Observer, you work in the investment sector? Why would you ever hear of anything to do with sufficiency economy in order to make a claim like “I don’t think anyone really believes that the junta is implementing the sufficiency theory.”? Maybe not for you!
Also, this article does not mention how many entrepreneurs were surveyed.
Btw, thanks Nicholas for highlighting Michael Connors blog.
Dickie: Yes I would support an amnesty for most of the 111 because
I think the verdict was too harsh and cast the net too wide.
(IMO, only the executive and anyone with direct involvement should have been punished)
Col. Jeru (and Ngarn) would rather have the certainty of a military dictatorship through the tyranny of the gun, than the potential of a Thaksin dictatatorship through the tyranny of the ballot box. Clever….
How would have the 2006 crisis played out if there was no coup? Well, Jeru, there would have been an election held in October 2006. Yes TRT probably would have won it. Parties in opposition including the PAD might eventually wake up and do a better job at (1) trying to figure out policies that the people (yes, the ai ban nok people) want and will vote for; and (2) expose Thaksin’s alleged wrong doings. Come the next elections, they may even win a few seats back from TRT.
Sounds like fantasy to you Jeru? Well I reckon its better than the fantasy of relying on a military coup to restore democracy. Who are you gonna call to restrain the Saprangs of this world after HMK is gone? Rama 10? 55555. Privy Council? 555555555.
Pundit: I’ d say there is more chance of getting an apology from the junta (at least Surayud) than there is of ever getting one from Thaksin.
Personally I think the junta/government should apologize for trying to do too much, when they really should just be in caretaker mode pending an election. Things like nuclear energy, FTA’s, mega projects etc should be left to a new elected government.
I also would have liked to have seen the election sooner, but think they have been spooked by Thaksin’s shadow and his fortune has long tentacles and can buy a lot of trouble.
It’s unfortunate that Thaksin could not be trusted when he said he was finished with politics.
Observer: Not that I doubt it, but can you please point me to an english translation of that PNet report (because the reports I saw seemed to indicate that people were paid to vote ‘No’). PNET reported that on Aug 25, in many areas that rejected the charter, canvassers began to make 200 baht payments to the people; this was different from previous elections where payments were made before voting. PNET also urged the public to monitor the transfer in September of officials in areas that rejected the charter.
I think the democratic process had moved along, especially after the 1997 constitution, and I actually thought that coups were a thing of the past – but who knew a Thaksin would come along!
I’m no fan of Sondhi L, or the Thai military, police or aristocracy, however I still think that all this blame on the Bangkok elite, media and certain academics for laying the ground for a coup misses the point – if Thaksin had modified his behavior, been less manipulative, shown some humility and paid fair taxes, then there is no way a coup would have been possible, because Thailand had moved on since the early 1990’s.
Even if the old guard wanted a coup, there is no way it would have been acceptable had Thaksin been straight instead of manipulating the institutions in his favor.
Dickie: I’m not so concerned about appointed senators, because many good people refuse to play the political game for fear of being dragged down into the dirt (and unfortunately many who have something to offer are virtually unelectable unless they have the right connections &/or money)
As long as the media & public scrutinize the senate appointments, and call out any ill qualified appointees, then I actually think there is more chance of getting better senators under the appointment method than by direct election.
I still fail to see how Andrew Walker can reconcile vote-buying with democracy? I thought it had always been taught in schools, Western or Thai, that the vote is a sacred power and to misuse that power, or SELL the vote, is just plain criminal.
Thaksin of course in many occasions publicly said that ‘corruption is normal’, and he said that straight faced while Thai PM. But of course in Thaksin’s dead-end democracy, to preach corruption as the norm just about makes vote-buying ‘ethically’ acceptable, right Andrew?
But think of this Andrew Walker as you contemplate your ‘rural constipation’ nonsense. The village poor KNEW they sold their vote that led to that criminal Thaksin Shinawatra being elected and re-elected to power. Meekly therefore these bought village voters accepted too the many Thaksin criminal abuses that followed.
It is no wonder those villager poor quickly accepted that the coup was the ONLY way to get rid of Thaksin Shinawatra . . .
People who sell their votes, whether poor or rich, have lost the moral ground to protest if their votes are subsequently made meaningless, via coup or whatever. And those who get elected through massive vote-buying also have lost that ‘moral’ ground to argue that they have a mandate to rule or to hold office.
Dickie Simpkins, your comparison of SCB and Northern Rock belies either your confusion (at best) or deliberate obfuscation (at worst).
In SCB’s case, the Thai state bailed out the shareholders (i.e. the elite). The shareholders effectively got a free get out of gaol card by receiving equity capital injection on very friendly terms.
In Northern Rock’s case, there is NO attempt to bail out Northern Rock shareholders. If your are currently a Nortnern Rock shareholder you will know this well. The actions of the BoE (acting as lender of last resort to Northern Rock) is aimed at protecting the depositors in the bank (i.e. moms and dads, the common people) and to protect confidence in the banking system (good for everybody commoner and elite alike). There is a big difference between protecting depositors and bailing out shareholders. The BoE could never do the same for Northern Rock shareholders as the Thai state did for SCB shareholders.
[…] Mandala readers who have been following the case of Ajarn Yanatharo may find a new commentary published by the Buddhist website Mahabodhi interesting. The full […]
Redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is inherently divisive. Have the rich ever liked having the playing field leveled? In this regard, some element of divisiveness should be OK.
However, I am unconvinced that Thaksin was responsible for the large divisions that currently rend Thai society. The gap was there before Thaksin. The poor didn’t really like being poor before Thaksin, it was just easier for Bangkokians to ignore it. But ignorance of other’s views isn’t unity.
If the military and their gang had just let the elections run their course, I don’t think we would have had anywhere near the level of division we have now.
Sonthi Lim, in what is now obviously a well-funded effort by Prachai and Saprang to further their own personal interests, was far more divisive than Thaksin. It was he who forced this into a confrontation, when elections were looming.
The junta has furthered this division by marginalizing the representatives of the poor and putting their homes under martial law as if they were the enemy.
Do you really believe this crap about handouts still? After P-net said that the military tried to buy the constitutional vote? After Saprang and Banawit loot every state-owned enterprise they can pull under their power? Puea Pandin shows up on the front page of newspapers with Vattana Asavaheme?
Every government since 1932 has bought votes. Every one. So yes, TRT did. Yes, it is a scourge of Thai politics.
But rural voters love TRT for the 30 Baht healthacre program, reduction of drugs and low level corruption, support for economic development, and for taking their concerns seriously.
Yes, TRT was in part a collection of old wine in new bottles. But the junta is old wine in old bottles. Newin on one side and Vattana on the other. And you see black and white, good and evil?
Is it just me or were others too “censored” by Andrew Walker
when the poster does not suit his ‘sufficiency’ standards?
(by my count, Andrew Walker must have at least
blocked at least four of my posters)
If you can’t take the heat Andrew Walker, then drop out from
your Thaksin cheering squad duties.
Thaksin was not “unpopular in Bangkok”! Look at the 2005 election result. Rather, he was the first elected Thai PM who had the support of both BKK and the countryside (except the South). Before him, people in BKK had normally voted against the PM.
Has Thaksin shown any remorse for the way the country became more divisive under his rule, or offered any apology or even an explanation for any of his misdeeds?
Has the junta shown any remorse for how the country has become more divided under their rule? Or an apology for staging a rebellion, a criminal offence, when staging the coup?
1) I work in the investment / finance sector in Thailand. I never hear anyone talk about sufficiency economy unless prompted. I remain convinced that no one really knows or cares what it means. Clearly the positive response in the poll has more to do with who initiated the theory than how and if it was implemented (whatever it is and whatever the implementation might look like).
2) I don’t think anyone really believes that the junta is implementing the sufficiency theory. If the poll had asked: What do you think of the junta’s implementation of economic policy? I am sure the results would be far worse than the buzz word-laden version.
3) The government has not implemented a mass transit program at all. It is impossible to be satisfied with it unless you don’t want a mass transit program.
4) We got a briefing on politics and economic this morning that included a strongly worded paraphrasing of the Thai business community’s view of the Junta. Basically, “Awk Pai!”
5) However, the businesses that I deal with are generally larger than those in the Thai Chamber of Commerce and have more beneficial exposure to international trade and capital markets. The Thai Chamber has been the most protectionist and would be expected to be more positive than other business segments.
6) Why are any of us paying attention to a survey done by a third tier Thai University? Even at the best universities these are often done by students sitting in a group on the floor and filling in blanks with different colored pens, or after some seminar. As far as I know, only ABAC and Suan Dusit are considered remotely meaningful.
Societal formations and its components, here the polity, normally move very slowly. There had not been any coups since 1991, there had been a new constitution and a number of elections. Political communications in rural areas have increased tremendously due to the decentralization process, which is, however, far from perfect. I am not impressed by the political parties, and neither by the politicians. But, then, I am also not impressed by Thai journalists, businessmen, bureaucrats, teachers, and university academics. Their good luck is that they don’t have to pass through election processes for getting their jobs, that they will normally keep them even if they work lousily and are corrupt, and that they are not under constant observation by the public and the mass media.
Part of development is generational, meaning that people who look at politics through their experiences of the past 40 to 60 years will by and by be replaced by new generations whose socio-political starting points will be considerably different in many respects. Simply speaking, Kamnan Pho’s kids are foreign-educated, etc.
I wish I knew more languages to say no in.. though I’m more interested to learn how to say ‘yea baby yea’ Austin power style in many languages.
At least until Thai Democracy can give equal representation in parliament (be it an upper house) wherein each province gets 1 or 2 elected representatives, I think not.
I was kinda happy (at first) upon reading that there will be 1 senator per province. But I hate the idea that the remainders will be ‘selected’. Absolutely disgusting concept. Either way, i hope the next government will amend that and maybe compromise at somehere between 20-22 ‘appointed’ senators only. That way we can have a 100 seat senate, and reduce by more than half the damn selected senators. Then hopefully down the road somewhere, we can rid of them fully.
I have a question for you ngadeleeg: Do you support giving amnesty to the 111 executives provided they recognize and apologize their wrongdoing?
1. The state always bails banking and property at the expense of the ‘people’. Look at Northern Rock in England.
2. I agree with you, but then I will refer to the fool some people some of the time and fool most of the people most of the time…
3. Agreed.
The problem with Thaksin is that he was unpopular in Bangkok and immensely unpopular in the South. It is understood that the NE has the most people and because of his popularity there, he was arguable still the ‘popular’ choice to lead the country under Democratic principles. For the sake of brevity, I will cut a long-wided bridging argument to present 2-3 points.
In the United States, the framers of the constitution understood that the representation shouldn’t be only by the numbers, that is why in the US senate, each state provides 2 senators regardless of size. Hence, a tiny little state the size of Rhode Island has equal representation to the hugely populous California, though their representation is vastly different in congress. This is important because it highlights the voice of smaller states (or in this case provinces/districts) where the PM was unpopular.
Second, and hear this loud and clear. Thaksin wasn’t even the PM! His one-party election resulted in a parliament that couldn’t convene. Hence, he and his party were no longer the government. He was a care-taker PM who quit the post, and then re-appointed his own return. Is that even allowed? So I will disagree with you, and even point out that you are misinformed for saying that his popularness was for ‘very good reasons’ as you say it.
Though I will concede that it would’ve been interesting if we could vote province by province to see which provinces would’ve impeached that nepotistic cronyist who changed the rules of the game to level the playing field for everyone except for his friends and family.
Either ways, some food for thought.
Luckily, visiting this site is just a hobby for me, because otherwise my blood would boil having to continually read Andrew’s tripe about the ‘rural constitution’.
Blind Freddy knows that a lack of ethics is prevalent in Thailand, and it is obviously not limited to the one section of society, be it the elites or the rural masses.
It is not enough to say that Thaksin has yet to be convicted of anything, nor to allege that if he ever was it would only be by a kangaroo court.
There is already enough evidence in the public domain of inappropriate behavior of a PM by Thaksin, and it bores me to have to go over it again (for example, extra judicial killings and inflammation of the southern situation on his watch, use of tax havens, maids/nominees, wifes land deals etc, and obvious policy corruption to favor his family businesses).
You can talk all you want about the elites, but when it comes to elections it is the rural masses that have the real power.
Has Thaksin shown any remorse for the way the country became more divisive under his rule, or offered any apology or even an explanation for any of his misdeeds?
Please tell us, Andrew, why you think continued support for Thaksin is the way to improve the Thai political situation?
I would also be interested in the results of your ‘serious political discourse’ (research)?, particularly whether support for Thaksin was in any instances unconditional, or conditional only on his party giving handouts to a particular region.
“that coups would no longer be considered necessary or possible.” >> More like: ” So that coups cannot any longer be retroactively be justified with reference to the electorat’s supposed ignorance.” The NPKC coup, btw, was not justified in this way, as far as I can remember.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Any pills on the market to cure Jeru’s intellectual vomitting? (Such a sentence from my patient self!)
Opinion is sufficiently positive for the Thai junta
Observer, you work in the investment sector? Why would you ever hear of anything to do with sufficiency economy in order to make a claim like “I don’t think anyone really believes that the junta is implementing the sufficiency theory.”? Maybe not for you!
Also, this article does not mention how many entrepreneurs were surveyed.
Btw, thanks Nicholas for highlighting Michael Connors blog.
Observing an electoral fiction
Dickie: Yes I would support an amnesty for most of the 111 because
I think the verdict was too harsh and cast the net too wide.
(IMO, only the executive and anyone with direct involvement should have been punished)
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
Col. Jeru (and Ngarn) would rather have the certainty of a military dictatorship through the tyranny of the gun, than the potential of a Thaksin dictatatorship through the tyranny of the ballot box. Clever….
How would have the 2006 crisis played out if there was no coup? Well, Jeru, there would have been an election held in October 2006. Yes TRT probably would have won it. Parties in opposition including the PAD might eventually wake up and do a better job at (1) trying to figure out policies that the people (yes, the ai ban nok people) want and will vote for; and (2) expose Thaksin’s alleged wrong doings. Come the next elections, they may even win a few seats back from TRT.
Sounds like fantasy to you Jeru? Well I reckon its better than the fantasy of relying on a military coup to restore democracy. Who are you gonna call to restrain the Saprangs of this world after HMK is gone? Rama 10? 55555. Privy Council? 555555555.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Pundit: I’ d say there is more chance of getting an apology from the junta (at least Surayud) than there is of ever getting one from Thaksin.
Personally I think the junta/government should apologize for trying to do too much, when they really should just be in caretaker mode pending an election. Things like nuclear energy, FTA’s, mega projects etc should be left to a new elected government.
I also would have liked to have seen the election sooner, but think they have been spooked by Thaksin’s shadow and his fortune has long tentacles and can buy a lot of trouble.
It’s unfortunate that Thaksin could not be trusted when he said he was finished with politics.
Observer: Not that I doubt it, but can you please point me to an english translation of that PNet report (because the reports I saw seemed to indicate that people were paid to vote ‘No’).
PNET reported that on Aug 25, in many areas that rejected the charter, canvassers began to make 200 baht payments to the people; this was different from previous elections where payments were made before voting. PNET also urged the public to monitor the transfer in September of officials in areas that rejected the charter.
Observing an electoral fiction
I think the democratic process had moved along, especially after the 1997 constitution, and I actually thought that coups were a thing of the past – but who knew a Thaksin would come along!
I’m no fan of Sondhi L, or the Thai military, police or aristocracy, however I still think that all this blame on the Bangkok elite, media and certain academics for laying the ground for a coup misses the point – if Thaksin had modified his behavior, been less manipulative, shown some humility and paid fair taxes, then there is no way a coup would have been possible, because Thailand had moved on since the early 1990’s.
Even if the old guard wanted a coup, there is no way it would have been acceptable had Thaksin been straight instead of manipulating the institutions in his favor.
Dickie: I’m not so concerned about appointed senators, because many good people refuse to play the political game for fear of being dragged down into the dirt (and unfortunately many who have something to offer are virtually unelectable unless they have the right connections &/or money)
As long as the media & public scrutinize the senate appointments, and call out any ill qualified appointees, then I actually think there is more chance of getting better senators under the appointment method than by direct election.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
I still fail to see how Andrew Walker can reconcile vote-buying with democracy? I thought it had always been taught in schools, Western or Thai, that the vote is a sacred power and to misuse that power, or SELL the vote, is just plain criminal.
Thaksin of course in many occasions publicly said that ‘corruption is normal’, and he said that straight faced while Thai PM. But of course in Thaksin’s dead-end democracy, to preach corruption as the norm just about makes vote-buying ‘ethically’ acceptable, right Andrew?
But think of this Andrew Walker as you contemplate your ‘rural constipation’ nonsense. The village poor KNEW they sold their vote that led to that criminal Thaksin Shinawatra being elected and re-elected to power. Meekly therefore these bought village voters accepted too the many Thaksin criminal abuses that followed.
It is no wonder those villager poor quickly accepted that the coup was the ONLY way to get rid of Thaksin Shinawatra . . .
People who sell their votes, whether poor or rich, have lost the moral ground to protest if their votes are subsequently made meaningless, via coup or whatever. And those who get elected through massive vote-buying also have lost that ‘moral’ ground to argue that they have a mandate to rule or to hold office.
Sovereign Myth
Dickie Simpkins, your comparison of SCB and Northern Rock belies either your confusion (at best) or deliberate obfuscation (at worst).
In SCB’s case, the Thai state bailed out the shareholders (i.e. the elite). The shareholders effectively got a free get out of gaol card by receiving equity capital injection on very friendly terms.
In Northern Rock’s case, there is NO attempt to bail out Northern Rock shareholders. If your are currently a Nortnern Rock shareholder you will know this well. The actions of the BoE (acting as lender of last resort to Northern Rock) is aimed at protecting the depositors in the bank (i.e. moms and dads, the common people) and to protect confidence in the banking system (good for everybody commoner and elite alike). There is a big difference between protecting depositors and bailing out shareholders. The BoE could never do the same for Northern Rock shareholders as the Thai state did for SCB shareholders.
Ajarn Jose in the paper
[…] Mandala readers who have been following the case of Ajarn Yanatharo may find a new commentary published by the Buddhist website Mahabodhi interesting. The full […]
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
nganadeeleg,
Redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is inherently divisive. Have the rich ever liked having the playing field leveled? In this regard, some element of divisiveness should be OK.
However, I am unconvinced that Thaksin was responsible for the large divisions that currently rend Thai society. The gap was there before Thaksin. The poor didn’t really like being poor before Thaksin, it was just easier for Bangkokians to ignore it. But ignorance of other’s views isn’t unity.
If the military and their gang had just let the elections run their course, I don’t think we would have had anywhere near the level of division we have now.
Sonthi Lim, in what is now obviously a well-funded effort by Prachai and Saprang to further their own personal interests, was far more divisive than Thaksin. It was he who forced this into a confrontation, when elections were looming.
The junta has furthered this division by marginalizing the representatives of the poor and putting their homes under martial law as if they were the enemy.
Do you really believe this crap about handouts still? After P-net said that the military tried to buy the constitutional vote? After Saprang and Banawit loot every state-owned enterprise they can pull under their power? Puea Pandin shows up on the front page of newspapers with Vattana Asavaheme?
Every government since 1932 has bought votes. Every one. So yes, TRT did. Yes, it is a scourge of Thai politics.
But rural voters love TRT for the 30 Baht healthacre program, reduction of drugs and low level corruption, support for economic development, and for taking their concerns seriously.
Yes, TRT was in part a collection of old wine in new bottles. But the junta is old wine in old bottles. Newin on one side and Vattana on the other. And you see black and white, good and evil?
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Is it just me or were others too “censored” by Andrew Walker
when the poster does not suit his ‘sufficiency’ standards?
(by my count, Andrew Walker must have at least
blocked at least four of my posters)
If you can’t take the heat Andrew Walker, then drop out from
your Thaksin cheering squad duties.
Sovereign Myth
Thaksin was not “unpopular in Bangkok”! Look at the 2005 election result. Rather, he was the first elected Thai PM who had the support of both BKK and the countryside (except the South). Before him, people in BKK had normally voted against the PM.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Has Thaksin shown any remorse for the way the country became more divisive under his rule, or offered any apology or even an explanation for any of his misdeeds?
Has the junta shown any remorse for how the country has become more divided under their rule? Or an apology for staging a rebellion, a criminal offence, when staging the coup?
Opinion is sufficiently positive for the Thai junta
1) I work in the investment / finance sector in Thailand. I never hear anyone talk about sufficiency economy unless prompted. I remain convinced that no one really knows or cares what it means. Clearly the positive response in the poll has more to do with who initiated the theory than how and if it was implemented (whatever it is and whatever the implementation might look like).
2) I don’t think anyone really believes that the junta is implementing the sufficiency theory. If the poll had asked: What do you think of the junta’s implementation of economic policy? I am sure the results would be far worse than the buzz word-laden version.
3) The government has not implemented a mass transit program at all. It is impossible to be satisfied with it unless you don’t want a mass transit program.
4) We got a briefing on politics and economic this morning that included a strongly worded paraphrasing of the Thai business community’s view of the Junta. Basically, “Awk Pai!”
5) However, the businesses that I deal with are generally larger than those in the Thai Chamber of Commerce and have more beneficial exposure to international trade and capital markets. The Thai Chamber has been the most protectionist and would be expected to be more positive than other business segments.
6) Why are any of us paying attention to a survey done by a third tier Thai University? Even at the best universities these are often done by students sitting in a group on the floor and filling in blanks with different colored pens, or after some seminar. As far as I know, only ABAC and Suan Dusit are considered remotely meaningful.
Observing an electoral fiction
nganadeeleg:
Societal formations and its components, here the polity, normally move very slowly. There had not been any coups since 1991, there had been a new constitution and a number of elections. Political communications in rural areas have increased tremendously due to the decentralization process, which is, however, far from perfect. I am not impressed by the political parties, and neither by the politicians. But, then, I am also not impressed by Thai journalists, businessmen, bureaucrats, teachers, and university academics. Their good luck is that they don’t have to pass through election processes for getting their jobs, that they will normally keep them even if they work lousily and are corrupt, and that they are not under constant observation by the public and the mass media.
Part of development is generational, meaning that people who look at politics through their experiences of the past 40 to 60 years will by and by be replaced by new generations whose socio-political starting points will be considerably different in many respects. Simply speaking, Kamnan Pho’s kids are foreign-educated, etc.
Maybe, I am too jai yen.
Observing an electoral fiction
nganadeeleg,
I’ll answer that question (if you don’t mind).
Nope. Nein. Nyet. Nahin. Iya. Mai.
I wish I knew more languages to say no in.. though I’m more interested to learn how to say ‘yea baby yea’ Austin power style in many languages.
At least until Thai Democracy can give equal representation in parliament (be it an upper house) wherein each province gets 1 or 2 elected representatives, I think not.
I was kinda happy (at first) upon reading that there will be 1 senator per province. But I hate the idea that the remainders will be ‘selected’. Absolutely disgusting concept. Either way, i hope the next government will amend that and maybe compromise at somehere between 20-22 ‘appointed’ senators only. That way we can have a 100 seat senate, and reduce by more than half the damn selected senators. Then hopefully down the road somewhere, we can rid of them fully.
I have a question for you ngadeleeg: Do you support giving amnesty to the 111 executives provided they recognize and apologize their wrongdoing?
cheers.
Sovereign Myth
James,
1. The state always bails banking and property at the expense of the ‘people’. Look at Northern Rock in England.
2. I agree with you, but then I will refer to the fool some people some of the time and fool most of the people most of the time…
3. Agreed.
The problem with Thaksin is that he was unpopular in Bangkok and immensely unpopular in the South. It is understood that the NE has the most people and because of his popularity there, he was arguable still the ‘popular’ choice to lead the country under Democratic principles. For the sake of brevity, I will cut a long-wided bridging argument to present 2-3 points.
In the United States, the framers of the constitution understood that the representation shouldn’t be only by the numbers, that is why in the US senate, each state provides 2 senators regardless of size. Hence, a tiny little state the size of Rhode Island has equal representation to the hugely populous California, though their representation is vastly different in congress. This is important because it highlights the voice of smaller states (or in this case provinces/districts) where the PM was unpopular.
Second, and hear this loud and clear. Thaksin wasn’t even the PM! His one-party election resulted in a parliament that couldn’t convene. Hence, he and his party were no longer the government. He was a care-taker PM who quit the post, and then re-appointed his own return. Is that even allowed? So I will disagree with you, and even point out that you are misinformed for saying that his popularness was for ‘very good reasons’ as you say it.
Though I will concede that it would’ve been interesting if we could vote province by province to see which provinces would’ve impeached that nepotistic cronyist who changed the rules of the game to level the playing field for everyone except for his friends and family.
Either ways, some food for thought.
Observing an electoral fiction
Srithanonchai: It still gets back to corruption, in one form or other.
Do you think the democratic process has moved along at all in the last 15 years?
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Luckily, visiting this site is just a hobby for me, because otherwise my blood would boil having to continually read Andrew’s tripe about the ‘rural constitution’.
Blind Freddy knows that a lack of ethics is prevalent in Thailand, and it is obviously not limited to the one section of society, be it the elites or the rural masses.
It is not enough to say that Thaksin has yet to be convicted of anything, nor to allege that if he ever was it would only be by a kangaroo court.
There is already enough evidence in the public domain of inappropriate behavior of a PM by Thaksin, and it bores me to have to go over it again (for example, extra judicial killings and inflammation of the southern situation on his watch, use of tax havens, maids/nominees, wifes land deals etc, and obvious policy corruption to favor his family businesses).
You can talk all you want about the elites, but when it comes to elections it is the rural masses that have the real power.
Has Thaksin shown any remorse for the way the country became more divisive under his rule, or offered any apology or even an explanation for any of his misdeeds?
Please tell us, Andrew, why you think continued support for Thaksin is the way to improve the Thai political situation?
I would also be interested in the results of your ‘serious political discourse’ (research)?, particularly whether support for Thaksin was in any instances unconditional, or conditional only on his party giving handouts to a particular region.
Observing an electoral fiction
“that coups would no longer be considered necessary or possible.” >> More like: ” So that coups cannot any longer be retroactively be justified with reference to the electorat’s supposed ignorance.” The NPKC coup, btw, was not justified in this way, as far as I can remember.