Even This National Disaster Is Being Used As A Political Weapon: Thai Opinion

[scorecard]

Take look at this, also written very recently by Khun Pavin:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204618704576647041068499736.html

[whybother]

Take look at this, also written very recently by Khun Pavin:

http://online.wsj.co...1068499736.html

It looks like it's exactly the same article, just changed for a different audience.

[Crushdepth]

Take look at this, also written very recently by Khun Pavin:

http://online.wsj.co...1068499736.html

It looks like it's exactly the same article, just changed for a different audience.

Good example of why political scientists are a total waste of oxygen. Zero interest in facts, only the rabid ideology matters.

[mic6ard]

I think that this Pavin missed some of the actual issues this current crisis has created. Madam PM is shown to be lacking the skill and personality to bring the government together. So many conflicting issues from the same issues, USN is the current one, and it's not really splitting between the red/yellow oriented media either. This is causing major confusions within the country and I bet internationally too. Not to mention the various Reds leader doing other things, but then again where are the Yellows! Chumlong, etc. They are not doing any better. Fortunate for them that they aren't in power.

Given how much it rained this year, I'm surprise that there isn't any contingency plan to cope with the vast volume of water

But I agree that the problem is MUCH deeper than the current gov't, I honestly can't imagine other country that would let the 'mob' regulate where the water would go, which control gate to open, where to place dykes, etc.

Declaring SOE from the beginning would be the perfect controlling the crowd, with the army in charge of security for the work crews. Don't tell me that you didn't hear about numerous crews retreating due to threat of violence. I don't think that this would have happened with Army there, OR WOULD THE ARMY BE THE ONE DOING THE DEED!!!

To sum it all up.

1. Madam P.M. is unlucky to be hit such a crisis with in months of taking power, but she could have done better, be more in control.

2. No one is really doing well: Reds/Yellows leaders are not showing support in any significant volume. Unfortunate for the Reds, getting blasted as they are in power.

3. Mr.ex P.M. has really stayed quiet, but I've seen report of him stating that he'll send water pump from Korea .

4.This would make or break this fledgling gov't, as the flood will led to numerous issues, especially what to do with workers who are not out of work!

Edited October 26, 2011 by mic6ard

[OzMick]

It seems they've signed up a closing act to that charity concert for the flood victims, opening act The Eagles with a dedicated rendition of "Lyin' Eyes". The PM has agreed to close the show with a shortened version of "Send in the Crowns" (sic):

Don't you love farce?

My fault I fear.

I thought that you'd want what I want.

Sorry, my dear.

But where are the clowns?

Quick, send in the clowns.

Don't bother, they're here.

[mic6ard]

The problem lies with the "patronage " system in place in Thailand. No matter who is in charge there will be incompetence by those who are appointed to important positions purely for political reasons

In most western countries the political swings are minimized by a strong (and unfortunately sometimes obtuse) professional civil servant class , who are able to keep political interference to a minimum and therefore keep the institutional memory alive

But when you have to give up important ministerial positions to get parliamentary votes any government is going to be ineffectual since the bureaucrats are scared of the new boss and won't / can't stick up for what is the right thing to do

Solid analysis of the nuances of how governments work. I lived/worked in Washington DC for a long time. You are absolutely right - the political appointees (rolling in and out every 4 to 8 years) are nearly worthless. Its the non-partisan civil servants that keep the machine running. In the US, the percent of the governing agences that are run by political appointees, versus civil servants, is small enough to not seriously affect their effectiveness. To be honest, I don't know what the ratio/dynamic is like in Thailand - but I wouldn't be surprised that you are correct.

LoS is still trying to figure out the meaning of democracy IMHOP, . There are still too much 'patronage' people in places where they shouldn't be.

[Crushdepth]

The problem lies with the "patronage " system in place in Thailand. No matter who is in charge there will be incompetence by those who are appointed to important positions purely for political reasons

In most western countries the political swings are minimized by a strong (and unfortunately sometimes obtuse) professional civil servant class , who are able to keep political interference to a minimum and therefore keep the institutional memory alive

But when you have to give up important ministerial positions to get parliamentary votes any government is going to be ineffectual since the bureaucrats are scared of the new boss and won't / can't stick up for what is the right thing to do

A lot of truth in this. When you appoint relatives to ministerial posts you don't get talent or leaders, you get twits and numpties. Of course they fail under pressure, they aren't qualified to hold these posts.

[OzMick]

The problem lies with the "patronage " system in place in Thailand. No matter who is in charge there will be incompetence by those who are appointed to important positions purely for political reasons

In most western countries the political swings are minimized by a strong (and unfortunately sometimes obtuse) professional civil servant class , who are able to keep political interference to a minimum and therefore keep the institutional memory alive

But when you have to give up important ministerial positions to get parliamentary votes any government is going to be ineffectual since the bureaucrats are scared of the new boss and won't / can't stick up for what is the right thing to do

Solid analysis of the nuances of how governments work. I lived/worked in Washington DC for a long time. You are absolutely right - the political appointees (rolling in and out every 4 to 8 years) are nearly worthless. Its the non-partisan civil servants that keep the machine running. In the US, the percent of the governing agences that are run by political appointees, versus civil servants, is small enough to not seriously affect their effectiveness. To be honest, I don't know what the ratio/dynamic is like in Thailand - but I wouldn't be surprised that you are correct.

LoS is still trying to figure out the meaning of democracy IMHOP, . There are still too much 'patronage' people in places where they shouldn't be.

Abandoning the party list system would be a good start.

[hammered]

The problem lies with the "patronage " system in place in Thailand. No matter who is in charge there will be incompetence by those who are appointed to important positions purely for political reasons

In most western countries the political swings are minimized by a strong (and unfortunately sometimes obtuse) professional civil servant class , who are able to keep political interference to a minimum and therefore keep the institutional memory alive

But when you have to give up important ministerial positions to get parliamentary votes any government is going to be ineffectual since the bureaucrats are scared of the new boss and won't / can't stick up for what is the right thing to do

Solid analysis of the nuances of how governments work. I lived/worked in Washington DC for a long time. You are absolutely right - the political appointees (rolling in and out every 4 to 8 years) are nearly worthless. Its the non-partisan civil servants that keep the machine running. In the US, the percent of the governing agences that are run by political appointees, versus civil servants, is small enough to not seriously affect their effectiveness. To be honest, I don't know what the ratio/dynamic is like in Thailand - but I wouldn't be surprised that you are correct.

LoS is still trying to figure out the meaning of democracy IMHOP, . There are still too much 'patronage' people in places where they shouldn't be.

Abandoning the party list system would be a good start.

Thaksin and PTP would just love you for proposing that, while the Democrats definitely wouldnt

[TAWP]

Pavin is a propaganda-poster.

It's not even an argument when he posts:

This is what Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is now called and labelled by her upper-class critics.

Did something strange happen and they re-declared who was rich?

Is this how Thaksin/Yingluck get their '6-month-until-everyone-is-rich'-promise?

Because I see a lot of people and co-workers, both offline and online on Facebook and Twitter, that isn't anywhere near rich [by normal standards] and they are very critical.

So pray tell, Mr. Propaganda Tool, who have you been listening to?

[Ned]

What happened to the $6,000,000,000 the Irrigation Dept received over the last 3 years for flood prevention works?

So many groups of rulers here all seemingly in competition with each other. But we all know who's really making the big decisions don't we?

Thailand........ a state within a state.

[TAWP]

It's more like hundreds of feudal 'lordship' (to avoid the other word) regions, with constant fighting and changing allegiances based on self-serving enrichment-goal more than anything else.

[serenitynow]

Take look at this, also written very recently by Khun Pavin:

http://online.wsj.co...1068499736.html

He's a shill. I think most open minded people can see that straight off.

[Rimmer]

Quoted reply of deleted post removed

[KhunVee]

As I have previously noted there have been barefaced lies, now exposed, for example the US Navy's role and the security of key royal sites.

Where has it been stated, that the US Navy offering help and then been sent packing is a lie ?

Originally sources reporting this, was US Navy sources.

I'm not questioning you, just would like to see where and what was said to counter the US Navy statement.

Errrr,.... The US Ambassador good enough for you?

[scorecard]

As I have previously noted there have been barefaced lies, now exposed, for example the US Navy's role and the security of key royal sites.

Where has it been stated, that the US Navy offering help and then been sent packing is a lie ?

Originally sources reporting this, was US Navy sources.

I'm not questioning you, just would like to see where and what was said to counter the US Navy statement.

Errrr,.... The US Ambassador good enough for you?

Ever thought that the words she used n this statement are pretty clever diplomatic speak, keep all the balls in the air and don't give a definitive answer to anything?

[tlansford]

As I have previously noted there have been barefaced lies, now exposed, for example the US Navy's role and the security of key royal sites.

Where has it been stated, that the US Navy offering help and then been sent packing is a lie ?

Originally sources reporting this, was US Navy sources.

I'm not questioning you, just would like to see where and what was said to counter the US Navy statement.

Errrr,.... The US Ambassador good enough for you?

Ever thought that the words she used n this statement are pretty clever diplomatic speak, keep all the balls in the air and don't give a definitive answer to anything?

lots of definitive answers in the interview.

She was diplomatic in not attacking the AFP article (the French are our friends, too, after all)

"the thai gov't asked us for help", "we immediately sent a team of ... experts", "the experts assessed the situation and determined the immediate needs ...", "that is what the experts determined was needed", "the most important thing is helping victims", "bring in exactly what was needed", "we had very clear requests from the Thai gov't", ...

That all sounds very concrete to me.

Edited October 26, 2011 by tlansford

[OZEMADE]

The Democrats have now admitted that former PM Abhisit flew off to the Maldives, throwing in the lie that it was a 'diplomatic visit' despite no record of it from official Maldive sources.

Hey, you are back? Well, you could have saved us your red sh*t propaganda again

I saw this on another Site it may assist with things.

• Abhisit admits to Maldives trip amid Thailand flood crisis

A couple of days ago I blogged about allegations that former Thai PM and leader of the oppositionDemocrat Party, Abhisit Vejjajiva, ran away to the Maldives for a quick luxuryholiday as Bangkok faced flooding.

At first the Democrats seemed to deny 'Mark' (Abhisit) had been sunning histush at some luxury resort in the Maldives. Or, in typically evasive style,(why aren't the Democrats and the truth ever on speaking terms?) wouldn't denyAbhisit had been there.

Now they've admitted he was in the Maldives. But only after they got theirstory "straight".

The line now being put out by the Democrats, according to a report in the Matichon newspaper, is that Abhisit did actually travel to theMaldives but went there to visit the Maldives' President in some kind ofofficial capacity based on an invitation said president sent Mark severalmonths ago. The claim is that they discussed the "floods". But why didn't Markannounce his "official" visit before he left? Will he be publishing hisfindings on Maldivean flood control? Why the evasiveness? Why the secrecy?

Yet a quick look on the Maldives' President's website and at the list of official engagements and it isplain to see it makes no mention of Abhisit's visit. It does mention an Under 25s CricketTournament andvarious messages the President has sent to diplomats etc. but nothing aboutKhun Mark's important visit to the Maldives to discuss how to combat thefloods.

So has Abhisit compounded one mistake by making another? I'm sure these are questionsthe President's press office in the Maldives will be eager to answer once itopens in the morning.

But, at the end of the day, the only real judges of the wisdom of Abhisit'sluxury sojourn will be the Thai electorate. Do they prefer a leader who, despiteterrible, once-in-a-lifetime floods, sticks it out and does her best or apolitician who snipes from the sidelines and then runs off to a luxury resortwhen things get tough?

Andrew Spooner's public Facebook page is here.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/68085/abhisit-admits-to-going-to-the-maldives-but-he-is-telling-the-truth-about-the-reason

[nurofiend]

<snip>

about the article, obviously he is biased... is that overriding the points he makes? you could argue that for some but not all.. does that then automatically make any point invalid? hell no

<snip>

"Such a stupid bitch, she is!

As dim as a buffalo! She's a bimbo, a brainless Barbie doll. The first female prime minister - who has brought all this bad luck upon the country!

This is what Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is now called and labelled by her upper-class critics."

===> Pointless. And biased. She is being labelled by all her critics. What's the point of mentioning her "upper-class critics".

Much of Thailand has for some time been submerged under floodwaters. Bangkok itself is bracing for raging floods. Soon, the capital could be turned into a giant swimming pool. At the same time, Yingluck is about to drown in the political floods. This is no longer just an issue of natural disaster. It has become a ferocious political game.

===> Valid point. A game with two (or more) teams.

The discourse of "stupidity" is being used prevalently and discursively. Yingluck has been made to represent the face of stupidity. The objective is clear - to discredit her and belittle her endeavours to find solutions to the problem.

In employing this discourse to assess Yingluck's performance, many seem to assume that Thai politics is the realm of the "intelligent". But if it is so, then why did past leaders also fail to solve the relentless problem of annual floods once and for all?

===> Usual issue. Who is blaming her for not solving the annual floods?

If Yingluck is to be judged, then perhaps the word "weak" would be better used to measure her leadership qualities. It is true that Yingluck has responded to the floods too slowly. While she works tirelessly to display her commitment, she fails to produce an integrated approach to ameliorate the grave situation. But it is very convenient, in times of crisis, to condemn others. All fingers are thus pointing at Yingluck's lack of crisis management skills.

===> He got this 110% right.

But would it be fair to put all the blame on Yingluck? Should she alone be held responsible for the overpowering floods? Why was the Royal Irrigation Department keeping huge reserves of water in key dams at the beginning of the monsoon season and refused to release it despite the prolonged and massive rainfall we have seen during this monsoon season? Why did previous governments, which also experienced threatening floods, not put in place an effective flood management system?

===> Once again. No one is blaming her for the floods, just the management and communication.

Rumours, lies and false statements regarding the flood situation have been found on social networking sites. A picture of Yingluck, taken before the July election, which shows her taking a photo from her hand-phone on a helicopter, has been circulated on Facebook, with captions such as: "The nation is in crisis but this bitch is having a good time." Another picture of a Yingluck lookalike partying and drinking whisky from a bottle was also shared in cyberspace.

News of His Majesty the King mentioning that if the floods approach Bangkok, then let the water pass and do not block the Chitralada Palace, was found to be bogus. A photo of Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, taken in 2010, offering bags of commodities, was also intentionally released to mislead some Thais.

===> That's nearly as bad as doctored audio and video.

Could this be a part of a coordinated attack against Yingluck with the aim of destroying confidence in the government?

===> Tinfoil hat time. Coordinated?

Certainly, the opposition Democrat Party has been busy contesting the legitimacy of the Yingluck regime. Its leader, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, absurdly suggested the declaration of an emergency decree to fight the floods. Through this, the military would be granted full authority to operate in almost any way it likes - a decision that will not be accepted by the current government. Yet, Abhisit did not elaborate on whether the military could handle the problem better than the Yingluck government.

Abhisit has also worked closely with MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the Bangkok governor, to compete, not cooperate, with the government. While many brand Yingluck as stupid, Sukhumbhand showed his superstitious faith in a Khmer ritual of "chasing water" in his search for a solution to the threat of floods in the city. He was intensely protective about his turf. At one point he declared, "Listen to me and only me. I will tell you when to evacuate."

===> Biased. What have the Democrats said about the "legitimacy of the Yingluck regime" during this time? They have criticized her management, but legitimacy? Why is suggesting declaring an SOE absurd? If it gets the flood and relief efforts coordinated and managed properly, then it's a good thing. If Yingluck thinks she can deal without it, then fine. It doesn't make the suggestion absurd. Abhisit has been working with both Yingluck and Sukhumband. Not competing. Sukhumband has been dealing with only Bangkok, because that's his jurisdiction. He said "Listen to me and only me" because there were confusing messages coming from the government.

Meanwhile, footage of the military going into affected areas to aid flood victims is impressive. But the military, like the Bangkok governor, has functioned almost independently from the government. There is clearly a sense of competition between the government and its rivals. Some of the fiercest critics of the government have called for Yingluck to resign. Yingluck's supporters interpret such competition and the pressure to remove her from power as part of a plot to stage a "water coup".

===> The Bangkok governor had been working independently of the government, because the government weren't involving him. If the military have been working independently of the government, that says more about the government's management than it does about the military. People have called for Yingluck to resign because she doesn't know what she's doing and she's not putting people in place that do. The Samut Prakarn governor was removed for exactly that reason.

This competition, even during the height of the crisis, unveils a reality in Thailand: this is a deeply fragmented society in which political ideologies have overshadowed public responsibility and the urgency for national survival. It is no longer a country where its members are willing to forge ahead and leave their differences behind. Eliminating political adversaries, at the expense of a national catastrophe, is seemingly acceptable today.

===> Which side is he criticising here?

The last crusade to save the capital from the floods also reflects a self-interested mentality among Bangkok residents. Bangkok, once again, is a symbol of contentious politics. Other provinces have long suffered from floodwaters that do not seem to go away. It is a case of a great disparity between the people residing in the rural and urban areas.

For now, those who are complaining the most, the loudest, are the Bangkok residents, who have over the past two months been so fortunate to have been kept dry. Yingluck has fallen into the trap of political disparity: she recognises the absolute necessity to rescue Bangkok to please her Bangkok critics, but earlier acted so slowly to prevent surrounding provinces from being inundated.

===> The big question is, why did she act so slowly to prevent the surrounding provinces from being inundated? Saving Bangkok is not just about pleasing her Bangkok critics. It's about saving the Thai economy. If Bangkok is badly flooded, the people affected in Thailand will be tripled (or more). It is an economic necessity to save Bangkok. That's why Sukhumband didn't want to let it flood, and why Yingluck hasn't changed that stance.

"As dim as a buffalo! She's a bimbo, a brainless Barbie doll. The first female prime minister - who has brought all this bad luck upon the country!

This is what Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is now called and labelled by her upper-class critics."

===> Pointless. And biased. She is being labelled by all her critics. What's the point of mentioning her "upper-class critics" "

______________________________________________

i agree, singling out 'upper class' is pointless... and biased

but mentioning the venom and the words used by people who speak about a woman, who let's be fair, don't really know that much about her to be able to conclusively judge her as "dumb, stupid" etc. i think that's a fair point to make and relevant to what this article is about.

______________________________________________

"It has become a ferocious political game.

===> Valid point. A game with two (or more) teams."

______________________________________________

yes, and i'm sure the op appreciates this

______________________________________________

"The discourse of "stupidity" is being used prevalently and discursively. Yingluck has been made to represent the face of stupidity. The objective is clear - to discredit her and belittle her endeavours to find solutions to the problem.

In employing this discourse to assess Yingluck's performance, many seem to assume that Thai politics is the realm of the "intelligent". But if it is so, then why did past leaders also fail to solve the relentless problem of annual floods once and for all?

===> Usual issue. Who is blaming her for not solving the annual floods?"

______________________________________________

he's not saying people are blaming her for not solving the annual floods in this quote...he's talking about her performance but questioning past leaders performances in efforts to prevent annual flooding

______________________________________________

"But would it be fair to put all the blame on Yingluck? Should she alone be held responsible for the overpowering floods? Why was the Royal Irrigation Department keeping huge reserves of water in key dams at the beginning of the monsoon season and refused to release it despite the prolonged and massive rainfall we have seen during this monsoon season? Why did previous governments, which also experienced threatening floods, not put in place an effective flood management system?

===> Once again. No one is blaming her for the floods, just the management and communication."

______________________________________________

again, obviously he means everyone is blaming her for the management and communication when he say's "put all the blame on yingluck"...what else could she be blamed for other than those things? do you think he means they are blaming her for doing one hell of a rain dance?! obviously i jest but how else could anyone possibly 'blame her for the floods' if not about how she managed the situation?

he raises a question which is fair about previous governments.. it wouldn't excuse any shortcomings she's shown but it should put some perspective on other governments blase attitude towards an annual occurrence.

if people agree that she's not to blame for the issues that haven't been looked at by previous governments, then you could say.."abhisit should ave been working on this...it wouldn't have happened if he had"

if i saw someone put forward that argument i would laugh at it, because while possibly true... it's completely based on hindsight of the worst flooding for decades.

just like i laugh at some of the things i see people write about what yingluck should have done and how the rainfall is no different to any other year or if she had called a SOE it somehow would have solved it.

this is not to say i don't think there are any points to be made about her competence.

______________________________________________

"Rumours, lies and false statements regarding the flood situation have been found on social networking sites. A picture of Yingluck, taken before the July election, which shows her taking a photo from her hand-phone on a helicopter, has been circulated on Facebook, with captions such as: "The nation is in crisis but this bitch is having a good time." Another picture of a Yingluck lookalike partying and drinking whisky from a bottle was also shared in cyberspace.

News of His Majesty the King mentioning that if the floods approach Bangkok, then let the water pass and do not block the Chitralada Palace, was found to be bogus. A photo of Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, taken in 2010, offering bags of commodities, was also intentionally released to mislead some Thais.

===> That's nearly as bad as doctored audio and video."

______________________________________________

yes, it is a valid point he makes about rumours and lies.

______________________________________________

"Could this be a part of a coordinated attack against Yingluck with the aim of destroying confidence in the government?

===> Tinfoil hat time. Coordinated? "

______________________________________________

agreed.

______________________________________________

"Certainly, the opposition Democrat Party has been busy contesting the legitimacy of the Yingluck regime. Its leader, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, absurdly suggested the declaration of an emergency decree to fight the floods. Through this, the military would be granted full authority to operate in almost any way it likes - a decision that will not be accepted by the current government. Yet, Abhisit did not elaborate on whether the military could handle the problem better than the Yingluck government.

Abhisit has also worked closely with MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the Bangkok governor, to compete, not cooperate, with the government. While many brand Yingluck as stupid, Sukhumbhand showed his superstitious faith in a Khmer ritual of "chasing water" in his search for a solution to the threat of floods in the city. He was intensely protective about his turf. At one point he declared, "Listen to me and only me. I will tell you when to evacuate."

===> Biased. What have the Democrats said about the "legitimacy of the Yingluck regime" during this time? They have criticized her management, but legitimacy? Why is suggesting declaring an SOE absurd? If it gets the flood and relief efforts coordinated and managed properly, then it's a good thing. If Yingluck thinks she can deal without it, then fine. It doesn't make the suggestion absurd. Abhisit has been working with both Yingluck and Sukhumband. Not competing. Sukhumband has been dealing with only Bangkok, because that's his jurisdiction. He said "Listen to me and only me" because there were confusing messages coming from the government."

______________________________________________

i think the point he's making is that suggesting an SOE is contesting the legitimacy of the Yingluck regime...

i don't think he's suggesting the democrats outright said "Yinglucks government is illegitimate"

in your personal opinion in what way would it improve flood and relief efforts and management? and by how much would it improve flood relief to make it worthwhile to call for what is looked at as a drastic measure?

btw you don't need to make the point to me about bias.. i've already stated what i think about that

______________________________________________

"Meanwhile, footage of the military going into affected areas to aid flood victims is impressive. But the military, like the Bangkok governor, has functioned almost independently from the government. There is clearly a sense of competition between the government and its rivals. Some of the fiercest critics of the government have called for Yingluck to resign. Yingluck's supporters interpret such competition and the pressure to remove her from power as part of a plot to stage a "water coup".

===> The Bangkok governor had been working independently of the government, because the government weren't involving him. If the military have been working independently of the government, that says more about the government's management than it does about the military. People have called for Yingluck to resign because she doesn't know what she's doing and she's not putting people in place that do. The Samut Prakarn governor was removed for exactly that reason."

______________________________________________

like the army working independently from PTP show's that they have bad management.. what should they have done? the army having their own mind is no new feature in thailand

do you think she should resign from office solely because of her management of the flood?

do you think there's a bigger picture to why people are calling for this, other than the flood?

______________________________________________

"This competition, even during the height of the crisis, unveils a reality in Thailand: this is a deeply fragmented society in which political ideologies have overshadowed public responsibility and the urgency for national survival. It is no longer a country where its members are willing to forge ahead and leave their differences behind. Eliminating political adversaries, at the expense of a national catastrophe, is seemingly acceptable today.

===> Which side is he criticising here?"

______________________________________________

i think he would admit it happens on both sides and speaks of society as a whole but obviously he's aiming at the dems in the last sentence, since it's about the criticisms of yingluck.

but my guess is he would criticize both sides for this kind of thinking, but it can only be a guess.

______________________________________________

"The last crusade to save the capital from the floods also reflects a self-interested mentality among Bangkok residents. Bangkok, once again, is a symbol of contentious politics. Other provinces have long suffered from floodwaters that do not seem to go away. It is a case of a great disparity between the people residing in the rural and urban areas.

For now, those who are complaining the most, the loudest, are the Bangkok residents, who have over the past two months been so fortunate to have been kept dry. Yingluck has fallen into the trap of political disparity: she recognises the absolute necessity to rescue Bangkok to please her Bangkok critics, but earlier acted so slowly to prevent surrounding provinces from being inundated.

===> The big question is, why did she act so slowly to prevent the surrounding provinces from being inundated? Saving Bangkok is not just about pleasing her Bangkok critics. It's about saving the Thai economy. If Bangkok is badly flooded, the people affected in Thailand will be tripled (or more). It is an economic necessity to save Bangkok. That's why Sukhumband didn't want to let it flood, and why Yingluck hasn't changed that stance."

______________________________________________

he makes a valid point and you raise a good question.

looking at what you wrote, you seem to agree with what you quoted me on

______________________________________________

[whybother]

But, at the end of the day, the only real judges of the wisdom of Abhisit'sluxury sojourn will be the Thai electorate. Do they prefer a leader who, despiteterrible, once-in-a-lifetime floods, sticks it out and does her best or apolitician who snipes from the sidelines and then runs off to a luxury resortwhen things get tough?

Yes ... there's a completely unbiased comment from Andrew Spooner.

[nurofiend]

I have no problem with Abhisit visiting the Maldives. One less politician is not a loss, really. He is a former PM and he's been through his own trial by fire. I don't think he has to justify his visit to anyone. Had the government asked him to cancel his visit because he was desperately needed, I am sure he would have.

By the way, the Maldives isn't one of the places I'd head to if I was fearful of floods.

of course, you're entitled to you're opinion.

i'll just say, when you're an active politician (and a main party leader at that)..... you don't go on holiday during a national crisis, for obvious reasons.

it's in 'politics 101'

Did he go on 'holiday'? I read different.

as i've already stated in this thread, we'll have to wait and see the evidence first.

but i still say that even if it was for a pre-arranged 'diplomatic visit', surely he could have cancelled. or spoke by video link or phone.

for me, it would have to be a very, very important reason to leave the country as a main party leader at this time of crisis.

[serenitynow]

But, at the end of the day, the only real judges of the wisdom of Abhisit'sluxury sojourn will be the Thai electorate. Do they prefer a leader who, despiteterrible, once-in-a-lifetime floods, sticks it out and does her best or apolitician who snipes from the sidelines and then runs off to a luxury resortwhen things get tough?

Yes ... there's a completely unbiased comment from Andrew Spooner.

Did he give the whereabouts of the other 499 MP's or 150 senators? And even if he did, who the hell cares?

[rogerdee123]

What happened to the $6,000,000,000 the Irrigation Dept received over the last 3 years for flood prevention works?

So many groups of rulers here all seemingly in competition with each other. But we all know who's really making the big decisions don't we?

Thailand........ a state within a state.

are you sure about all them zeros brother?

:sleepy:

[whybother]

<snip>

"Certainly, the opposition Democrat Party has been busy contesting the legitimacy of the Yingluck regime. Its leader, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, absurdly suggested the declaration of an emergency decree to fight the floods. Through this, the military would be granted full authority to operate in almost any way it likes - a decision that will not be accepted by the current government. Yet, Abhisit did not elaborate on whether the military could handle the problem better than the Yingluck government.

Abhisit has also worked closely with MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the Bangkok governor, to compete, not cooperate, with the government. While many brand Yingluck as stupid, Sukhumbhand showed his superstitious faith in a Khmer ritual of "chasing water" in his search for a solution to the threat of floods in the city. He was intensely protective about his turf. At one point he declared, "Listen to me and only me. I will tell you when to evacuate."

===> Biased. What have the Democrats said about the "legitimacy of the Yingluck regime" during this time? They have criticized her management, but legitimacy? Why is suggesting declaring an SOE absurd? If it gets the flood and relief efforts coordinated and managed properly, then it's a good thing. If Yingluck thinks she can deal without it, then fine. It doesn't make the suggestion absurd. Abhisit has been working with both Yingluck and Sukhumband. Not competing. Sukhumband has been dealing with only Bangkok, because that's his jurisdiction. He said "Listen to me and only me" because there were confusing messages coming from the government."

______________________________________________

i think the point he's making is that suggesting an SOE is contesting the legitimacy of the Yingluck regime...

i don't think he's suggesting the democrats outright said "Yinglucks government is illegitimate"

in your personal opinion in what way would it improve flood and relief efforts and management? and by how much would it improve flood relief to make it worthwhile to call for what is looked at as a drastic measure?

btw you don't need to make the point to me about bias.. i've already stated what i think about that

______________________________________________

<snip>

How does the SOE contest the legitimacy of Yingluck's "regime"? (why does he use that word?)

The SOE gives the military AND the government more power, including the ability to force evacuations. It doesn't give the military ALL the power.

I am not saying that they should have declared an SOE, but there are some valid reasons for declaring it, and it doesn't say anything about the government, just about the situation.

[whybother]

as i've already stated in this thread, we'll have to wait and see the evidence first.

but i still say that even if it was for a pre-arranged 'diplomatic visit', surely he could have cancelled. or spoke by video link or phone.

for me, it would have to be a very, very important reason to leave the country as a main party leader at this time of crisis.

The only reason he shouldn't have gone to the Maldives is because it looks bad.

It would make absolutely no difference to anything that happened here.

[nurofiend]

<snip>

"Certainly, the opposition Democrat Party has been busy contesting the legitimacy of the Yingluck regime. Its leader, former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, absurdly suggested the declaration of an emergency decree to fight the floods. Through this, the military would be granted full authority to operate in almost any way it likes - a decision that will not be accepted by the current government. Yet, Abhisit did not elaborate on whether the military could handle the problem better than the Yingluck government.

Abhisit has also worked closely with MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the Bangkok governor, to compete, not cooperate, with the government. While many brand Yingluck as stupid, Sukhumbhand showed his superstitious faith in a Khmer ritual of "chasing water" in his search for a solution to the threat of floods in the city. He was intensely protective about his turf. At one point he declared, "Listen to me and only me. I will tell you when to evacuate."

===> Biased. What have the Democrats said about the "legitimacy of the Yingluck regime" during this time? They have criticized her management, but legitimacy? Why is suggesting declaring an SOE absurd? If it gets the flood and relief efforts coordinated and managed properly, then it's a good thing. If Yingluck thinks she can deal without it, then fine. It doesn't make the suggestion absurd. Abhisit has been working with both Yingluck and Sukhumband. Not competing. Sukhumband has been dealing with only Bangkok, because that's his jurisdiction. He said "Listen to me and only me" because there were confusing messages coming from the government."

______________________________________________

i think the point he's making is that suggesting an SOE is contesting the legitimacy of the Yingluck regime...

i don't think he's suggesting the democrats outright said "Yinglucks government is illegitimate"

in your personal opinion in what way would it improve flood and relief efforts and management? and by how much would it improve flood relief to make it worthwhile to call for what is looked at as a drastic measure?

btw you don't need to make the point to me about bias.. i've already stated what i think about that

______________________________________________

<snip>

How does the SOE contest the legitimacy of Yingluck's "regime"? (why does he use that word?)

The SOE gives the military AND the government more power, including the ability to force evacuations. It doesn't give the military ALL the power.

I am not saying that they should have declared an SOE, but there are some valid reasons for declaring it, and it doesn't say anything about the government, just about the situation.

ha, i don't know why he uses that word, you'll have to ask him mate.

i think calling for an SOE can look like viewing the government as not having ability to govern over the floods.

yes i'm sure some people see valid reasons for it, just as i'm equally sure some people have other agenda's when calling for it... and i don't mean to form a coup, just to question the legitimacy of the government's ability at this time... in other words "we think you're not able for this and doing a terrible job"

that to me, is contesting the legitimacy

[nurofiend]

as i've already stated in this thread, we'll have to wait and see the evidence first.

but i still say that even if it was for a pre-arranged 'diplomatic visit', surely he could have cancelled. or spoke by video link or phone.

for me, it would have to be a very, very important reason to leave the country as a main party leader at this time of crisis.

The only reason he shouldn't have gone to the Maldives is because it looks bad.

It would make absolutely no difference to anything that happened here.

why does it look bad?

and do you think he doesn't make any difference whether in the country or out?

[whybother]

...

i think calling for an SOE can look like viewing the government as not having ability to govern over the floods.

yes i'm sure some people see valid reasons for it, just as i'm equally sure some people have other agenda's when calling for it... and i don't mean to form a coup, just to question the legitimacy of the government's ability at this time... in other words "we think you're not able for this and doing a terrible job"

that to me, is contesting the legitimacy

It's got nothing to do with the ability to govern. It gives the government more power to get things done.

Without the SOE, the law just doesn't give them enough power. Which is a good thing of course, but there are special situations where the need more power. This is potentially one of them.

[nurofiend]

...

i think calling for an SOE can look like viewing the government as not having ability to govern over the floods.

yes i'm sure some people see valid reasons for it, just as i'm equally sure some people have other agenda's when calling for it... and i don't mean to form a coup, just to question the legitimacy of the government's ability at this time... in other words "we think you're not able for this and doing a terrible job"

that to me, is contesting the legitimacy

It's got nothing to do with the ability to govern. It gives the government more power to get things done.

Without the SOE, the law just doesn't give them enough power. Which is a good thing of course, but there are special situations where the need more power. This is potentially one of them.

it's how it 'appears', is what i'm talking about,

and if you don't think there's people with agenda's when calling for it to make it 'appear' like the government need help because they haven't got the ability to handle this crisis without calling for it, then that's your opinion.

i however think some people have exactly that agenda.

[whybother]

The only reason he shouldn't have gone to the Maldives is because it looks bad.

It would make absolutely no difference to anything that happened here.

why does it look bad?

and do you think he doesn't make any difference whether in the country or out?

It looks bad for the exact reason that it is currently being widely discussed.

I don't believe it made a difference for him to go away for 3 days on a weekend that was between the "high tide weekends".

It shouldn't really make any difference whether he was here or not, since he is only an opposition MP and doesn't have any power to do anything anyway.