PM's brother: Preecha stands firm by wife and son amid controversies

[elgordo38]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

saying he did not care about recent public criticism of their alleged involvement in inappropriate activities.

Well folks there is your answer. I guess this attitude runs in the family. When your at the top of the heap why care about the minions grovelling at your feet. This statement shows you one of the root causes of this country's problems they just do not care. 

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

What would you replace it with?

 

Any Thaksin led government is also full of full of cronyism, nepotism and corruption. (Your words, not mine.)

 

The Democrats are not that much better At least Suthep is no longer there, but the dinosaurs in the party committees ARE still there.

 

So which party do YOU think should run the country?

 

Which party? The one that gets elected and decided by the people mandate. If it is a pro-military party, and elected fairly, so be it. That's the people choice. Democracy is not hard to understand right from the days of the Athenians. 

[billd766]

20 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

 

Which party? The one that gets elected and decided by the people mandate. If it is a pro-military party, and elected fairly, so be it. That's the people choice. Democracy is not hard to understand right from the days of the Athenians. 

 

But democracy does not come cheaply or quickly in any country. In the UK it took around 1,200 years for just the English King John to sign the Magna Carta back in 1215 and another few hundred years after that before true democratic elections came along.

 

So 98 years ago only 58% of men were allowed to vote and no women. In 1918 only 40% of women were allowed to vote and it took another 10 years before all men and women were allowed the vote.

 

That was only 4 years before Thailand went from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy and both men and women were allowed to vote from 1932.

 

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/

 

During 1916-1917, the House of Commons Speaker, James William Lowther, chaired a conference on electoral reform which recommended limited women's suffrage.

 

Influential consideration

Only 58% of the adult male population was eligible to vote before 1918. An influential consideration, in addition to the suffrage movement and the growth of the Labour Party, was the fact that only men who had been resident in the country for 12 months prior to a general election were entitled to vote.

This effectively disenfranchised a large number of troops who had been serving overseas in the war. With a general election imminent, politicians were persuaded to extend the vote to all men and some women at long last.

Representation of the People Act 1918

In 1918 the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification to vote. Although 8.5 million women met this criteria, it only represented 40 per cent of the total population of women in the UK.

The same act abolished property and other restrictions for men, and extended the vote to all men over the age of 21. Additionally, men in the armed forces could vote from the age of 19. The electorate increased from eight to 21 million, but there was still huge inequality between women and men.

Equal Franchise Act 1928

It was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that women over 21 were able to vote and women finally achieved the same voting rights as men. This act increased the number of women eligible to vote to 15 million.

 

When were full voting rights granted in the USA for ALL its citizens? Sometime in the latter half of the 20th century at a guess. The USA imported much of its early laws from England until the 1776 revolution and since then it has been modified many times.

 

Poor old Thailand has only had since 1932 and 84 years to get it right and IMHO that are not there yet. Many of the older and poorer people in rural Thailand rely on the Pu Yai Ban, village elders etc to suggest to them how they vote and who they should vote for. It is not that they are stupid or ill educated but just they they aren't interested or don't know that much about politics to care. They realised after years and decades that it doesn't matter who is in government as they will still get screwed anyway.

 

I am 72 and I truly don't think that the Thai people will get ANY decent politicians in my lifetime. My wife is 50 and perhaps she will see some decent politics. My son is 12 and he will certainly see some momentous changes for the better once the current lot of politicians die off and a newer, younger and hopefully more caring generation come along.

[JAG]

There is one big difference though.

One of the prime ( public) justifications for overthrowing the elected government was that it was guilty of exactly the same sort of cronyism and nepotism as this.

I agree about the need for a cultural change. That can only come from electoral pressure. That takes time. Well the Junta are talking 20 years.

Mind you Thailand has to get through the imminent "perfect storm", which may well wash away many institutions.

As for political experience - well I will not comment other than point at the preponderance of Generals heading ministries. ..

[billd766]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

 

There is one big difference though.

One of the prime ( public) justifications for overthrowing the elected government was that it was guilty of exactly the same sort of cronyism and nepotism as this.

I agree about the need for a cultural change. That can only come from electoral pressure. That takes time. Well the Junta are talking 20 years.

Mind you Thailand has to get through the imminent "perfect storm", which may well wash away many institutions.

As for political experience - well I will not comment other than point at the preponderance of Generals heading ministries. ..

 

 

Using your example of generals running ministries what did you think of Yingluck becoming PM with no political experience either, and even going as far as making herself the minister of defence in one of her routine cabinet reshuffles?

Edited September 21, 2016 by billd766
Yet another speelung mustook

[JAG]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Using your example of generals running ministries what did you think of Yingluck becoming PM with no political experience either, and even going as far as making herself the minister of defence in one of her routine cabinet reshuffles?

 

 

Not much, (although I think she made a better fist of a lot of the job than some "professionals" might have,  but (and I know you expect me to say this) she became Prime Minister as a result of winning a general election, which to my mind confers immensely more legitimacy than leading a military coup.

 

At the risk of going round in circles, my point about the generals was in response to a claim that she and her ministers had little political experience

[Smarter Than You]

.

[Smarter Than You]

On 20 September 2016 at 10:21 AM, seajae said:

no, they are not hypocrites like you lot trying to make out this is the only time it has happened, the thaksin/ptp govts were very big on this sort of crap but then again all of the thai govts have been. Its not a matter of who anyone favours, they are all as bad as each other. The only way to stop this sort of thing is to make it illegal for any family/close friends to even get to put in submissions for anything to do with the govt, this in itself would remove a lot of the back handers that we are constantly reminded of.

That's funny..... when it was an elected government in power you were one of the cheerleaders who said the only way to stop "this sort of thing" was with a coup.

 

Why aren't you calling for another coup now?

 

Hypocrisy, that's why!

[Smarter Than You]

On 20 September 2016 at 1:34 PM, billd766 said:

 

What would you replace it with?

 

Any Thaksin led government is also full of full of cronyism, nepotism and corruption. (Your words, not mine.)

 

The Democrats are not that much better At least Suthep is no longer there, but the dinosaurs in the party committees ARE still there.

 

So which party do YOU think should run the country?

What would you replace it with......... how about hold an election and let the Thai people decide who to replace it with, how's that for an idea?

"So which party do YOU think should run the country"............How about lets find out who the Thai people want to run the country!

 

 

[AGareth2]

Good man

what is the point of being in power if you can't enrich your family

[billd766]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

 

 

Not much, (although I think she made a better fist of a lot of the job than some "professionals" might have,  but (and I know you expect me to say this) she became Prime Minister as a result of winning a general election, which to my mind confers immensely more legitimacy than leading a military coup.

 

At the risk of going round in circles, my point about the generals was in response to a claim that she and her ministers had little political experience

 

Your last line is the most telling. Quote "At the risk of going round in circles" which sadly Thailand seems to have been doing for the last few decades.

[tukkytuktuk]

Corruption in the premieres family, never. You'll have the dsi round and be another statistic in unsolved suicides if you say otherwise. No checks no balances, let the cake carving begin. Shh!

[starky]

On 20/09/2016 at 2:34 PM, billd766 said:

 

What would you replace it with?

 

Any Thaksin led government is also full of full of cronyism, nepotism and corruption. (Your words, not mine.)

 

The Democrats are not that much better At least Suthep is no longer there, but the dinosaurs in the party committees ARE still there.

 

So which party do YOU think should run the country?

Well then if all the government's are the same and you are going to accept the fact that nothing will ever be changed then the illegal coup should be voided and the original elected government returned to power. I have no love for the Thaksins but if the junta fan club is gonna throw up this there all the same nonsense then surely the majority elected government should be in power. It's a decision for the Thai people.

[heybruce]

On 9/19/2016 at 11:16 PM, seajae said:

unlike the ptp, what a joke, the ptp was just as bad if not worse. What is needed is a law that stops any family members from getting any govt contracts etc, that is the only way this will ever be stopped.

Good idea.  Why doesn't the junta that seized power to stop corruption "Article 44" such a law into existence? 

 

Could it be that they seized power on a false pretext?  Nah, not the people djjamie and others have put on such a high pedestal.

[JAG]

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Your last line is the most telling. Quote "At the risk of going round in circles" which sadly Thailand seems to have been doing for the last few decades.

Hmm, arguably, and I tend to agree, although I suspect from a different standpoint.

 

However, in this case I'm afraid you have taken the quote out of context.

A poster asserted that one of the failings of the Yingluck government was the lack of conventional political experience in her and some of her ministers.

I replied that most current ministers are generals, with no political experience.

You then asked me what I thought of Yinglucks lack of political experience vis a vis the current crop.

That's what I meant by going round in circles.

[BlindMagician]

On 9/20/2016 at 5:49 AM, Alive said:

This regime needs to go. It's full of cronyism, nepotism and corruption.

Yeah. Problem is, they would only be replaced by more of the same. It's a cancerous self perpetuating problem.

[ldiablo72]

 

What would you replace it with?

 

Any Thaksin led government is also full of full of cronyism, nepotism and corruption. (Your words, not mine.)

 

The Democrats are not that much better At least Suthep is no longer there, but the dinosaurs in the party committees ARE still there.

 

So which party do YOU think should run the country?

The party that is elected by the people of Thailand. Not very difficult now is it.

[ldiablo72]

 

What would you replace it with?

 

Any Thaksin led government is also full of full of cronyism, nepotism and corruption. (Your words, not mine.)

 

The Democrats are not that much better At least Suthep is no longer there, but the dinosaurs in the party committees ARE still there.

 

So which party do YOU think should run the country?

The party that is elected by the people of Thailand. Not very difficult now is it.

[joecoolfrog]

Some years ago I had a girlfriend from Nong Khai , she was an enthusiastic Thaksin supporter. The daughter of a school teacher she was fluent in English and quite worldly wise , she enjoyed debating ' serious ' issues.

I could never tolerate Thaksin , thought him an outright crook , albeit a shrewd one , and made my point strongly.

To my surprise she agreed with me , was fully aware that Thaksin was manipulating the rural poor to his own advantage , however she made the following points ;

Before he came along , no politician gave a damn about the people of Isaan , they were openly despised. Now Thaksin may have only offered scraps , and his support of the poor may have been artificial and self serving but , and its a very big but , he offered something wheras nobody before had offered anything.

 

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

Some years ago I had a girlfriend from Nong Khai , she was an enthusiastic Thaksin supporter. The daughter of a school teacher she was fluent in English and quite worldly wise , she enjoyed debating ' serious ' issues.

I could never tolerate Thaksin , thought him an outright crook , albeit a shrewd one , and made my point strongly.

To my surprise she agreed with me , was fully aware that Thaksin was manipulating the rural poor to his own advantage , however she made the following points ;

Before he came along , no politician gave a damn about the people of Isaan , they were openly despised. Now Thaksin may have only offered scraps , and his support of the poor may have been artificial and self serving but , and its a very big but , he offered something wheras nobody before had offered anything.

 

Exactly.  The people of Thailand have never known anything but corrupt government.  Before Thaksin the corrupt governments kept power and wealth centered in Bangkok.  Thaksin recognized that sharing  a little of the wealth with the poor, who made up the majority, was an election winner.  Anyone who was in Thailand in 2000 or before understands why; the disparity in wealth, infrastructure, and opportunity between Bangkok and the north and northeast was even more extreme than now.  Bangkok was building up state-of-the-art first world infrastructure while the majority of the country lived in third world conditions.

 

The obvious counter to Thaksin was to steal his idea--improve the lot of the poor majority--and improve on it.   However the "born to rule" crowd, blinded by their own sense of entitlement, could not accept this.  For this reason the party representing the entitled, the misnamed Democrat party, decided that it was better to do without elections and democracy than to try to win elections by promising to govern for the benefit of all of Thailand.

 

The tragically comic part of all this is that voters have short memories, they always vote with a "what have you done for me lately" attitude.  If the coup had not happened and the proposed July 2014 election been allowed, the PTP would have received far fewer votes.   The people recognized the failures of Yingluck's government and would have happily transferred their loyalty and votes to another party which promised to do better.  Of course this would have further entrenched in the people's minds that power belongs with them, not the elite and the generals.  The generals couldn't allow that.