Thai PM Yingluck Shinawatra offers to cancel election

[JRSoul]

PTP is being pro-active in trying to keep Thailand as one of the chief rice producing, rice exporters countries in the international market scene. Thailand has held the top rice exporting country in the world for 31 years, they have done that off the backs of the Thai rice farmers, whom have been exploited financially for years.

As the bulk of the childern of rice farmers are going into other professions, because of the hard work, low return on their rice. The future of rice farming is questionable, as the present rice farmers aged, their childern not interested in following their parents in to farming.

PTP, realizes that and attempted to increase the profit margin for rice farmers, in hopes of keeping the childern on the farm.

Thailand as my home country could buy the rice crop, subsidize the profit of the farmers, as every other country does with their main agriculteral product!

Why is rice as you say rotting in the warehouses, is it because the rich are willing to take a loss to make the country believe their tales of woo. Why has the government not seen fit to distribute the exess rice to the needy in the country, as the US did in the 1970-80 with butter, powder milk and cheese,and many other countries in the world are doing.

Cheers

It makes me sad that a person who received a western education can regurgitate such red propaganda and apparently believe it. Stopping the children of farmers seeking a better lifestyle by offering them subsidies (aka other taxpayer's money) is a good thing; why? Because they will vote for those offering the subsidies?

Amalgamating the tiny farms and mechanising production will make Thai farms as efficient as those in the US or Oz. But no, it's better to keep people grubbing in the mud and dependent on handouts. Every Thai is making a loss as their tax goes to propping up inefficiency - lost schools, hospitals and services.

Your idea of handing out rice to the poor sounds great, poor rice farmers love it. They can sell their rice at inflated prices to the government and get it back for free. Now that is self- sufficiency for you!

[inutil]

simple opinions and strongly held beliefs:

- People should have the right to protest.

- Civil disobedience can lead to great change. It should howvere never descend into violence against people.

- The protests have been effective in some parts and ineffective in others.

- They have been peaceful, serious, and will hopefully have shown that there is a popular will against corruption in Thailand despite any survey finding that 73% believe its fine if they benefit (number plucked out of thin air because i forget the actual one),

- They are however lead by an incredibly sinister man who seems to alienate his own people with every second or third utterance. He is also hugely untrustwrothy which offers those in opposition to him a massive target to paint every attack on the protestors as orchestrated from within. You wouldnt pin this on MLK, Gandhi or Mandela. But Suthep? Easy peasy.

- A peoples council, whilst sound on paper (and may even be essential), would require the agreement of ALL the main parties in Thailand. It should be representative of the Thai people as a whole. It should not be one side dictating laws unto the other if thailand wishes to break its seemingly endless start/stop 'democracy'.

- PTP were democratically elected in free and fair elections. This was accepted by their main opposition party and by all international accounts.

- Vote buying exists, but so does corruption. And just like corruption, everyone seems happy to participate (or unhappy but feel they have to in order to stay competitive). This did not originate with Thaksin. Its ludicrous then to assume that if only you can get rid of his 'influence' that Thailand will march into a corruption free future. Genuine reform must be made, and without the influence of people like Thaksin no agreement will ever happen.

- The Thaksin influence is this: he has mass support from a core of the electorate.

- In removing the central figure (the one who can rebrand a party around his gravity well after the invariable forced break up after any coup), it is believed (i assume) that if they can remove this influence, a power vacuum will open up causing in-fighting, leading to a collapse in the PTP core support driving them into the waiting hands of the democrats. This is the worst kind of cynical politiking. Far from offering a genuine platform of change and improvement, they offer nothing for the people they absolutely MUST WIN OVER in order to legitimately lead Thailand.

- The actions of the Democrats in refusing to participate in the elections and seize the mood of the nation not only destroyed the movement by allowing their rabid dog complete control to set the agenda, but theyve also shown nothing but contempt for the rural poor of Thailands North and East. Accusations of vote buying, rigging and poverty (the sheer contempt they throw around the 500Baht figure is bewildering in its arrogance) alienate the exact people they need to convince should they desire to be a credible government in the future. The rice buying scheme should have been an open goal. But instead everyone is focusing on Suthep and the bangkok shut down, or on how being a caretaker PM prevents Yingluck from making those payments (through political backroom machinations of the people looking to once again undermine PTP for ideological purposes). It doesnt matter whether you agree that this IS the case. What matters is that the protests have given her and her supporters the ability to make that point at all.

- But the absolute worst thing they did was abandon democracy in the name of a peoples council. Again, you need never agree with my assessment on this. You might think its all neutral reform, id suggest youre naive of course. But you can hold your position without any objection on my part. Abihist has clearly realised that a peoples council would allow him influence in the political landscape of Thailand. The power to change the electoral landscape of Thailand into one which favors the democrats (vote weighing) was clearly more tempting than adhering to the principals of democracy. Again, looking for a constructive solution through fundamental changes in policy was ignored over a short term solution that would offer the chance of minority government. [Now before the idiots pop in, as they always do, theres a thing called simple majority and simple plurality. The majority referred to derives from the concept of the latter. You win over 50% of the seats, you win the election. The list section helps to aleviate some of the statistical anomalies of this system (when for exampe a third party can command almost 20% ofthe popular vote, but have only 3% of the possible seats in the legislative). It also means that voters who would prefer not to vote for the dominant party in their area will not be 'wasting' their vote. Thus, in this proportion of the seats in the house should reasonably translate into percentage of the vote. And because this allows more leeway for third parties, it also means that more people will be likely to support third or fourth or fifth parties making an absolute majority (over 50% of the votes) incredibly unlikely (though with almost 49% in the last election after the list was taken into consideration, PTP came bloody close)]. What the democrats were no doubt working toward was a disproportionate number of seats compared to their low political support. Simply, since any people's council had to turn to democracy at some point without being accused of being a dictatorship, reason stands that the next PTP incarnation would still romp home. Unless they could remove Thaksin for good (with the core of the party breaking into factions), AND alter the political landscape to allow for minority government (less votes but more seats), theyd be back exactly where they were today in fact. No chance, no hope in any general election to take the reigns of power. Again then, shortcuts instead of substance, and despite the ire for failed populist programs, the democrats now face total lock and a party civil war unless there is a coup. Their core of course might well be radicalised and love this. But the core dont really win the election in any modern transparent democracy. The middle 5-10% with no political allegiance win elections. And i promise you, those swing voters will be on the side of elections, democracy, and how you can benefit them.

- But its not all bad news. No matter how triumphant PTP are in this election, without the democrats and their supporters, any government will collapse through a lack of perceived political legitimacy before its 4 year term. I wont say there is no way at all, but its a long shot that even with a legitimate parliament that we wont be back here again (well) within 2 years with another popular protest about corruption or something... or anything at all in fact. This is Thailand.

- But there will be some very angry voices within the party due to this myopic decision to sit these elections out putting strong pressure on their leadership and threatening a clear split if they choose to not participate again. They will also face a collapse in their support from moderates and in particular swinging voters in red states who may have supported them last time. Also due to their intransigent position of their leadership, they will alienate certain people in their core who will feel betrayed by their decision to stand. Should they agree to contest this election, they will take a spanking and they will legitimise any PTP government. Should they refuse, they will fracture as a party and fail to offer the very coherent vision of strong stable government with a clear single vision that would attract the voters they absolutely must attract in order to win any future election. Its tough times at democrat HQ.

Im sure theres more. In fact i know there is, but i feel like i might have taken it a bit too strongly in the one direction to head back onto the smaller points.

[JesseFrank]

Sounds like the Skype connection with Dubai has been established and she changed was told to change her mind already .

RT@tulsathit: Surapong: Yingluck will meet EC on Tuesday but Feb 2 election will go ahead. via @nnanews

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/699469-thailand-live-sunday-26th-jan-2014/?p=7346958

[thailiketoo]

Thailand not understand "sound bite."

[rogerdee123]

"Thailands embattled government has offered to call off an election set for February 2 if protesters end their rallies and promise not to obstruct or boycott a new one within months."

Do they really think this is what the protestors want? How will this meet their demands for reform? Clueless.

"Thailands embattled government has offered to call off an election set for February 2 if protesters end their rallies and promise not to obstruct or boycott a new one within months." as reported here. Clueless.

Yes. And how will this meet the protesters calls for change?

It does not matter what the protesters want!

What do you not understand about the "majority rules" principal in a democracy, Hold the election, let the majority voters of Thailand pick who is to lead the country, PTP or the Democrats, maybe some one else.

Then that party as the will of the majority began the process of electorial reform of all types of corruption, that of the rich buying their sons out of military service, the buying of jobs, the buying of University placement, along with vote buying, and rich buying political support!

Cheers

"majority rules" counts for the election. But after the election is over, the quality or legitimacy of the Government is determined by their (Govt) actions ..once that elected Govt begins acting, that previous election is mostly irrelevant in determining whether the Govt is democratic. It's their actions that matter and determine whether there is democracy or not.

This current Govt has failed the democracy test.

Now we can have another so-called "democratic" election where the majority is likely to vote back in power the same undemocratic govt. So .... we will end up here, where we are now, once again. So what will be changed?

This is the reason why protestors are calling for reforms in the democratic process before the next election.

Edited January 26, 2014 by rogerdee123

[inutil]

PS:

In a modern democracy it is absolutely abhorrent to blockade polling stations and intimidate voters on an election day.

But once again, Suthep is shooting himself and his followers in the foot. This gives Yingluck absolute moral authority to say a) this election must be carried out b ) this election must be delayed; c) this is absolutely outrageous that these people are attempting to silence the voice of normal hardworking bangkokians trying to make their voice heard EVEN IF they are going to vote against me! or d) see! and you all said i was overreacting to the state of emergency, and e) see, even with the state of emergency and even with such outrageous attacks on the people of thailand look how restrained i am; and f) something must be done for the sake of the thai people! and g) see! these people couldnt care less about democracy, they just want to steal power from ordinary people.

She can pick any of these she likes now and will only gain support (well, within moderation - a bloodbath wont win her any support).

[inutil]

"majority rules" counts for the election. But after the election is over, the quality or legitimacy of the Government is determined by their (Govt) actions ..once that elected Govt begins acting, that previous election is mostly irrelevant in determining whether the Govt is democratic. It's their actions that matter and determine whether there is democracy or not.

This current Govt has failed the democracy test.

Now we can have another so-called "democratic" election where the majority is likely to vote back in power the same undemocratic govt. So .... we will end up here, where we are now, once again. So what will be changed?

This is the reason why protestors are calling for reforms in the democratic process before the next election.

A failure of the democracy test? Care to explain what the democracy test is and how they failed?

[thailiketoo]

"Thailands embattled government has offered to call off an election set for February 2 if protesters end their rallies and promise not to obstruct or boycott a new one within months." as reported here. Clueless.

Yes. And how will this meet the protesters calls for change?

It does not matter what the protesters want!

What do you not understand about the "majority rules" principal in a democracy, Hold the election, let the majority voters of Thailand pick who is to lead the country, PTP or the Democrats, maybe some one else.

Then that party as the will of the majority began the process of electorial reform of all types of corruption, that of the rich buying their sons out of military service, the buying of jobs, the buying of University placement, along with vote buying, and rich buying political support!

Cheers

"majority rules" counts for the election. But after the election is over, the quality or legitimacy of the Government is determined by their (Govt) actions ..once that elected Govt begins acting, that previous election is mostly irrelevant in determining whether the Govt is democratic. It's their actions that matter and determine whether there is democracy or not.

This current Govt has failed the democracy test.

Now we can have another so-called "democratic" election where the majority is likely to vote back in power the same undemocratic govt. So .... we will end up here, where we are now, once again. So what will be changed?

This is the reason why protestors are calling for reforms in the democratic process before the next election.

When money talk few are deaf.

[icommunity]

"Thailands embattled government has offered to call off an election set for February 2 if protesters end their rallies and promise not to obstruct or boycott a new one within months."

Do they really think this is what the protestors want? How will this meet their demands for reform? Clueless.

"Thailands embattled government has offered to call off an election set for February 2 if protesters end their rallies and promise not to obstruct or boycott a new one within months." as reported here. Clueless.

Yes. And how will this meet the protesters calls for change?

It does not matter what the protesters want!

What do you not understand about the "majority rules" principal in a democracy, Hold the election, let the majority voters of Thailand pick who is to lead the country, PTP or the Democrats, maybe some one else.

Then that party as the will of the majority began the process of electorial reform of all types of corruption, that of the rich buying their sons out of military service, the buying of jobs, the buying of University placement, along with vote buying, and rich buying political support!

Cheers

"majority rules" counts for the election. But after the election is over, the quality or legitimacy of the Government is determined by their (Govt) actions ..once that elected Govt begins acting, that previous election is mostly irrelevant in determining whether the Govt is democratic. It's their actions that matter and determine whether there is democracy or not.

This current Govt has failed the democracy test.

Now we can have another so-called "democratic" election where the majority is likely to vote back in power the same undemocratic govt. So .... we will end up here, where we are now, once again. So what will be changed?

This is the reason why protestors are calling for reforms in the democratic process before the next election.

How has the government fail the test? Substantial your accusations please. BTW, the government has returned power to the people for a mandate. You are making excuses for a democratic election. If your accusations have substance, there is no reason why another party other than PTP cannot win the election.

Send from my Mobile

[Gweiloman]

Sounds like the Skype connection with Dubai has been established and she changed was told to change her mind already .

RT@tulsathit: Surapong: Yingluck will meet EC on Tuesday but Feb 2 election will go ahead. via @nnanews

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/699469-thailand-live-sunday-26th-jan-2014/?p=7346958

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Gweiloman]

simple opinions and strongly held beliefs:

- People should have the right to protest.

- Civil disobedience can lead to great change. It should howvere never descend into violence against people.

- The protests have been effective in some parts and ineffective in others.

- They have been peaceful, serious, and will hopefully have shown that there is a popular will against corruption in Thailand despite any survey finding that 73% believe its fine if they benefit (number plucked out of thin air because i forget the actual one),

- They are however lead by an incredibly sinister man who seems to alienate his own people with every second or third utterance. He is also hugely untrustwrothy which offers those in opposition to him a massive target to paint every attack on the protestors as orchestrated from within. You wouldnt pin this on MLK, Gandhi or Mandela. But Suthep? Easy peasy.

- A peoples council, whilst sound on paper (and may even be essential), would require the agreement of ALL the main parties in Thailand. It should be representative of the Thai people as a whole. It should not be one side dictating laws unto the other if thailand wishes to break its seemingly endless start/stop 'democracy'.

- PTP were democratically elected in free and fair elections. This was accepted by their main opposition party and by all international accounts.

- Vote buying exists, but so does corruption. And just like corruption, everyone seems happy to participate (or unhappy but feel they have to in order to stay competitive). This did not originate with Thaksin. Its ludicrous then to assume that if only you can get rid of his 'influence' that Thailand will march into a corruption free future. Genuine reform must be made, and without the influence of people like Thaksin no agreement will ever happen.

- The Thaksin influence is this: he has mass support from a core of the electorate.

- In removing the central figure (the one who can rebrand a party around his gravity well after the invariable forced break up after any coup), it is believed (i assume) that if they can remove this influence, a power vacuum will open up causing in-fighting, leading to a collapse in the PTP core support driving them into the waiting hands of the democrats. This is the worst kind of cynical politiking. Far from offering a genuine platform of change and improvement, they offer nothing for the people they absolutely MUST WIN OVER in order to legitimately lead Thailand.

- The actions of the Democrats in refusing to participate in the elections and seize the mood of the nation not only destroyed the movement by allowing their rabid dog complete control to set the agenda, but theyve also shown nothing but contempt for the rural poor of Thailands North and East. Accusations of vote buying, rigging and poverty (the sheer contempt they throw around the 500Baht figure is bewildering in its arrogance) alienate the exact people they need to convince should they desire to be a credible government in the future. The rice buying scheme should have been an open goal. But instead everyone is focusing on Suthep and the bangkok shut down, or on how being a caretaker PM prevents Yingluck from making those payments (through political backroom machinations of the people looking to once again undermine PTP for ideological purposes). It doesnt matter whether you agree that this IS the case. What matters is that the protests have given her and her supporters the ability to make that point at all.

- But the absolute worst thing they did was abandon democracy in the name of a peoples council. Again, you need never agree with my assessment on this. You might think its all neutral reform, id suggest youre naive of course. But you can hold your position without any objection on my part. Abihist has clearly realised that a peoples council would allow him influence in the political landscape of Thailand. The power to change the electoral landscape of Thailand into one which favors the democrats (vote weighing) was clearly more tempting than adhering to the principals of democracy. Again, looking for a constructive solution through fundamental changes in policy was ignored over a short term solution that would offer the chance of minority government. [Now before the idiots pop in, as they always do, theres a thing called simple majority and simple plurality. The majority referred to derives from the concept of the latter. You win over 50% of the seats, you win the election. The list section helps to aleviate some of the statistical anomalies of this system (when for exampe a third party can command almost 20% ofthe popular vote, but have only 3% of the possible seats in the legislative). It also means that voters who would prefer not to vote for the dominant party in their area will not be 'wasting' their vote. Thus, in this proportion of the seats in the house should reasonably translate into percentage of the vote. And because this allows more leeway for third parties, it also means that more people will be likely to support third or fourth or fifth parties making an absolute majority (over 50% of the votes) incredibly unlikely (though with almost 49% in the last election after the list was taken into consideration, PTP came bloody close)]. What the democrats were no doubt working toward was a disproportionate number of seats compared to their low political support. Simply, since any people's council had to turn to democracy at some point without being accused of being a dictatorship, reason stands that the next PTP incarnation would still romp home. Unless they could remove Thaksin for good (with the core of the party breaking into factions), AND alter the political landscape to allow for minority government (less votes but more seats), theyd be back exactly where they were today in fact. No chance, no hope in any general election to take the reigns of power. Again then, shortcuts instead of substance, and despite the ire for failed populist programs, the democrats now face total lock and a party civil war unless there is a coup. Their core of course might well be radicalised and love this. But the core dont really win the election in any modern transparent democracy. The middle 5-10% with no political allegiance win elections. And i promise you, those swing voters will be on the side of elections, democracy, and how you can benefit them.

- But its not all bad news. No matter how triumphant PTP are in this election, without the democrats and their supporters, any government will collapse through a lack of perceived political legitimacy before its 4 year term. I wont say there is no way at all, but its a long shot that even with a legitimate parliament that we wont be back here again (well) within 2 years with another popular protest about corruption or something... or anything at all in fact. This is Thailand.

- But there will be some very angry voices within the party due to this myopic decision to sit these elections out putting strong pressure on their leadership and threatening a clear split if they choose to not participate again. They will also face a collapse in their support from moderates and in particular swinging voters in red states who may have supported them last time. Also due to their intransigent position of their leadership, they will alienate certain people in their core who will feel betrayed by their decision to stand. Should they agree to contest this election, they will take a spanking and they will legitimise any PTP government. Should they refuse, they will fracture as a party and fail to offer the very coherent vision of strong stable government with a clear single vision that would attract the voters they absolutely must attract in order to win any future election. Its tough times at democrat HQ.

Im sure theres more. In fact i know there is, but i feel like i might have taken it a bit too strongly in the one direction to head back onto the smaller points.

Cor Blimey. Another "post of the year", both on the same day. I have read more good posts today compared to everything I have read on TV the past few years.

[takkatan in the land]

I am confused

You started to talk about the Thai people Protest

and ended up talking abut the PTP Party

you are very funny or otherwise you are very confused

I was all the time talking about suthep and his supporters

do you know them?

sure you know them, these minority which want make their own reform at all costs and without care at all about what the rest of the citizens can think or say

[mikemac]

PTP is being pro-active in trying to keep Thailand as one of the chief rice producing, rice exporters countries in the international market scene. Thailand has held the top rice exporting country in the world for 31 years, they have done that off the backs of the Thai rice farmers, whom have been exploited financially for years.

As the bulk of the childern of rice farmers are going into other professions, because of the hard work, low return on their rice. The future of rice farming is questionable, as the present rice farmers aged, their childern not interested in following their parents in to farming.

PTP, realizes that and attempted to increase the profit margin for rice farmers, in hopes of keeping the childern on the farm.

Thailand as my home country could buy the rice crop, subsidize the profit of the farmers, as every other country does with their main agriculteral product!

Why is rice as you say rotting in the warehouses, is it because the rich are willing to take a loss to make the country believe their tales of woo. Why has the government not seen fit to distribute the exess rice to the needy in the country, as the US did in the 1970-80 with butter, powder milk and cheese,and many other countries in the world are doing.

Cheers

It makes me sad that a person who received a western education can regurgitate such red propaganda and apparently believe it. Stopping the children of farmers seeking a better lifestyle by offering them subsidies (aka other taxpayer's money) is a good thing; why? Because they will vote for those offering the subsidies?

Amalgamating the tiny farms and mechanising production will make Thai farms as efficient as those in the US or Oz. But no, it's better to keep people grubbing in the mud and dependent on handouts. Every Thai is making a loss as their tax goes to propping up inefficiency - lost schools, hospitals and services.

Your idea of handing out rice to the poor sounds great, poor rice farmers love it. They can sell their rice at inflated prices to the government and get it back for free. Now that is self- sufficiency for you!

It makes me sad that I actually wasted 2 minutes of my life reading the crap Khun Kik wrote.

Which Soi 4 Nana University bar did he do his degree in anyway ?

[maxme]

PTP is being pro-active in trying to keep Thailand as one of the chief rice producing, rice exporters countries in the international market scene. Thailand has held the top rice exporting country in the world for 31 years, they have done that off the backs of the Thai rice farmers, whom have been exploited financially for years.

As the bulk of the childern of rice farmers are going into other professions, because of the hard work, low return on their rice. The future of rice farming is questionable, as the present rice farmers aged, their childern not interested in following their parents in to farming.

PTP, realizes that and attempted to increase the profit margin for rice farmers, in hopes of keeping the childern on the farm.

Thailand as my home country could buy the rice crop, subsidize the profit of the farmers, as every other country does with their main agriculteral product!

Why is rice as you say rotting in the warehouses, is it because the rich are willing to take a loss to make the country believe their tales of woo. Why has the government not seen fit to distribute the exess rice to the needy in the country, as the US did in the 1970-80 with butter, powder milk and cheese,and many other countries in the world are doing.

Cheers

It makes me sad that a person who received a western education can regurgitate such red propaganda and apparently believe it. Stopping the children of farmers seeking a better lifestyle by offering them subsidies (aka other taxpayer's money) is a good thing; why? Because they will vote for those offering the subsidies?

Amalgamating the tiny farms and mechanising production will make Thai farms as efficient as those in the US or Oz. But no, it's better to keep people grubbing in the mud and dependent on handouts. Every Thai is making a loss as their tax goes to propping up inefficiency - lost schools, hospitals and services.

Your idea of handing out rice to the poor sounds great, poor rice farmers love it. They can sell their rice at inflated prices to the government and get it back for free. Now that is self- sufficiency for you!

It makes me sad that I actually wasted 2 minutes of my life reading the crap Khun Kik wrote.

Which Soi 4 Nana University bar did he do his degree in anyway ?

How did you know that you can get a degree there?

[northernjohn]

Interesting. I'm surprised at this offer to say the least.

I am not. she has backed down on every thing so far why should this be the different.

She hasn't got what it takes to tell her brother to F off. To tell Suthep we will do it your way and I will still win the vote. According to Suthep's plan the vote wouldn't be for a year to a year and a half. Plenty of time to remake herself. Not that it would do any good she still wouldn't have the gray matter necessary to do the job.

How long has she had an arrest warrant out for Suthep?

Her big plan now is call off the elections no more protestors showing what she has screwed up and arrest Suthep. He can hardly wait for it. Not

[longway]

simple opinions and strongly held beliefs:

- People should have the right to protest.

- Civil disobedience can lead to great change. It should howvere never descend into violence against people.

- The protests have been effective in some parts and ineffective in others.

- They have been peaceful, serious, and will hopefully have shown that there is a popular will against corruption in Thailand despite any survey finding that 73% believe its fine if they benefit (number plucked out of thin air because i forget the actual one),

- They are however lead by an incredibly sinister man who seems to alienate his own people with every second or third utterance. He is also hugely untrustwrothy which offers those in opposition to him a massive target to paint every attack on the protestors as orchestrated from within. You wouldnt pin this on MLK, Gandhi or Mandela. But Suthep? Easy peasy.

- A peoples council, whilst sound on paper (and may even be essential), would require the agreement of ALL the main parties in Thailand. It should be representative of the Thai people as a whole. It should not be one side dictating laws unto the other if thailand wishes to break its seemingly endless start/stop 'democracy'.

- PTP were democratically elected in free and fair elections. This was accepted by their main opposition party and by all international accounts.

- Vote buying exists, but so does corruption. And just like corruption, everyone seems happy to participate (or unhappy but feel they have to in order to stay competitive). This did not originate with Thaksin. Its ludicrous then to assume that if only you can get rid of his 'influence' that Thailand will march into a corruption free future. Genuine reform must be made, and without the influence of people like Thaksin no agreement will ever happen.

- The Thaksin influence is this: he has mass support from a core of the electorate.

- In removing the central figure (the one who can rebrand a party around his gravity well after the invariable forced break up after any coup), it is believed (i assume) that if they can remove this influence, a power vacuum will open up causing in-fighting, leading to a collapse in the PTP core support driving them into the waiting hands of the democrats. This is the worst kind of cynical politiking. Far from offering a genuine platform of change and improvement, they offer nothing for the people they absolutely MUST WIN OVER in order to legitimately lead Thailand.

- The actions of the Democrats in refusing to participate in the elections and seize the mood of the nation not only destroyed the movement by allowing their rabid dog complete control to set the agenda, but theyve also shown nothing but contempt for the rural poor of Thailands North and East. Accusations of vote buying, rigging and poverty (the sheer contempt they throw around the 500Baht figure is bewildering in its arrogance) alienate the exact people they need to convince should they desire to be a credible government in the future. The rice buying scheme should have been an open goal. But instead everyone is focusing on Suthep and the bangkok shut down, or on how being a caretaker PM prevents Yingluck from making those payments (through political backroom machinations of the people looking to once again undermine PTP for ideological purposes). It doesnt matter whether you agree that this IS the case. What matters is that the protests have given her and her supporters the ability to make that point at all.

- But the absolute worst thing they did was abandon democracy in the name of a peoples council. Again, you need never agree with my assessment on this. You might think its all neutral reform, id suggest youre naive of course. But you can hold your position without any objection on my part. Abihist has clearly realised that a peoples council would allow him influence in the political landscape of Thailand. The power to change the electoral landscape of Thailand into one which favors the democrats (vote weighing) was clearly more tempting than adhering to the principals of democracy. Again, looking for a constructive solution through fundamental changes in policy was ignored over a short term solution that would offer the chance of minority government. [Now before the idiots pop in, as they always do, theres a thing called simple majority and simple plurality. The majority referred to derives from the concept of the latter. You win over 50% of the seats, you win the election. The list section helps to aleviate some of the statistical anomalies of this system (when for exampe a third party can command almost 20% ofthe popular vote, but have only 3% of the possible seats in the legislative). It also means that voters who would prefer not to vote for the dominant party in their area will not be 'wasting' their vote. Thus, in this proportion of the seats in the house should reasonably translate into percentage of the vote. And because this allows more leeway for third parties, it also means that more people will be likely to support third or fourth or fifth parties making an absolute majority (over 50% of the votes) incredibly unlikely (though with almost 49% in the last election after the list was taken into consideration, PTP came bloody close)]. What the democrats were no doubt working toward was a disproportionate number of seats compared to their low political support. Simply, since any people's council had to turn to democracy at some point without being accused of being a dictatorship, reason stands that the next PTP incarnation would still romp home. Unless they could remove Thaksin for good (with the core of the party breaking into factions), AND alter the political landscape to allow for minority government (less votes but more seats), theyd be back exactly where they were today in fact. No chance, no hope in any general election to take the reigns of power. Again then, shortcuts instead of substance, and despite the ire for failed populist programs, the democrats now face total lock and a party civil war unless there is a coup. Their core of course might well be radicalised and love this. But the core dont really win the election in any modern transparent democracy. The middle 5-10% with no political allegiance win elections. And i promise you, those swing voters will be on the side of elections, democracy, and how you can benefit them.

- But its not all bad news. No matter how triumphant PTP are in this election, without the democrats and their supporters, any government will collapse through a lack of perceived political legitimacy before its 4 year term. I wont say there is no way at all, but its a long shot that even with a legitimate parliament that we wont be back here again (well) within 2 years with another popular protest about corruption or something... or anything at all in fact. This is Thailand.

- But there will be some very angry voices within the party due to this myopic decision to sit these elections out putting strong pressure on their leadership and threatening a clear split if they choose to not participate again. They will also face a collapse in their support from moderates and in particular swinging voters in red states who may have supported them last time. Also due to their intransigent position of their leadership, they will alienate certain people in their core who will feel betrayed by their decision to stand. Should they agree to contest this election, they will take a spanking and they will legitimise any PTP government. Should they refuse, they will fracture as a party and fail to offer the very coherent vision of strong stable government with a clear single vision that would attract the voters they absolutely must attract in order to win any future election. Its tough times at democrat HQ.

Im sure theres more. In fact i know there is, but i feel like i might have taken it a bit too strongly in the one direction to head back onto the smaller points.

Do you realise if elections go ahead then the dumbocrats will have a grand total of 0 seats. They have spectacularly mishandled the situation and have painted themselves into a corner. Thaksin literally holds their future in the palm of his hand.

Of course if the PT does go ahead with elections they risk serious repercussions, but whatever happens to balance out the incredible lack of judgement on dumbocrats part; they will come out losers in the end.

Edited January 26, 2014 by longway

[inutil]

one raving lunatic, given free reign over bangkok has paralysed the city, continually received media support and coverage and all but forced an election to take place over a year ahead of schedule. Now we both know that this man is prone to destroying his own campaign because of the planet sized ego he carries around with him. And we know that every time he now opens his mouth he says something bewilderingly mad. But even with a person most moderate thais find reprehensible, the movement is still going on, like it or not, three months down the road.

The democrats gave him free reign, and they did it because at the time of deciding, they were between a rock and a hard place. Dont think for a second that any moderate democrat looking for power and political legitimacy is unfamiliar with Suthep. They gave him free reign because if they didnt they would be seen to be the reason the protest movement collapsed, they would take a hammering in the elections (and a split in their vote), and they would prop up PTP for the next 4 years (not the next 1 year). Suthep forced their hand in many ways. Thus, simply, the coup was their best shot at governance. Once they got the coup, suthep would be retired somewhere nice as a hero of the people, and the real job of government would begin.

Unfortunately, as it dragged on, suthep cemented his hold on the agenda and the democrats were locked in on his ride.

But dont think this mean theyre done come the elections. Despite the failure of this protest, the failure derives in great part by the person fronting it. There is a call for genuine reform and change. And all it needs is a moderate and reasonable voice to reinvigorate this fight. If PTP attempt to ride roughshod over the democrat supporters, you can bet your ass that with no stake in the next house, they will have nothing to lose by instigating a second round of protests until we all go back to the beginning and have another election. Only this time, momentum will be definitely on their side. The smart move then is to IMMEDIATELY bring in democrats into reform discussion (with PTP dictating the agenda) and move to hold new elections once those reforms are in place (in around two years or so). This will allow the democrats to claim they upheld their part and forced PTP into reform. It will allow PTP to show that they have the wellbeing of the thai people at heart and the magnanimity to offer an olive branch to those elements outside the halls of legislative power. It will also keep other interested parties at heel for the duration of those recommendation talks. No doubt PTP will also get further reform of the senate (or at least push it) and the judiciary as the price on the ticket.

Then again, they could all just say ya boo! we won, suck it up princess and enjoy a year or two of emergency decree after emergency decree before the army feels they "must step in" to save the parties from themselves again.

Edited January 26, 2014 by inutil

[binjalin]

all this Poll stuff is unimportant what is important is that thugs are stopping ordinary citizens asserting their Constitutional Rights to VOTE and, obviously, many family's will be put off voting by the fascists

just go look at the photo in the Nation

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/699643-frustrated-thai-voters-say-rights-violated/

Edited January 27, 2014 by binjalin

[VegasVic]

"Thailands embattled government has offered to call off an election set for February 2 if protesters end their rallies and promise not to obstruct or boycott a new one within months."

Do they really think this is what the protestors want? How will this meet their demands for reform? Clueless.

The Shins could disappear from the scene tomorrow and reforms put in place and this would not change a thing for suthep and his fascists/anarchist gang, they would still lose an election by a rather wide margin! Sutheps only chance at not getting tried for murder is to continue his thuggish activity and hope that eventually he can convince his cronies in the military command to stage a coup. My hunch is that suthep will go down in a hail of bullets as a martyr for his cause, which is likely preferable to rotting in a jail cell for the remainder of his life

For the third time on this thread, to the the third poster saying the same thing, I never said I support suthep.

I am pointing out that it is stupid to offer to do the same thing to a group of people that they have previously rejected only on a different date.

Clear!

P.S. fascism and anarchy are not the same thing.

Fascism and anarchy are definately not the same thing, however suthep and his thugs are indeed fascists and they are trying to create anarchy in the streets

[VegasVic]

"Thailands embattled government has offered to call off an election set for February 2 if protesters end their rallies and promise not to obstruct or boycott a new one within months."

Do they really think this is what the protestors want? How will this meet their demands for reform? Clueless.

The Shins could disappear from the scene tomorrow and reforms put in place and this would not change a thing for suthep and his fascists/anarchist gang, they would still lose an election by a rather wide margin! Sutheps only chance at not getting tried for murder is to continue his thuggish activity and hope that eventually he can convince his cronies in the military command to stage a coup. My hunch is that suthep will go down in a hail of bullets as a martyr for his cause, which is likely preferable to rotting in a jail cell for the remainder of his life

So you admit he is no coward like Taskin

I could care less about TAKSIN, as far as suthep goes he has proven to be as corrupt a politician as Taksin ever was and has concocted all these protests in order to avoid being tried for murder. In other words suthep is just as cowardly as taksin, he has just decided that his only way out is to create such a disturbance that the military has to create a coup and take over the government, although by now I think he is begining to realize that this will not happen so instead of facing a tribunal on his many charges he has decided to commit suicide by police

[harrry]

With all these will cancel, will not cancel, will stop protests, will not stop protests, and knowing of course that Caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck is totally honest I am begining to have doubts of her heath as there seem to be multiple Yinglucks.

[build6]

I could care less about TAKSIN, as far as suthep goes he has proven to be as corrupt a politician as Taksin ever was and has concocted all these protests in order to avoid being tried for murder. In other words suthep is just as cowardly as taksin, he has just decided that his only way out is to create such a disturbance that the military has to create a coup and take over the government, although by now I think he is begining to realize that this will not happen so instead of facing a tribunal on his many charges he has decided to commit suicide by police

i have met many protesters who participate but do not support suthep. somebody needs to "organise" things (insofar as this protest movement has any organisation at all, or endgame in sight) and it may as well be suthep. these are people who (rightly or wrongly) feel it necessary Yingluck is removed, and are not "followers of suthep" but "fellow travellers". If the proportions I have met can be extrapolated, if suthep proposed himself as a member of the council he wants to replace the government, the protest movement ends immediately.

[LarryBird]

I could care less about TAKSIN, as far as suthep goes he has proven to be as corrupt a politician as Taksin ever was and has concocted all these protests in order to avoid being tried for murder. In other words suthep is just as cowardly as taksin, he has just decided that his only way out is to create such a disturbance that the military has to create a coup and take over the government, although by now I think he is begining to realize that this will not happen so instead of facing a tribunal on his many charges he has decided to commit suicide by police

i have met many protesters who participate but do not support suthep. somebody needs to "organise" things (insofar as this protest movement has any organisation at all, or endgame in sight) and it may as well be suthep. these are people who (rightly or wrongly) feel it necessary Yingluck is removed, and are not "followers of suthep" but "fellow travellers". If the proportions I have met can be extrapolated, if suthep proposed himself as a member of the council he wants to replace the government, the protest movement ends immediately.

Why do you think he is he doing what he's doing, then? What's in it for him? (Sincere/polite question, interested in your thoughts.)

[scorecard]

I could care less about TAKSIN, as far as suthep goes he has proven to be as corrupt a politician as Taksin ever was and has concocted all these protests in order to avoid being tried for murder. In other words suthep is just as cowardly as taksin, he has just decided that his only way out is to create such a disturbance that the military has to create a coup and take over the government, although by now I think he is begining to realize that this will not happen so instead of facing a tribunal on his many charges he has decided to commit suicide by police

i have met many protesters who participate but do not support suthep. somebody needs to "organise" things (insofar as this protest movement has any organisation at all, or endgame in sight) and it may as well be suthep. these are people who (rightly or wrongly) feel it necessary Yingluck is removed, and are not "followers of suthep" but "fellow travellers". If the proportions I have met can be extrapolated, if suthep proposed himself as a member of the council he wants to replace the government, the protest movement ends immediately.

And in your attempt to but severe negative on suthep and the protest, you:

- Fail to mention that it's already well established that suthep has baggage and he admits it.

- It's well established that many protestors have a view of 'no I don't want suthep to be PM (or whatever), but I'll support him in trying to force reforms.'

- He's mentioned several times that he (and any current politicians) should NOT be members of any committee to generate the reform agenda.

- There may well be good 'new blood' coming out of the protest movement (many who take the protest stage have impressed large numbers of Thais) and maybe this could even generate a new party, and personally I hope this happens - but a bit too early to tell on this point.

Edited January 29, 2014 by scorecard

[build6]

Why do you think he is he doing what he's doing, then? What's in it for him? (Sincere/polite question, interested in your thoughts.)

You're right, it's a mystery. Probably some behind-the-scenes maneuvering/calculations. If it's not a genuine late-life attempt at redemption, then maybe he's got open options on Thai assets he's trying to drive underwater . To a certain extent I don't think it matters why exactly he's doing it (if his non-participation pledge is honoured). What's a greater issue is that while his end-goal may be correct (I personally cannot see how the rice pledging scheme could end with anything but utter disaster), his "strategy" (or lack thereof) makes no sense to me. The elections are going to happen... and there is no opposition representation. Just because you are going to lose in the elections doesn't mean it's not worth taking part in. Having a new round of polling would have reminded everyone that Bangkok and the most economically productive areas of Thailand (all the rice-production areas are now, by definition, loss-making ) are against them and it would have provided useful information as to exactly what the late/non- payments have done to their support. All the protests are doing now is allowing the red faction to point at them and say "this is the reason you haven't been paid, not our fault". It's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Has anyone read the latest Economist? Their correspondent actually suggested there's a likelihood of a Thai breakup, with a new country being formed consisting of the north and northeast headed by Yingluck in Chiangmai, which I found ridiculous, considering YL cannot take Bangkok with her. Form a new country without the economic centre of the old one and with no coastal access? There's no money in it (in which case would Mr. T be interested?). If any of you have met him, you really need to find out how much he actually knows... .

And in your attempt to but severe negative on suthep and the protest, you:

"and the protest" ? There's something affecting your reading.

[LarryBird]

I have not read that issue of the Economist. So long as North Thailand negotiated for coastal access, they'd do just fine in that deal, in my opinion.

[build6]

I have not read that issue of the Economist. So long as North Thailand negotiated for coastal access, they'd do just fine in that deal, in my opinion.

... from who? South Thailand has no incentive to let them get it easy/cheap.

Cambodia? They're gonna find out what a real sweetheart Hun Sen is....

And they won't have Bangkok. The reason YL herself sacrificed practically everything else to save Bangkok from the floods was because the Thai economy basically is Bangkok.

[LarryBird]

I have not read that issue of the Economist. So long as North Thailand negotiated for coastal access, they'd do just fine in that deal, in my opinion.

... from who? South Thailand has no incentive to let them get it easy/cheap.

Cambodia? They're gonna find out what a real sweetheart Hun Sen is....

And they won't have Bangkok. The reason YL herself sacrificed practically everything else to save Bangkok from the floods was because the Thai economy basically is Bangkok.

How does that change in a separation? The north still does what they do, the other places do what they do. People are talking like they won't exchange goods and services anymore. Is the rest of Thailand sucking off Bangkok's teet? No. Everyone gets what they pay for. The difference would be in government, and a few other things.

If Bangkok is upset over some tax money going up north, then that would stop,, if that's what this is all about.

rambling.

[build6]

How does that change in a separation? The north still does what they do, the other places do what they do. People are talking like they won't exchange goods and services anymore. Is the rest of Thailand sucking off Bangkok's teet? No. Everyone gets what they pay for. The difference would be in government, and a few other things.

If Bangkok is upset over some tax money going up north, then that would stop,, if that's what this is all about.

rambling.

I've had some experience with Cambodia and Laos, and not having direct access to ports is a huge issue (Cambodia has a coast, but there's not very good logistics to the ports from the main population areas, which are mostly centred around the river which has to pass through Vietnam, and Vietnam squeezes them - whether out of official policy or run-of-the-mill corruption, I don't know, but you are in for a good bit of complaining if you ever raise the topic of Vietnamese control over the Mekong mouth to a Cambodian businessman).

North Thailand has the rice... but as is pretty clear now that's not a commodity that they have a monopoly on (or the rice scheme would work). I'm sure Vietnam, India et al are happy to sell rice to Bangkok.

Industry may be starting up in the northeast per the other post, but if their only route to export is through the south, I do not think it would be on sweetheart terms - on the contrary, the people who kicked yingluck out would absolutely want to "teach her a lesson". I'd expect something like 100% tax rates, whatever it takes to make everything they do unprofitable. And with oil prices the way they are they can't work around by shipping through the neighbours either. They can't even import oil without the southern ports. All this talk about "enough people to fight the army" is fanciful rubbish. The army wouldn't have to fight them, they'd just need to wait them out until they have no petrol.

The north would be maneuvering itself into a position they are already chafing under, i.e. being under the thumb of "Bangkok Elites"...... and this time, without any official say in policymaking in the south. They would be worse off than they are now.

All the interviews with people saying "yingluck should set up government in Chiangmai" are with people who have an agenda to push or really are talking about things "above their pay grade", as the phrase goes.

If it really happens, I'd expect it'd be the first step to Hun Sen annexing the northeast, at the very least.