Opponents Of Thai Coup Concentrated In Nation's North

[TAWP]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to eat for dinner...

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote. - Thomas Jefferson

Actually attributed more often to Ben Franklin.

You might be right, however when I searched through wikiquotes I couldn't find it listed to neither one of them, either as quote or incorrectly attributed quote. So...beats me.

[Old Man River]

The big question I have is how sustainable is "ucpountry" as a voting block? When we think of the south, we think Democrates, and it has stayed that way for quite some time. The north and east, in the past, has been about selling their votes. Politicians never needed a platform, but for now, the needs of those upcountry must be addressed. Is this for the long haul?

Your thoughts?

Thaksin has changed all that.

As it relates to future policy platforms including the needs of the majority of the voters, I hope you are right. If it is sustainable, that would be three giant steps forward for the country.

[PhilHarries]

The big question I have is how sustainable is "ucpountry" as a voting block? When we think of the south, we think Democrates, and it has stayed that way for quite some time. The north and east, in the past, has been about selling their votes. Politicians never needed a platform, but for now, the needs of those upcountry must be addressed. Is this for the long haul?

Your thoughts?

Thaksin has changed all that.

In addition to traditional votebying, he has introduced policy platforms, and has raised expactations of those northerners and Isaarnites to the role of government. That is why he has a bigger support than any other politician/party ever had in those areas.

For the other political parties there is no escaping this for Thailand new trend. If they cannot think very fast of forming policies and ways how to communicate them, we very possibly have an aera of unrest originating from these areas and sectors of society.

As I see it they could form policies and communicate then until hel_l froze over and it would have made no difference at all. Thaksin had effectively hijacked the Thai democracy and was using public money, generously donated by the middle classes, to fund his populist policies in the north thus ensuring the votes and support of that region. Subtle vote buying using public money, very clever that and nothing, short of a coup, could derail this gravy train.

[pete_r]

CORRUPTION INDEX

Kingdom falls in world graft ranking

Published on Nov 6, 2006

Slips to 63rd from 59th last year; ranks ninth of 21 in Asia

Thailand has slipped to 63rd this year from last year's 59th in a global survey on

corruption, the local chapter of Germany-based Transparency International, which conducted the survey, said yesterday.

http://nationmultimedia.com/search/page.ne...amp;id=30018146

Yes, but what was the ranking of Thailand in the pre-Thaksin era? In years 2000, 1999, 1998... ?

According to Meerkat earlier post mentioning a score of 3.2 for the period 1995-2000, it might have been around 80 or worse. Any thoughts?

[Plus]

In 2000 Thailand was ranked 60, if it helps in anyway.

Democrats were in power for only three years and their main job was to deal with collapsed economy, not on cleaning up the beaurocracy.

Does this ranking measure policy corruption in any way? If it gauges only the "traditional" corruption in terms of bribes at customs, inflated contracts and bid fixing, than it's not anywhere complete.

Are we seriously going to waste time on establishing whether corruption increased or not under Thaksin?

This has been extensively covered by Thai researchers and they ALL agree that it has.

This line of Thaksin's defence is very familiar - he wasn't as corrupt as middle class make him to be, he was democratically elected, he shares ideological aspirations of majority of voters, and he has shown them the way to better future.

Yeah, right.

[Old Man River]

The big question I have is how sustainable is "ucpountry" as a voting block? When we think of the south, we think Democrates, and it has stayed that way for quite some time. The north and east, in the past, has been about selling their votes. Politicians never needed a platform, but for now, the needs of those upcountry must be addressed. Is this for the long haul?

Your thoughts?

Thaksin has changed all that.

In addition to traditional votebying, he has introduced policy platforms, and has raised expactations of those northerners and Isaarnites to the role of government. That is why he has a bigger support than any other politician/party ever had in those areas.

For the other political parties there is no escaping this for Thailand new trend. If they cannot think very fast of forming policies and ways how to communicate them, we very possibly have an aera of unrest originating from these areas and sectors of society.

As I see it they could form policies and communicate then until hel_l froze over and it would have made no difference at all. Thaksin had effectively hijacked the Thai democracy and was using public money, generously donated by the middle classes, to fund his populist policies in the north thus ensuring the votes and support of that region. Subtle vote buying using public money, very clever that and nothing, short of a coup, could derail this gravy train.

Phil, I think Colpyat was answering my question about going forward, although I fully agree with your comments as it relates to what happened.

Personally, I think money politics will be difficult to change and that the country's democracy will ultimately backslide to vote buying as the most important aspect of a political party's strategy (pessimist that I am).

[ColPyat]

The big question I have is how sustainable is "ucpountry" as a voting block? When we think of the south, we think Democrates, and it has stayed that way for quite some time. The north and east, in the past, has been about selling their votes. Politicians never needed a platform, but for now, the needs of those upcountry must be addressed. Is this for the long haul?

Your thoughts?

Thaksin has changed all that.

As it relates to future policy platforms including the needs of the majority of the voters, I hope you are right. If it is sustainable, that would be three giant steps forward for the country.

The only good thing that came out of Thaksin was that he has managed to bind previously ignored sectors into the political process. I am not under the illusion that he did that for altruistic reasons, but as a way to gain power to counter the old network.

Nevertheless, the result is the same - upcountry folks started being politicised, which is progress. The coup though has endangered this process tremendously. The future of Thailand depends very much if the present and future government are able to continue binding those sectors into the political process. If the do not manage this, then these people will be lost for any form of democracy for a long time to come.

Lets wait and see.

[ColPyat]

As I see it they could form policies and communicate then until hel_l froze over and it would have made no difference at all. Thaksin had effectively hijacked the Thai democracy and was using public money, generously donated by the middle classes, to fund his populist policies in the north thus ensuring the votes and support of that region. Subtle vote buying using public money, very clever that and nothing, short of a coup, could derail this gravy train.

Your statement is a huge reason why so many of the urban middle classes have joined the Sondhi crowd and support the coup. A lot of urbanites are very angry that parts of the national budget were spent on programs for the rural poor, and TRT policies have resulted in empowerment of the rural poor.

As i pointed out - i believe that for some parts of TRT this was not an altruistic measure, but for some parts, especially the members of the October generation that have joined TRT this was though very clearly.

TRT was not a monolithic party dominated by one man. TRT was/is made up from many fractions, and Thaksin was the integral personality that masterfully managed to balance the constant conflicts within the fractions of his own party.

Nevertheless, the issues such as rural poverty, migration and a huge gap between rich and poor remain. And the political landscape here now has to wake up and tackle these issues, if they don't want to be swept away by people/organisations who will otherwise fight for those issues.

Thailand has a few more years in order to built up strong and independent institutions, and that means that the old power network and the urban middle classes have to start sharing.

[Jai Dee]

BURNING ISSUE

CNS TREADS FINE LINE AS THAKSIN LOOMS LARGE

The weaker it appears to the public, the more the momentum swings to ex-PM's camp

The suicide of "heroic" taxi driver Nuamthong Phaiwan in a lone protest against the September 19 coup may have sent a chill down the spine of the Council for National Security (CNS) members.

His second and successful suicide attempt might be a living testimony that "political undercurrents" are for real. The groundswell against the interim government and its military backers has been gathering force. As time passes it could become a tidal wave.

CNS chairman General Sonthi Boonyaratglin knows well that he can ignore the force of Thai Rak Thai Party supporters, and opponents of his seizure of power, only at his peril.

And, ignoring them he is not.

Soon after these "undercurrents" were detected, he declared his willingness to speak to Thai Rak Thai about them.

Acting party leader Chaturon Chaisang swiftly retorted that he had nothing to say to Sonthi. Sonthi knows, too, that the reappearance of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in the country would be a threat to him and his government. He has told the news media that Thaksin will not be allowed to land in Thailand if he attempted to do so without prior permission.

Could the suicide of taxi driver Nuamthong in a protest against CNS rule have stirred the "sleeping tiger" - a term used by Chat Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa to describe Thaksin?

The day after the taxi driver took his own life, a political group used it as a pretext to gather in protest and demand the lifting of martial law.

As well as dealing with opponents in the form of Thaksin supporters and those abhorrent of the coup, the CNS is also fighting an "internal war". It is battling to win public trust and to prove to critics that it did not depose Thaksin in a blatant power grab.

General Winai Phattiyakul, the CNS secretary-general, dismissed speculation it was forming a political party to maintain a foothold in power. The country will have to wait until after the drafting of a new Constitution to discover if this is true.

But, eschewing politics may be difficult for the CNS because, while in the process of uprooting the Thaksin regime, it has generated enemies on the inside as well as outside.

There are reports of conflict, for instance, within the Assets Examination Committee and between Auditor-General Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka and Deputy Prime Minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula.

The latest proof of conflict was a foiled attempt to remove Police Commissioner General Kowit Wattana. The CNS was under pressure to remove Kowit after Thaksin's opponents questioned why it had allowed senior police who served Thaksin to take on significant roles.

And, with Kowit at the helm the police have so far failed to nail Thaksin down on allegations of lese majeste - one of the four main reasons cited by the military for his overthrow.

Thaksin's opponents remain suspicious because of widespread rumours that the CNS plans to form a political party with Thaksin or former Thai Rak Thai politicians. Winai dismissed this.

After almost two months since seizing power, the CNS is racing against time to demonstrate its achievements and appease critics. The weaker it appears in this to the public, the stronger Thaksin's camp becomes in its bid to take advantage of the situation.

Although the CNS has beefed up its public-relations efforts, it may not win the public hearts in the long run. This is especially true after Sonthi admitted probe into Thaksin's assets might not get anywhere. Impounding the ousted leader's fortune would not be possible legally.

Pridiyathorn has spoken out in support of this assumption saying the country needs new laws to prevent conflicts of interest and to deal effectively with corruption allegedly rife under the Thaksin government.

With his wealth intact, Thaksin could manage a return to politics more easily. Some analysts do not rule out a comeback.

Editorial Opinion by Phochana Phichitsiri - The Nation - 7 November 2006

[sriracha john]

In 2000 Thailand was ranked 60, if it helps in anyway.

Democrats were in power for only three years and their main job was to deal with collapsed economy, not on cleaning up the beaurocracy.

Does this ranking measure policy corruption in any way? If it gauges only the "traditional" corruption in terms of bribes at customs, inflated contracts and bid fixing, than it's not anywhere complete.

Are we seriously going to waste time on establishing whether corruption increased or not under Thaksin?

This has been extensively covered by Thai researchers and they ALL agree that it has.

This line of Thaksin's defence is very familiar - he wasn't as corrupt as middle class make him to be, he was democratically elected, he shares ideological aspirations of majority of voters, and he has shown them the way to better future.

Yeah, right.

AMEN!

This has all been hashed through previously... it'd been easier to grab post quotes from months ago rather than go through it all again...

[pete_r]

In 2000 Thailand was ranked 60, if it helps in anyway.

I've found the full table. To be fair, it can be interpreted both ways because the number of countries in the survey has changed over the years.

Source: http://www.transparency-thailand.org/en/in...3&Itemid=27

Corruption in Thailand has been monitored by the CPI since the first edition in 1995. Although it should be remembered that the index is based simply on perceptions and changes in scores and rankings should be taken only as general indicators, the CPI is a good guide to the general level of corruption in Thailand.

Thailand in the CPI

Year ----- Thailand’s Ranking ----- Score out of 10

2005 ----- 59 of 158 ---------------- 3.8

2004 ----- 64 of 145 ---------------- 3.6

2003 ----- 70 of 133 ---------------- 3.3

2002 ----- 64 of 102 ---------------- 3.2

2001 ----- 61 of 91 ----------------- 3.2

2000 ----- 60 of 90 ----------------- 3.2

1999 ----- 68 of 99 ----------------- 3.2

1998 ----- 61 of 85 ----------------- 3.0

1997 ----- 39 of 42 ----------------- 3.1

1996 ----- 37 of 54 ----------------- 3.3

1995 ----- 35 of 41 ----------------- 2.8

As the table reveals, the outlook for Thailand is by no means pessimistic. Although Thailand’s overall score remains relatively low, the country’s level of corruption in relation to other countries has improved considerably, and the perception in Thailand is that there is less corruption than when measurement began.

However, the implication of even a score of 3.8 is that the country still suffers under the weight of serious corruption.

I'll just note that the researchers from Transparency-Thailand are Thais too.

http://www.transparency-thailand.org/en/in...5&Itemid=40

This line of Thaksin's defence is very familiar - he wasn't as corrupt as middle class make him to be, he was democratically elected, he shares ideological aspirations of majority of voters, and he has shown them the way to better future.

Yeah, right.

Plus, sorry to tickle you... The line of attack is also very familiar.

[Siripon]

I am astounded that so many people have forgotten that Taksin was not the first leader in Thailand to be accused of corruption.

It's Thais who think that his corruption got completely out of hand. They DO remember all previous governments very well.

This is why I pointed to the fact that it is much harder these days, thankfully, to get away with it because it is so much harder to control the media. The sad thing as well is that it would seem that the BKK elite think that a certain amount of corruption is OK (if it benefits them), but Taksin took it too far - hypocritical moral-relativism at best.

Do bear in mind as well the corruption stats posted on another thread here; in spite of everything we read about, Transparency International seems to think that corruption decreased under his administration. And that is with better access to information than before.

>>>>>

Popular support, like popularity, is a flickering thing. Thaksin and TRT do not REPRESENT majority's interests. They USE that majority for their own ends.

"Just who the insurgents are?" - good question. Are there any at all? Is it only local pooyais who want their power back?

They can surely mobilize mobs from their fiefdoms and give them free rides, food, t-shirts, etc. Does it make a popular uprising?

Exactly the same "popular support" as when Thaksin bused two three hundred thousand farmers to Sanam Luang. Or when mob blocaded The Nation building.

Any government in a "democracy" uses the majority for their own ends. As Churchill said, Democracy is not perfect, it's just the best form of government tried yet. You could, I suppose, argue that Singapore's model of a benevolent dictatorship is better, but that is a rarity, and of course is open for even more abuse of power.

The Democrats (and Sondhi) also bused supporters to demonstrate against the former PM, and there have also been reports of vote buying from that side of the political spectrum too.

I am not trying to defend Taksin (really, I'm not!), but I get saddened when I repeatedly only hear one side of the story. Especially so now that control of the press makes it illegal for much of the dissent that is probably out there to be aired.

Thaksin controlled free TV and the radio stations ruthlessly which is where 88% of the populace get their information from. Satellite TV and the Internet form a very low percentage in comparison.

Thaksin was never interested in listening to others when in power.

He very rarely attended Parliament or answered questions there.

He disbanded meet the press after a few weeks.

He dissolved Parliament because he couldn't stand a debate about the Temasek deal.

His corruption was certainly of a new order, namely policy corruption: changing so many laws and regulations to benefit his companies.

[sriracha john]

so Thaksin, who focused so much of his platform on being such a big "corruption-buster" achieved a whopping 0.4 increase in the CPI after five-plus years of corruption busting.

Outstanding progress.

[pete_r]

so Thaksin, who focused so much of his platform on being such a big "corruption-buster" achieved a whopping 0.4 increase in the CPI after five-plus years of corruption busting.

Outstanding progress.

Earlier the discussion was about how corruption was worse under Thaksin. Now we are talking about an increase in the CPI. That's progress!

But a bit for sure.

[Plus]

TRT was not a monolithic party dominated by one man.

Great. First we heard he didn't control the media, now he didn't control even his own party. It's not only the news about Thaksin that are becoming surreal, posts about him are getting weirder by the hour too.

Plus, sorry to tickle you... The line of attack is also very familiar.

Tickle??? I was afraid it would be boring to death beating of a dead horse .

I wasn't aware I was attacking anyone, too.

Here's another one I missed earlier - Thaksin got shafted because he tried to improve Thailand and beaurocrats wouldn't let him and so made up all these nasty corruption stories. That's the most disgusting of all lies. He decided to become a voice of the poor only when Sondhi exposed him for all to see. It has nothing to do with poor, only with his greed.

And here lies the crux of my argument - his popularity was like a fashion trend, result of a marketing gimmick. If the generals manage to keep him out of a picture for a year his supporters would see that his presense of absense makes no difference at all. They need him like you need the latest shampoo from TV commercial.

That's why he refuses to go away - without constant self-promotion he has no substance, no value whatsoever.

TRT was/is made up from many fractions, and Thaksin was the integral personality that masterfully managed to balance the constant conflicts within the fractions of his own party.

That makes much more sense.

The party's gone. Fractions has left to where they came from. Ideological drivel they didn't believe themselves even for a second is good only for propaganda purposes, not for holding the party together.

Insteresetingly it appears that only Democrats are ideologically strong enough to withstand five years in opposition with defections left and right, live through two leadership changes, and came out as clean as ever. That is a sign of a true party of the people. Not ALL people, I agree. I wish North and Isan can get their shit together and come up with something similar but they are years and years away from becoming politically mature enough. If Thaksin at least woke them up, all the better, it hasn't all been in vain then.

[ColPyat]

TRT was not a monolithic party dominated by one man.

Great. First we heard he didn't control the media, now he didn't control even his own party. It's not only the news about Thaksin that are becoming surreal, posts about him are getting weirder by the hour too.

Plus, sorry to tickle you... The line of attack is also very familiar.

Tickle??? I was afraid it would be boring to death beating of a dead horse .

I wasn't aware I was attacking anyone, too.

Here's another one I missed earlier - Thaksin got shafted because he tried to improve Thailand and beaurocrats wouldn't let him and so made up all these nasty corruption stories. That's the most disgusting of all lies. He decided to become a voice of the poor only when Sondhi exposed him for all to see. It has nothing to do with poor, only with his greed.

And here lies the crux of my argument - his popularity was like a fashion trend, result of a marketing gimmick. If the generals manage to keep him out of a picture for a year his supporters would see that his presense of absense makes no difference at all. They need him like you need the latest shampoo from TV commercial.

That's why he refuses to go away - without constant self-promotion he has no substance, no value whatsoever.

TRT was/is made up from many fractions, and Thaksin was the integral personality that masterfully managed to balance the constant conflicts within the fractions of his own party.

That makes much more sense.

The party's gone. Fractions has left to where they came from. Ideological drivel they didn't believe themselves even for a second is good only for propaganda purposes, not for holding the party together.

Insteresetingly it appears that only Democrats are ideologically strong enough to withstand five years in opposition with defections left and right, live through two leadership changes, and came out as clean as ever. That is a sign of a true party of the people. Not ALL people, I agree. I wish North and Isan can get their shit together and come up with something similar but they are years and years away from becoming politically mature enough. If Thaksin at least woke them up, all the better, it hasn't all been in vain then.

Thaksin has not "controlled" the media. But he definately has attempted to. Right now though we have almost complete media control.

The Democrats have no "ideology" whatsoever. Or can you point out to me please their platform and policies?

They will not be a party for Northerners and Isaarnites as they are far too entrenched in southern family politics, and outside this only play up to a small urban based middle class.

The Democrats had more than a few defections themselves. As far as i can remember rather early on several Democrat MPs switched to TRT. Also Sanan, key king maker of the Democrats has defected and cofounded his Mahachon Party.

And how much they 'survived' only the next elections will show. My bet though is Chart Thai forming the next elected government, unless Thaksin comes back into politics.

Most of the "ideological drivel" from TRT came actually from the fractions, or from Thaksin having to play up to the niche interests of the fractions, especially the right wing religious nutters led by Chamlong.

[Briggsy]

Thailand remains a patron-client based society. Understand that and you get to the bottom of most situations.

[Tony Clifton]

Ahum!

Attempted to?

People's right to know suffered under Thaksin : PM

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Tuesday the "people's right to know" had suffered under the previous administration of Thaksin Shinawatra because of his government's "carrot and stick" approach to media management.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/07...es_30018321.php

[ColPyat]

Ahum!

Attempted to?

People's right to know suffered under Thaksin : PM

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Tuesday the "people's right to know" had suffered under the previous administration of Thaksin Shinawatra because of his government's "carrot and stick" approach to media management.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/07...es_30018321.php

That is sweet, coming from a government that calls in and chastises editors and journalists at every presumed critical report on the actions of that government, who still keeps a military presence in every TV station.

[Siripon]

TRT was not a monolithic party dominated by one man.

Great. First we heard he didn't control the media, now he didn't control even his own party. It's not only the news about Thaksin that are becoming surreal, posts about him are getting weirder by the hour too.

Plus, sorry to tickle you... The line of attack is also very familiar.

Tickle??? I was afraid it would be boring to death beating of a dead horse .

I wasn't aware I was attacking anyone, too.

Here's another one I missed earlier - Thaksin got shafted because he tried to improve Thailand and beaurocrats wouldn't let him and so made up all these nasty corruption stories. That's the most disgusting of all lies. He decided to become a voice of the poor only when Sondhi exposed him for all to see. It has nothing to do with poor, only with his greed.

And here lies the crux of my argument - his popularity was like a fashion trend, result of a marketing gimmick. If the generals manage to keep him out of a picture for a year his supporters would see that his presense of absense makes no difference at all. They need him like you need the latest shampoo from TV commercial.

That's why he refuses to go away - without constant self-promotion he has no substance, no value whatsoever.

TRT was/is made up from many fractions, and Thaksin was the integral personality that masterfully managed to balance the constant conflicts within the fractions of his own party.

That makes much more sense.

The party's gone. Fractions has left to where they came from. Ideological drivel they didn't believe themselves even for a second is good only for propaganda purposes, not for holding the party together.

Insteresetingly it appears that only Democrats are ideologically strong enough to withstand five years in opposition with defections left and right, live through two leadership changes, and came out as clean as ever. That is a sign of a true party of the people. Not ALL people, I agree. I wish North and Isan can get their shit together and come up with something similar but they are years and years away from becoming politically mature enough. If Thaksin at least woke them up, all the better, it hasn't all been in vain then.

Thaksin has not "controlled" the media. But he definately has attempted to. Right now though we have almost complete media control.

The Democrats have no "ideology" whatsoever. Or can you point out to me please their platform and policies?

They will not be a party for Northerners and Isaarnites as they are far too entrenched in southern family politics, and outside this only play up to a small urban based middle class.

The Democrats had more than a few defections themselves. As far as i can remember rather early on several Democrat MPs switched to TRT. Also Sanan, key king maker of the Democrats has defected and cofounded his Mahachon Party.

And how much they 'survived' only the next elections will show. My bet though is Chart Thai forming the next elected government, unless Thaksin comes back into politics.

Most of the "ideological drivel" from TRT came actually from the fractions, or from Thaksin having to play up to the niche interests of the fractions, especially the right wing religious nutters led by Chamlong.

I predicted several months ago that Banharn would form the next government and the colonel said that would be idiotic and a step back for Thailand.

I was more accurate in my prediction of Khun Surayud.

The

The Democrats have had policies of decentralisation and educational reform for years, since their last government.

Very few Democrats defected to Mahachon or TRT, how many MPs did Mahachon have at the last election?!

Somsak Thepsutin is more powerful than Banharn.

The 'ideology' in TRT came from the founders and inner core which was a mixture of former Shinawat employees and Thaksin's former party Palang Tham.

The factions who joined later such as NAP led by Chavalit, Chart Pattana, Pinit, Suchart Damcharern, Sontaya never had any ideologies apart from being in government.

[sriracha john]

We ARE flogging a dead horse pointing out Thaksin's shortcomings. Any number of the old March - September threads can be reopened (the ones that weren't closed, anyway) if anyone really wishes to. It might help for these revisionists that want to change how events unfolded then. It'd be easier with the references right there in the applicable threads themselves.

[pete_r]

Plus, sorry to tickle you... The line of attack is also very familiar.

I wasn't aware I was attacking anyone, too.

I meant the style of attack against Thaksin that can be seen on many threads in the forum. You didn't attack anyone as far as I'm concerned!

[Plus]

Thaksin has not "controlled" the media.

Thaksin has not controlled the media.

No comments are necessary.

Right now though we have almost complete media control.....

That is sweet, coming from a government that calls in and chastises editors and journalists at every presumed critical report on the actions of that government, who still keeps a military presence in every TV station.

That's called martial law. That article, btw, is from The Nation, a newspaper that has printed a lot of negative reports on junta that cannot be reproduced on Thaivisa.

The Democrats have no "ideology" whatsoever. Or can you point out to me please their platform and policies?

They will not be a party for Northerners and Isaarnites as they are far too entrenched in southern family politics, and outside this only play up to a small urban based middle class.

Democrats are a grown up party. When they talk about the rule of law, they mean it, when they talk about decentralisation, they mean it, when they talk about education, they mean it. They are far from perfect, but it's an INSTITUTION. All others are just a big man's posse.

Urban middle class is still relatively small, but it's growing fast, probably faster than any other segment. Eventually it will form the basis of society and outgrow farmers in numbers.

The Democrats had more than a few defections themselves. As far as i can remember rather early on several Democrat MPs switched to TRT. Also Sanan, key king maker of the Democrats has defected and cofounded his Mahachon Party.

If you scroll back - I said that MPs were defecting left and right but they survived. Like it or not, their party is more than a group of personalities.

And how much they 'survived' only the next elections will show. My bet though is Chart Thai forming the next elected government, unless Thaksin comes back into politics.

They will surely be the largest party in parliament. They will carry the South, Bangkok, and urban centers. There's no one challenging them on their own turf at the moment. I don't see them losing MPs.

Most of the "ideological drivel" from TRT came actually from the fractions, or from Thaksin having to play up to the niche interests of the fractions, especially the right wing religious nutters led by Chamlong.

Ideology came from TRT factions??? Since when do they care about ideology? They have never ever showed any interest in any ideology, let alone dared to dictate Thaksin what to preach. All that drivel came from Thaksin's own mouth.

And he certainly didn't care what Chamlong thought about it.

Just to check that we are on the same page - it's greyish blue, and background color of quotes is "off-white", right?

Still, the point of this thread is how much support he really has in the North, is it only a few of his leutenants looking for comeback who can be easily monitored, or there's a groundswell of discontent. So far we haven't seen ANY signs, from any of TV members, friends, families, or media.

Who are the insurgents? Do they exist?

[ColPyat]

I predicted several months ago that Banharn would form the next government and the colonel said that would be idiotic and a step back for Thailand.

I was more accurate in my prediction of Khun Surayud.

The

The Democrats have had policies of decentralisation and educational reform for years, since their last government.

Very few Democrats defected to Mahachon or TRT, how many MPs did Mahachon have at the last election?!

Somsak Thepsutin is more powerful than Banharn.

The 'ideology' in TRT came from the founders and inner core which was a mixture of former Shinawat employees and Thaksin's former party Palang Tham.

The factions who joined later such as NAP led by Chavalit, Chart Pattana, Pinit, Suchart Damcharern, Sontaya never had any ideologies apart from being in government.

And i still say today that a Chart Thai led government is idiotic and a huge step backward for Thailand. If that's all what the demonstrations and the coup will have achived a year or so down the line than it's good night Thailand as this will not be by a policy platform but by backdoor politics of old faces switching parties. But maybe that is what you sort of people prefer for Thailand's future. People such as Sondhi Limthongkul and all the other leaches thrive in such a corrupt environment.

The Democrats had a lot of empty talk and have not done one bit for the upcountry poor. That's the basic reason why Thaksin was able to come up in the first place, and was re-elected - he promised and gave these forgotten sectors results.

Just look for example at the Chuan treatment of the Pak Moon folk and the Assembly of the Poor - stall meaningful talks, wait it out until the rain season when the people had to go back to their villages and get on with doing nothing. And yes, i know what Thaksin did with the Forum of the Poor, but my point is that the Democrat government was hardly as modern and good as you make it appear.

Abhisit i view as basically a good politician, but very little actual power does he hold in the Democrat party.

Yes, you are right about the fractions you mentioned, you forget though about Chamlong and the October generation folks - they have had very clear idiologies.

And Chamlong at least was highly influental in TRT, and still is, in the "new Thailand" as a member of the NLA. And if i may remind you - Chamlong, the staunch Buddhist, had appearantly no problem with the human rights violations during the drug war and Tak Bai. His problems with Thaksin, where he spoke out in public, were the Liverpool saga and the Shincorp sale (not the far more corrupt ShinCorp rise though).

[Tony Clifton]

Ahum!

Attempted to?

People's right to know suffered under Thaksin : PM

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Tuesday the "people's right to know" had suffered under the previous administration of Thaksin Shinawatra because of his government's "carrot and stick" approach to media management.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/07...es_30018321.php

That is sweet, coming from a government that calls in and chastises editors and journalists at every presumed critical report on the actions of that government, who still keeps a military presence in every TV station.

You seem to forget that Thaksin expected this media control to be permanent for his own propaganda purposes while the present government is only imposing it temporarily to avoid confrontations.

[ColPyat]

You seem to forget that Thaksin expected this media control to be permanent for his own propaganda purposes while the present government is only imposing it temporarily to avoid confrontations.

Yes, of course.

By the way, mate, i got a bridge for sale, excellent opportunity...

The problem is that unless you put a whole lot of people into prison, there will be confrontations. One thing i came to agree with the present government is, that there are clearly 'undercurrents'. The longer you keep the martial law and censorship - the more support and legitimisation will those 'undercurrents' get. But the earlier you lift it the faster you will see destabilising confrontations. Catch 22...

[Tony Clifton]

I predicted several months ago that Banharn would form the next government and the colonel said that would be idiotic and a step back for Thailand.

I was more accurate in my prediction of Khun Surayud.

The

The Democrats have had policies of decentralisation and educational reform for years, since their last government.

Very few Democrats defected to Mahachon or TRT, how many MPs did Mahachon have at the last election?!

Somsak Thepsutin is more powerful than Banharn.

The 'ideology' in TRT came from the founders and inner core which was a mixture of former Shinawat employees and Thaksin's former party Palang Tham.

The factions who joined later such as NAP led by Chavalit, Chart Pattana, Pinit, Suchart Damcharern, Sontaya never had any ideologies apart from being in government.

And i still say today that a Chart Thai led government is idiotic and a huge step backward for Thailand. If that's all what the demonstrations and the coup will have achived a year or so down the line than it's good night Thailand as this will not be by a policy platform but by backdoor politics of old faces switching parties. But maybe that is what you sort of people prefer for Thailand's future. People such as Sondhi Limthongkul and all the other leaches thrive in such a corrupt environment.

Is there a DNA/forensics expert among us who could help with that one?

Edited November 7, 2006 by Tony Clifton

[sriracha john]

As long as we're taking this stroll down memory lane, let's not forget what a kind gentleman Thaksin was just barely 2 years ago and how we should welcome him back and usher him back in as the leader of this great nation:

==============================================

Some 85 men and boys died after the military forcibly halted a rally outside the Tak Bai police station in the Muslim-majority province of Narathiwat on October 25, 2004, and arrested more than 1,300 people.

Seven people died of gunshot wounds; of the other 78, most suffocated after they were stacked on top of the other up to five layers deep in military trucks and left in the sun for up to six hours.

The post-mortem examinations reveal some of the dead had broken necks.

On the following day, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra flew to Tak Bai to congratulate the military for their handling of the protest.

He blamed the deaths on weakness from Ramadan fasting.

==============================================

I certainly miss his extreme sensitivity and gentle benevolence.

[ColPyat]

If we are presently talking about human rights violations, how about the Ratchaburi killings under the Chuan government (the time Surayud was army commander, incidently, if i am not mistaken, by the way...)?

If i may remind you people here?

http://www.burmalibrary.org/TinKyi/archive...2/msg00003.html

Security officials say the hostage-takers were killed in gun battles, and not executed. "It was either them or us," Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai said on Wednesday. But photos published in Khao Sod, a leading Thai newspaper, showed the dead gunmen stripped to their underwear, lying on the floor--one had his hands tied behind his back. Each had been shot in the head. When Thai security forces displayed the rebels' clothing and weapons at a press conference on Tuesday, none was stained with blood. The room where the killings took place bore no evidence of a firefight--no shot-up doors, windows or walls. Just four bullet holes from a pistol about 30 cm above the pools of blood on the floor.

Anyone responsible brought to trial after presentation of overwhelming evidence?

Chuan or anybody else forced to take "responsibility"?

I don't think so.

[Plus]

You didn't mention the prelude to that episode. Just a few months earlier Burmese took their own embassy hostage and Chuan personally made sure that there was no blood spilt. Next time around, when they took THAI hospital hostage, no one would listen to him. There was no mercy.

I don't see how it was his personal fault.