Election 06 - Place bets!

[GWR]

Thaksin IS capable of winning another election. It's only a matter of putting enough money down. He should have enough money to do that right now.

[Wisarut]

Sure he may be won again ... but he got very few, if any, MPs from the South, BKK and suburbs and urban area who havewatched Khun SOndhi

Now, even thsoe who live in Chiangmai/Chiang rai have BOOED Thaksin even though they have to take a risk from being abducted and burnt down like Lawyer Somchai by Ai Yongyut's Secret Police Networks :mad:

[Tettyan]

Sure, he's got the cash, he's awash with it now after the Shin sale.

I confess to being a bit mystified when it comes to rural politics. But is seems that not many the Bangkok-dominated media (which tends to look down own rural people anyway) really understand rural politics either, they seem to have frequently gotten things wrong in the past.

It seems to be conventional wisdom that Thaksin is still very popular upcountry. But the Rangsit University poll of select outer provinces (including the PM's home turf of Chiangmai and two provinces in I-san) that I posted in the "Almighty Leader" thread, indicates that he's actually LESS popular upcountry than in Bangkok!

The question is whether the opposition, which is poorly organized in the North and Northeast, can translate discontent with Thaksin into solid votes.

Here's the link to the article on the poll again for all your benefit: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/02/18/national/national_20001157.php

[Scuba22]

Here's my conjecture: Thaksin's basic message consists of a free lunch. If people still believe there is such a thing, he'll still have lots of support. If people start questioning these quick and easy solutions, he's toast. Thaksin's upcountry popularity will be directly related to how many people realize that this "giveaways" are really government loans and not personal gifts.

[Tettyan]

Now the true implications (or unintended consequences?) of the Constitution's infamous 90-day rule (requiring MP candidates to be a memeber of a party for 90 days before election) rears its ugly head. Originally, the rule was meant to undermine machivellian party-switchers like Sanoh and prevent MPs from being bribed to switch parties. So far, it hasn't sounded like a bad idea. But it turns out that in the event of a snap election, the 90-day rule becomes the "incumbent protection rule". With less the 60 days before the election, the opposition is left at an enourmous disadvantage in terms of recruiting candidates.

This was a matter I wanted to address in the constitution thread a while back but never got around to. I think the consitution should be amended to allow independent candidates to stand for office, provided that they collect a certain number of signatures from voters in a constituency, say 5000. Perhaps they should also look into reducing the 90 day rule to 60 days, or maybe 45 days. Sanoh wants it reduced to 30 days, but that would just bring us back to the days of party-hopping.

[Tettyan]

Something else to keep in mind about reading the rural electorate - last October's by-elections. Of the three seats in the north/central region that TRT originally won in February, they lost 2 and won the third by less then 500 votes. The Bangkok media predicted that the Phijit race would be a tight contest, but the opposition candidate ended up winning in a 20,000 vote landslide. The outcomes of the other two also ran against expectations.

I suggest the opposition continue their strategy practiced during the by-elections, jointly fielding only one candidate against TRT depending on which party is stronger in the given constituency. It'll save them some money, recruitment efforts and keep them from stealing votes from each other.

[Nekochan]

This reminds me to Phillipines during Estrada's era. That lasted only 2 years!! when people who had chanted his names during his victory earlier decided he needed to go (to jail, of course).

Mr. Lee Quan Yew visited Phillipines later after Mrs Arroyo sworn to duty. He had an infamous speech about democracy. I didn't read it. But it sounds like democracy requires education!! It was a slap on the face of Phillipinos implying they were uneducated and lacked of good judgement.

Why vote for someone whom you will driven out later?

Mr. Taksin will be back with less MPs for sure.

[The Enforcer!]

the "incumbent protection rule"
Yes - then great unwashed.

If someone has the conviction to be a member of A or B political party then they would have already been a member.

If the decision is based on how much someone in A or B will pay me then they do not deserve to swap parties!

The Enforcer!
[Lib Dem member since 1971!]

[The Enforcer!]

Give or take a Billion Baht ...

Thai Ka-Moy Thai 265

Democrat 160

Chat Thai 50

Mahachon 25

TRT majority 30!

The Enforcer!

[GWR]

Mr. Taksin will be back with less MPs for sure.

Don't hold your breathe expecting the above to come true. Thaksin's money will speak much louder than his personality (what personality?) or his policies (what policies?) on election day. Thaksin has already proved over two elections that he has the will and ability to pervert anything that is not going his way.

Have you noticed how much pro-Thaksin propaganda the TV stations are broadcasting under the guise of public information?

[mdechgan]

Out of 70 million Thais, is there anyone else than can be PM instead of Dr. Thaksin?

There is such a big difference in opinions between the urban, middleclass and rural areas.

For some reason I sense Thaksin's rural support will still keep him in power since they are still the majority.

I don't think much will change. He will stay in power, and protests will continue. Oh, and he will still be making loads of money.

[Scuba22]

Tettyan (and others):

Do people tend to vote more for the local person or the party? I'm sure it depends on the province/district, but overall. I ask because you brought up the 3 recent by-elections that TRT did poorly in. Did the opposition win because of the TRT candidates were tainted by Thaksin, or because the specific opposition politicians had more personal appeal in the given districts?

Also, what happens to an elected MP who refuses to toe the party line? If, for example, Sanoh wins his seat and is later kicked out of TRT, he doesn't lose his seat does he?

If TRT wins less than 300 seats, I bet we'll start seeing the party unravelling. It was always a party of convenience, with people jumping aboard the bandwagon because it suited their interests. There's no real coherent philosophy behind it, just one guy's megalomania, another guy's marketing plan, and a bunch of people who sign on because they think they can gain from these. As soon as the megalomania starts looking like a liability and the marketing plan loses steam, there's nothing to hold people to the party.

Cheers

Scuba22

[BangkokPundit]

Give or take a Billion Baht ...

Thai Ka-Moy Thai 265

Democrat 160

Chat Thai 50

Mahachon 25

TRT majority 30!

The Enforcer!

The Democrats would actually have to field candidates to win any seats.

Scuba:

Sanoh doesn't even hold a seat as an MP, he got in on the party list (http://www.thairakthai.or.th/application/DRSearch/DRSearch/Member.asp?sessionID=192). Section 118(8) of the Constitution provides that a member will cease to be a member of the House of Representatives if the MP's party passes a resolution, of at least three-fourths, removing that person from office.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with your views on TRT.

[Tettyan]

Do people tend to vote more for the local person or the party? I'm sure it depends on the province/district, but overall. I ask because you brought up the 3 recent by-elections that TRT did poorly in. Did the opposition win because of the TRT candidates were tainted by Thaksin, or because the specific opposition politicians had more personal appeal in the given districts?

As expected, there's no easy answer to this. If pushed for an answer, well, then Tip O'Neil's axiom that "all politics is local" applies. TRT's power is based on the logrolling of local power networks combined with the personal appeal of the party's leader. With both factors running strong for Thaksin last year, he won a landslide. He still has the local networks on his side by and large, though with the teachers (who are pretty influential in rural areas) campaigning against him, he'll have a tougher time. But he's still got the state bureaucracy at his disposal (let's face it, the man shamelessly uses STATE resources and assets to assit his PARTY's campaign - does this practice of muddling the boundries between party & state sound familiar?). As for his personal appeal, I think this is by no means a given (again, the results of the Rangsit poll - taken with a grain of salt). My point in bringing up the by-elections was that the final results ran against the expectations of observers in Bangkok. Reading the mood of the rural electorate is not easy - especially since villagers tend to be distrustful of opinion pollsters. The bigger problem though, I speculate, is that the Bangkok media usually couldn't care less about what upcountry people really think.


Also, what happens to an elected MP who refuses to toe the party line? If, for example, Sanoh wins his seat and is later kicked out of TRT, he doesn't lose his seat does he?

The Thai constitution requires all MPs to be a member of a political party. If you're expelled from your party, well, I guess you should have thought twice before choosing to run under that party's banner. With constituency MPs, a by-election is held. With party-list MPs, those seats were won by the party, so if you're out of the party, the next guy on the list gets the seat. See Pundit's post for details.

One other provision allows for an MP to leave his party and still keep his seat if the party acknowledges that the split was a result of "idealogical differences" that were irreconcilable. In that case, the Constitution Court has to verify certain statements and documents, and the MP is permitted to join a new party. A few months back, Thaksin hinted that he would allow the Wang Nam Yen faction this way out, if they didn't want to continue supporting TRT. Of course, this option is now off the table.

[Wisarut]

Now, Ai Sanoh alogn with Wang Namyen faction has resigend from TRT. Furthermore, korn Thappharangsee (teh former head of Chat Phatthana) has resigned from TRT Member .... :p

[GWR]

How many vote canvassers and minor candidates are going to die over this election. I suspect 200 wouldn't be too wide of the mark.

[Scuba22]

Sanoh doesn't even hold a seat as an MP, he got in on the party list.

Wow, I didnt' realize this. I assumed he had a constituency seat. Thanks.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with your views on TRT.

Fair enough. I assume your disagreement was about my assertion that the party has no coherent philosophical foundation? (Please correct me if you're disagreeing with something else).

As usual, I base much of my thinking from what I know of political parties in the west. Margaret Thatcher's Tories won power on a platform of privatization and free enterprise. Reagan's Republicans emphasized military superiority, conservative social values and free markets. The current US Republican Party has a libertarian free-market small-goverment wing, a neo-conservative wing, and a Christian fundamentalist wing all in a somewhat shaky partnership. The US Democratic Party has a bunch of special interests but mostly with a slightly leftish slant. Sure there are power considerations at play, and the philosophical underpinnings often get diluted in the reality of political horse-trading, but there is a philosophy nonetheless, or else you'd never get the massive political interest in issues that really don't touch many peoples' live directly, like abortion or gay marriage or flag burning or cloning.

Every analysis of Thai political parties I've ever read (McCargo, Pasuk, Baker, the usual cast of Thai political academics) says quite adamantly that Thai political parties have never had much ideological coherence but were rather practical groupings vying for power positions and ultimately control of state funds. Possibly one exception may be Chamlong's Palang Dharma with its Santi Asoke foundation.

Do you disagree that TRT is yet another "party of convenience" that numerous old-style power brokers and bosses such as Sanoh joined to jump on the bandwagon? Or do you really believe the rhetoric that the party, led by the richest oligopolistic corporate families in Bangkok and old-style provincial bosses, is really interested in grass-roots development and free open markets? I'd be very interested to hear your argument that families like the Maleenont's for example are really free-market capitalists at heart, despite their business practices (e.g. how BEC-Tero provides much of the programming to BEC-World's Channel 3, a government concession).

Do you also believe in TRT's stories about Thaksin the poor country boy selling roti by the roadside and pulling himself up by his own bootstraps to become a humble policeman and then miraculously getting rich through his brilliant business strategies and management skills?

I'm really looking forward to your perspectives on all this.

Best regards,

Scuba22

[Scuba22]

Reading the mood of the rural electorate is not easy - especially since villagers tend to be distrustful of opinion pollsters. The bigger problem though, I speculate, is that the Bangkok media usually couldn't care less about what upcountry people really think.

This is reminding me of the last general election in India, where the ruling BJP party was thrown out largely by the rural electorate in a complete suprise to the pundits who totally didn't see it coming. Yet as a result the urban media was shocked into realizing that the rural electorate not only mattered, but were decisive.

I see some evidence that this realization is slowly seeping into the Thai punditry classes as well. I've seen articles where anti-Thaksin groups do talk about taking their show on the road to the provinces, though I don't hear much about what's going on out there except the south.

I am amazed that the media (or at least the English media) doesn't report more of what's happening upcountry in terms of political interest. The Nation & Post make it sound like everyone wants Thaksin to resign. You'd think they'd at least have some local reporters in the Muang cities of major provinces.

Cheers,

Scuba22

[Scuba22]

So what does it mean if the Democrats and others boycott the election? If TRT and Thaksin return under a boycotted election, then what? How does this play out? Royal dissolution of government? Caretaker Anand-type administration? Constitutional reform?

Wow.

[Wisarut]

TRT used the loaded dices (measures such as coercion, frauds, bribe, intimidiation) to win the game (general election) on their favor (single party rule in the same way as Communist Party)...

So, it is better to BOYCOTT election to show that they have NO legitimacy to rule the country No matter how many MPs they have got ... Clear and Simple ONLY the termination of Life for PM Thaksin is the answer sicne so long he is still alive, he is still capable grab power for himself and his cronies ....

[Tettyan]

The following is a post I originally posted on the board at thaivisa.com. Apologies to those of you who may have already seen it :


People here really don't trust the "secret ballot." Most people have heard stories about how candidates use underhanded and devious ways to find out exactly who voted for whom. The police are often either complicit in this or they just look the other way, or they're just simply not enough of them to go around. If you have time, let me suggest the book Democracy, Development and Decentralization in Provincial Thailand by Daniel Arghiros. He covers several elections in the 1990s (local and national) in a village near Ayudhaya. And yes, in these cases, unbeknowst to villagers, the incumbent candidates did devise a clever system for verifying who voted for whom. Those of you who live in rural areas probably could relate to what's described in that book.

It's tough to verify how "free and fair" Thai elections under Thaksin are. As an ex-police officer, you can be sure that the police do his bidding. Even a pro-Thaksin friend of mine who works in the media believes that TRT cheated in the Bangkok constituencies in last February's election. It is said that while driving the ballot boxes to the counting center, the police stopped for "breaks" at police stations, where the boxes were stuffed before they were finally delivered to be counted. My friend believes that it was just simply impossible for TRT to win as many as 32 BKK constituencies.

[Scuba22]

Have there been any Thai elections with international monitoring? You think that might happen?

[Tettyan]

Have there been any Thai elections with international monitoring? You think that might happen?

I don't believe there's a record of international moniters observing Thai elections in the past. The chance of that happening this time around are probably close to nil.

[Tettyan]

This was written after the dissolution but before it was know the opposition was mulling an election boycott. It's not perfect, but they seem to sum up the issues more succintly and coherently than any reports from the Thai press so far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/international/asia/25thailand.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


February 25, 2006
Thai Premier Calls New Election but Refuses to Step Down

By JANE PERLEZ (The New York Times)

BANGKOK, Feb. 24 — Facing a storm over a tax-free windfall from the sale of his family communications company, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra asked the king to dissolve Parliament on Friday, forcing an early election.

Mr. Thaksin, 56, appeared on television and blamed his opponents for creating instability. "I will not accept the opinion of the mob," he said.

A broad coalition of opponents vowed that they would forge ahead with plans to put more than 100,000 people on the streets of the capital on Sunday in a demonstration that many fear may turn violent. They said the dismissal of Parliament and the election, set for April 2, fell short of their demand that the prime minister resign.

Mr. Thaksin, a successful businessman turned politician, won reelection in a landslide last year even as he tightened his hold on power, smothering dissent with populist programs for the rural poor and the stacking of major national institutions like the Constitutional Court with his supporters.

But the tax-free sale last month of a controlling stake in the Shin Corporation, the telecommunications giant that Mr. Thaksin founded, for $1.9 billion proved a step too far. The tax break led to charges that changes in financial rules just before the sale maximized Mr. Thaksin's family's profit, and that the prime minister had used his office to enrich his already formidable wealth at the expense of the public interest.

The sale, to the Singapore government investment fund, Temasek, has led many to complain that Mr. Thaksin, a professed nationalist, had sold strategic assets, like communications satellites, to a foreign country.

The huge Temasek fund is headed by Ho Ching, the wife of Singapore's prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong.

The deputy leader of the Democrat Party, Korn Chatikavanij, said Friday night that the opposition's election campaign would capitalize on the public outrage at the Shin Corporation sale and emphasize Mr. Thaksin's "murky" business dealings.

"When we were making allegations that his policies were designed to enrich him and those around him, suddenly that becomes clear with the Shin Corporation deal," Mr. Korn said. "People feel cheated."

Mr. Korn said his party faced a tough challenge against the prime minister's party, Thai Rak Thai, which holds 377 of the 500 parliamentary seats. But the Democrats are optimistic that the public clamor that forced the dissolution of Parliament will translate into a solid antiThaksin vote on April 2, he said.

Some of Mr. Thaksin's opponents have argued that he has breached conflict-of-interest laws because he failed to fully relinquish control of the Shin Corporation when he took office and that as punishment the family should forfeit the $1.9 billion.

Events moved swiftly in the last few days, leaving the seemingly invincible Mr. Thaksin with little choice but to face the electorate.

Chamlong Srimuang, a prominent mentor of the prime minister and a former governor of Bangkok, called on Mr. Thaksin to resign early in the week and said his followers in a Buddhist religious sect would join the protest on Sunday.

The last military leader of Thailand, Gen. Suchinda Kraprayoon, said Wednesday that to avoid possible violence Mr. Thaksin should ask King Bhumibol Adulyadej's consent to dissolve Parliament and call new elections. The king gave his consent on Friday.

After Mr. Thaksin's party swept the parliamentary election last year, the opposition Democrat Party was left in shreds, even in its usual stronghold, Bangkok. But it has taken on new life since the Shin Corporation sale.

Using the financial skills of Mr. Korn, a former investment banker who ran J. P. Morgan in Thailand before entering politics last year, the party has deconstructed the complicated deal for the public and used its findings to aid a burgeoning popular movement of students, teachers, the urban middle class and religious and social groups.

Mr. Korn sat in the party's coffee shop one morning this week with a friend who is an investment banker, a laptop between them, as they fielded calls on their mobile phones about "beneficiaries" and "nominees" and addresses in faraway places of offshore companies connected to Shin.

A graduate of elite British schools — Winchester and Oxford University — Mr. Korn said he was only beginning to unearth the fine details, but he said the basics were fairly clear. The law allowing foreign investors to hold a 49 percent stake in a telecommunications company was made final three days before the sale of the Shin Corporation was announced in January, he said.

The Finance Ministry, he said, made changes to the tax laws in December that no longer made it necessary to pay a 15 percent withholding tax on shares that were transferred to the seller at below-market value. The change saved the Thaksin family about $100 million, said Abhisit Vejjajiva, the head of the Democrat Party.

The government spokesman, Surapong Suebwonglee, said in an interview that the plans for increasing the stake for foreign ownership of communications companies had been discussed by the government for two years and was not a last-minute decision.

Mr. Surapong said the Thaksin family had abided by all laws in the sale of the company and noted that under Thai law there was no capital gains tax on share transactions. He said the public had been bamboozled by misinformation. Only a relatively small number of Thais — 300,000 to 400,000 — trade in the stock market, he said, "and only families in the stock exchange will understand."

Among the troubling aspects of the deal, according to Mr. Thaksin's critics, is the question of whether he really separated himself from the company at the start of his first term five years ago, as he has said, by turning control over to his children, who are in their 20's.

The company owns Thailand's biggest mobile phone service, communications satellites and a 50 percent share in a budget airline, Thai Air Asia.

Few people believe that the prime minister, a self-made man from humble origins in the northern city of Chiang Mai, has severed relations with the company he built into the nation's biggest media and communications company.

Officials in his last government said Mr. Thaksin had often talked of selling the company as a way of ridding himself of the appearance of impropriety. At the same time, they said, the prime minister arranged regulatory rulings that benefited Shin. One example they cited was speedy permission for Thai Air Asia to compete against Thai Airways, the national carrier, which had always been given preferential treatment.

[BangkokPundit]

Fair enough. I assume your disagreement was about my assertion that the party has no coherent philosophical foundation? (Please correct me if you're disagreeing with something else).


None of the Thai political parties have any philosophical foundation, as per the western tradition, so I am not going to disagree with you there. My point of disagreement, well I can't have stated more clearly, but wasn't in such a mood for a debate, is that you state Thaksin's (and thus by implication TRT's) basic message is a free lunch. Are you aware what the Democrat's policy on healthcare is? Scrap the 30 baht scheme and make it free. Now, if TRT's basic message is a free lunch, what is the Democrat's basic message (http://sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/?id=58)?

Your sole focus is on how bad TRT is, but you ignore all the other parties as if they are somehow different or better. I don't go around demonising the Democrats or the other opposition parties because I know they are all the same, parties of convenience. Over a number of years, I saw through successive governments the same thing, no coherent policy. The voters never got to choose parties based on policy. TRT certainly changed that.

Well, I don't care whether TRT members personally believe in grass-roots development and free markets/trade, I care what policies they are trying to implement. Compared with the Democrats TRT looks fairly good. Some of the Democrat's policies are very vague, although over recent times Abhisit has taken a more hardline. Their most recent policy on FTAs (http://www.democrat.or.th/polic_9.htm) was to review them to make sure they are transparent. That is a nothing policy. It doesn't say whether they support them or not? Abhisit has also talked about foreigners coming in to gobble up assets, but doesn't set out whether he will allow any foreigners to invest in the country. Abhisit has also made mention of renationalising state enterprises (http://sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/?id=218) which Thaksin sells. And you wonder why I support TRT policies?

[Tettyan]

JW (BkkPundit),

It's nice that you have Tom's posts laid out nicely for us to reference easily (where is Tom by the way, he's been conspiculously silent as Thailand goes through its biggest political upheaval in a decade?:confused: ). Anyway, Tom's posts tell only part of the story. Yes, Abhisit and the Democrats have said they believe the transmission grid should remain under state control. But he also said that they would have no objection if the power generation assets of EGAT were just spun off to become an independent power producer (IPP). Which sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to me, it's also consistent with the previous Democrat government's position described in the FEER article you cited. Certainly better than leaving a privatized EGAT with its monopoly intact w/o an adequate regulatory framework - see the EGAT thread for details.

I will concede that the Democrats platform in the last election was a mistake. Basically, they entrusted ex-communist Anek Laothamotats to draft an appealing platform against TRT. Anek basically left the Democrats with a document promising to outdo TRT on populism, and then jumped ship! Another problem of course is that the Democrats never really took the whole act of making manifestos very seriously - thinking people would support them by default because they were more "competant" than the alternatives. I think Abhisit has been working to change this (e.g. the "people's assembly" last October), but with less than one year on the job, his efforts havn't had much of a chance bear any fruit yet.

[Scuba22]

Your sole focus is on how bad TRT is, but you ignore all the other parties as if they are somehow different or better.

The reason I ignore all the other parties is because they're not in power. What's the point of attacking the weak? Doesn't it make more sense to call attention to malfeasance and incomptence by those who actually have some impact? It's the people with power we all need to keep an eye on. If and when the Democrats or anyone else comes into power, I'd certainly subject them to the same level of scrutiny.

The voters never got to choose parties based on policy. TRT certainly changed that.

You're right, and I agree with that. Having actual policy platforms was a major TRT innovation. However I do believe that the design and implementation of most of the policies they strongly advocated shows pretty clearly that these were mostly window-dressing to win votes rather than anything they really cared to make work. On the other hand, the activities they've been very good at - packing "independent" bodies, re-writing laws to their own benefit - were not part of any policy platform that they marketed to the electorate. Have you seen any big speeches by Thaksin in the villages about raising telecoms ownership limits to 49% or tax law restructuring?

I care what policies they are trying to implement.

Excellent, let's talk about those then. There's the publicly proclaimed policies that they run on, and the actual legislation they pass - the first is a subset of the second, and it's very instructive to see the things they do with little fanfare. As for the vote-getting policies, there are loan programs (GSB, GHB, OTOP, Village Fund, SML fund), TAMC, SOE privatization, and 30-B health care. Am I missing any major ones? I covered 30-B health care in another thread and you haven't responded. TAMC has been riddled with questionable refinancing deals. I've addressed SOE privatizations in another thread as well. And you don't see the loan programs as "free lunches" - indeed they aren't, but they certainly appear to be sold that way. Household debt has doubled since TRT's opened up the government purse-strings; you really believe all that cash is going for productive investment and we're not looking toward a wave of personal bankruptcies down the road?

Oh, I forgot the war on drugs- you a fan of that? Or how about campaigning for Surakiart's UN Sec-Gen bid - there's a useful policy. Or the fantastic progress in handling the situation in the South.

As for the unpublicized policies, let's consider packing independent agencies, turning over state concessions to your friends (Maleenonts and Channel 3 come to mind), and adjusting tax and ownership codes to your advantage.

OK, so which policies would you like to defend? What exactly has Thaksin done that you're so happy about? Thailand rode a global economic boom since he came to power and he takes credit. But when oil prices slow the economy down, it's someone else's fault. Opened a whole other thread asking for any evidence of the impacts of specific TRT policies and I got no takers. You claim to be a fan, great - so what do you like?

I agree that the Democrats don't have much of an alternative to offer, but that seems to me to be small reason for supporting TRT's mishmash. TRT has 377 seats in Parliament, a huge war chest, and until recently a massive amount of goodwill and trust from the people. What have they done with it?

And you wonder why I support TRT policies?

Least of all evils, is it? I find it depressing that the only choices are crooks and clowns.

Cheers,

Scuba22

[Scuba22]

"a self-made man from humble origins"

So much for accuracy in the New York Times - no one cares about fact-checking?

Scuba22

[Tettyan]

"a self-made man from humble origins"

So much for accuracy in the New York Times - no one cares about fact-checking?

Scuba22

I thought you would probably take issue with that, one reason why I posted that article. Sounds like a letter to the editor is in order.

[ncr]

So how many seats do you think TRT will win in the snap election?

(Reminder - 2005 election: 377 seats.)

[The Enforcer!]

Assuming the Opposition do fight the election, TRT will be around 265.

If the boycott goes ahead, they will get 490 or so!

The Enforcer!

[The Enforcer!]

So what does it mean if the Democrats and others boycott the election? If TRT and Thaksin return under a boycotted election, then what? How does this play out? Royal dissolution of government? Caretaker Anand-type administration? Constitutional reform?

Wow.
Two words - Military Coup.

The Enforcer!

[BangkokPundit]

On the other hand, the activities they've been very good at - packing "independent" bodies, re-writing laws to their own benefit - were not part of any policy platform that they marketed to the electorate. Have you seen any big speeches by Thaksin in the villages about raising telecoms ownership limits to 49% or tax law restructuring?


Because not every policy is going to be popular, you mention the good ones and hope your opponents don't spot the bad ones.

So the laws were solely designed to benefit only Thaksin? Really? Who are these independent bodies that Thaksin has packed? How he has done this? How has Thaksin managed to bypass the Senate?


I covered 30-B health care in another thread and you haven't responded.


Ok, have responded now. My apologies. Basically, I think the policy is moving in the right direction. I try to make a choice between policies I like, but the Democrats free healthcare doesn't wash with me. If there is not enough money under the 30 baht scheme, I would love to see how they are going to fund a free scheme.


TAMC has been riddled with questionable refinancing deals. I've addressed SOE privatizations in another thread as well. And you don't see the loan programs as "free lunches" - indeed they aren't, but they certainly appear to be sold that way.


Sold that way? By who? What, questionable finance deals in Thailand? Ok, as you say later, I see Thaksin as the lesser of two evils. Most of the people here seem to sit on the sideline and are happy to be against Thaksin/TRT, but what are you all for?

I am not a fan of the debt moratorium for farmers.

Household debt has doubled since TRT's opened up the government purse-strings; you really believe all that cash is going for productive investment and we're not looking toward a wave of personal bankruptcies down the road?

Before 2000 it was very difficult for poor/lower middle class to obtain credit cards or legal financing. I support the government changes to this. I mean people were (and I am sure some still are) borrowing money from loan sharks and this was off the books - so wouldn't be included in any household debt survey.

If people borrow me and can't pay it back, how is this Thaksin's fault? Not all this money comes from the state, what about private businesses? I will leave it up to them to access the credit risk. Previously, elitist policy was poor people below a certain income couldn't have credit cards (was it 20,000 baht?). TRT changed this. I don't se this as bad.


Oh, I forgot the war on drugs- you a fan of that?


Not particularly. Read this (http://sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/?id=187) and tell me, what do you expect Thaksin to do?

All Thai parties take a hardline policy on drugs. To me it is like tweedle dum and tweedle dee.


Or how about campaigning for Surakiart's UN Sec-Gen bid - there's a useful policy.


About as useful as the Democrats campaigning for Supachai to be the head of the WTO.


Or the fantastic progress in handling the situation in the South.


Ok, we probably agree here. I have different views from Thaksin on handling the situation in the South, but I am convinced Thai society wants a hardline approach and they will suffer the consequences of this. Nationalist sentiment is whipped up frequently on this issue - I imagine Thaksin will use it during the election campaign if the opposition parties bother to contest it and the Democrats will find great difficulty here.

I have been meaning to post about Thaksin's policy on the South and to criticise it, but I am struggling to think about a policy to replace his current one. Until I can, I will remain silent. Also, the Thai burecracy are somewhat resistant to change, particularly the military. They want a hardline approach and fighting them is very difficult. I mean the military is not known for following orders (http://www.seasite.niu.edu/hartmann/TranslationProject/a121_140/a130.htm).

You are somewhat fortunate in not being able to read Thai because you don't have to suffer through reading idiotic books by gits (http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/27Feb2006_news04.php) who don't follow orders and are now talking about military coups. Panlop is not unknown from making factually incorrect allegations (http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2005/10/libyanbacked_in.html). He has written a book defending his actions, which I understood sold very well. Skim reading on the weekend was bad enough. The book is pure lunacy. Sorry, for the rant.


As for the unpublicized policies, let's consider packing independent agencies, turning over state concessions to your friends (Maleenonts and Channel 3 come to mind), and adjusting tax and ownership codes to your advantage.


Own advantage? So only Thaksin benefited? I guess the laws will now be changed back because they were only set up to benefit Thaksin.


OK, so which policies would you like to defend? What exactly has Thaksin done that you're so happy about? Thailand rode a global economic boom since he came to power and he takes credit.


Really? So nothing to do with Thaksin's policies? I notice Germany hadn't been riding an economic boom.


But when oil prices slow the economy down, it's someone else's fault. Opened a whole other thread asking for any evidence of the impacts of specific TRT policies and I got no takers. You claim to be a fan, great - so what do you like?

Free Trade.... Privatisation (although stalled now).... Teacher Reform (again stalled).... Foreign Investment.... Possible Tax Reform... Law Reform Process... Trying to legalise a number of activities - the Democrats will of course make the former underground lottery illegal again.

Thaksin has tried to do a number of things which are politically unpopular but are necessary, ie reduction of the oil subsidy.

Corruption, well at least perceptions of corruption are down under Thaksin.

I think Thaksin has achieved quite a bit in the 5 years. You seem to make it sound so easy. This is a rhetorical question, but ask yourself, what did Clinton achieve policywise? Making changes is difficult. Just because not all the changes I want to be made have not happened, or that things are moving more slowly than what I like, this doesn't mean I am going to jump ship.... I have to jump somewhere and the Democrats (following their namesakes in the US) don't seem to stand for anything. They seem to be all over the place.

I am concerned that Thaksin will abandon many of the necessary reforms because they are difficult (so yes the Shin Sale annoys me because he lost political capital for reforms I want to see). If the Democrats were to suddenly

I wonder when everyone else will see who they support. Being against something is easy as you have little to defend.

[Tettyan]

(Scuba22: "Or how about campaigning for Surakiart's UN Sec-Gen bid - there's a useful policy.")

About as useful as the Democrats campaigning for Supachai to be the head of the WTO.

Apples and oranges, JW. Thaksin is wasting his time and taxpayers' money. Please see the Surakiart thread for details.


Really? So nothing to do with Thaksin's policies? I notice Germany hadn't been riding an economic boom.
Don't be ridiculous. Thailand didn't have to merge with a bankrupt ex-communist economy 15 years ago. Nor does it have the ridiculous type of labor market restrictions that saddle many continental economies. Also, don't forget that the previous government made a lot of the hard decisions for him.


Free Trade.... Privatisation (although stalled now).... Teacher Reform (again stalled).... Foreign Investment.... Possible Tax Reform... Law Reform Process... Trying to legalise a number of activities - the Democrats will of course make the former underground lottery illegal again.

I think Thaksin has achieved quite a bit in the 5 years. You seem to make it sound so easy. This is a rhetorical question, but ask yourself, what did Clinton achieve policywise? Making changes is difficult. Just because not all the changes I want to be made have not happened, or that things are moving more slowly than what I like, this doesn't mean I am going to jump ship.... I have to jump somewhere and the Democrats (following their namesakes in the US) don't seem to stand for anything. They seem to be all over the place.

I am concerned that Thaksin will abandon many of the necessary reforms because they are difficult (so yes the Shin Sale annoys me because he lost political capital for reforms I want to see).


BINGO! Thaksin himself is solely responsible for giving a bad name to many policies that I believe are good in principle. This I can never forgive him for. He entered office with an unprecedented mandate and goodwill - all of which he has squandered. With his abrasive manner, authoritarian style, refusal to listen to critics and intimidation of the press, he has limited political space while needlessly enraging many. His efforts to manage society and undermine checks-and-balances has caused tension in society to simmer to a boiling point. By pushing all his opponents into a tight corner, he leaves them little choice but to take to the streets. On the other hand, he yields only when he's really pushed into a corner, which only further encourages his detractors.

It all didn't have to turn out this way. If he had governed with a sublter style and delegated more authority, then maybe things would have been different. Thaksin's obsession with winning every battle (i.e. his control freakery) could end up causing him to lose the war.

Of course, it's too late for Thaksin to get a personality transplant now. Even if he did, he's already needlessly pissed too many people off, so it wouldn't help matters much. I think for him, the smartest course would have been to resign gracefully and hand over control to a caretaker government. This would leave the door open to a comeback in the future. But now he's thrown this option off the table too. In the end, he has only himself to blame.

Looking at Latin America, I am appalled by the rise of left-wing movements there. But when you take a look at the "establishment" parties there, can you really blame them? The left-wing and labor movements have historically been relatively weak in Thailand, but now their clout is growing, all thanks to Thaksin. None of this was inevitable.

Regards,

Tettyan

[BangkokPundit]

Apples and oranges, JW. Thaksin is wasting his time and taxpayers' money. Please see the Surakiart thread for details.

I have seen the thread and I have posted in that thread. I am sorry there is no difference. The Democrats wanted Supachai to win to help them and for national pride - to help them in the elections. If anything, over the last month or so I would say Surakiart's chances have improved. It looks like it will be an Asian candidate this time.

You are entitled to your opinion on Surakiart, but I disagree with your opinion.


Don't be ridiculous. Thailand didn't have to merge with a bankrupt ex-communist economy 15 years ago. Nor does it have the ridiculous type of labor market restrictions that saddle many continental economies. Also, don't forget that the previous government made a lot of the hard decisions for him.


Scuba's argument was that it was the worldwide economic boom and Thaksin was just claiming success for Thailand's economic success during Thaksin's first term. I disagree and Germany was just an example and as you kindly point out that the importance of domestic policies on the economy. Yes, the Democrat's policies helped, but I believe it was TRT policies initiated in 2001 which were a greater factor - remember GDP growth was low in 2001.

I also disagree with yours views on Thaksin's squandering opportunities. Reform is very difficult. Reform affects people dramatically and the status quo. In some ways, Thaksin has been too ambitious, he tried to achieve too much. Perhaps, Thaksin should have tried to focus on one or two areas for reform and left the rest alone, but then again that is difficult to do - you guys would be criticising him left, right, and centre for not doing enough. That is politics. No matter what you do, people won't be happy.

By way of example, I recently heard a former US journalist talk very warmly (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1570667.htm) about Ronald Reagan and his reform program. Basically, it was successful because his plan for reform was simple.

[Scuba22]

Wow, this is getting fun!

Because not every policy is going to be popular, you mention the good ones and hope your opponents don't spot the bad ones.
So the laws were solely designed to benefit only Thaksin? Really?

If there’s widespread benefit, then why would these policies not be popular? Why would you not publicize them as strongly as you publicize your giveaway programs? Is it just coincidence that the laws and regulations that provide the most benefit to himself and his cronies are the very same policies that they never talk about – hoping that no one spots them? If everyone is benefiting, you’d think they’d make more noise about it; yet it’s only after a lot of digging that these changes are seeing the light of day. Why is that, do you figure?

Who are these independent bodies that Thaksin has packed? How he has done this? How has Thaksin managed to bypass the Senate?

The Constitutional Court votes 7-guilty, 4-not-guilty, and 4-court-has-no-jurisdiction, and this is somehow an 8-7 win for Thaksin. The NBC list is packed with cronies. People question the credibility of the Elections Commission. The AMLO investigates journalists who criticize the government. The NCCC is nowhere to be seen in scandal after scandal – what happened to the Alpine Golf Course scandal? the CTX scanner scandal? Where are the investigations?

Corruption under this government is a high art, and often completely legal – the best corruption always is. The days of fat envelopes passed under tables are gone. Now we have cross equity holdings and preferred shares without voting rights and nominee accounts instead. Who needs to bypass the Senate when you control it?

Most of the people here seem to sit on the sideline and are happy to be against Thaksin/TRT, but what are you all for?

I can tell you what I am for: reality that actually reflects the rhetoric of TRT. Thaksin says a lot of stuff that sounds good, but in every case I see, the reality is far from the rhetoric. Situation analysis is superficial, implementation is incompetent, but advertising is top-notch. See below for an extended discussion of credit schemes; I go into the same for health care in the other thread.

I am for democracy and capitalism. Democracy is a system where people are in a position to make informed decisions for their own political futures. This requires an educational system that prepares people to think for themselves and open media where multiple points of view can be expressed. Capitalism is a system where markets are open to competition under a fair playing field regulated and adjudicated by a credible government.

Thaksin’s rhetoric is about these things, but his actions are anything but. When better education correlates with lower support, you can’t expect him to be interested in an educated public. The media situation hardly needs further comment. And as for capitalism, Thaksin is hardly a poster boy.

This is my biggest gripe about Thaksin – he talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk, and that make the opposition move leftward because it seems that’s the only space available.


Before 2000 it was very difficult for poor/lower middle class to obtain credit cards or legal financing. I support the government changes to this.

Excellent, let’s talk a bit about credit and the poor. One of the best global thinkers on this is Hernando deSoto, who’s been referred it in various TRT credit schemes. deSoto’s thesis is basically that credit for poor people is limited largely due to lack of formal property rights – if you can’t prove you own a piece of land, you can’t borrow against it commercially. He further says that “legal” property ownership (meaning the official registered ownership) in developing countries is often far off-kilter from “actual” property ownership (meaning what’s happening on the ground). You see this phenomenon in Bangkok where large plots of empty land are colonized by squatters – somebody owns the land legally, but in fact the squatters are actually making use of it.

de Soto proposes that no system of property rights can survive with such a big gulf between reality and the law, and what needs to be changed in the legal structure. The law needs to reflect the facts on the ground, and the courts must be set up to protect those actual property rights. This, he points out, is a key difference in western countries, where federal property rights tended to develop based on local situations, vs. developing countries where central authority led by national elites tend to create top-down structures that often have no bearing on actual situations on the ground. A great example of this in Bangkok was the whole Chuwit affair on Sukhumvit Soi 10 (tell me if you’re unfamiliar with this and I’ll get into it).

If you follow this argument, then the real need is to first understand the actual property ownership structures at the local level. Usually, the locals know pretty well who owns what – the classic example is when you move from one persons property to another, a different dog barks. The courts may not know who owns what, but the dogs do. Then, you need to codify that reality in a formal system of titling. Finally, you need a credible independent judiciary to settle disputes.

If you have these elements in place, then the commercial sector can score credit risk adequately and lend against tangible property. de Soto, as finance minister for Peru, started doing exactly this in local district by local district, and it has proven quite successful.

Notice that NOWHERE in this analysis does it say that “government should be lending people money”. Yet that’s exactly what TRT’s policies do, while claiming to be inspired by deSoto.

Now, I can see providing seed funding for new microfinancing organizations, since as Grameen and others have shown, managing microlending requires some different operational practices as traditional retail banking. But that’s not what TRT does. TRT simply makes loans available through a plethora of state-run institutions. That ain’t free market reforms, that’s socialism.

In every single “grassroots development” policy that TRT shouts about, I see exactly the same kind of shallow superficial thinking and short-cut solutions that don’t address real problems.

(continued...)

[Scuba22]

Continued from previous post...

Really? So nothing to do with Thaksin's policies? I notice Germany hadn't been riding an economic boom.

OK, so tell me what Thaksin policies have been responsible for the economic gains since 2001? Were Thaksin’s policies responsible for Chinese infrastructure growth or US consumer spending, both of which accounted for massive export growth? Or are you claiming that credit-driven consumption increases are a good thing?

Free Trade.... Privatisation (although stalled now).... Teacher Reform (again stalled).... Foreign Investment.... Possible Tax Reform... Law Reform Process... Trying to legalise a number of activities - the Democrats will of course make the former underground lottery illegal again.

I support free trade, but I have no idea whether the FTA’s he’s signed actually constitute free trade or make specific tradeoffs of certain industries he’s not interested in for others where he is involved. This is why transparency in FTAs is not a “nothing issue”, it’s actually one of the most critical issues of the day. If free trade and globalization are going to deliver their potential benefits, they need to be understood by people and seen as equitable. Can you say this about any of the FTAs he’s done?

Privatization is a red herring. The real issue is proper management and open competition, both of which are far more difficult but not impossible under SOEs. Temasek, for example, runs very good companies despite being state-owned. Privatization done right can be wonderful, privatization done wrong gets you Russia. We can go down the list if you like: TG, PTT, EGAT – all have serious problems.

Teacher reform – what exactly is this anyway? What good does decentralization do in and of itself? It’s yet another pseudo-reform that sounds great but contains much less than meets the eye. Thaksin will never be interested in real education reform. He’s never show the slightest interest in others thinking for themselves, and the worst-educated people are his strongest supporters.

Foreign investment- what’s he done? What does “possible tax reform” mean? What law reform has he implemented?

I agree with legalizing the lottery. I also agree with legalizing prostitution and drugs – if he does these, I’ll support it.

As for the oil subsidy – I don’t think that was a matter of choice. It was totally unsustainable.

I think Thaksin has achieved quite a bit in the 5 years. You seem to make it sound so easy. This is a rhetorical question, but ask yourself, what did Clinton achieve policywise? Making changes is difficult.

I think Clinton’s biggest achievement was to give the Congress something useless to worry about so they didn’t screw things up that really mattered. Apart from that, he got started on welfare reform, which still needs work, but unlike the 30-B scheme, was well thought out, innovative, and implemented with sincerity. His economic team bailed out Mexico and worked through the LTCM crisis after Russia defaulted. He worked with NATO to bring peace to Bosnia. And he came damn close to a landmark Palestinian-Isareli peace deal. Of course he made mistakes – Somalia, not supporting Thailand in 97, national health care – but there’s no way you can say that he didn’t achieve anything policywise – and remember he had a hostile legislature to boot. But most importantly, I think he demonstrated interest and curiosity in the world around him, respect for competence expertise and talent, and a tireless work ethic.

Now as for Thaksin, if you want to keep buying his rhetoric, that’s your right. But from everything I see, and the more I learn, the more evident it is to me that he is not what he claims to be. His fantastic policy successes – putting himself and his cronies in positions of wealth and power and beyond the reach of the written law – are neither democratic nor capitalist. They are feudal, despite his rhetoric. He keeps them hidden from view while trumpeting “development” efforts based on shallow analysis and incompetent implementation. You have to suspend far more disbelief than I can muster to keep believing his line (do you buy his latest – that he wanted to pay the tax on the Shin Corp deal, but that regulations wouldn’t allow it!)

I’m yearning to see a party that really believes in the free market and an informed electorate. I’d like to see that in the US as well as here, as I don’t see that in either Democractic Party. But the Republicans, like the TRT, are not that either. Both are simply self-serving corporate welfare addicts (based on infrastructure and media here, defense and security in the US) pretending to be capitalists. I find that far more repugnant than honest communists.

Cheers,

Scuba22

[Scuba22]

By way of example, I recently heard a former US journalist talk very warmly about Ronald Reagan and his reform program. Basically, it was successful because his plan for reform was simple.

From your source:

"...Ronald Reagan only had four ideas... they were to cut taxes, to reduce the size of government, and to build up the military to confront communism, and to raise the pride and morale of the American people by persuading them that they were God’s chosen people."

1. Cut taxes - you agree with the "deficits don't matter" crowd?
2. Reduce the size of government - Reagan actually increased it
3. Military buildup to confront communism - this is a fabulous myth. The USSR was collapsing from within and only the ideologues didn't see it - because they didn't want to. The military buildup was totally unnecessary; you interested in arguing this?
4. God's chosen people - that's serving us well to this day, eh?

Yep, pretty simple.

Oh, by the way, 2001 was the end of the tech boom, with stock losses creating a negative wealth effect and cutting down imports. The wealth effect heated up again after than as housing prices started their ascent which continues to this day. This is still sustaining the consumption boom in the US, and hence export from Thailand.

I'm fascinated to read your account of what TRT policies were responsible for Thai economic growth in the past 5 years!

Cheers,

Scuba22

[Tettyan]

I have seen the thread and I have posted in that thread. I am sorry there is no difference. The Democrats wanted Supachai to win to help them and for national pride - to help them in the elections. If anything, over the last month or so I would say Surakiart's chances have improved. It looks like it will be an Asian candidate this time.

I don't want to get too far off topic, but I do want to set the record straight. A senior US diplomat I talked to a few months back basically said bluntly that the Bush Administration doesn't find him to be an acceptable candidate. Doesn't matter that Surakiart has the backing of ASEAN - they don't sit on the Security Council and they don't hold veto power. China said they find Surakiart acceptable, but for them any Asian would do - they also had nice words about the Sri Lankan. Quite frankly, it's rather dumb for Surakiart to boast he is "China's candidate" - it only makes Washington's resistance even stronger. Not to mention the lack of respect for Thaksin from BOTH Democrats and Republicans in the US Congress - especially over the Burma issue. Also, Thaksin's declaration of "neutrality" after September 11 doesn't help - Thaksin knows he made a mistake here and corrected it, but it's not the type of thing the White House forgives easily - notice how Thaksin has not once been granted a formal state visit in Washington in his 5 years in power despite the fact that Thailand is officially a US ally.

The next Sec-Gen being Asian is by no means a given. There are three officially declared candidates from Asia, and at least 2 more likely to join the fray. If "Asia" can't come to a consensus on a candidate, the job could very well end up going to someone else.

We can continue this in another thread if you like.

[Tettyan]

I also disagree with yours views on Thaksin's squandering opportunities. Reform is very difficult. Reform affects people dramatically and the status quo. In some ways, Thaksin has been too ambitious, he tried to achieve too much. Perhaps, Thaksin should have tried to focus on one or two areas for reform and left the rest alone, but then again that is difficult to do - you guys would be criticising him left, right, and centre for not doing enough. That is politics. No matter what you do, people won't be happy.

We could spend all day discussing the merits of neo-classical economic policies and the extent to which Thaksin has been faithful to "reform". But to me, what supersedes all of this is his complete disregard for political institutions. Everyone who defends Thaksin talks about the importance of "stability." But long-term, sustainable political stability is not brought by keeping the same bastard in power - it is accomplished through the development of strong political institutions, the rule of law and a system of checks and balances. The new constitution, though not perfect, provides a good foundation for such institutions to develop. But from day 1, Thaksin has sought to emasculate and stack "independent" institutions, from the Election Commission, the Senate, the NCCC, I could go on. Before the Constitution Court dubiously aquitted him in his assets concealment trial, he questioned the court's right to "overturn the wishes of 11 million voters" (rough translation). The man has shown time and again his disrespect for institutions and the rule of law - witness the drug war, to which you provide (no offense) the rather pathetic excuse of "tweedle dum and tweedle dee" - as if extra-judicial killings of 2000 suspects took place under the previous government!?

Gotta run now, but in the meantime, you should really take a look at the works of de Soto if you havn't yet.

[Wisarut]

Fre trade agreement/ Sound good. however, the Actual practices have already turned Framers in Chaingmai and Chaing Rai into beggars! (except those who have deep pockets and Business deals with mainland China of course!) .... Now, the FTA with Australian and new Zealand are goign to turn the owners of vineyards as well as the dairy farmers in Central region and even Isan into the beggars as theit fellow farmers in the Northern farmers ...

The Northern Farmers badly want to revolt but Gestapo of the North has tgreathen the farmers that they willsend theri men to Shoot thsoe farmers and dump them into Mekhong if they REVOLT -> either against FTA or the Great Leader :eek: ....

The Gestapo from Chaingrai also sends his men in both Central and Isan region to Threat & cow farmers farmers NOT to go against the leader's policy -> Otherwise, they'll throw into Tiger cages and Crocodile pits ... in the same ways thsoe top brasses in Khaki have done before extracting confession from the innocent victims. :eek: After all, Gestapo of Chiangrail used to be a man in Khaki before,soit is not a surprise at all that he will keep practicing this kind of coercion.

[Scuba22]

[QUOTE=Tettyan] long-term, sustainable political stability is not brought by keeping the same bastard in power [QUOTE]

Indeed, I would claim that "long-term sustainable political stability" is DEFINED as "orderly transfers of power over time". Stability can only be determined at times of power change.

[ncr]

Somehow this news didn't get much attention yet....? So it's official now. (Or can it be imagined that they / some of them will backtrack?)

An excerpt from this (http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=82083) Bangkok Post article ("Thaksin 'must quit' by Sunday"):

[...]

The Sanam Luang protest gained a huge impetus when Mr Thaksin backhanded an opposition proposal for political reform and the three non-government parties who had MPs in the last parliament announced they will neither field candidates nor barnstorm in the election Mr Thaksin called for April 2. The Democrat, Chart Thai and Maha Chon parties announced they will boycott the April 2 Lower House election, after Prime Minister Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai party refused to agree to their demands on political reform.

"He was not sincere," said Ong-art Klampaiboon, spokesman for the Democrat Party. "It's too late now for him." The three opposition parties wanted to meet with the Thai Rak Thai Party to initiate real political reforms, but Mr Thaksin on Monday afternoon said that all registered parties should join the talks, even those with no members of parliament in the dissolved Lower House.

"I agree in principle on the proposed political reform," Mr Thaksin told a press conference at the headquarters of his Thai Rak Thai Party. But he immediately refused to sign a ratification with the three opposition parties with MPs, as the Democrats, Chart Thai and Maha Chon demanded. The premier said he would allow participation of all the registered political parties and various sectors of society to participate in discussions of constitutional amendment. He promised an independent panel, which then would lead to a popular pact signed by all the parties concerned. "A popular pact is more meaningful than the proposed four-party ratification," he said.

At that point, the leaders of the big three opposition parties announced they will boycott the entire April 2 election. "The Chart Thai, Democrat and Maha Chon agreed unanimously that we will not field candidates in this election," Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva told reporters after a joint party meeting. He spoke for all three parties, and he was flanked by the other two party leaders, Banharn Silpa-archa of Chart Thai and Maj-Gen Sanan Kachornprasert of Maha Chon. - Bangkok Post, agencies

A country in limbo.

[ncr]

Some more from The Nation's protest diary (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/02/27/headlines/headlines_20001652.php):

(Monday, 27 February 2006)

5:40 pm: The opposition coalition announces the boycott of the election. Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva tells the press conference that the Democrat, Chat Thai and Mahachon will not meet Thaksin at 6 pm. He says the three parties will not field candidates in the election because Thaksin tried to distort the spirit of real political reform proposed by the three parties. Abhisit says Thaksin's counter-proposal would run against the principle of political reform and would complicate the reform.

5:45 pm: Thaksin says "I've done my best" when he learns of the opposition's decision to boycott the election and refusal to attend a meeting with him.

6:00 pm: Thaksin holds a meeting with small parties at Parliament.

[...]

6:53 pm: Suwit Watnoo, an announcer, tells the crowds the opposition has boycotted the election.

Samran Rodphet, another announcer, urges the demonstrators to boycott the election.

[...]

7:20 pm:

[...]

Thaksin gives interview to reporters after a meeting with small parties that the Thai Rak Thai will go on "carrying out our duty". He says although the Chat Thai, Democrat and Mahachon would boycott the election, there are 10 other small parties, which will participate in the election.

[2 Cents]

Wowww, I was just cought up with my work for few days and there are so many things to keep up :eek: .

Again, I would like to thanks everybody for a very good and informative discussion regarding the election (and policies).

Scuba22, regarding your question about how Thai people elect their representative. I believe most Thai tend to choose base on personal rather than party. This probably because of the royalty system in Thai society along with the fact that political parties in Thailand don't really have any stand point in their policies or political philosophy. You can easily see the different between Republican and Democrat here, but that's not the case in Thailand. Thai politics has always been about selling policies that will get them the votes, however, I don't think it has ever gone this far.

If I can ask everyone here a question (before I head back to work again :( ), what's the implication of this Boycott by the opposition parties? Is this an attempt to prevent Taksin from coming back? Is it a legitimate procedure? (I saw Scuba22 asked the same question, but has not yet been answered).

[GWR]

One wonders how you vote if you are on the side of the boycotting parties. Apparently, that is one of the reasons why Abhisit is touring the south this weekend; to inform the locals how to deal with it.

Truthfully, I'm not at all convinced that boycott is the answer. It might actually end up destroying the last vestige of opposition.

I've long heard that there are penalties for not voting, but no one seems prepared to tell me precisely what they are. I get some vague comments about 'Well, it might affect your job prospects', which leaves me wondering how employers get such information. I guess there is also the option to spoil the card or leave no mark on it. This would be my preferred option, but the electoral system is so obviously flawed that I'm sure the PM is capable of corrupting this option or persecuting those who do it.

[2 Cents]

One wonders how you vote if you are on the side of the boycotting parties. Apparently, that is one of the reasons why Abhisit is touring the south this weekend; to inform the locals how to deal with it.
I'm not in Thailand and didn't vote last time. However, I was told that you can vote but intstead of choose any candidate, you can choose the งดออกเสียง optinion.

Truthfully, I'm not at all convinced that boycott is the answer. It might actually end up destroying the last vestige of opposition.
I've tried to make sense of this boycott thing. I had a hardtime understand the implications of it, then I ran across a recent article in the Economist (or somewhere else I don't remember ), they said the reason for the opposition to boycott this election is because they expected the next government to be a short-live one. Since they only have enough money for just one election, they wanted to use it on the election that really matter (which is the one after this one). I don't know if this is true though.

I've long heard that there are penalties for not voting
Actually, I don't think penalties for not voting promote democracy in anyway.

[admin]

Before I post on the front page, please take a look at the pro-Thaksin rally photos and help me verify who all the politicians are...
http://www.2bangkok.com/06/mar3rally.shtml

[Scuba22]

I understand the boycott completely. If I may use a metaphor...

Suppose I challenged you to a boxing match in a stadium that I built, with a crowd I picked, with a childhood friend of mine as referree, plus you have to tie your right arm behind your back, and i get to use a knife.

Would you agree to those rules?

I am exaggerating of course, but the issue is the same. If you honestly believe that the game is rigged unfairly to favor one contestant, then integrity demands that you don't participate in the farce.

Thaksin wants to show his legitimacy in the current system. The opposition is basically saying that Thaksin has made the system illegitimate and is not trustworthy. If you really believe that, then you need to get rid of him before you start reforms. Otherwise, it would be like trusting those elections in Iraq where saddam got 99% of the vote.

Sure, the opposition is taking this course for their own power purposes as well as the principle, but for either, I can't see them backing down. i really don't see how the situation can move forward with Thaksin as PM. It's just too late for the opposition to back down, IMO. You just can't run a country if the middle class is totally pissed off at you, even if you have tons of support in the villages.

Scuba22

[dingo]

at first i thought the boycott thing was a bit reactionary,
then came to a couple of conclusions.

-- if the opposition picks up more seats, at best they win
enough to bring a no-confidence vote forward. but in all
likelihood it will fail because the TRT will still be in control.
then they loose the ability to do this again for some period
of time (i think i got this right - only did a fly-by reading
of the thai constitution).

-- we have to assume that the opposition knows enough
about the districts to know which ones will/will not get the
minimum 20% turnout. enough of these low-turnout
districts and the election is invalidated.

-- failing that, not participating denies taksin the face-
saving aspect of the whole process. what the opposition
is really giving up in control by giving in the seats they
have now in parliment - i am not sure. but i imagine it
doesn't really provide much anyway (witness the last
five years - and particularily the last year).

regards,

--dingo

[GWR]

Think no report on a Thai election would complete without a few pictures and reports of its worst excesses; and funny bits. Thai politics is out & out slapstick and tomfoolery.

By some accounts, folks travelling to Thaksin's Jamboree got free train tickets. It isn't clear whether SRT were forced to dish free tickets out, or if folks were just given enough money to cover the tickets. Of course, this is nothing new. So we're paying tax to fund a despot's public relations campaign. The tax offices have kind of sprung to life since Thaksin took over.

[ncr]

Here's an additional complication: I think I heard on the TV news that TRT will not field any candidate in some constituencies in the South (like happened in the recent by-election in Satun).........

What will happen then? They will not send any MPs to Bangkok at all (unless provided by participating 'opposition parties' like Thai Farmers and whatnot)? :confused:

Well, it's easy to predict that the new parlaiment will be a farce in any case...

[ncr]

So how many of those farmers and motorbike taxi drivers were bought?

Look at the people in these rally pictures (http://www.2bangkok.com/06/mar3rally.shtml).... Well, I don't condemn them; I rather pity them, for they have no idea how insidiously they are taken advantage of.

[Wisarut]

Well, many motorbike taxi drivers are actually POLICE .... since I could detect their Colt.45 and 11-mm revolvers on their right hip ....

[Scuba22]

The pro-government rally reminded me of Tiananmen Square in 1989. At first, the government tried to break up the protesters using troops from Beijing, but the Beijing troops knew what was going on and refused to attack the protesters.

The government had to ship in troops from the countryside, where information was more tightly controlled, and the troops were led to believe that the protesters were simply hooligans hoping for violent overthrow of the state.

The troops felt they were doing a patriotic duty by killing the students, they were completely duped.

As Yogi Berra said, "it's deja vu all over again"

Scuba22

[2 Cents]

[QUOTE=Scuba22]The pro-government rally reminded me of Tiananmen Square in 1989. At first, the government tried to break up the protesters using troops from Beijing, but the Beijing troops knew what was going on and refused to attack the protesters.

The government had to ship in troops from the countryside, where information was more tightly controlled, and the troops were led to believe that the protesters were simply hooligans hoping for violent overthrow of the state.[/b]

Scuba22,

That's nothing new in Thailand. What do you think the government tell the troops during May 1992 protest? I was there and one group of polices told me they came from other province and was told to come to Bangkok to fight communist. :mad:

[Scuba22]

2 cents - wow, that's amazing that they just flat out lied to people in the provinces. the more I think about this, the more I feel that both in Thailand and the US, too many progressive-minded people have ignored the rural countryside, and that's created the opportunity for crooks and liars to set up ther shops. In Thailand they use the peoples' good nature and poverty by promising them money; in the US they use the peoples' religious feelings and patriotism by promising them safety from "enemies" - but it's all just a power-play.

I really think "we" who complain about the crooks really need to take our show on the road and get out into the countryside, and not just for a couple of weeks before an electon, but for the long term.

As for me, my wife has family and land up in one of the provinces. I'm going to try to put my thinking into action by spending more time up there, trying to understand what's going on, and getting involved in local community activities.

Scuba22

[ncr]

Pnet will not monitor April 2 election

The People's Network for Election and the Asian Network for Free Election announced Saturday that they would not monitor the April 2 election.

Pnet coordinator Somchai Srisutthiyakorn told a press conference that the Pnet would participate in monitoring the election only after Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra resigned to pave way for another caretaker government and the election date is postponed to be at least 60 days after the House dissolution.

Kalapaea Dutta, representative of the Asian Network for Free Election, told the same press conference that her organisation saw that the April 2 snap election would not be fair as there was only one major party to contest it.

She said her organisation would not monitor it for fear that it would be regarded as endorsing the fairness of the election.

(So much for the farce that this is going to be.)

http://203.154.97.18/breaking/read.php?lang=en&newsid=116546

[Wisarut]

Now Thaiinsider.com has reported that the leader with Square Face has TOTALLY control over election result through Fraud and Intimidiation ....
and totally control Election Commission of COURSE!

They can change the Ballots that vote for the Oposition into TRT within a single blink of Eye of course ... Even the SHAMEFUL Election fraud by the Golden Horse Clan at Pak Nam NEVER come closed to 2005 Election Fraud .... :eek:

http://www.thaiinsider.com/ShowNews.php?Link=News/NaNaJitTang/2006-03-04/18-48.htm

[2 Cents]

Scuba22,

I should make it clear that the cops are not the one who shot people, it's the troops. However, I was too busy running for my life to talk to them. There were several groups of polices standing outside the fenced area (the troop came in from Sa Pan Hua Chang, and they blocked all the road outlet around that area. Luckily, I am a woman, so they let me out), and those are polices I talked to. I wouldn't be surprise if those troops were getting the same message.

Your comment about Thai and US is absolutely right. It will be hard to bring the info to rural and make them understand, but yes, someone got to start doing something.

I want to thank you from my heart for what you are planning to do for our country. I truly appreciate your effort.
:)

[Scuba22]

Don't thank me yet, all I've done so far is write! :-) I'll let you know how things turn out!

Scuba22

[Scuba22]

Comments, anyone?


Thaksin can rely on Thai villagers
By Thomas Fuller International Herald Tribune

SUNDAY, MARCH 5, 2006
BAAN SUKSOMBOON, Thailand: From her wooden stilt house surrounded by rice paddies, Sudjai Srimongkol stared down at her grunting piglets and chirping chicks Sunday, shrugging off a question about the tens of thousands of antigovernment demonstrators that had gathered a six-hour drive away in Bangkok.

"I've never heard anyone here complain about Thaksin," Sudjai said, referring to Thaksin Shinawatra, the embattled Thai prime minister. "Everyone says he has helped them a lot."

Thaksin faced on Sunday what his opponents said would be a decisive moment in their campaign to oust him.

Demonstrators warned of civil disobedience and vowed they would not go home until the prime minister removes himself from politics. The police were expecting at least 50,000 protesters to turn up.

But here in the country's vast and populous rice-farming heartland, Thaksin's popularity approaches adoration. Farmers and owners of small businesses say their lives have been transformed and that their incomes have doubled during Thaksin's five years in power.

"Even if someone paid me I wouldn't go to an anti-Thaksin demonstration," said Suwat Laocharuen, the village chief of Baan Nonsawan, a short drive from Sudjai's stilt house. "We just love him."

With about two-thirds of Thailand's population of 63 million living in rural areas, Thaksin remains a very popular prime minister - outside of Bangkok, that is.

Both Thaksin and his opponents agree that the prime minister's party will win the most seats in the election scheduled for April 2. But in a sign of the deepening split between Bangkok and the provinces, the opposition, which draws much of its support from Bangkok and parts of southern Thailand, has decided to boycott the election.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, the leader of the Democrats, the main opposition party, says the election boycott was done in the name of democracy.

"Thaksin has tried for so many years to reduce democracy to numbers," Abhisit told a gathering for foreign journalists last week. "Democracy is not all about elections. It's also about rights, about participation, about the need to have a strong, stable government as well as one that is transparent and respects the rule of law, subject to checks and balances."

Thaksin's opponents say he has stripped key institutions in Thailand of their independence - the courts, the press, the anticorruption authorities - and that he uses his power to further his business interests, most recently with the selloff of his telecommunications and media holdings to the Singapore government, the deal that set off the latest round of protests.

The only way to save Thai democracy is for Thaksin to resign, his opponents say.

That argument does not wash with Suwat, the village chief.

"It's not fair that a leader gets two- thirds of the vote and then is brought down by street demonstrations," he said.

In a country with a long history of messy coalitions, Thaksin revolutionized Thai politics. His Thai Rak Thai party was the first in the country's history to win an absolute majority.

In the February 2005 election, Thaksin won nearly 19 million out of 31 million votes cast - about 60 percent. By Thai standards, it was a huge landslide.

In many rural areas, his party swept all of the seats.

Thaksin cemented the loyalty of rural Thais with a three-year moratorium on their debts and a government program that offered 1 million baht, or $26,000, to every village in Thailand, which residents could borrow for small business ventures.

Partly as a result, rural incomes increased 29 percent in 2001, the first year Thaksin was in power, 23 percent the next year, and by double digits for the following years up until last year, when the average annual rural income was 31,923 baht, according to the Rural Development Information Center of the Interior Ministry.

If Thaksin is removed from power, residents here say they will be bitter.

"Of course I will be angry," said Muthita Shinpromma, a resident of Baan Suksomboon who works at a factory stitching Nike sweatpants for 145 baht a day.

"Thaksin is helping people at the grass roots," she said.

Thaksin also began a health program allowing Thais to obtain any medical treatment for just 30 baht per visit.

Ask Prachan Gaewchamlong, 41, why he supports Thaksin and he lifts his shirt to reveal a series of scars. A serious motorcycle accident last year left him with a broken jaw, ribs, and hip. He paid 30 baht for his treatment, he said.

Prachan, a rice farmer who thatches roofs in his spare time, says he is convinced that people who are demonstrating against Thaksin are being paid to show up.

The passions of the university students, professors and professionals protesting against Thaksin suggest otherwise but such is the mistrust in Thai society today.

Thailand is of course not the only country with a polarized electorate. Some compare Thaksin to President George W. Bush.

Closer to home, there are striking parallels with the Philippines and the impeachment trial of the former Philippine president, Joseph Estrada, five years ago.

As with Thaksin, Estrada was a populist figure loved by the poorer segment of society but despised by the elite and intelligentsia. Estrada was deposed in a people power revolt in 2001.

[GWR]

Certainly wouldn't disagree with any of this. But this probably explains why Taksin is so anti anyone who wants to look at the whole picture. Take a look at Kamnans & Puyaibans over the years, and it is obvious that if you prime them with a little bit of money they will soon brainwash the whole village. Hence today's endorsement of Thaksin by these local dictators. Think of it like this. Your average villager can't spare money for the more expensive papers, so the Puyaiban arranges for a copy of a more partisan and cheaper paper to be on the newspaper stand in the Village Public Sala. Some villages can't even afford a paper or a Public Sala. And your one million baht per tambon will almost certainly have Thaksin's name plastered all over anything it builds. Anyone who bucks this trend tends to end up dead or ostracized. How easy it is to label someone as a drug dealer! He's got Thailand by the short & curlies!

[dingo]

Comments, anyone?
....
Thaksin cemented the loyalty of rural Thais with a three-year moratorium on their debts and a government program that offered 1 million baht, or $26,000, to every village in Thailand, which residents could borrow for small business ventures.

Partly as a result, rural incomes increased 29 percent in 2001, the first year Thaksin was in power, 23 percent the next year, and by double digits for the following years up until last year, when the average annual rural income was 31,923 baht, according to the Rural Development Information Center of the Interior Ministry.
....


question, not comment. i don't see the correlation. i had always
assumed that village funds were the equivalent of micro loans. ok,
in theory good idea and have worked well elsewhere. but are these
loan programs directly attributable to >20% year-on-year income growth?
or are they really talking about increases in spending? then drawing
on a credit line is not income. seems a bit far-fetched to believe.
and considering that basically nobody in these provinces even files
taxes, i can't see how they can even make these claims.

it would be good to see stats on what money is going out, loan
conditions, and what is coming back in. the money coming back in
would be a better indicator of the health of this program.

--dingo

[GWR]

As featured Frontpage:

http://www.2bangkok.com/

Election "not secret?" - April 3, 2006
A report from the April 2 voting: X was disturbed by the spot where you mark the ballot was positioned in such a way as to allow others to see how people vote. Nation Television (really Nation TV) reported a lot of complaints about that fact alone and speculated that it could be cause for nullifying any election results, as this would go against the Constitution. There have also been complaints from voters showing up to be told there were no pens available and that there no had been no money to buy pens, so they had to use the stamp.
X said also that the ballot itself was changed without notice. In the past, a "no vote" selection was always at the top. Now, Thai Rak Thai is at the top, and the "No Vote" is at the bottom. X said it seemed easy now for others to tell if you were marking "No Vote."

Not to mention moving Polling Stations out on tents in the street where anyone can gawp at voters. I woke up this morning to witness one of the local addicts (irony of ironies!) intimidating the local psychiatric case into voting TRT.

Locals seem to have been forewarned on the vote stamp issue and went armed with a whole load of red pens to make the mark.

I don't understand what's happening in Songkhla. There is some rumor going around that Polling Stations never even opened in some areas. Some folk are putting this down as yet another Thaksin punishment for any area he deems recalcitrant.