It appears that the two medium-sized parties, Chart Thai and Motherland did have a talk, although it’s held at the house of a Motherland Party’s executive. They agreed to stay together. The coalition possibilities could be either way now, but it is almost a guarantee for them both to be in the next government.
This is a brilliant synergy move by Khun Banharn and Khun Suwit – it adds to their bargaining power considerably. The biggest parties would have to concede major cabinet posts or even PM post in exchange for their presence.
The latest unofficial figures have PPP at 229 and Dems 164. An Abhisit government, if that is to happen, would look very shaky though. I would not call a 20-seat majority a performing one by any means. Therefore, I still believe PPP would be more likely to get the two medium-sized parties plus others in forming a government, unless something outside the parliamentary game is being engineered.
Two things could change the picture however: what some 1.8m voters say on their ballots last weekend and how many PPP candidates will be “red-carded”. In many constituencies, it was indeed a close race which was won by merely a couple thousand votes. Red cards for PPP would be in favour of Democrats et al. Remember that one red card means two counts in closing marginal difference. However, I heard from an army radio while driving home that until a couple of days before election, there were very few complaints of serious charges like vote buying (most were some minor offences like wrong posters, election staff impartiality). The number of serious allegations have risen sharply only recently so this might be more to false allegations between contestants than anything.
Unfortunately, the election commissioners are once again under tremendous pressure.
Unfortunately, Monk Ashin Nayaka encourages genocide in his native province of Arakan.
Ashin Nayaka, a native of Arakan, and a leading member of the International Burmese Monks Organization in USA and a visiting professor, Department of History at Columbia University, New York. Recently he gave testimony to the US senate led by United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. But unknown to the outside world, at home in Arakan he spreads xenophobia among the Rakhines against other ethnic Arakani minority people’s freedom. In a book written by U Shw zan and Dr. Aye Chan,(2005) Rohingya are being demonized as being “Influx Viruses.” Ashin Nayaka in encouraging the above ultra-nationalists wrote in the forward section of the book the following:
“Rohingya movements have been accompanied by certain dangers and challenges, particularly for the Arakan State and beyond.”
Here Asin Nayaka due to his ethnic superiority feelings refused to acknowledge Rohingyas as a people and says “dangers and challenges” should be feared by the Rakhine and the Burmese people. It is to note that Rohingyas are a racially and religiously different group of Burmese people.
About the book “Influx Viruses” he further says:
“I hope this collective contribution will give both a broader understanding of so-called Rohingya issues and practical measures to address challenges of the future. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to both contributors whose scholastic works are credibly expected to give appropriate answers to all…”
In dehumanizing the Rohingyas the authors of the “Influx Viruses” refused to accept the birth right of the Rohingyas and calls the Rohingyas as “Viruses.”
Ashin Nayaka justifies this claim by calling the Rohingyas as the “so-called-Rohingyas.” The “practical measures” he refers had been taken by the ultra-nationalists Rakhines in 2001 to destroy the Rohingya historic sites in Arakan and even before renamed the Rohingya names such as Akyab into Sittwe. And for the army ofcourse the “practical measures” were to exterminate the so-called Rohingya “virus.” It appears that Ashin Nayaka opposes the military rule in Burma but supports the military’s Rohingya extermination policy in Arakan.
Today, there are atleast 700,000 stateless Rohingya people live in Malaysia, Japan and in the Middle East and approximately 200,000 live in Bangladesh.
Surprisingly Ashin Nayaka is an honorable Buddhist Monk who is supposed to be preaching nonviolence. Whereas he keeps his xenophobia and hate in his closet at home in Arakan and pretends to be a great democracy movement Monk leader in abroad deserving a prize on behalf of the Monks of Burma.
As a democracy movement activist recently he said to the US Senate, “We remain steadfast in our commitment to the freedom in our country and the freedom in our own hearts. All these things Americans value and cherish. Freedom for the people of Burma cannot be denied. The cost of that freedom is the only question in Burma,”
This is Ashin Nayaka style of Burmese way to democracy. To him ofcourse human rights is only for its Buddhist majority. Due to such dual roles played by certain Monks as Ashin Nayaka and some ultra-nationalist Arakani intellectuals,like Aye Chan and Aye Kyaw, Rohingya people’s rights of citizenship were being officially denied by the military government. Rohingyas have been suffering genocidal repression inside Arakan state and outside the country sufferes as stateless people.
Remarkably, Ashin Nayaka’s style is a typical Burmese way to democracy by most Arakanese ultra-nationalists: xenophobia at home and great democratic demonstration in abroad. No wonder why the military government has been successful in ruling Burma for such a long time!
For dehumanizing the Burmese born Rohingyas, and misrepresenting Buddhism, inciting Rohingya genocide and helping the extermination policy in Arakan, and helping in jailing of Rohingya leaders in Burma, it is imperative on the genuine democracy movement leaders to seperate the fake democrat Monks like Ashin Nayaka along with his team of ultra-nationalists and refer them to the international tribunal.
Also check the link:
Interfaith dialogue caught in the camera that is against Buddha’s teaching:
Documents such as
(1)InFlux_Viruses_The_Illegal_Muslim_in_Arakan__U_Shwe_Zan_and_Dr_1_._Aye_Chan__Letter_Book..doc and
(2)
Aye_Chan_s_Enclave_with_Influx_Viruses_Revisited.doc
could be sent if requested.
(Dr. Abid Bahar, a Sociologist and historian of Arakan, during the 80’s wrote his thesis on Ethnic Relations in Burmese society.) [email protected]
I recently obtained a copy of the book, i wont say where, but i did. khun paul handley is obviously very very biased against monarchies in general (the more powerful they are, the stronger his hate for them) He does bring up many good points, i think. i personally view the current monarchy with high regard, and i do not think that this book has really changed my opinion that much, i kept reminding myself the whole time of the authors bias.
does anybody know where i might be able to obtain a copy of the book:
ITTV just reported, quoting unnamed “close aid” to Prem that NO party leaders had visited the Privy Council Chairman. The ITTV reporter camping outside Prem’s Si sao resident also claimed that no movement in or out of the compound at all.
I agree that in absolute number this is probably the Dem’s greatest success (I’m not sure about their relative number to the overall seats in the House in 1976, for example). And this is exactly the point Abhisit was stressing a short while ago at his news conference, during which he pointedly refused to ‘concede’ victory to PPP, or rule out the possibility of Dem forming a new gov. However, I don’t think one should look at it this way given the circumstances. Following the coup (which arguably partly resulted from the Dem’s ‘gamble’ by boycotting the 2006 elections) and the passing of the junta Constitution, a lot of people (perhaps the junta itself – I’m not sure that it supported the PP more as BKK pundit says) expect the Dem to win the majority or close to the majority of seats. Only when the elections were in full swing did the poll started to come out that the PPP would win.
Mr Carr–Your questions are fair. And good answers would be complex. But, for now, three observations, intended to be be neither point-scoring nor sniping. First, I think that your Thai friend is wrong on Samak. He is a bright guy, and one of the finest orators in Thai politics for decades. His politics are not “liberal”, but he has never claimed that they were. Much more could be said about this man, and it has been depressing in recent months to find that media (and blog) commentary on him has been marked by ignornance of his career, failure to consider the tendencies in Thai political culture and ideology that he has embodied, lack of analysis of his apparent ideological shift in throwing his lot in with Thaksin, little interest in the origins or depth with the royalist Network surrounding Gen Prem, and insufficeint scrutiny of whether Thaksin can reall trust or “control” a man like Samak. Second, sure, Aphisit may look like a good, Western-style liberal from afar. But he is a creature of privilege who, unlike–say–FDR, has never transcended his privilege to appeal effectively to ordinary voters. All the fine talk and brilliant policy in the world are useless in a democratic order if they reside in a political leader with little demonstrated committment effectively to pitching them to the electorate. If Clio is wise, she will consing Aphisit to her dust-bin soon. Not least, this would be good for his party, as many of the real democratic politicians in the party know. Third, Thaksin is indeed a crook and a murderer, but the fact is that he and his party developed, campaigned on, and implemented a platform that Thailand’s electoral majority found to its like. And therein lies the answer to your question. The voters want PPP and if their support for PPP proves a mistake, well, they will have the chance to vote it out at the next general election. Progress can be a tricky notion, but honoring the will of the voters seems like a pretty good thing. As said, sir, there is far more to say about all this … And Andrew’s advice to an NM reader who posted queries similar to yours a day or two of you seems pretty good to me: try to find and study a copy of the new special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia. Oh, yeah, keep reading NM, too …. Some of us here try to write in a constructive vein.
“The Democrat Party have only themselves to blame for their disappointing poll result”.
Actually, most polls predicted they would get around 120-130 seats so I don’t think it is a disappointing poll result for them. They won less than 100 seats at the 2005 election so around the 160 amount is a good figure for them. Their problem is their coalition partners have done very badly. Actually, I would say there is greater support by the military for Puea Paendin than for the Democrats. Yet this support for Puea Paendin doesn’t seem to have helped them. If the military had really supported the Democrats I wonder what that would have done for their poll numbers. The military can control or limit the information that people receive, but they can’t make people vote for their candidates. The elite should take notice.
According to Abhisit, this is the highest number of MPs that the Democrats have ever won.
Thanks for not responding. Perhaps I should have shaped my comments in such a way that they would not look “silly” (and apparently unintelligent) to “western liberal eyes”.
You referred to Thaksin in the past tense. We appear not to have been following the same election, so I bold-faced my sense of Thaksin’s present presence.
By “demographic cook” I wanted to suggest that like any successful politician in a western liberal democracy, Thaksin mixes up a blend of platforms/programs to appeal to the demographic that is most likely to put him into power. It would appear that almost 50% of the Thai electorate agrees with me. It also appears that this is something quite new, possibly revolutionary, in Thai politics. It might turn out to be Thaksin’s most lasting legacy if liberal democracy continues to wend its way into Thai political culture.
My comment about your “supporting” anyone at all in the Thai political scene stands. Even a “western liberal” should understand that the democratic process takes precedence over individual preference where government is concerned; the people behind Abhisit have made it abundantly clear that they do not agree with this notion. The clown and the “demogog” may not, in the end, win out over Abhisit’s clean, movie-star face after all.
My question about your Thai friend was not intended as sarcasm. If he shares the common attitude toward HM the King and his supra-political “advice” to the nation, then surely to “western liberal eyes” his comments on Samak come pre-packaged with more than a few grains of salt, if not quite a fuzzy red wig and bulbous red nose.
Chaturon does have the ability to think for himself, I believe, but he does so in a rather strange and perhaps non-politician way. One should also not forget that he spent five years in the jungle after 1976, and that he has a decidedly local background, although he used to study in the US. Chaturon does not easily connect to broader phuak or factions, but has remained rather more isolated, except for certain long-time friends, such as Adisorn, with who he once wanted to establish a new party. He has not been able to move beyond certain confines. This can be even less expected from his younger siblings, whose worldviews are rather more limited. In addition, Chaturon has to turn a blind eye, or even support, the dark sides of his family’s political success.
Anyway, I can’t give a political psychogramme of Chaturon here.
On the elections, I am still mostly in the dark, having been concerned with local events, with no access to TV so far. There were two suprises in Chachoengsao. First, Phichet beat Itthi in constituency 1. This is a surprise, although one newspaper had predicted this, and the director of constituency 1 had also voiced this opinion before election day. However, it is expected that Itthi made it and not Somchai, his running mate.
As for constituency 2, contrary to all expectations, Phanee Jarusombat did not come first, and in fact completely missed out, because Wuthipong and Thitima Chaisaeng came first and second.
Any confirmation or more information on this meeting would, of course, be very helpful for New Mandala readers. If anybody knows more please don’t hesitate to share.
Jakrapob Penkhair, PPP spokesman, just had a press conference at the party headquarter saying that the two parties, Chart Thai and Motherland, have been summoned to meet at Gen Prem’s residence. The news is not confirmed by other involved parties.
Thankyou for speaking for all western liberals Adam, but what makes Abhisit look more like a model western democrat exactly? I’m sure if you take everything at face value you can rationalise that there is no liberalism and only people who sort of look and act like the people who formulated these crazy ideas which delude us all.
Do you think Samak is any less liberal than you or me or anyone else that’s a product of their environment? You should want whoever it is that does not see social progression as ‘modernisation’ or ‘liberal empowerment’, but instead a figure who can inspire Thai people to progress Thai identity without becoming globally isolated for having a different appreciation of power or freedom. Maybe this way, as western ascetic liberals, we can do what western liberals do best apparently, and individually ‘grow’. (As opposed to collectively assimilate..)
When you find this inspirational person, please tell me.
I always try to be serious when I ask political questions. So I won’t be responding to silly sarcastic answers. If you’ve got something intelligent to say, say it.
Thaksin IS more a demographic cook than a “demogogic” (sic) anything.
If you’re serious in your question, you might want to consider “supporting” (whatever that means in this context) whomever the Thai electorate elects. Even if they don’t appear to share your taste for “modern progressive social democracy” as that appears to “western liberal eyes”.
How does your Thai friend feel about the HM the King’s most recent advice? He may be something of a clown himself to “western liberal eyes”, no?
I think that there needs to be a new constitution that does not treat democracy as a game. Otherwise, from where I sit, all the ingrediants for what happened with Thaksin are still cooking and at an increased temperature. It seems that organic socio-economic development in Thailand will continue to be suffocated by elites and the gap which this fosters between citizens will further polarize ‘cultural differences’ for Thais who engage with people who have no regard for the monarchy or the freedom that Kymlicka might suggest they are privy too and republicans not. If these misundestandings are to be avoided, those in power must not believe too much in feudal observations about society and cede some power to the people in a new consitution.
Because of the tedious relationship that the PPP will have to navigate between the interests of the monarchy and the interests of the people I think ultimately there will be a failure to take a strong position on the evolution of Thailand in relation to globalisation and regionalism which will result in the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer ensuring a history of victimisation.
Hopefully I will see that the PPP has a political will strong enough to make an impact beyond actions based on superficial populism, and that the confines and restrictions that have been generated over the past 15 months are not really so confining or restrictive. However, I must remind myself that hope is always the foundation of dissapointment and to take each political day in Thailand as it comes.
A speculation is high on Thai media that PPP would have already talked to at least two other parties to ensure that the majority would at least surpass 240. Provided PPP has got at least 200-210 as exit polls suggested, once PPP have Ruam Jai Thai-Chat Pattana (number 5 party) firmly with them (it seems so), it would be much easier then for PPP to pick up either #3 or #4 (or both) to form the three-party coalition government. Chart Thai and Motherland would have little bargaining power to ask for anything big really.
I still personally think that if the difference between two biggest parties were as wide as 80-90, Khun Abhisit would not feel right in rushing to form the coalition against PPP, unless he’s “pushed” to take a fight.
Of course, that is just a fun guess. Another question is who at PPP would be chosen as PM. Does Khun Samak really get the full backing from London? It is the internal politics that is as equally interesting as coalition formation. But that’s the next step.
I wasn’t intending to be ironic. I really don’t know the answer. I thought Thaksin was a demogogic crook, but of course I can’t support military coups or government by courtiers either. To western liberal eyes, Abhisit seems a much more acceptable politician than Samak, whom one of my Thai friends today called “a loudmouthed clown,” but not if he’s just going to be a front for the old elite. It seems an unpalatable choice.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Analysis
Thanks to Suriyon Raiwa for an enlightening answer.
Latest Count
It appears that the two medium-sized parties, Chart Thai and Motherland did have a talk, although it’s held at the house of a Motherland Party’s executive. They agreed to stay together. The coalition possibilities could be either way now, but it is almost a guarantee for them both to be in the next government.
This is a brilliant synergy move by Khun Banharn and Khun Suwit – it adds to their bargaining power considerably. The biggest parties would have to concede major cabinet posts or even PM post in exchange for their presence.
The latest unofficial figures have PPP at 229 and Dems 164. An Abhisit government, if that is to happen, would look very shaky though. I would not call a 20-seat majority a performing one by any means. Therefore, I still believe PPP would be more likely to get the two medium-sized parties plus others in forming a government, unless something outside the parliamentary game is being engineered.
Two things could change the picture however: what some 1.8m voters say on their ballots last weekend and how many PPP candidates will be “red-carded”. In many constituencies, it was indeed a close race which was won by merely a couple thousand votes. Red cards for PPP would be in favour of Democrats et al. Remember that one red card means two counts in closing marginal difference. However, I heard from an army radio while driving home that until a couple of days before election, there were very few complaints of serious charges like vote buying (most were some minor offences like wrong posters, election staff impartiality). The number of serious allegations have risen sharply only recently so this might be more to false allegations between contestants than anything.
Unfortunately, the election commissioners are once again under tremendous pressure.
More academic commentary on Burma
Unfortunately, Monk Ashin Nayaka encourages genocide in his native province of Arakan.
Ashin Nayaka, a native of Arakan, and a leading member of the International Burmese Monks Organization in USA and a visiting professor, Department of History at Columbia University, New York. Recently he gave testimony to the US senate led by United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. But unknown to the outside world, at home in Arakan he spreads xenophobia among the Rakhines against other ethnic Arakani minority people’s freedom. In a book written by U Shw zan and Dr. Aye Chan,(2005) Rohingya are being demonized as being “Influx Viruses.” Ashin Nayaka in encouraging the above ultra-nationalists wrote in the forward section of the book the following:
“Rohingya movements have been accompanied by certain dangers and challenges, particularly for the Arakan State and beyond.”
Here Asin Nayaka due to his ethnic superiority feelings refused to acknowledge Rohingyas as a people and says “dangers and challenges” should be feared by the Rakhine and the Burmese people. It is to note that Rohingyas are a racially and religiously different group of Burmese people.
About the book “Influx Viruses” he further says:
“I hope this collective contribution will give both a broader understanding of so-called Rohingya issues and practical measures to address challenges of the future. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to both contributors whose scholastic works are credibly expected to give appropriate answers to all…”
In dehumanizing the Rohingyas the authors of the “Influx Viruses” refused to accept the birth right of the Rohingyas and calls the Rohingyas as “Viruses.”
Ashin Nayaka justifies this claim by calling the Rohingyas as the “so-called-Rohingyas.” The “practical measures” he refers had been taken by the ultra-nationalists Rakhines in 2001 to destroy the Rohingya historic sites in Arakan and even before renamed the Rohingya names such as Akyab into Sittwe. And for the army ofcourse the “practical measures” were to exterminate the so-called Rohingya “virus.” It appears that Ashin Nayaka opposes the military rule in Burma but supports the military’s Rohingya extermination policy in Arakan.
Today, there are atleast 700,000 stateless Rohingya people live in Malaysia, Japan and in the Middle East and approximately 200,000 live in Bangladesh.
Surprisingly Ashin Nayaka is an honorable Buddhist Monk who is supposed to be preaching nonviolence. Whereas he keeps his xenophobia and hate in his closet at home in Arakan and pretends to be a great democracy movement Monk leader in abroad deserving a prize on behalf of the Monks of Burma.
As a democracy movement activist recently he said to the US Senate, “We remain steadfast in our commitment to the freedom in our country and the freedom in our own hearts. All these things Americans value and cherish. Freedom for the people of Burma cannot be denied. The cost of that freedom is the only question in Burma,”
This is Ashin Nayaka style of Burmese way to democracy. To him ofcourse human rights is only for its Buddhist majority. Due to such dual roles played by certain Monks as Ashin Nayaka and some ultra-nationalist Arakani intellectuals,like Aye Chan and Aye Kyaw, Rohingya people’s rights of citizenship were being officially denied by the military government. Rohingyas have been suffering genocidal repression inside Arakan state and outside the country sufferes as stateless people.
Remarkably, Ashin Nayaka’s style is a typical Burmese way to democracy by most Arakanese ultra-nationalists: xenophobia at home and great democratic demonstration in abroad. No wonder why the military government has been successful in ruling Burma for such a long time!
For dehumanizing the Burmese born Rohingyas, and misrepresenting Buddhism, inciting Rohingya genocide and helping the extermination policy in Arakan, and helping in jailing of Rohingya leaders in Burma, it is imperative on the genuine democracy movement leaders to seperate the fake democrat Monks like Ashin Nayaka along with his team of ultra-nationalists and refer them to the international tribunal.
Also check the link:
Interfaith dialogue caught in the camera that is against Buddha’s teaching:
http://sanooaung. wordpress. com/2007/ 12/19/the- role-of-muslims- in-burma% e2%80%99s- democracy- movement- burmese-translat ion/
Documents such as
(1)InFlux_Viruses_The_Illegal_Muslim_in_Arakan__U_Shwe_Zan_and_Dr_1_._Aye_Chan__Letter_Book..doc and
(2)
Aye_Chan_s_Enclave_with_Influx_Viruses_Revisited.doc
could be sent if requested.
(Dr. Abid Bahar, a Sociologist and historian of Arakan, during the 80’s wrote his thesis on Ethnic Relations in Burmese society.) [email protected]
The King Never Smiles?
I recently obtained a copy of the book, i wont say where, but i did. khun paul handley is obviously very very biased against monarchies in general (the more powerful they are, the stronger his hate for them) He does bring up many good points, i think. i personally view the current monarchy with high regard, and i do not think that this book has really changed my opinion that much, i kept reminding myself the whole time of the authors bias.
does anybody know where i might be able to obtain a copy of the book:
The devils discus, by rayne kruger?
feel free to e-mail me.
Latest Count
ITTV just reported, quoting unnamed “close aid” to Prem that NO party leaders had visited the Privy Council Chairman. The ITTV reporter camping outside Prem’s Si sao resident also claimed that no movement in or out of the compound at all.
Analysis
I agree that in absolute number this is probably the Dem’s greatest success (I’m not sure about their relative number to the overall seats in the House in 1976, for example). And this is exactly the point Abhisit was stressing a short while ago at his news conference, during which he pointedly refused to ‘concede’ victory to PPP, or rule out the possibility of Dem forming a new gov. However, I don’t think one should look at it this way given the circumstances. Following the coup (which arguably partly resulted from the Dem’s ‘gamble’ by boycotting the 2006 elections) and the passing of the junta Constitution, a lot of people (perhaps the junta itself – I’m not sure that it supported the PP more as BKK pundit says) expect the Dem to win the majority or close to the majority of seats. Only when the elections were in full swing did the poll started to come out that the PPP would win.
Latest Count
Here’s link to news of Jakkraphop’s statement (in Thai)
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?id=14647&catid=46
I think what caused this ‘rumor’ was the fact that leaders of the two parties seemed to have ‘disappeared’. See report (in Thai) here:
http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/2007/12/23/WW81_8101_news.php?newsid=214340
(Thanks to khun “myth” from FawDiewKan webboard for the links).
Analysis
Mr Carr–Your questions are fair. And good answers would be complex. But, for now, three observations, intended to be be neither point-scoring nor sniping. First, I think that your Thai friend is wrong on Samak. He is a bright guy, and one of the finest orators in Thai politics for decades. His politics are not “liberal”, but he has never claimed that they were. Much more could be said about this man, and it has been depressing in recent months to find that media (and blog) commentary on him has been marked by ignornance of his career, failure to consider the tendencies in Thai political culture and ideology that he has embodied, lack of analysis of his apparent ideological shift in throwing his lot in with Thaksin, little interest in the origins or depth with the royalist Network surrounding Gen Prem, and insufficeint scrutiny of whether Thaksin can reall trust or “control” a man like Samak. Second, sure, Aphisit may look like a good, Western-style liberal from afar. But he is a creature of privilege who, unlike–say–FDR, has never transcended his privilege to appeal effectively to ordinary voters. All the fine talk and brilliant policy in the world are useless in a democratic order if they reside in a political leader with little demonstrated committment effectively to pitching them to the electorate. If Clio is wise, she will consing Aphisit to her dust-bin soon. Not least, this would be good for his party, as many of the real democratic politicians in the party know. Third, Thaksin is indeed a crook and a murderer, but the fact is that he and his party developed, campaigned on, and implemented a platform that Thailand’s electoral majority found to its like. And therein lies the answer to your question. The voters want PPP and if their support for PPP proves a mistake, well, they will have the chance to vote it out at the next general election. Progress can be a tricky notion, but honoring the will of the voters seems like a pretty good thing. As said, sir, there is far more to say about all this … And Andrew’s advice to an NM reader who posted queries similar to yours a day or two of you seems pretty good to me: try to find and study a copy of the new special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia. Oh, yeah, keep reading NM, too …. Some of us here try to write in a constructive vein.
Analysis
“The Democrat Party have only themselves to blame for their disappointing poll result”.
Actually, most polls predicted they would get around 120-130 seats so I don’t think it is a disappointing poll result for them. They won less than 100 seats at the 2005 election so around the 160 amount is a good figure for them. Their problem is their coalition partners have done very badly. Actually, I would say there is greater support by the military for Puea Paendin than for the Democrats. Yet this support for Puea Paendin doesn’t seem to have helped them. If the military had really supported the Democrats I wonder what that would have done for their poll numbers. The military can control or limit the information that people receive, but they can’t make people vote for their candidates. The elite should take notice.
According to Abhisit, this is the highest number of MPs that the Democrats have ever won.
Analysis
Adam:
Thanks for not responding. Perhaps I should have shaped my comments in such a way that they would not look “silly” (and apparently unintelligent) to “western liberal eyes”.
You referred to Thaksin in the past tense. We appear not to have been following the same election, so I bold-faced my sense of Thaksin’s present presence.
By “demographic cook” I wanted to suggest that like any successful politician in a western liberal democracy, Thaksin mixes up a blend of platforms/programs to appeal to the demographic that is most likely to put him into power. It would appear that almost 50% of the Thai electorate agrees with me. It also appears that this is something quite new, possibly revolutionary, in Thai politics. It might turn out to be Thaksin’s most lasting legacy if liberal democracy continues to wend its way into Thai political culture.
My comment about your “supporting” anyone at all in the Thai political scene stands. Even a “western liberal” should understand that the democratic process takes precedence over individual preference where government is concerned; the people behind Abhisit have made it abundantly clear that they do not agree with this notion. The clown and the “demogog” may not, in the end, win out over Abhisit’s clean, movie-star face after all.
My question about your Thai friend was not intended as sarcasm. If he shares the common attitude toward HM the King and his supra-political “advice” to the nation, then surely to “western liberal eyes” his comments on Samak come pre-packaged with more than a few grains of salt, if not quite a fuzzy red wig and bulbous red nose.
Chachoengsao: Chaturon Chaisaeng speaks again
Chaturon does have the ability to think for himself, I believe, but he does so in a rather strange and perhaps non-politician way. One should also not forget that he spent five years in the jungle after 1976, and that he has a decidedly local background, although he used to study in the US. Chaturon does not easily connect to broader phuak or factions, but has remained rather more isolated, except for certain long-time friends, such as Adisorn, with who he once wanted to establish a new party. He has not been able to move beyond certain confines. This can be even less expected from his younger siblings, whose worldviews are rather more limited. In addition, Chaturon has to turn a blind eye, or even support, the dark sides of his family’s political success.
Anyway, I can’t give a political psychogramme of Chaturon here.
On the elections, I am still mostly in the dark, having been concerned with local events, with no access to TV so far. There were two suprises in Chachoengsao. First, Phichet beat Itthi in constituency 1. This is a surprise, although one newspaper had predicted this, and the director of constituency 1 had also voiced this opinion before election day. However, it is expected that Itthi made it and not Somchai, his running mate.
As for constituency 2, contrary to all expectations, Phanee Jarusombat did not come first, and in fact completely missed out, because Wuthipong and Thitima Chaisaeng came first and second.
Latest Count
Thanks Chinnawut,
Any confirmation or more information on this meeting would, of course, be very helpful for New Mandala readers. If anybody knows more please don’t hesitate to share.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Latest Count
Jakrapob Penkhair, PPP spokesman, just had a press conference at the party headquarter saying that the two parties, Chart Thai and Motherland, have been summoned to meet at Gen Prem’s residence. The news is not confirmed by other involved parties.
Analysis
OK I see I am only going to cheap sniping and point-scoring rather here than any worthwhile discussion. Bye.
Analysis
Thankyou for speaking for all western liberals Adam, but what makes Abhisit look more like a model western democrat exactly? I’m sure if you take everything at face value you can rationalise that there is no liberalism and only people who sort of look and act like the people who formulated these crazy ideas which delude us all.
Do you think Samak is any less liberal than you or me or anyone else that’s a product of their environment? You should want whoever it is that does not see social progression as ‘modernisation’ or ‘liberal empowerment’, but instead a figure who can inspire Thai people to progress Thai identity without becoming globally isolated for having a different appreciation of power or freedom. Maybe this way, as western ascetic liberals, we can do what western liberals do best apparently, and individually ‘grow’. (As opposed to collectively assimilate..)
When you find this inspirational person, please tell me.
Analysis
I always try to be serious when I ask political questions. So I won’t be responding to silly sarcastic answers. If you’ve got something intelligent to say, say it.
Analysis
Adam:
Thaksin IS more a demographic cook than a “demogogic” (sic) anything.
If you’re serious in your question, you might want to consider “supporting” (whatever that means in this context) whomever the Thai electorate elects. Even if they don’t appear to share your taste for “modern progressive social democracy” as that appears to “western liberal eyes”.
How does your Thai friend feel about the HM the King’s most recent advice? He may be something of a clown himself to “western liberal eyes”, no?
What next for Thailand?
I think that there needs to be a new constitution that does not treat democracy as a game. Otherwise, from where I sit, all the ingrediants for what happened with Thaksin are still cooking and at an increased temperature. It seems that organic socio-economic development in Thailand will continue to be suffocated by elites and the gap which this fosters between citizens will further polarize ‘cultural differences’ for Thais who engage with people who have no regard for the monarchy or the freedom that Kymlicka might suggest they are privy too and republicans not. If these misundestandings are to be avoided, those in power must not believe too much in feudal observations about society and cede some power to the people in a new consitution.
Because of the tedious relationship that the PPP will have to navigate between the interests of the monarchy and the interests of the people I think ultimately there will be a failure to take a strong position on the evolution of Thailand in relation to globalisation and regionalism which will result in the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer ensuring a history of victimisation.
Hopefully I will see that the PPP has a political will strong enough to make an impact beyond actions based on superficial populism, and that the confines and restrictions that have been generated over the past 15 months are not really so confining or restrictive. However, I must remind myself that hope is always the foundation of dissapointment and to take each political day in Thailand as it comes.
Latest Count
Talking numbers still…
A speculation is high on Thai media that PPP would have already talked to at least two other parties to ensure that the majority would at least surpass 240. Provided PPP has got at least 200-210 as exit polls suggested, once PPP have Ruam Jai Thai-Chat Pattana (number 5 party) firmly with them (it seems so), it would be much easier then for PPP to pick up either #3 or #4 (or both) to form the three-party coalition government. Chart Thai and Motherland would have little bargaining power to ask for anything big really.
I still personally think that if the difference between two biggest parties were as wide as 80-90, Khun Abhisit would not feel right in rushing to form the coalition against PPP, unless he’s “pushed” to take a fight.
Of course, that is just a fun guess. Another question is who at PPP would be chosen as PM. Does Khun Samak really get the full backing from London? It is the internal politics that is as equally interesting as coalition formation. But that’s the next step.
Analysis
I wasn’t intending to be ironic. I really don’t know the answer. I thought Thaksin was a demogogic crook, but of course I can’t support military coups or government by courtiers either. To western liberal eyes, Abhisit seems a much more acceptable politician than Samak, whom one of my Thai friends today called “a loudmouthed clown,” but not if he’s just going to be a front for the old elite. It seems an unpalatable choice.