Comments

Nick, in my article, I’M calling it “self-sufficiency economy.” It’s called “New Theory,” I’m calling it that so people can understand what it is. But of course I don’t expect you to debate over content, no, arguing semantics and perhaps checking my spelling is right about at your level.

I am astounded how self-proclaimed academics and journalists here crutch themselves along on intellectual dishonesty and nit picking. How about the overall concept Nick? Is there something wrong with educating people and encouraging them to do as much as possible on their own? Is there something wrong with growing your own food when you can, learning technical skills and solving local problems with local solutions instead of relying on a corrupt government? Is there something wrong with encouraging people to learn and utilize new technology to start up local, micro-manufacturing to augment their agricultural activities and enhance the quality of their own lives – not through handouts, but by their own, technically competent hands?

That’s the crux of that article you’re referring to. But I suppose in your haste to malign me, you didn’t actually read the content, too busy trying to pick out things you could stick me with. Very journalistic and objective, Nick, I really must say.

And still, I was talking about PTP’s dismal 38% mandate – but I guess that’s an ugly fact you aren’t intellectually armed to face.

LesAbbey, I’m not “gushing,” I’m simply observing.

My comment @ #5 is descriptive of the political game. It is not a normative judgment of the election. I’m evaluating power, not democracy. I do not argue that this election result brings substantive or even procedural democracy to Thailand (as some other comments above suggest). Procedural democracy has a long way to go in Thailand before it consolidates. Until a durable constitutional power effectively checks ALL political players, we are still a long way from even procedural democracy.

Debates about democracy aside, my point (building from Walker and Farrelly’s) is that in the political chess match where one coalition tries to oust another, Thaksin has proven a formidable player of the game of Thai politics and Aphisit has not. This particular match is over. Aphisit and those supporting him face long odds if they believe they can challenge Thaksin again and win.

Walker and Farrelly: “Undiminished support for Thaksin’s political machine sends a strong message, domestically and internationally: efforts to undermine him have been unsuccessful.”

So my question stands: Who is left to challenge Thaksin? Who believes they can defeat him? Electoral power is a tremendous source of power. It may not equate with democracy, but TODAY it matters much more in determining who governs Thailand than anything else. The very sources of support Democrats have needed to gain and keep parliamentary power (a networked monarch, praetorian generals, compromised judges, and bureaucratic phuyai) are diminished and weakening. Are these groups or any other political coalition eager to take Thaksin on at this point?

Power is the ability to get others to do what they might not otherwise do. It is inferred only by results. Power is also the ability to get others to inhabit your version of reality.

Who has power in Thailand today? Who will for the foreseeable future? Thaksin and his allies! That is a description, not a normative statement.

Well guys, can we get back to talking about Chris Baker’s electoral map? Nice work, once again Chris, but this distribution of seats is perhaps too stark a representation of political party preferences/strengths in the country-in terms of popular support anyway. Perhaps it would be useful to cross-hatch those constituencies that were won by narrow margins between the main contesting parties in each constitutency, say by between 3,000 to 2,000 votes. In Bangkok, for example, at least 5 constuencies were won by narrow margins (either PT or DP). This would reveal the Democrat dominance in the metropolis to be less hegemic than it appears on a zero-sum victory map. So too, in the 3 southern border provinces – eg. Sukarno Matta of Peu Thai apparently lost to the Democrat candidate in Yala constituency 2 by just 28 votes!!! And note the Democrat loss of Satun Constiuency 1 to Chart Thai Phattana.

#20
As my taxi driver put it this morning “Nayok kha prachachon yu mai dai.” (A prime minister who kills the people cannot remain in office”.)

Probably why Thaksin lives in Dubai or Montenegro, then. He killed over 3000 people from the drug wars and crackdown on muslims in the south.. Did you reply that to your taxi driver?

“Tony”:

Reading your articles i noticed another rather blatant mistake. The king’s philosophy is not called “self-sufficiency theory”, but just “sufficiency theory”.
It would be of advantage of people actually understand what they write about… 😉

“It is amazing to me that people decry the Abhisit government crackdown, while being somehow oblivious to the Thaksin government massacres of muslims at Tak Bai, Krue Se, and the extra judicial killings during the “war on drugs”. Not worth mentioning?”

It really is getting beyond tiresome to see this lame and hackneyed “oblivious to XYZ” gambit being trundled out time and time again. No, I am not “oblivious to the Thaksin government” A-Z of wrongdoing – and I very much doubt the vast majority of those posting here are oblivious to it either. Frankly, it’s somewhere between inane and insulting to suggest as much.

Maybe we should have some kind of EULA or Andrew Walker’s number style of checklist to tick …. declaring that “Yes, I do hereby acknowledge a] awareness of and b] disapproval of (delete if not applicable) the following….. ”

Would that maybe satisfy the Simons of this world – so that we could then finally get on with discussing the matter in hand? Or are we doomed to such endless innuendo – along with “balance being a dirty word to some” and so many other examples?

After their temporary “disorganization” from the Rajadumnern, PAD come up with a new name: Tony

To Ray Anderson
Investigation won’t happen as it will reveal responsibilities of the new leading party in violence and setting Bangkok on fire. Thais may want to ignore this but an International Investigation will find out the ugly truth.