babyoiy Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 No doubt, I voted for Abisith.. What's your answer Robbie dear? I haven't catch up with this stuff lately, rarely switch on telly to see what's going on.. Too lazy to read over the net. Who can update me on this, shortly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Talking of Prem, there is a persistent rumour that he is about to step down as head of the Privy Council. Now these might simply be malicious rumours put about by the pro Thaksin crowd but, if true, it would go some way in healing some of the rifts that exist out there. Maybe. Maybe not. If his supporters feel he was pushed out because of Thaksin and Samak, they might also want revenge. Hard to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispilok Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 I'm sure Abhisit has never said Isaan people are stupid, but it wouldn't surprise if some Democrats have.But yes, I'm sure Isaan people have been told that he said that about them. Just as they have been told that xxxx loves Thaksin and Prem is the big evil and controls xxxx. People who say that must have a really low opinion of xxxx. If Abhisit wants to win up there, he's gonna have to make it his mission to go there as often as possible and meet as many people as possible - and not just during campaign season. And when they say things like that to him, just tell them the truth. But I think the Democrats should also be less "gentlemanly" and start swinging below the belt like their opponents do. It's gonna take a long time for them to start winning some seats up there, but you have start fighting for it now. As a casual outside observer this makes a lot of sense. If you want to be a majority party you can't cede the most populous part of the country. Perhaps Abhisit is not the best person to lead that fight though due to the cultural reasons Venus mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 That's open to debate. I'm not sure if he is or he isn't. But one wouldn't have thought that Robert Kennedy, the scion of an incredibly wealthy and powerful East Coast family, would have been embraced by the poor either - yet he was. Likewise, one wouldn't have thought a billionaire telecoms tycoon from Chiang Mai would hold any appeal to poor farmers in the northeast. It depends upon the individual. The right individual can transcend cultural barriers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venus Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 [ Perhaps Abhisit is not the best person to lead that fight though due to the cultural reasons Venus mentioned. i doubt that... i dont prefer k. aphisit personally - i voted him because he seems to be the best choice that we have... and i wanted to give him a chance to be our pm.. to give a chance to him to prove himself.. i really doubt that if k. aphisit was not a "khun noo" who comes form a decent & well-off family but was a son of a farmer who had to fight hard for everything in life - he would probably be our pm by now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venus Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Likewise, one wouldn't have thought a billionaire telecoms tycoon from Chiang Mai would hold any appeal to poor farmers in the northeast. one thing i admire k. taksin is that he have built what he had (before pm time)... i really hope that he learns from his mistakes and the mistakes that he had made changes him to be a better person.. oh well, he has said that he has changed.. obviously, that he is coming back.. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Likewise, one wouldn't have thought a billionaire telecoms tycoon from Chiang Mai would hold any appeal to poor farmers in the northeast. one thing i admire k. taksin is that he have built what he had (before pm time)... i really hope that he learns from his mistakes and the mistakes that he had made changes him to be a better person.. oh well, he has said that he has changed.. obviously, that he is coming back.. :roll: But how did he build it? I have to give him credit for seeing the opportunities that existed and pursuing them with real determination. But, unlike his self-propagated myth of having started off dirt poor, he did come from a reasonably well off clan, had the necessary family/political connections to get the contracts and concessions necessary, and certainly wasn't above using unsavory and/or illegal methods to get what he wanted. If he really started off dirt poor, was unconnected, and did everything above board, he wouldn't have stood a chance. Just as if Abhisit was the son of a rice farmer, it's extremely unlikely he would be the leader of the Democrats today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venus Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Just as if Abhisit was the son of a rice farmer, it's extremely unlikely he would be the leader of the Democrats today. oh really... ? i look at it from a different point. i personally think that he would probably be our pm by now if he was a son of a decent farmer family who would have to fight so hard to get everything in life. (decent education and position in the Democrats party, etc., at least, he whould have known/learnt how to get things his way in the hardest way. like a pm position - its not going to fall into his head - if he really wants it - he has to try harder to get it.. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Yeah, really. I said it was unlikely, not impossible. I don't know what kind of rice farmer you are imagining him as the son of, perhaps a wealthy rice baron? But if he were the son of an average rice farmer then he would be a very different person, not the Abhisit you know, and there are no guarantees that no matter how hard he fought or struggled that he would have been able to rise to high political office. In any event, he's not the son of a rice farmer, so no point speculating on make believe scenarios. He is who he is. And I certainly don't see him sitting back and expecting the premiership to be handed to him. If he was like that, he'd be moaning and whining like a sore loser over the election results. Instead, he's been a gentleman about it. Maybe too much so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venus Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Yeah, really.I said it was unlikely, not impossible. I don't know what kind of rice farmer you are imagining him as the son of, perhaps a wealthy rice baron? But if he were the son of an average rice farmer family then he would be a very different person, not the Abhisit you know, and there are no guarantees that no matter how hard he fought or struggled that he would have been able to rise to high political office. In any event, he's not the son of a rice farmer, so no point speculating on make believe scenarios. He is who he is. And I certainly don't see him sitting back and expecting the premiership to be handed to him. If he was like that, he'd be moaning and whining like a sore loser over the election results. Instead, he's been a gentleman about it. Maybe too much so. now that you under-rate a son of a farmer ( working class).... i happen to know a few who have become who/where they want to be... educated in england and being very successful in thailand.. i really believe that if k. aphisit was not from a well-off family - he would probably manage to be at where he is today - maybe a few years later or sooner.. as he always said/say that he loves politics and he realises that since he was very young.. what i meant to say is that k. aphisit is good but seems to me that he gets everything easily in life... if life had been tougher for him.. he would probably know how to get things his way better... at least, he would have known how to fight... better. of course, he is not sitting still - but he could do much better.. oh well, as being a "khun noo" he, probably, does not know how... enough of discussion about k. aphisit - am off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duanja Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 me think if PPP won't get dissolved, the leader of PPP, which happens to be Samak, would be the P.M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted January 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 But I think the Democrats should also be less "gentlemanly" and start swinging below the belt like their opponents do. I couldnt agree with this comment more. I truely wonder about the Democrats sometimes. They simply believe they are entitled to power rather than they have to fight for it. Aphisit is a truely nice and capable guy (I was at school with him) but I wonder about his leadership qualities. Maybe someone like Korn would show more true fighting spirit. Their decision not to fight the 2005 election caused much of the current political crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 But I think the Democrats should also be less "gentlemanly" and start swinging below the belt like their opponents do. I couldnt agree with this comment more. I truely wonder about the Democrats sometimes. They simply believe they are entitled to power rather than they have to fight for it. Aphisit is a truely nice and capable guy (I was at school with him) but I wonder about his leadership qualities. Maybe someone like Korn would show more true fighting spirit. Their decision not to fight the 2005 election caused much of the current political crisis. If you are talking about the 2006 election which they boycotted, I can't agree with that at all. That's actually a spurious claim being promoted by Thaksin supporters to blame his opponents for a crisis he created. And of course, it's always fashionable to blame the Democrats. There was no need for an election at that time. There had been an election exactly one year earlier. He sold his company and the public perception was that there were corrupt or unacceptable aspects of the deal. Public opposition to him was mounting among the urban middle class. He said he would deal with this by answering all questions about the deal in a special session of parliament, as he said everything was above board.. Then he changed his mind. Instead, he said, I'll dissolve the House and call another election, and after I win, no one can ask me about this deal. That was wrong. It was not a legitimate reason to call an election. It is essentially saying, I won't answer questions about whether or not I broke the law or did something immoral. Instead, I'll call an election and win. My votes are more important than the rule of law. Imagine if in 1973, Richard Nixon could have ended all the Watergate investigations by dissolving Congress and calling an election. Same thing. Now, the Democrats had just lost an election the year before. Competing in an election is an expensive proposition. They don't have Thaksin's deep pockets. How are they supposed to go back to their backers and say give us more money so we can lose another election? Instead, by boycotting the election - which was perfectly legal - they fought TRT to a draw. And frustrated by that, the TRT decided to break more laws and get themselves into deeper trouble. All this could have been avoided had Thaksin kept his word: when he vowed to answer questions about the deal in parliament, and when after the 2006 election he came out of a meeting with a very important person in this country and announced he would not accept the premiership and instead take a break from politics. Two months later he was changing his mind. At that point, I believe, certain elements decided he had to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted January 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Well Loburt I am sure this is a subject that you and me will always disagree on. I believe that the Democrats should always have fought Thaksin through the ballot box and I believe they could have won. I believe a coup was unnecessary. Bangkok had already turned against Thaksin - his days were numbered... I believe the very support that allowed the coup to happen would have brought the Democrats back into power or at least into credible opposition. Still not much point in talking about what might have been.... We have one hell of a mess to sort out now.... Incidentally it doesnt really answer my question whether Abhisit is the right person to head the Democrats. Or whether he is simply to nice, too posh, and too naive.... Thai politics is afterall a dirty world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 I'm not saying whether a coup was necessary or not. But blaming the Democrats for it is simply wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted January 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Well it looks like we will have a new PM - Samak. (1) The Supreme Court has ruled that PPP was not a nominee for TRT (it is a little hard to be a nominee for something that does not exist.) (2) The EC has endorsed 460 MPs enough to form Parliament. (3) Other cases including one against Samak acting as a nominee for Thaksin have been dropped. So a coalition with about 315 MPs - six parties - should be formed with Samak as PM and the Democrats as the sole opposition party. It all looks a bit like the set up before the coup except for the fact that this coalition line up looks somewhat more 'corrupt'. It all has a slightly 'unreal' feeling to me. I dont think trouble can be avoided for long. I hope I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 My understanding is that the Supreme Court did not rule that the PPP is not a nominee for Thaksin and the TRT. It dismissed the case on the grounds that a) only the Election Commission can file such a complaint and in any event the court does not have jurisdiction. It is a matter for the Constitutional Tribunal. Frankly, they should have said those things the day after the complaint was filed instead of waiting all this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venus Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 anyone saw "k. choowit" on telly yesterday? actually, democrats should employ "k. choowit" to be their official spokesman - just for k. samkak & k. banharn ... :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venus Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 an yes... how could i forget to mention k. chalerm... :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted January 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 an yes... how could i forget to mention k. chalerm... :roll: Can someone explain how this guy gets to be interior minister? Lets not forget his son (Duangchalerm) shot an off duty policeman at point plank range in a night club - club 20 - Rachada a few years ago. Mysteriously noone saw it and he got off.... despite the fact the night club was packed... It was not the first time he had got into a fight... He is a thug and a bully... Looking through the cabinet line up it doesnt look as though there is one credible minister. It doesnt even look like they are going to get a professional finance minister (assuming one would agree to join). Its a bit of a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duanja Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 These are what I think about the Dems and they also apply to Mr. Aphisit's political position: 1. "Asking H.M. to appoint P.M." is a symptom of immaturity syndrome. It is like the child who runs and asks for parents' s help when one is going to lose the game. 2. Knowing that one side will lose in the election, so let's boycott it! It is like a child knowing that it will lose, so just refuse to participate in playing. Again, immaturity. 3. Fault-finding the elected government in every possible aspects; but feels comfortable with coupmakers' grand corruptions. 4. flip-flop political ideology (or not having any) : Attacking PPP's social policies harshly ( 30 baht's Health Care and the village funds) for years; but later plagiarizing them as if they believe them to hearts! Moreover, people can not believe that Dems believes in these policies. The Dems might just say afterwards : oh...our country has no money enough so we have to the budgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Well, those are interesting criticisms considering that a) they never asked HM to appoint a PM (they suggested that if Thaksin could not end the stalemate that he should instead consider resigning and asking HM to appoint a caretaker, and that's not the same thing that the PAD etc. were proposing) it is somehow "mature" politics to call an election for the purpose of avoiding answering questions, as promised, about alleged criminal deeds, conflicts of interest, tax avoidance and selling national assets. and of course, mr. samak is very mature, so maturity is obviously an important qualification for PM c) that during a time of great national duress (the economic crisis) their opponents did nothing but smear them (remember Tarrin), and pledge if elected to not tolerate corruption (because we're rich already so we don't have to steal), and then after getting elected engaging in massive corruption (estimates are that 30% of the $4 billion spent to build the airport when to corruption). so the Dems are allowed to be criticized, but they are not allowed to criticize. hmm.. interesting. Maybe that's why Thaksin's Election Commission tried to have the party dissolved on the charge of "criticizing the government.'' What an intriguing interpretation of democracy - parties running against the government in an election can't criticize the government because it is illegal. d) if they don't support populist policies then they are accused of not caring about the poor but hey, don't let facts get in the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted January 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 I have quite a lot of sympathy with Duanja's interpretation of the failings of the Democrat party. I think they are capable in government and lousy in opposition. But there is no point in squabbling over the past. I am deeply uninspired by the new government (as I guess are most people) but they have at least been elected through the democratic process. And I will take a crappy elected government over a military junta (even a relatively benign one) any day. I guess I will have to wish them well. I cant even bring myself to condemn the so called '*****' parties - PPP and Chart Thai - for joining the coalition. They were in a tough position. The Democrats never had enough seats to form a coalition so either they joined PPP or there would be a stalemate. The really important thing going forward is that the Democrats show themselves to be an effective and credible opposition. When and if this coalition fails it should be the Demcorats the electorate turns to rather than the military who take advantage of a political vacuum. And this time lets hope that opposition to the government can remain within the democratic process rather than without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted January 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 (estimates are that 30% of the $4 billion spent to build the airport when to corruption) I dont doubt this number. But are we supposed to be shocked by it? Would it have been any different under Banharn or Chavalit? 30% is standard for a Government contract over the last 15 years. (And fairly standard for a second world country.) Are you really implying that corruption was somehow unique to the Thaksin Government? As for the military they are even worse. Have you ever come across a poor army General or Police Colonel? Bribes on military contracts or civil aviation contracts are nearer 50%. My point is simple - yes there was corruption in the Thaksin Government but I see no evidence that it was any greater than any Government that has gone before or is about to arrive. (Incidentally many of the problems relating to the new airport relate to its location on a swamp and this goes back to Samak's decision to buy the land off some Generals.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venus Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 anyone watch news last night on telly or this morning ? obviously, k. samak failed to handle the press as usual - he is not loved... not a good sign... and i just loved k. choowit - he managed to be in the next room, at almost at the same time, at the sukhothai hotel - seems that the press like him.. ( even i do - i like his humour..) if you get to see and can really understand thai - you will like this man... freaking funny. democrats has a helper... a wicked one, indeed. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now