiors) crossed over the border around then and was photographed with Thaksin in Cambodia. Afterwards the violence ramped up.

Somchai had no say in the matter, Thaksin has been calling the shots.

[hammered]

And get rid of Abhisit. Think it fair or not is irrelevant but he is an impediment to the party making inroads where they need to.

Why exactly? Not only has he been a politician that's fought for a non-corrupt government for over 20 years he's proven that he's willing to listen to the opposition and try reasoning things out. Compare his meetings with the redshirts to Samak's government where he just ordered the yellow shirts to be grenade attacked.

During the time he was prime minister he finally got a law in acted for higher taxes on rich land owners that been debated for over 10 years. He raised minimum wage, and put the prices up on the purchasing of crops from farmers.

So what exactly is it about Abhisit that you hate so much? He seems to be the only reasonable politican that Thailand has.

I dont hate him. I just think he is an impediment to his party as he is pretty much hated in the Isaan and North for linkage to the unacceptable (whether fairly or not), and that means as PTP know the Dems will remain unelectable. By the way, his government was also horribly corrupt if corruption bothers you. It isnt though what you or I think about the person but what the electorate thinks and how they judge him and they clearly use different criteria to yours or they would have resoundingly swept his part to power so they could continue to be under his PMship.

Edited July 21, 2011 by hammered

[animatic]

Korbsak is just another sore loser.

If you mean he is actually calling the situation accurately as being a sore loser, then redefine your dictionary listing. He isn't whining, just doing a post mortem of the situation as he saw it.

Edited July 21, 2011 by animatic

[ginjag]

Nice piece on "sour grapes"

Being carried along with the rest of the Shinawatra road train like sheep following the family,as Issan does, + a few more from other paid pockets, not seeing what damage they have done in Thailand, and blasting the Dems. Your attitude is clouded to say the least.

Why would you go along and think this family is the business unless you are a wind up merchant.

Trying to be impartial is difficult, but the usual guide is knowing RIGHT from WRONG.

[random]

to be fair PTP could have put an ape in every constituency and still won the election. the dems lost because they deserved to lose, based on how they performed.

[RedNIvar]

Korbsak is just another sore loser.

If you mean he is actually calling the situation accurately as being a sore loser, then redefine your dictionary listing. He isn't whining, just doing a post mortem of the situation as he saw it.

The result of his Post Mortem was that the Dems were doomed from the very beginning. Knowing this, there was absolutely nothing he could do as the Dems will not lie, cheat, deceive, or stoop to corruption. As such they lost. Such magnanimousness will be missed in the current Government.

If anyone thinks that chivalry is lost in Thai politics, this man will prove you wrong.

[ericthai]

The bigger the lie, the more some wish to believe it.

Propaganda is telling the BIG lie over and over again

until it eventually becomes truth for enough people

that it DOES become a reality. Reality based on a facade,

but that no longer matters to a percentage of voters.

In this case PTP ties fresh lies to the old Propaganda Legend of Thaksin, and people bought the new with the old.

Wishful thinking and no looking back at history as it REALLY was.

and allot of money given to the farmers to vote.

[geriatrickid]

Nice piece on "sour grapes"

Bingo.

The man ran a very poor campaign. The PTP could have been beaten on a few issues, yet the Democrats were unable to focus. Nor were they able to explain why they should remain in power. Of course, having the record the Democrats had did not help. The gentleman's comments illustrate why a large number of voters felt the need to support PTP: The Democrats did not provide a reason to vote for them. Former PM Abhisit looked dazed and confused when campaigning. Maybe he was tired, or maybe he was fed up with all the pettiness, or maybe he just couldn't understand why so many people disliked him. In any case, the PTP ran a better campaign and that is one of the reasons they won. If the Democrats discover humility and put together a good campaign, they might win next time.

[geriatrickid]

The result of his Post Mortem was that the Dems were doomed from the very beginning. Knowing this, there was absolutely nothing he could do as the Dems will not lie, cheat, deceive, or stoop to corruption. As such they lost. Such magnanimousness will be missed in the current Government.

If anyone thinks that chivalry is lost in Thai politics, this man will prove you wrong.

No. I call it finger pointing and putting the blame elsewhere, than accepting the fact that he was part of the group that ran a pisspoor campaign. Maybe he wasn't used to having to campaign in an election, considering his party owed its mandate in large part to an illegal military coup d'etat.

[ginjag]

to be fair PTP could have put an ape in every constituency and still won the election. the dems lost because they deserved to lose, based on how they performed.

A good apple in a barrel of Sh#zen does not survive, the dems were on a loser for a start with the Family again involved, an old saying in north England seems to sum up here, You can't put nowt where there int nowt. Another poster blaming the Dems for under performing -instead of realising if the people do not change their greedy habits, and the Family mentioned carry on with the bribery ( promises to get elected only) All I can say is the Dems were not as corrupt and greedy as the winners.

[random]

to be fair PTP could have put an ape in every constituency and still won the election. the dems lost because they deserved to lose, based on how they performed.

A good apple in a barrel of Sh#zen does not survive, the dems were on a loser for a start with the Family again involved, an old saying in north England seems to sum up here, You can't put nowt where there int nowt. Another poster blaming the Dems for under performing -instead of realising if the people do not change their greedy habits, and the Family mentioned carry on with the bribery ( promises to get elected only) All I can say is the Dems were not as corrupt and greedy as the winners.

Did the dems fulfill their election promises when the army handed them power, sorry the courts, sorry parliament?

the fact is, however you want to dress this up, the dems lost because they performed badly whilst in power and whilst campaigning, they did nothing to show they deserved to keep power, and at the end they quite rightly lost power, and all the sour grapes or attempts at deflection in the world will never disguise the fact that the dems failed, and therefore lost an election that seemed easier to win than to lose.

[Phuket Stan]

to be fair PTP could have put an ape in every constituency and still won the election.

They did....and they did

Edited July 21, 2011 by Phuket Stan

[Pi Sek]

And get rid of Abhisit. Think it fair or not is irrelevant but he is an impediment to the party making inroads where they need to.

Why exactly? Not only has he been a politician that's fought for a non-corrupt government for over 20 years he's proven that he's willing to listen to the opposition and try reasoning things out. Compare his meetings with the redshirts to Samak's government where he just ordered the yellow shirts to be grenade attacked.

During the time he was prime minister he finally got a law in acted for higher taxes on rich land owners that been debated for over 10 years. He raised minimum wage, and put the prices up on the purchasing of crops from farmers.

So what exactly is it about Abhisit that you hate so much? He seems to be the only reasonable politican that Thailand has.

I dont hate him. I just think he is an impediment to his party as he is pretty much hated in the Isaan and North for linkage to the unacceptable (whether fairly or not), and that means as PTP know the Dems will remain unelectable. By the way, his government was also horribly corrupt if corruption bothers you. It isnt though what you or I think about the person but what the electorate thinks and how they judge him and they clearly use different criteria to yours or they would have resoundingly swept his part to power so they could continue to be under his PMship.

I agree with a lot of what you write on these fora, but not the getting rid of Abhisit line. I hope he will be will PM again at some point for his cool hand, his objective statements and his refusal to lie, even if I concede that the Democrats did not perform very well during the global economic crisis, the 2009 and 2010 Red Shirt protests, the continued road-building by Cambodia on disputed land, the army's knee-jerk reaction to it...

He's still considered as the only real option for PM in the south - Yinglak is a big joke here, she's been (probably unfairly) labelled as just an attractive puppet to deflect Thaksin-related questions away from Peua Thai. There is also the perception that no one will listen to her anyway, she's a woman.

However I do agree with you about a perception that exists, fairly or unfairly, in some parts of the country that he is responsible for bad things and, for the timebeing, he is not electable in these places. Using the same logic, though, Thaksin is not electable in other areas of the country. The difference is that pro-Thaksin types tend to believe (seemingly?) that Thaksin really did not do anything wrong - or, if he broke the Law, then the Law is an ass. Even Abhisit's supporters acknowledge his softly softly approach to last year's protest was perhaps too gentle in the face of continued aggression and that unusual circumstances meant that his party did not really do their jobs to 100% efficiency.

Cold hard exposure to facts and admission of culpability from those culpable might change this - but I sincerely doubt anyone will admit to anything with respect to the Red-related violence over the last 2 years.

The whole post though is about Korbsak, who was in charge of the Democrats' election campaign, covering his ass. He failed - the results showed it. His argument is that the other parties failed too. The big argument against him is that the election campaign was pretty damned poor. Either way, he should have resigned already, like Abhisit and like Banyat, when they acknowledged their targets had not been achieved - even if they were just going to brought back in straight afterwards.

[hammered]

And get rid of Abhisit. Think it fair or not is irrelevant but he is an impediment to the party making inroads where they need to.

Why exactly? Not only has he been a politician that's fought for a non-corrupt government for over 20 years he's proven that he's willing to listen to the opposition and try reasoning things out. Compare his meetings with the redshirts to Samak's government where he just ordered the yellow shirts to be grenade attacked.

During the time he was prime minister he finally got a law in acted for higher taxes on rich land owners that been debated for over 10 years. He raised minimum wage, and put the prices up on the purchasing of crops from farmers.

So what exactly is it about Abhisit that you hate so much? He seems to be the only reasonable politican that Thailand has.

I dont hate him. I just think he is an impediment to his party as he is pretty much hated in the Isaan and North for linkage to the unacceptable (whether fairly or not), and that means as PTP know the Dems will remain unelectable. By the way, his government was also horribly corrupt if corruption bothers you. It isnt though what you or I think about the person but what the electorate thinks and how they judge him and they clearly use different criteria to yours or they would have resoundingly swept his part to power so they could continue to be under his PMship.

I agree with a lot of what you write on these fora, but not the getting rid of Abhisit line. I hope he will be will PM again at some point for his cool hand, his objective statements and his refusal to lie, even if I concede that the Democrats did not perform very well during the global economic crisis, the 2009 and 2010 Red Shirt protests, the continued road-building by Cambodia on disputed land, the army's knee-jerk reaction to it...

He's still considered as the only real option for PM in the south - Yinglak is a big joke here, she's been (probably unfairly) labelled as just an attractive puppet to deflect Thaksin-related questions away from Peua Thai. There is also the perception that no one will listen to her anyway, she's a woman.

However I do agree with you about a perception that exists, fairly or unfairly, in some parts of the country that he is responsible for bad things and, for the timebeing, he is not electable in these places. Using the same logic, though, Thaksin is not electable in other areas of the country. The difference is that pro-Thaksin types tend to believe (seemingly?) that Thaksin really did not do anything wrong - or, if he broke the Law, then the Law is an ass. Even Abhisit's supporters acknowledge his softly softly approach to last year's protest was perhaps too gentle in the face of continued aggression and that unusual circumstances meant that his party did not really do their jobs to 100% efficiency.

Cold hard exposure to facts and admission of culpability from those culpable might change this - but I sincerely doubt anyone will admit to anything with respect to the Red-related violence over the last 2 years.

The whole post though is about Korbsak, who was in charge of the Democrats' election campaign, covering his ass. He failed - the results showed it. His argument is that the other parties failed too. The big argument against him is that the election campaign was pretty damned poor. Either way, he should have resigned already, like Abhisit and like Banyat, when they acknowledged their targets had not been achieved - even if they were just going to brought back in straight afterwards.

I think we do agree that all those involved in the utterly abysmal Democrat marketing/PR campaign need to go if they want to have a chance. That for me includes everyone right down to the companies or whoever designed or advised on stuff and right from the pinnacle of those responsible for getting message across. It was like Thailand 1990 versus Thailand 2011 in style and style is very important.

[rixalex]

Thais not only have a lukewarm fledgling democracy, they don't have a handle on how to run political campaigns.

The Shinawatra's have a very good handle. First big step is making sure you not only have a political party that is seen as being professional and legitimate, but also some splinter groups that can do your dirty work and who don't have to play by the rules. Democrats were on the back foot from the get-go.