Thai Politicians Have Failed The People Yet Again

[Orac]

Can't see where the article specifically says that (I could be wrong though!).

Since this is an annual award I assume it also covers the previous governments performance since they were in charge for most of the year so if the implication is that all goverments over the last year have been ineffectual then I might possibly agree as it is more even handed,however, it would have to be tempered by the fact the the PT government only came to power in August and since then has had to deal with the worst natural disaster in over 50 years so would be prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that they maybe haven't had time to be effective yet.

Well, let's see now what the article said: (forgive me for quoting selectively)

"Thai politicians have failed the people yet again

...New nicknames given to MPs reflect public disappointment at the abject failure of elected representatives to carry out even their most basic duties to an acceptable standard...

... with the theme this year reflecting the overall poor performance of all politicians, ..

... our politicians have once again failed to impress the media and the public in spite of our high expectations.

...since being elected, some Pheu Thai politicians have missed many parliamentary meetings, even though the House sessions are deemed by them as being essential to the democratic system...

They have refused to answer some questions during House meetings. These politicians often say that they have received a mandate from the voters and they have no need to respond to concerns raised by their opponents...

The entire Senate chamber has been dubbed "Sangkhaloke" or antique chinaware. The name is a metaphor, alluding to the general lacklustre performance of the chamber. This is because although antique chinaware can be of great value, it may not really offer any practical use.

Another unpleasant and surprising development is that reporters this year have refrained from nominating any politician as an "Outstanding Lawmaker" - because none of them has been impressive in performing even basic duties. The public expects more from elected representatives.

...only to see politicians skipping the sessions or failing to address their concerns. The legislative highlight of the year has been nothing to celebrate...

Yingluck herself has been also been named the "Falling Star MP" by the parliamentary reporters. ...Yingluck has downplayed the importance of legislative work....

The reporters also say that Yingluck has skipped some meetings, including critical ones, which were aimed at resolving disputes between the government and the opposition parties."

If I may be so bold, I would say that the summation: "Ineffectual" would be appropriate.

And going out on a limb here, I would dare say that the opinion of the Nation is just as valid as your opinion.

The nick name thing might be a little childish, but who cares? Better they are tongue in cheek than tongue up ass(cheek), chai mai?

I am flattered that you would believe that my opinion as an anonymous forum poster is as valid as the one from a national newspaper, albeit one with very obvious bias and not in the national language, though I do not personally put myself in the same league.

[EvilDrSomkid]

If you are flattered, you are welcome. It was unintentional.

I took some time for my post, trying to point out that the criticism was quite scathing. Do you deny there is NO validity in their criticism?

You seem to avoid my central point in that THIS government is not doing very well. They may have been in power for a short time, but the signs are not exactly promising.

If you have some examples of effective and beneficial policies they have implemented, I would be happy to read them.

They promised that all would be much better for everybody. They hardly show up for work...

[transam]

Nothing will ever change is this corrupt cesspit , and sadly the Thais are more than happy with the system, so they must want it

Hopefully Karma will re-balance the thieves as many of the Corrupt do get murdered here by their competitors in the trough

Tend to agree. Sadly.

[Orac]

If you are flattered, you are welcome. It was unintentional.

I took some time for my post, trying to point out that the criticism was quite scathing. Do you deny there is NO validity in their criticism?

You seem to avoid my central point in that THIS government is not doing very well. They may have been in power for a short time, but the signs are not exactly promising.

If you have some examples of effective and beneficial policies they have implemented, I would be happy to read them.

They promised that all would be much better for everybody. They hardly show up for work...

I don't deny that some validity in what they are saying, it is the balance that I have a problem with where things need to be black and white rather than the shades of grey that is the reality of Thai politics. An 'annual report' which doesn't mention the government that was in power for most of the year is an example of this.

As I said, I think it is too early to judge the current goverment though the polls do suggest they aren't doing too badly with fairly high ratings compared to previous governments. The flood did knock the wind out of their sails somewhat and their performance handling them wasn't up to scratch with very poor communication.

On a more positive note, they seem to be doing fairly well on the international front after the mess they were left from before - relationships with Cambodia are much better and the ridiculous tantrum at UNESCO seems to have been forgotten about. Yingluck also seems to be doing alright with other ASEAN members and Chalerm seems to have smoothed over a potentially nasty spat with China after some Thai soldiers shot up some Chinese 'traders'.

Crime wise there seem to have been some positive moves with a senior beauracrat being investigated for corruption and also a number of gambling dens busted - they need to do more but it is a good start.

[EvilDrSomkid]

If you are flattered, you are welcome. It was unintentional.

I took some time for my post, trying to point out that the criticism was quite scathing. Do you deny there is NO validity in their criticism?

You seem to avoid my central point in that THIS government is not doing very well. They may have been in power for a short time, but the signs are not exactly promising.

If you have some examples of effective and beneficial policies they have implemented, I would be happy to read them.

They promised that all would be much better for everybody. They hardly show up for work...

I don't deny that some validity in what they are saying, it is the balance that I have a problem with where things need to be black and white rather than the shades of grey that is the reality of Thai politics. An 'annual report' which doesn't mention the government that was in power for most of the year is an example of this.

As I said, I think it is too early to judge the current goverment though the polls do suggest they aren't doing too badly with fairly high ratings compared to previous governments. The flood did knock the wind out of their sails somewhat and their performance handling them wasn't up to scratch with very poor communication.

On a more positive note, they seem to be doing fairly well on the international front after the mess they were left from before - relationships with Cambodia are much better and the ridiculous tantrum at UNESCO seems to have been forgotten about. Yingluck also seems to be doing alright with other ASEAN members and Chalerm seems to have smoothed over a potentially nasty spat with China after some Thai soldiers shot up some Chinese 'traders'.

Crime wise there seem to have been some positive moves with a senior beauracrat being investigated for corruption and also a number of gambling dens busted - they need to do more but it is a good start.

Thank you, that was the kind of reply I was looking for.

I do agree that the previous government deserves criticism, but then again, they were soundly beaten in the elections.

The silliness with Cambodia seems to have been more the fault of the army. The PAD weighing in later with all kinds of nonsense did not help.

And to be fair, I do not think that any government would have handled the flood crisis well.

The (former) transport permanent secretary being investigated for corruption has just about fallen into their laps. I do hope that will be prosecuted well.

Regarding the gambling dens, it was Chuwit who got that ball rolling and if the PT had not moved in it, it would have been very bad publicity for PT.

On a side note, it seems that Chuwit is working hard to get some good PR moments for the PT.

[udonguy]

ah the Nation - just showing it's pro-dem stance yet again by childish name calling pretty pathetic I'd call it

[udonguy]

Give me a democratically elected set of politicians (Yingluk) having a go, rather than a military junta appointed lacky doing what he (abisit) is ordered

agreed and agreed by the majority of Thai people who voted - but the armchair experts here will never agree bless em

[VoterPower]

So, can we now refer to the fugitive former ex prime minister as 'Toxin' again, as it is OK when the Thais do it?

I much prefer Tacky, as he himself changed his name to, during one of his fugitive , country hopping, escape justice, get aways.

would you care to elaborate on "who's justice" you refer to there, and under what democratic institution it was contrived from

[whybother]

Give me a democratically elected set of politicians (Yingluk) having a go, rather than a military junta appointed lacky doing what he (abisit) is ordered

agreed and agreed by the majority of Thai people who voted - but the armchair experts here will never agree bless em

Majority?

[VoterPower]

^ Landslide, remember now

[krading]

Geez, lighten up.

I'm LMAO at "Sangkhaloke" antique chinaware bit.

Talk about hit the nail on the head.

[tlansford]

Nothing will ever change is this corrupt cesspit , and sadly the Thais are more than happy with the system, so they must want it Hopefully Karma will re-balance the thieves as many of the Corrupt do get murdered here by their competitors in the trough

Thailand is little different to most other nations. Most governments are "corrupt cesspits." And I do mean the United States, British, Canadian, Australian and wherever else TV members hail from. Our own governments represent the rights of big business, are filled with corrupt politicians who enrich themselves in a number of questionable but legal ways. The same happens here.

hear hear ! +1

[tlansford]

As this is an editorial, and not a news story, The Nation has the right to ignore whatever they want, but how could it be that they forgot to mention the leader of the Democrats, who also had a nickname assigned?

Nickname of opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva: Delayed handsome Abhisit freely offers suggestions for resolving pressing problems like political conflicts and flood management ... Despite his good looks, he acted too late. He should have translated his words into action when he was the prime minister.

ah, yeah, that's why...

[Valentine]

The current crop of politicians are only following established tradition. The idealistic ones who do actually want to do good for the country probably get put down fairly quickly.

[animatic]

Was just reading that thread - will quote myself:

"Weng, Nattuwat, Jatuporn and others are charged with terrorism (which resulted in 91 deaths) and have not been prosecuted because of their MP status."

"You might also reflect on the fact that he committed his alleged crime AFTER being elected, and wasn't awarded his seat as a reward for committing (alleged) crimes. "

Directly involved - I'm not aware that Weng, Nattuwat, Jatuporn et others (who are not charged with terrorism) were running around Bangkok wielding guns and shooting people dead. Not to mention that being added to the party list as MP's (one of them already being an MP) as a result of their being accused but not convicted of completely different crimes is purely supposition on your part with no proof whatsoever.

So quote yourself away - it has no bearing on what I posted.

Osama was not directly involved with the actions on the ground, using those criteria.

Suborning or directly encouraging or publicly lobbying for violent insurrection is equally a crime in the eyes of the law in most nations.Just because you didn't light the match or pull the trigger doesn't mean you weren't part of a conspiracy to do so. Paying people to pay or encourage others to do so is also not a sufficient distance to get you a free pass.

If you simply approve, but never directly encouraged destruction and insurrection, that may not be legally actionable, but it is not a moral stance.

[animatic]

Isn't it amazing that every time there is an editorial criticizing the current government, the same people come out and moan about the Nation being biased and the old "yeah, but what about the PAD" arguments are rehashed?

It does not change anything. This government is crap, regardless of what previous governments did or did not do.

If MPs don't even bother to show up during important sessions, then that is blatant sign of disrespect and ingratitude towards their voters.

It is pathetic that Yingluck (Cinderella as she was dubbed in a previous editorial) does not ever get stuck in and answers the accusations leveled at her. She gets others to fight for her. Claims many times that she does not know what is being discussed in Parliament.

Pure incompetence. Some PM.

And then she has the NERVE to visit Suu Kyi so "support" her. Cinderella should be bowing her head to Suu Kyi's feet.

Since The Nation now seems to have stooped to the level of playground name calling and claiming it is an annual tradition I am not sure how the PM is supposed to reply - maybe sticking her fingers in her ears and going la-la-la-la-la is something these sorry excuses for journalists might understand.

So, you disagree with the assertion of the article saying that the PTP have been ineffectual?

Nick names aside.

It's not 'The Nation' bestowing the nicknames,

but the global 'Thailand reporters' group who nominate and vote on this every year as a form of irony shared amongst themselves, but accessible by the public. Holding up a mirror to the pols and then noting what is reflected.

So this 'The Nation' reporting on what a majority of Thailands Reporters think of the politicians of the last year. Which in general is rightly pretty low on the scale.

Thailands reporters as a class getting to be 'Not The Nation' at their gathering.

[animatic]

The current crop of politicians are only following established tradition. The idealistic ones who do actually want to do good for the country probably get put down fairly quickly.

in some cases actually 'put down' like a diseased animal, lest they infect other politicians.

[tlansford]

And we don't even talk about the appointment as foreign minister of a known terrorist, Kasit Piromya, PAD leader and as such responsible of the occupation of the government house and the closure on the international airport. Further more his total incompetence made him a total embarrassment for Thailand abroad.

Kasit wasn't in any shape or form leader for PAD. And as such has no responsibility for the occupation of the airport. So to sum it up: We now have a Red Shirt apologist that claim that holding a speech, without any encouragement towards violence, makes someone a 'known terrorist' - according to JurgenG. But bombing civilians, launching grenades on civilians and civilian places such as the BTS, encouraging people to burn down building - is not! (Just ask tlansford.) Pathetic.

Today, people routinely confuse violence and terrorism. Violence is often a tool of terrorism, and since most people view terrorism as somehow "worse" than just plain violence, governments around the world have used "terrorism" to describe something for which they want to take unlawful, extraordinary, unconstitutional steps against, or in some other way justify the violation of civil liberties.

Terrorism is the act of inciting terror. Violence is a common tool as is the element &, to create terror, combined with the element of surprise such as in the Paris & London metro/tube bombings, the Twin Towers, etc.

That both the PAD and UDD have held some demonstrations which have become violent is clear. In neither case is this terrorism. There is an ongoing conflict between one group and the authorities, yes. There is violence, yes. But the objective is not to create terror. One side wants a voice, to be heard, and the other side is responsible for order within society. When violence occurs in this setting, it is part of the conflict, but not terrorism. If someone in a protest situation is violent and kills someone, that does make them a murderer, but it does not make them a terrorist.

The Thai government (and others) might want to apply charges of terrorism against people, but in the case of the protests in 2010, this is IMO an abuse of power, or at best a certain laziness in prosecuting those charged. People should be charged and convicted for the acts committed, whether that is assault, murder, manslaughter, etc, but governments should not use charges terrorism in appropriately.

[tlansford]

Give me a democratically elected set of politicians (Yingluk) having a go, rather than a military junta appointed lacky doing what he (abisit) is ordered

agreed and agreed by the majority of Thai people who voted - but the armchair experts here will never agree bless em

Majority?

slice it how you want, 65% did not vote for the democrats.

[whybother]

Give me a democratically elected set of politicians (Yingluk) having a go, rather than a military junta appointed lacky doing what he (abisit) is ordered

agreed and agreed by the majority of Thai people who voted - but the armchair experts here will never agree bless em

Majority?

slice it how you want, 65% did not vote for the democrats.

That still doesn't make it a PTP majority.

[binjalin]

Give me a democratically elected set of politicians (Yingluk) having a go, rather than a military junta appointed lacky doing what he (abisit) is ordered

agreed and agreed by the majority of Thai people who voted - but the armchair experts here will never agree bless em

Majority?

slice it how you want, 65% did not vote for the democrats.

Exactly

[TAWP]

And we don't even talk about the appointment as foreign minister of a known terrorist, Kasit Piromya, PAD leader and as such responsible of the occupation of the government house and the closure on the international airport. Further more his total incompetence made him a total embarrassment for Thailand abroad.

Kasit wasn't in any shape or form leader for PAD. And as such has no responsibility for the occupation of the airport. So to sum it up: We now have a Red Shirt apologist that claim that holding a speech, without any encouragement towards violence, makes someone a 'known terrorist' - according to JurgenG. But bombing civilians, launching grenades on civilians and civilian places such as the BTS, encouraging people to burn down building - is not! (Just ask tlansford.) Pathetic.

Today, people routinely confuse violence and terrorism. Violence is often a tool of terrorism, and since most people view terrorism as somehow "worse" than just plain violence, governments around the world have used "terrorism" to describe something for which they want to take unlawful, extraordinary, unconstitutional steps against, or in some other way justify the violation of civil liberties.

Terrorism is the act of inciting terror. Violence is a common tool as is the element &, to create terror, combined with the element of surprise such as in the Paris & London metro/tube bombings, the Twin Towers, etc.

That both the PAD and UDD have held some demonstrations which have become violent is clear. In neither case is this terrorism. There is an ongoing conflict between one group and the authorities, yes. There is violence, yes. But the objective is not to create terror. One side wants a voice, to be heard, and the other side is responsible for order within society. When violence occurs in this setting, it is part of the conflict, but not terrorism. If someone in a protest situation is violent and kills someone, that does make them a murderer, but it does not make them a terrorist.

The Thai government (and others) might want to apply charges of terrorism against people, but in the case of the protests in 2010, this is IMO an abuse of power, or at best a certain laziness in prosecuting those charged. People should be charged and convicted for the acts committed, whether that is assault, murder, manslaughter, etc, but governments should not use charges terrorism in appropriately.

You write so much to try to avoid having to answer to the simple fact that you are proclaiming that placing bombs or shooting grenades at civilians and civilian targets are, in your opinion, not terrorism?

[TAWP]

slice it how you want, 65% did not vote for the democrats.

Exactly

And a majority did NOT vote for PTP. Point being?

[philw]

slice it how you want, 65% did not vote for the democrats.

Exactly

And a majority did NOT vote for PTP. Point being?

What is YOUR point ???

The fact remains they got a majority of the vote and a substantial majority of seats.

PTP is the elected Government by popular choice, end of story.

Why do constantly try ( ineffectually ) to cast doubt on their legitimacy ??

[whybother]

And a majority did NOT vote for PTP. Point being?

What is YOUR point ???

The fact remains they got a majority of the vote and a substantial majority of seats.

PTP is the elected Government by popular choice, end of story.

Why do constantly try ( ineffectually ) to cast doubt on their legitimacy ??

It's nothing to do with their being elected or their legitimacy. It's about facts and I think you need to check yours.

[TAWP]

slice it how you want, 65% did not vote for the democrats.

Exactly

And a majority did NOT vote for PTP. Point being?

What is YOUR point ???

The fact remains they got a majority of the vote and a substantial majority of seats.

PTP is the elected Government by popular choice, end of story.

Why do constantly try ( ineffectually ) to cast doubt on their legitimacy ??

You mean apart from the fact that they did not get a majority of the votes?

Alright then...

[billd766]

As this is an editorial, and not a news story, The Nation has the right to ignore whatever they want, but how could it be that they forgot to mention the leader of the Democrats, who also had a nickname assigned?

Nickname of opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva: Delayed handsome Abhisit freely offers suggestions for resolving pressing problems like political conflicts and flood management ... Despite his good looks, he acted too late. He should have translated his words into action when he was the prime minister.

ah, yeah, that's why...

And the PM before him, the one before that, the military government before that, the PM before that and so on for the last 20 or 30 years.

Abhisit was only in power for a couple or years, the Democrats as a whole perhaps 5 years and the military government for just over a year. So who was in power during the in between periods who also never put words into actions?

[philw]

Summary of the 3 July 2011 House of Representatives of Thailand Thai general election results Parties Constituency Proportional TOTAL Votes % Seats Votes % Seats Seats % Pheu Thai 204 15,744,190 48.41 61 265 53.0% Democrat 115 11,433,762 35.15 44 159 31.8% Bhumjaithai 29 1,281,577 3.94 5 34 6.8% Chartthaipattana 15 906,656 2.79 4 19 3.8% Chart Pattana Puea Pandin 5 494,894 1.52 2 7 1.4% Phalang Chon 6 178,110 0.55 1 7 1.4% Rak Thailand 0 998,603 3.07 4 4 0.8% Matubhum 1 251,702 0.77 1 2 0.4% Rak Santi 0 284,132 0.87 1 1 0.2% Mahachon 0 133,772 0.41 1 1 0.2% New Democracy 0 125,784 0.39 1 1 0.2% Other Parties 0 692,322 2.13 0 0 0.0% Valid Votes 375 32,525,504 125 500 100%

Source wikipedia or my imagination, up to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

Try counting the totals for PTP and coalition partners.

Happy now, misspedantic ?

[whybother]

Summary of the 3 July 2011 House of Representatives of Thailand Thai general election results Parties Constituency Proportional TOTAL Votes % Seats Votes % Seats Seats % Pheu Thai 204 15,744,190 48.41 61 265 53.0% Democrat 115 11,433,762 35.15 44 159 31.8% Bhumjaithai 29 1,281,577 3.94 5 34 6.8% Chartthaipattana 15 906,656 2.79 4 19 3.8% Chart Pattana Puea Pandin 5 494,894 1.52 2 7 1.4% Phalang Chon 6 178,110 0.55 1 7 1.4% Rak Thailand 0 998,603 3.07 4 4 0.8% Matubhum 1 251,702 0.77 1 2 0.4% Rak Santi 0 284,132 0.87 1 1 0.2% Mahachon 0 133,772 0.41 1 1 0.2% New Democracy 0 125,784 0.39 1 1 0.2% Other Parties 0 692,322 2.13 0 0 0.0% Valid Votes 375 32,525,504 125 500 100%

Source wikipedia or my imagination, up to you.

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2011

Try counting the totals for PTP and coalition partners.

Happy now, misspedantic ?

? "and coalition partners"??

Why should coalition partners be included in PTP vote? The people that voted for the coalition partners did NOT vote for PTP or their policies.

[tlansford]

-snip-

That still doesn't make it a PTP majority.

I'm familiar with these hair-splitting arguments.

53% of the seats for the PTP is called winning a majority

48.14% of the popular vote for the PTP

60% of the seats for the current government

54.04% of the popular vote for the current government

The democrats won 35.15% of the popular vote and only 31.8% of the contested seats. That is an 18 - 21 point spread.

Those are the numbers. IMO arguments about / against "majority" are hanging by the 1.86% of the popular vote that the PTP did not get. That is a hair-splitting argument.