robbie36 Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 What I find mysterious about both Samak (and to a lesser extent Chalerm) is where they draw their popularity from. It is not as though they are some mafia king from upcountry province like Banharn in Suphanburi. I am also not talking about their popularity in the recent election which was clearly driven by their association with Thaksin. Both characters have incredibly 'dodgy' pasts both in business and in politics - they come across as deeply unattractive characters. Yet they seem perennially popular with the voters. (In one election I seem to remember that Samak's party actually won the majority of seats in Bangkok - and of course he was elected governor.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Chalerm isn't popular. He just wins in his one little district in Thonburi. And he does it like any local political boss - by handing out favors to constituents in the time honored patronage fashion. Hell, John Gotti could have gotten elected to Congress representing Howard Beach , Queens, if it had been legal for him to run and he wanted to. People in the neighborhood loved him. It's not like they didn't know he was the head of the Gambino crime family and a stone cold killer. Same thing. Samak is another matter. But the last time his party won most of the seats in Bangkok was at least 20 years ago. Interesting though that in his latest defense of Oct. 6, he seems to actually place himself at the scene with his comment that the one unlucky guy was what he actually saw with his own eyes. I guess that was him on film pacing along the road and smiling as the killing and raping went on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Chalerm - still a mystery - not popular, has never commanded more than 3-5 MPs under his direction but he is interior minister. The most important job after the prime minister. I just dont get it especially as his appointment throws the entire government under a bad light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Well, once again, this is just my opinion but, I suspect it is the Londoner's way of saying: You think I was bad? I'll show you bad. Look who I'll put in charge. Then you'll be begging me to come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 (BangkokPost.com) ? Minister to the Prime Minister?s Office Jakrapob Penkair will join hands with the Tourism and Sports ministry to set up a television channel dedicated to sports. Mr Jakrapob gave a press conference with Tourism and Sports Minister Veerasak Kowsurat announcing the setting up of a 24-hour channel called Sports TV. ?The government will give full support to this project to increase awareness of sports amongst Thais,? he said. ***** It's so nice to see another minister tackling serious problems in Thai society. Yes, Thailand is falling behind Vietnam, Indonesia and others in the region because Thais are not aware of sports. Gadzouks. Who woulda thunk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channaa15 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Alot of talk about how bad the new government is, including surveys from Chula on how much 'the people of Thailand' don't like the new government,(And I beleive all of it) ... BUT.. tell me again HOW they were voted in!??? Surely not the same old story that a bunch of Issaan farmers were paid to vote for them!??? Is Thailand therefore ruled by Issaan farmers? I'm honestly interested to know how they were voted in since everyone hates them? Choice of a lesser evil perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Surely not the same old story that a bunch of Issaan farmers were paid to vote for them!??? Is Thailand therefore ruled by Issaan farmers? I'm honestly interested to know how they were voted in since everyone hates them? Choice of a lesser evil perhaps? Well of course there was plenty of the usual vote buying and voter patronage. But the key to PPP's success is that they kept the issues simple. They simply said 'if you were against the coup vote PPP' and 'if you liked Thaksin vote PPP.' And on those stances alone they got a lot of votes. They avoided the really relevent questions 'like which party is most capable of running this country?' And to some extent the Democrats did a bad job of making sure that the relevant issues were ever debated. Now that they are elected it seems that some people are surprised that they have a crappier government than they bargained for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 People in the countryside (and other places) voted for the PPP because it said it would bring Thaksin back. They didn't vote for it because they liked Samak or Chalerm or Jakrapob. In fact, Samak's approval rating while a candidate among rural voters who supported the PPP was fairly low. People posting here are mostly middle class urban people. And the Thai media is mostly urban middle class based. Those groups tend to dislike the politicians in the current government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channaa15 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 People in the countryside (and other places) voted for the PPP because it said it would bring Thaksin back. They didn't vote for it because they liked Samak or Chalerm or Jakrapob. In fact, Samak's approval rating while a candidate among rural voters who supported the PPP was fairly low. People posting here are mostly middle class urban people. And the Thai media is mostly urban middle class based. Those groups tend to dislike the politicians in the current government. Media often has great power and influence in a country: why weren't they able to sway the public to not vote PPP? And who DO they like? Thanks guys for enlightening me on the politics here: I normally don't want to know, so don't follow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 People in the countryside (and other places) voted for the PPP because it said it would bring Thaksin back. Exactly... But he isnt going to bring Thaksin back is he? Thaksin is very Ex. He has used Thaksin's name to get elected and now he and the likes of Chalerm will do as they please. The current cabinet consists of no more than about 5 individuals that served under previous Thaksin administrations. And it is not as though Thaksin is going to tell the likes of Chalerm what to do. Now I think they end up with a Government that noone really wanted in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Media often has great power and influence in a country: why weren't they able to sway the public to not vote PPP? And who DO they like? Thanks guys for enlightening me on the politics here: I normally don't want to know, so don't follow it. The media is relatively small here. For instance the BKK Post and The Nation both have circulation around 50,000 while the total vote is about 35 million. So it hardly counts. Thai newspapers are bigger but the biggest - Thai Rath - hardly known for its politics (more like the Sun) still only circulates about 1m (I think). TV is obviously bigger but not overtly political. The government did try quite hard to try to persuade people not to vote PPP but obviously failed dismally. Part of the problem is that Thaksin is very popular with the rural voter - seen as one of the first politicians really trying to look after their interests. Another problem was that the major opposition party - the Democrats - had an Etonian/Oxford educated leader that the average rural voter found difficulty emphasizing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakofdawning Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Voters in the rural area do not really know who they are voting for. Mostly when they vote, some influential people in the community like the village head would be telling them what to do. This is because if they do not do it, it might have an effect in their lives one way or another. They might not get the kind of help they want, the kind of favor they are seeking or some small privilege here and there. I'd say people in the rural area don't really have secret as well. So whatever someone does, someone tells and the matter spreads. Hardly a way to be a person of your own, if you still need help/favor from someone more powerful in the community. Just my 2 satang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 I must say I find Chalerm's decision (backed by Samak) to bring back the 'war on drugs' somewhat sinister.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7260127.stm He is talking of 3 to 4,000 deaths and no innocent victims. In some weird sort of logic he asks 'if they were innocent why would they be killed?' The last war on drugs left - by most accounts - 2,500 dead. It proved popular with the voters and reduced drug use in the country but none of the dead received a fair trial. More importantly a fairly independent investigation estimated that 1,400 victims actually had nothing to do with drugs. Many consider the policy a crime and at best it was a botched and archaic policy. But as I say when it comes to Chalerm reintroducing it I find it more sinister. He has never had much respect for the law (look at how he acted over his sons murder case.) Is this really about reducing the drug problem or granting his policy force virtually unlimited powers to get rid of whomever they wish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 And the first drug war wasn't sinister? And why do you think Chalerm's son got off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 Chaturon slams PM over Oct 6 issue (BangkokPost.com) - Former acting Thai Rak Thai party leader Chaturon Chaisaeng called on Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to study history more thoroughly before speaking to the press about the October 6, 1976 uprising. His statement came after Mr Samak's recent interviews with CNN and Aljazeera that only one unlucky person died on Oct 6. Mr Chaturon said more than 40 people were killed in the student massacre. He also urged "October people" in the current government to give more information on the massacre to Mr Samak. **** Chaturon is a real joke. I don't know why anyone takes him seriously. Samak knows exactly what happened on October 6. And Chaturon knows he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 And the first drug war wasn't sinister? Wrong yes. But not sinister. I really think Thaksin's intentions were to clear up the drug problem. His methods were archaic and barbaric but I dont really doubt his intentions. In the end of course his policy also resulted in many innocent deaths. I am not trying to defend his policy. I just cannot get as excited as you. To me Bush's war on terror has resulted in ten times more innocent victims and needless deaths but there you go. The problem I have with Chalerm is that I doubt his motives. I fear that he is not really interested in dealing with the drugs war but more interested in putting power into his police force. Maybe political opponents will start to disappear? Basically I am less concerned that this new policy will result in say a 1000 drug dealers being shot without trial, than I am that it will be used as a pretext to reduce political and media freedom in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 And why do you think Chalerm's son got off? Actually I dont remember exactly how he got off. I seem to recall he shot the guy in front of 120 people in Club 20 at Rachada at about 10pm. He then ran away and didnt turn up for about 3 weeks. By the time of the trial all the witnesses had mysteriously disappeared and a bodyguard admitted to the killing. Something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 I think it would be difficult for Chalerm to eliminate political opponents through a "War on Drugs." Everyone knows the political opponents aren't drug dealers, and assassinating them would likely bring activists into the streets. However, under Thaksin we did have 18 community, human rights and environmental activists murdered, including Somchai Neelapaijit and a monk in Chiang Mai. These people opposed powerful forces, almost always political, that were committing abuses in their areas or just raping the general public. Aside from the one policeman who got three years for violating Somchai's civil rights, not one person has been brought to justice for any of these murders. It's also been said more than once in the papers by those working on the Somchai case that his abduction and murder was ordered by one of Thaksin's closest aides. Now, don't give me the 'well why isn't he charged and convicted' routine. Duangchalerm wasn't convicted either. And you know he's not innocent. By the way, who killed "Shipping Moo?'' All of that is pretty sinister. As for the War on Drugs: When the death toll was going up by hundreds every week it was blatantly obvious to all that many innocent people were being killed. Yet Thaksin never said, hold on a minute, let's stop this and rethink what we're doing. No, he just lied and said they were all killing each other. I've got nothing to do with it. And he let the killing of innocents go on. Because the polls said people like it. Murdering innocent people to boost your political popularity is without question sinister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 And why do you think Chalerm's son got off? Actually I dont remember exactly how he got off. I seem to recall he shot the guy in front of 120 people in Club 20 at Rachada at about 10pm. He then ran away and didnt turn up for about 3 weeks. By the time of the trial all the witnesses had mysteriously disappeared and a bodyguard admitted to the killing. Something like that. He got off because Thaksin owes his dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 I will admit that I have supported the Thaksin Government in the past and been made to look pretty stupid for doing so. (I think he has proven to be a greedy politician out for his own interests rather than the good of populace - I dont really think he has been proven to be particular malevolent - merely flawed.) My fear is that this government is working in no interests but their own and that will cause problems. Furthermore I think they will take measures to restrict everyones rights to oppose them - someone like Chalerm is a scary person to deal with. I hope I am wrong and this is just a feeble coalition that dies a natural death. I find Chalerm who works entirely in his own self interest far more scary than Thaksin who wants to be popular with the general populace. Thaksin is like a contestant on american idol doing everything to be popular. Chalerm thinks he runs the country and will get rid of anyone who disagrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 Well, more than one Thai executive I've spoken with have used terms such as "vicious" and "vindictive" to describe Thaksin, whom they know quite well. There was nothing well intentioned about his War on Drugs or his policies in the South. They were malevolent. By the way, do you think what he did to William Monson - with the help of Chalerm - was malevolent or just flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Quote: '¤¹·Ø¡¤¹ÂèÃÃÃÕôյ... ¤ÃѺ à ÇÅÒà ·èÒ¹Ñé¹·Õè¨Ãà »ç¹ÊÔ觾ÔÊÙ¨¹ì.. ' ¿Ñ§¾Õèà ¤éÒ˹èÃÂÅèÃ¡Ñ¹à ¹êÃà If a person has a bad "past" then let him prove he has changed BEFORE making him a government official. There are plenty of good, decent, talented, intelligent, hard working people in this country who want to do good things for this country. I don't see why Thailand should put criminals in public office and hope they will change for the better while they are serving. In almost every case they DON'T. So it's a pretty stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas_K Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 I don't see why Thailand should put criminals in public office and hope they will change for the better while they are serving. In almost every case they DON'T. So it's a pretty stupid idea. sorta like the criminals in your own government ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loburt Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 It's a stupid idea anywhere, stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Samak in another troubling sign of Alzheimers has come out to say that 59 rather than 2500 died in the last war on drugs - which is presumably why we need another one. From the BKK Post.... "He showed no sympathy over those killed during the Thaksin government's war on drugs, while pleading for public understanding over the need for a drugs policy. He said he was informed that there were only 59 drug suspects killed by the police and others had been killed by those in the same drug gangs. Had they been innocent, they would not have been killed, he said." 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