Former Thai Rak Thai Heavyweights To Take Up Cabinet Posts

[GentlemanJim]

Finally, about time we got some serious talent back into raiding the finances, it has been pretty lightweight since the Democrats got booted.

Democracy is an ideal of one person one vote, fine and equitable in a perfect world. However it didn't take long for governments to realize that they could buy votes through welfare, and likewise then that the rich could buy candidates through contributions, and then finally that the bankers could just buy the whole bloody lot, all parties and all candidates just to be 100% sure. It is a small investment to to legalize rampant fraud and raping the Treasury.

If still in the West don't get agitated, don't seek fake alternatives where none exist, just bend over, grit your teeth and hope those million dollar bonuses do have a trickle down effect, yeah right. On the bright side here in Thailand it is the Thais being screwed, if you are a true expat you have escaped the buggery at home already (except Americans who are a special tax-to-the-grave and beyond case), enjoy your final years and don't listen to the rancid farce of politics.

Is that the 'rancid farce of politics' or the 'Rancid" farce of politics?

Well the good news about Thaksin's men coming back to take the helm of the countries economics is that we slightly rich people could get a whole lot richer if we simply go short on the Thai baht It's going to happen folks!

Think about it.....seriously! Thaksin has had $1 billion taken off him and he will get it back and more. He has already engineered a failing economy and now he is bringing in his financial wizards to execute his plan. I bet he has $500 Million or more leveraged against the Thai baht and when it devalues by 30% or higher he will make a trade that Warren Buffet would be proud to call his own! I reckon it is 3-6 months away! Re-morgage the house and go all in against the baht!

Edited May 5, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[phiphidon]

"a majority of Thais voted for the Thaksin/Yingluck/Chalerm team."

No they didn't.

Why don't you articulate - and therby enlighten us to your wisdom.

Should I have said 'a majority of Thai voters voted....."? Or perhaps you've got some equation that shows the Shinawatre got in with a minority of voters.

48% of valid votes. 44% of actual votes. 33% of eligible voters. 23% of the population.

The only thing they got was a majority of the seats, but theoretically you can get that with 20% of the votes.

And what is the important thing to get? Seats............

[OzMick]

"a majority of Thais voted for the Thaksin/Yingluck/Chalerm team."

No they didn't.

Why don't you articulate - and therby enlighten us to your wisdom.

Should I have said 'a majority of Thai voters voted....."? Or perhaps you've got some equation that shows the Shinawatre got in with a minority of voters.

48% of valid votes. 44% of actual votes. 33% of eligible voters. 23% of the population.

The only thing they got was a majority of the seats, but theoretically you can get that with 20% of the votes.

And what is the important thing to get? Seats............

........and the end justifies the means?

[volk666]

Perhaps it might make more sense this way: "The majority of eligible Thai voters who actually voted, voted for PTP."

Still it won't be correct.

They got the majority of seats which is not the same and should not be interchangeable with "majority of voters".

...

Thaksin's economic dream team did very well for only a couple of years, riding on the wave of global growth but then they ran out of steam, by 2005 they simply had no ideas.

Growth spurts are just that - spurts, they can't last forever by definition. When the momentum inevitably changes these guys let Democrats take over and wait for the next wave. Very clever.

Changing this government's key driving personalities might give it a second breath and then they might get a second echelon of banned politicians have a go, that should tie them up until next elections. All they have to do is to keep promising voters that once they get the next batch of key people back everything will be peachy.

Realistically, though, the banned politicos are not as experienced as they make them to be and have been out of the game for far too long to stage a successful comeback, their time has passed, all they can successfully do is to walk around collecting flower garlands, don't expect any actual performance.

[phiphidon]

........and the end justifies the means?

Free and fair election I believe - you know otherwise of course. I mean it couldn't have anything to do with a poor election campaign by the democrat party, not to mention the abhisit organised killing of some of the electorate, surely not. It's all down to vote buying isn't it...........

[pastitche]

Talk about confusing

quote from article.

"To improve its performance, especially on the economic front, several former TRT heavyweights, who have more experience than the current Cabinet members, will likely take up the crucial economic and related portfolios to shore up Prime Minister Yingluck's popularity."

So whats it going to be "To improve its performance, especially on the economic front. OR to shore up Prime Minister Yingluck's popularity.

When they arrive will Yingluck attend any meetings of the cabinet. Or continue to just smile and pose for photo ops.

The complete article shows only the phrase "according to Thaksin" without saying where that information came from. Have all TVF members lost their ability to read with comprehension?

[pastitche]

a majority of Thais voted for the Thaksin/Yingluck/Chalerm team. Now they get all the other clowns as part of the sordid package. I don't know how it could be worse, but then again, that's what the majority voted for. Chok dee, suckers.

"a majority of Thais voted for the Thaksin/Yingluck/Chalerm team."

No they didn't.

OK you have given up on your signature "plurality". nonsense. You can understand as well as anyone else that the party you decry (justifiably at times) is in power because it won a very large majority of seats in parliament. So why bother to keep up what seems petulance?

[whybother]

48% of valid votes. 44% of actual votes. 33% of eligible voters. 23% of the population.

The only thing they got was a majority of the seats, but theoretically you can get that with 20% of the votes.

And what is the important thing to get? Seats............

Did I say anything about that?

That doesn't mean "the majority of Thais" or "the majority of voters" voted for PTP / Thaksin.

[whybother]

"a majority of Thais voted for the Thaksin/Yingluck/Chalerm team."

No they didn't.

OK you have given up on your signature "plurality". nonsense. You can understand as well as anyone else that the party you decry (justifiably at times) is in power because it won a very large majority of seats in parliament. So why bother to keep up what seems petulance?

Because I get sick of people saying the "majority of Thais voted for PTP". It's clearly not true, especially when used to justify some of the crap that this government is doing.

[whybother]

Perhaps it might make more sense this way: "The majority of eligible Thai voters who actually voted, voted for PTP."

No, that doesn't make sense either.

48% of valid votes. 44% of actual votes. 33% of eligible voters. 23% of the population.

The only thing they got was a majority of the seats, but theoretically you can get that with 20% of the votes.

[backtonormal]

From a Volk 666 post .....Growth spurts are just that - spurts, they can't last forever by definition. When the momentum inevitably changes these guys let Democrats take over and wait for the next wave. Very clever...

The Democrats have not won an election in their own right for 20 years. So when has Thakin ever let them back in power... More nonsense from the opposition

[backtonormal]

Perhaps it might make more sense this way: "The majority of eligible Thai voters who actually voted, voted for PTP."

No, that doesn't make sense either.

48% of valid votes. 44% of actual votes. 33% of eligible voters. 23% of the population.

The only thing they got was a majority of the seats, but theoretically you can get that with 20% of the votes.

Regardless of how you put the figures you lost and what might be more gauling is that they will never see power in the next decade....without khaki intervention

Edited May 5, 2012 by backtonormal

[GentlemanJim]

Perhaps it might make more sense this way: "The majority of eligible Thai voters who actually voted, voted for PTP."

No, that doesn't make sense either.

48% of valid votes. 44% of actual votes. 33% of eligible voters. 23% of the population.

The only thing they got was a majority of the seats, but theoretically you can get that with 20% of the votes.

Regardless of how you put the figures you lost and what might be more gauling is that they will never see power in the next decade....without khaki intervention

I certainly don't think they wear Khaki! So it seems we have another stand-in ardent Thaksin lover, what fun! Why do you love Thaksin and the Reds, or lets change that to why do you love the corrupt and the gullible?

[volk666]

From a Volk 666 post .....Growth spurts are just that - spurts, they can't last forever by definition. When the momentum inevitably changes these guys let Democrats take over and wait for the next wave. Very clever...

The Democrats have not won an election in their own right for 20 years. So when has Thakin ever let them back in power... More nonsense from the opposition

I was thinking more of a 1997 situation when proto TRT government led the country to the crisis and then resigned.

Incidentally, next time Dems got in power was during the world wide recession.

But year, you are right, Thaksin never let go off the power voluntarily, it just so happens that he and his ilk come to the rescue when all major work of shoveling the sh*t from their last stint in power has been done and people get tired of living through crises.

In the end all people remember about Democrats is that they had to shovel a lot when they were in power but under Thaksin and co all was peachy and rosy.

People also forget that Democrats have indeed never won elections in the past twenty years and somehow believe that Democrats are the source of all their problems and not the guys they've been putting in office election after election after election.

One would hope that this time they will be clever enough not to blame the Dems for rising prices and failing produce pledging schemes.

[whybother]

Perhaps it might make more sense this way: "The majority of eligible Thai voters who actually voted, voted for PTP."

No, that doesn't make sense either.

48% of valid votes. 44% of actual votes. 33% of eligible voters. 23% of the population.

The only thing they got was a majority of the seats, but theoretically you can get that with 20% of the votes.

Regardless of how you put the figures you lost and what might be more gauling is that they will never see power in the next decade....without khaki intervention

I never denied that. But a majority of voters and Thais did NOT vote for PTP.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[Buchholz]

Pheu Thai Party Deputy Spokesman Jirayu Huangsap (in the center) said yesterday that the Party expected 35 of the banned Thai Rak Thai MP's would join PTP.

He said that several had expressed boredom with being politics and would not be returning.

Additionally, three of the banned have died during their banishment.

.

[pastitche]

"a majority of Thais voted for the Thaksin/Yingluck/Chalerm team."

No they didn't.

OK you have given up on your signature "plurality". nonsense. You can understand as well as anyone else that the party you decry (justifiably at times) is in power because it won a very large majority of seats in parliament. So why bother to keep up what seems petulance?

Because I get sick of people saying the "majority of Thais voted for PTP". It's clearly not true, especially when used to justify some of the crap that this government is doing.

OK I can sympathise with that but don't you think that every time the word majority is used, the small voice from the background saying "But that's not fair, Miss" can become tedious?

The fact is that Thailand has a parliamentary system with a list system that is a gesture towards proportional representation, making it fairer than eg the UK. I lived in Scotland when there were so few Conservative MPs they could have shared a taxi to the airport to attend Westminster but I accepted that if their opposition could not persuade sufficient voters elsewhere then that was democracy. I suspect that you already know but "landslide majorities" in parliamentary systems where more than 2 parties are involved rarely mean a majority of the voters and even more rarely a majority of the eligible electorate have voted for the winning party, so the constant complaints about percentages is a pointless exercise.

The only numbers that really mattered in Thailand's election were the numbers of MPs elected for PTP and Democrats because that was what decided the party in government.

Criticise this government all you want but I would suggest the non-argument on "majority" is never going to go anywhere.

[KireB]

The fact is that Thailand has a parliamentary system with a list system that is a gesture towards proportional representation, making it fairer than eg the UK.

Good argument, cause it's exactly the same argument and reason as why we had a Democrat Party led government before July 3rd 2011!

[whybother]

Because I get sick of people saying the "majority of Thais voted for PTP". It's clearly not true, especially when used to justify some of the crap that this government is doing.

OK I can sympathise with that but don't you think that every time the word majority is used, the small voice from the background saying "But that's not fair, Miss" can become tedious?

The fact is that Thailand has a parliamentary system with a list system that is a gesture towards proportional representation, making it fairer than eg the UK. I lived in Scotland when there were so few Conservative MPs they could have shared a taxi to the airport to attend Westminster but I accepted that if their opposition could not persuade sufficient voters elsewhere then that was democracy. I suspect that you already know but "landslide majorities" in parliamentary systems where more than 2 parties are involved rarely mean a majority of the voters and even more rarely a majority of the eligible electorate have voted for the winning party, so the constant complaints about percentages is a pointless exercise.

The only numbers that really mattered in Thailand's election were the numbers of MPs elected for PTP and Democrats because that was what decided the party in government.

Criticise this government all you want but I would suggest the non-argument on "majority" is never going to go anywhere.

If the number of seats is all that matters, then people should be saying that, and not saying "the majority of Thais".

It becomes tedious when people use "a majority of Thais voted for" PTP / Thaksin to push their point that this government can do what they want because that's what the people want. The PTP are legitimately in government (as much as any Thai government is legitimate), but they are not supported by the majority of Thais.

[KireB]

Free and fair election I believe - you know otherwise of course. I mean it couldn't have anything to do with a poor election campaign by the democrat party, not to mention the abhisit organised killing of some of the electorate, surely not. It's all down to vote buying isn't it...........

The man who thinks he knows it all comes with very sensitive claims but doesn't show any reason and evidence. Now that the 'naughty TRT 111' are re-joining the ranks, we can only assume that the next election won't be free and fair. BTW, my in laws voted for your princess's party and received a proper 500 each!

[volk666]

OK I can sympathise with that but don't you think that every time the word majority is used, the small voice from the background saying "But that's not fair, Miss" can become tedious?

Do not use the word "majority" in an incorrect way then, what is so difficult?

On a related note - sometimes the "majority" is evoked to justify new polices that were not part of the election campaign. Tomorrow they might decide to go to the Moon, for example, but none of the voters, never mind the majority, has ever voted on the issue.

MPs can cast their votes anyway they like, or more likely were ordered to, but no one in these debates relies on "majority of MPs want something this way" as it doesn't add any legitimacy to the idea in the eyes of TV members. Majority of voters sounds better, who can argue against the majority?

[hellodolly]

Right on cue, the "majority man"...............

If a statement is incorrect, what's wrong with correcting it?

It seems to do no good where you are concerned it goes rite over your head.

Explain why you think the minority of the voters should get there way and the majority don't count.

Kind of like the tail waging the dog.

Look at what happened when the states did that and Bush got in. Two unwinable wars.

Thailand tries it and gets so many broken promises that they are starting to lose track of them.