Breaking News: Constitutional Court Nullifies Elections

[Plus]

I'm comparing them only as an example of relationships between rulers and ruled.

[ColPyat]

The rural poor will never rise up in civil war.

Never say never.

Ten years ago nobody would have predicted that Nepal would see a massive maoist insurgency that today is predicted to take over soon.

[ColPyat]

The Economist is no fan of Thaksin but the point being made is important.Oddly (or perhaps not) the concern is not really reflected in views expressed on this forum.In case somebody interjects to query the Economist's inside knowledge of Thailand, let me just say I have personal knowledge of the people and resources available to the Economist -and they are various, impressive and formidable.

I do very much enjoy the Economist's balanced and thoughtful reporting on the present situation.

[dan10400]

Local people are bribed, threatened and brainwashed by local leaders with vested interests and on the trt payroll.

Just maybe you will come to your senses, face reality and finally concede ??????????

Concede to what exactly? Please be more coherent, you have completely lost me.

the points seemed fairly clear, and your response is as expected as it avoids each and every one of them.

And if you think that Thaksin achived his success by bribes and threats than you should spend some time in those villages and speak with pro Thaksin villagers. These people may be "brainwashed", but the opposition has made this not exactly difficult by not making an appearances in the villages and presenting their counter arguments.

They treat the villagers like they have always treated them - simply ignore them and their needs.

from your description, you would think the TRT is running a bunch of parent-teacher association meetings for grade schoolers out in the provinces. some of us do get out to the provinces on a regular basis and do know what is, and what isn't going on, and it sure doesnt fit your description.

if the TRT system is such a winning formula as you position, one would have to question the reason for media harassment and control and lack of press freedom that has evolved in the last five years. Even if we swallow, hook, line and sinker your arguments in favor of the TRT, what it basically boils down to is that the TRT was able to go out and organize the provinces and via promised handouts.

to imply that there is going to be some civil war if there is no more TRT is beyond ridiculous. Maybe it is more likely to occur if the TRT can't come up with some of their grandeous promises? like continuted "free" health care, cows in every yard, debt forgiveness, etc. And then guess what? TRT doesn't hold a patent on catering to rural electorate. The TRT can only shoot themselves in the head so many times before there is some effect. To assume that the Democrats are so dense as to still misunderstand the role of the rural electorate is quite naive. To infer that because the TRT figured this out years ago, excuses them from accountability to their elected roles to benefit the people and not line their own pockets, is utterly ridiculous.

so you haven't lost me - i read what you write.

[ColPyat]

the points seemed fairly clear, and your response is as expected as it avoids each and every one of them.

And if you think that Thaksin achived his success by bribes and threats than you should spend some time in those villages and speak with pro Thaksin villagers. These people may be "brainwashed", but the opposition has made this not exactly difficult by not making an appearances in the villages and presenting their counter arguments.

They treat the villagers like they have always treated them - simply ignore them and their needs.

from your description, you would think the TRT is running a bunch of parent-teacher association meetings for grade schoolers out in the provinces. some of us do get out to the provinces on a regular basis and do know what is, and what isn't going on, and it sure doesnt fit your description.

if the TRT system is such a winning formula as you position, one would have to question the reason for media harassment and control and lack of press freedom that has evolved in the last five years. Even if we swallow, hook, line and sinker your arguments in favor of the TRT, what it basically boils down to is that the TRT was able to go out and organize the provinces and via promised handouts.

to imply that there is going to be some civil war if there is no more TRT is beyond ridiculous. Maybe it is more likely to occur if the TRT can't come up with some of their grandeous promises? like continuted "free" health care, cows in every yard, debt forgiveness, etc. And then guess what? TRT doesn't hold a patent on catering to rural electorate. The TRT can only shoot themselves in the head so many times before there is some effect. To assume that the Democrats are so dense as to still misunderstand the role of the rural electorate is quite naive. To infer that because the TRT figured this out years ago, excuses them from accountability to their elected roles to benefit the people and not line their own pockets, is utterly ridiculous.

so you haven't lost me - i read what you write.

You may read what i write, but you don't seem to comprehend what i write. My arguments are not "in favor of the TRT". I just don't let myself be blinded by hate when analysing a political situation. Your mistake is that you believe anyone who does not hate TRT and Thaksin with the same passion as you do is automatically a Thaksin supporter. Which, i am getting very tired to repeat, i am not.

And no, the Democrats have shown themselves as dense as i imply on repeared occasions. Do you recall Banyat's laughable election campaign in 2005, in which their only policy was begging the voters to give them their vote so they can function as a opposition?

Can you outline me the policies of the Democrats?

How do they plan to tackle poverty other than maybe keeping some of Thaksin's programs, which ones we don't exactly know yet?

What is their economical vision other than reviewing the FTAs and the megaprojects?

I don't understand the point you are making with the media harrasment. Yes there was media harrasment (not media control though!), and yes, TRT has regular meetings on a village grassroots level (if you have not seen that upcountry, than you should look further, or deeper, or whatever), and yes, he has genuine support in the rural areas of the north and northeast.

Softening up the media is just another strategy used by him (and used by many western governments as well, such as the present US government).

[dan10400]

You may read what i write, but you don't seem to comprehend what i write. My arguments are not "in favor of the TRT". I just don't let myself be blinded by hate when analysing a political situation. Your mistake is that you believe anyone who does not hate TRT and Thaksin with the same passion as you do is automatically a Thaksin supporter. Which, i am getting very tired to repeat, i am not.

I do no hate Thaksin. I am sure many of those others that you believe hate Thaksin with a passion (your words), do not hate Thaksin either. However, speaking for myself, I do expect Thaksin, and others to be held accountable for their actions. Not to be above the law. Not to work in their own self interests. Essentially, to do what they were elected to do, and under the conditions of a free democratic society.

I have no issues with any Thaksin supporter. But Thaksin supporter or not, it would be nice if you at least can come up with something other than "tell me what the Democratic party policies are" everytime someone calls you on one of your positions/statements.

And no, the Democrats have shown themselves as dense as i imply on repeared occasions. Do you recall Banyat's laughable election campaign in 2005, in which their only policy was begging the voters to give them their vote so they can function as a opposition?

I agree with you - clearly ranks as a classer "boner moment", but maybe par for the course in Thail politics. However, unlike you, I don't classify all Democrats as dense as Banyat can be at times.

Can you outline me the policies of the Democrats?

How do they plan to tackle poverty other than maybe keeping some of Thaksin's programs, which ones we don't exactly know yet?

What is their economical vision other than reviewing the FTAs and the megaprojects?

Sometimes having no policy is better than a TRT policy.

But look at actions - skip the policy crap. Mass transit in Bangkok (Thailand for that matter) looks clearly to be the result of Democratic party initiatives and action (even against TRT opposition). The recent extensions are the "results" (not just policy) of Democrats. After five years, the TRT has not accomplished one thing, except order 24 extra CTX luggage scanners for the new airport.

I don't understand the point you are making with the media harrasment. Yes there was media harrasment (not media control though!), and yes, TRT has regular meetings on a village grassroots level (if you have not seen that upcountry, than you should look further, or deeper, or whatever), and yes, he has genuine support in the rural areas of the north and northeast.

Softening up the media is just another strategy used by him (and used by many western governments as well, such as the present US government).

now this is baffling. you don't understand my issue with media harassment but you agree there was harassment? your lumping of one form of harassment in Thailand (buying out media directly, threatening media indirectly with advertising revenues, suing those who write detracting stories, explicit control of public media, etc. here in the last 5 years) with what form of media harassment in the US? The US government, as is the government in any other country, is not free from trying to influence media. But an exaggeration to this degree is the type of BS that you consistently throw out and expect people to "understand" (aka swallow) and really compromises all of your points.

[ColPyat]

Sometimes having no policy is better than a TRT policy.

But look at actions - skip the policy crap. Mass transit in Bangkok (Thailand for that matter) looks clearly to be the result of Democratic party initiatives and action (even against TRT opposition). The recent extensions are the "results" (not just policy) of Democrats. After five years, the TRT has not accomplished one thing, except order 24 extra CTX luggage scanners for the new airport.

now this is baffling. you don't understand my issue with media harassment but you agree there was harassment? your lumping of one form of harassment in Thailand (buying out media directly, threatening media indirectly with advertising revenues, suing those who write detracting stories, explicit control of public media, etc. here in the last 5 years) with what form of media harassment in the US? The US government, as is the government in any other country, is not free from trying to influence media. But an exaggeration to this degree is the type of BS that you consistently throw out and expect people to "understand" (aka swallow) and really compromises all of your points.

Yes, i know that all the mass transit in Bangkok has been a result of the Democrats. Only problem is that upcounytry they have done nothing whatsoever. Don't you remember Chuan's tactics towards the Forum of the Poor? He just stalled, sat the situation out until the villagers had to return home during the rainseason.

So, yes, the rural poor do have a point when they say that the Deomcrats are only for the southerners and the city people. And therefore from their viewpoint Thaksin's policies look better than the no-policy attitude of the Democrats.

What i don't understand with your point of media harrasment is that you asked if Thaksin has so much support upcountry and such a grassroots network, than why so much media harrasment.

Let me clarify my point: i don't understand why the one should exclude the other.

I don't want to get into a US debate at this point, but i believe that regarding the present US government and their media relationship i do not exactly exagerate.

[Plus]

Just like Democrats can't replace Thaksin in villagers' hearts, they shouldn't try to outperform Thaksin on "policies" front.

At his peak Thaksin had a new policy everyday, and three hubs to go with it.

Reviewing FTAs and privatisation plans will do a lot for economy. Reforming 30 baht scheme will do a lot for healthcare. Improving education will to a lot for long term benefits and competitiveness.

I don't know what should be done with oil price increase or baht appreciation, but certainly not scraping "little car" project or ordering all gas stations to sell gasohol only, begining from Jan 1 last year.

Thailand doesn't need new policies, it has enough already. Proper implementation is what is needed. The public, unfortunately, is accostomed to thinking big and having "visions" every day. People want a good PR show.

I'm not sure that Democrats should even try to emulate Thaksin's PR campaigns. I'd rather see them rolling sleeves up, talking business, and meaning it, not "love and care".

[dan10400]

Yes, i know that all the mass transit in Bangkok has been a result of the Democrats. Only problem is that upcounytry they have done nothing whatsoever. Don't you remember Chuan's tactics towards the Forum of the Poor? He just stalled, sat the situation out until the villagers had to return home during the rainseason.

So, yes, the rural poor do have a point when they say that the Deomcrats are only for the southerners and the city people. And therefore from their viewpoint Thaksin's policies look better than the no-policy attitude of the Democrats.

I can understand why the rural poor have this viewpoint and agree with your position here. I don't agree that your continued insistence that the Democrats are so thick-headed as to continually mis-understand the role of the rural Thai electorate for the future of the Democrats (and Thailand), nor do I agree that the TRT is going to be able to pull incentives out of their hat for the indefinate future to be able to continue to manipulate the rural Thai electorate in the way it has recently.

Extrapolating trends indefinately is probably not the wisest thing to do. All the current scrambling around and ass-covering within the TRT now is a good an indication of that as you can get.

What i don't understand with your point of media harrasment is that you asked if Thaksin has so much support upcountry and such a grassroots network, than why so much media harrasment.

Let me clarify my point: i don't understand why the one should exclude the other.

I don't want to get into a US debate at this point, but i believe that regarding the present US government and their media relationship i do not exactly exagerate.

You misunderstood my point. My point was that if TRT policies and implementation are so good, they should be able to stand on their own without media harassment. Media harassement is only necessary when someone is trying to cover their ass. media harassment and control only helps support the TRT influence over the upcountry electorate - doesn't say anything about the emperor's clothes.

I am not asking you to get into a debate on the US media. You brought it up - not me. My point here was that it is yet another red herring - you bring something up matter-of-factly that has nothing to do with the current discussion as supporting your position - which isn't supporable so you deflect the issue at hand. This by definition, is a red herring. QED.

Edited May 12, 2006 by dan10400

[Siripon]

I would guess the tone of the post depends on your perspective. I try not and leave any posts smelling like red herrings though.

Thanks, may you remember that as well when you post, please.

The TRT does communicate to the people, and especially to the rural poor by a very elaborate grassroots network. Every Mu Ban in the north and north east has regular meetings in which locally active TRT members transmit government policies. One TRT activist is generally responsible for ten families.

In adition to that Thaksin makes very clever use of the media, such as his radio program. He also does, when he speaks to the poeple, use a simple colloquial Thai that uneducated people do understand easily.

Reducing Thaksin only to an old style dictator that buys votes, oppresses people and disables the media is plain stupid, and leads to underestimating the dangererous situation Thailand is in now. If you like it or not - he has managed to build up vast genuine support under the rural poor, and he has done that by doing what no politician has done before in Thailand to this extend - by regularly speaking to the people in a language they can understand, and by building up a constant presence in the villages.

He provides for those people's immediate needs (and yes, before you say it, i am aware that he ruins the country, and usually provides by not thought through knee jerk programs).

Point being: while the other governments ruled from Bangkok confident of the apathy of those village folks, Thaksin went straight to them to get popular support.

So far, i do not see any attempt by the main opposition parties to claim any sort of popular support there.

The danger being: if Thaksin is removed, even if legally, that might very possibly cause huge discontent in those villages.

To make it more clear: we come close to a nasty catch 22 situation - a continued rule of Thaksin will damage the country enormously, but a removal of Thaksin might damage the country even worse.

This situation was of course brought on by Thaksin in the first place, but contributing factor has been the inability of the other parties to change into parties that represent the people.

We see now the result of decades of mismanaging the country by corrupt politicians.

As mentioned by myself and others previously, the elaborate political network you mention is nothing more than the old patronage system, Thaksin just bought up all the local MPs of NAP, Chart Pattana etc, and at the TRT meeting last week Khunying Potchaman, his wife, told the faction leaders that at the next election they would have to pay half the election costs. She wouldn't fund the lot, as in last time because she obviously lost money!

All of Thaksin's stategists, policy formulists,close buddies, etc are with the exception of Nevin Chidchorp, city people, ex-Shinawat employees.

The Colonel, I have to doubt your knowledge of Thai politics, first you say you've never heard of Chermsak Pinthong,an extremely prominent activist, then you claim 'massive' funding of foreign scholarships; the number is actually only a few hundred and the students cannot learn in English, it must be a useful language like Polish.

Thirdly, this huge discontent in the villages you talk about, if you know upcountry you will know at present the rainy season is beginning and every farmer is ploughing the fields in preparation for rice planting. The price of diesel, fertiliser, labour is what is preying on their minds, Bangkok and Thaksin is only a distant blip.

[ColPyat]

I can understand why the rural poor have this viewpoint and agree with your position here. I don't agree that your continued insistence that the Democrats are so thick-headed as to continually mis-understand the role of the rural Thai electorate for the future of the Democrats (and Thailand), nor do I agree that the TRT is going to be able to pull incentives out of their hat for the indefinate future to be able to continue to manipulate the rural Thai electorate in the way it has recently.

You misunderstood my point. My point was that if TRT policies and implementation are so good, they should be able to stand on their own without media harassment. Media harassement is only necessary when someone is trying to cover their ass. media harassment and control only helps support the TRT influence over the upcountry electorate - doesn't say anything about the emperor's clothes.

Well, it should be rather clear that TRT policies and their implementation are both lacking a lot. The only thing that does speak for them, sad as it is, is that TRT was the only government since the illfated green revolution that had some sort of policies for the rural poor. A proper PR machine (incuding influencing the media) is major part of selling their policies.

I guess though that this media harrasment is less aimed at the villagers. They just care that at least something went their way. And yes, we don't need to debate the point that many of the policies will bring them into even further debt in the long term.

[ColPyat]

As mentioned by myself and others previously, the elaborate political network you mention is nothing more than the old patronage system, Thaksin just bought up all the local MPs of NAP, Chart Pattana etc, and at the TRT meeting last week Khunying Potchaman, his wife, told the faction leaders that at the next election they would have to pay half the election costs. She wouldn't fund the lot, as in last time because she obviously lost money!

All of Thaksin's stategists, policy formulists,close buddies, etc are with the exception of Nevin Chidchorp, city people, ex-Shinawat employees.

The Colonel, I have to doubt your knowledge of Thai politics, first you say you've never heard of Chermsak Pinthong,an extremely prominent activist, then you claim 'massive' funding of foreign scholarships; the number is actually only a few hundred and the students cannot learn in English, it must be a useful language like Polish.

Thirdly, this huge discontent in the villages you talk about, if you know upcountry you will know at present the rainy season is beginning and every farmer is ploughing the fields in preparation for rice planting. The price of diesel, fertiliser, labour is what is preying on their minds, Bangkok and Thaksin is only a distant blip.

Well, we disagree there. What i have seen in the two northern villages i know intimately, it goes way beyond the old patronage sythem on the local level. I am not talking regional level - i am talking activists on tiny Mu Ban level.

And yes, i do know that people prepare right now for the planting season. We do as well. But planting season will be over soon. In a few months people will have ample time to care again about politics.

What do mean the students only can learn in languages like Polish? Sorry, but a student i know is has finished right now the test. She chose Switzerland as her first choice, and France as her second, and Germany as her third. She hopes that she qualifies for those countries as she does not want to be sent to China. She will have to attend for two or three months intensive language training, in English, and French or German if she qualifies for one of the three countries of her choice.

Polish???

Edited May 12, 2006 by ColPyat

[cdnvic]

This has been hashed out quite well, and it's getting ugly (the posts were trashed) so it's now time to move on.