Thaksin Shinawatra — and the multi-pronged political, commercial and social movement that bears his long-term imprimatur — has shown that when it comes to winning elections he is Thailand’s best. His sister, Yingluck, will become Thailand’s first female Prime Minister.
Tonight’s result is a remarkable return to power for a political force that was forced out at the barrel of a gun on the night of 19 September 2006. In the years since then it has been constantly disrupted by royalist, military and judicial interventions. With more than 100 of its leading figures banned from politics Pheua Thai has succeeded in solidly defeating the very best the venerable Democrat Party can pitch against it.
Undiminished support for Thaksin’s political machine sends a strong message, domestically and internationally: efforts to undermine him have been unsuccessful. There is now little doubt that Thaksin’s political forces are now in a stronger position than they would have been if the 2006 coup had not been staged and if electoral judgements had been allowed to run their course.
Thaksin won in 2001, increased his majority in 2005, and then managed to pull together the numbers, under very difficult circumstances, in 2007. In 2011, much to the dismay of his opponents, Thaksin has once again stolen the show. Smart campaigning and effective brand management are part of this story. Less subtle efforts to curry-favour and barrel-the-pork are surely also relevant in many electorates. Whatever the locally-specific reasons for the Pheua Thai victory, at a national level it is an impressive one.
Pheua Thai will have to manage their success very carefully. Thaksin’s inevitable return to Thailand and his possible political rehabilitation is likely to galvanise fierce opposition. The events of 2008 are a reminder of how politically debilitating a determined group of anti-Thaksin protesters can be. Pheua Thai can legitimately claim a mandate for Thaksin assuming some role in government (“Thaksin Thinks, Pheua Thai Acts”) but they would be wise to move very slowly on his reintegration into the Thai polity.
Thailand’s royal family, military and judiciary will also have to respond to this result very carefully. No doubt, there will be hotheads looking to activate some of the legal booby-traps planted in the 2007 constitution. But to move against this government, either through legal manipulation or a more open display of force, would be lunacy. The millions of voters who turned out for Yingluck simply won’t tolerate yet another electoral decision being overturned. Voters have gone to the polls in a peaceful and orderly manner. If their judgement is dismissed, those who advocate much more violent approaches to political change will, inevitably, play their hand.
Thailand now has an opportunity to start re-building faith in the electoral process. It would be a national tragedy if this opportunity was squandered.
I hope that the Malaysian government will realise the importance of having a free and fair election after observing the elections in Thailand. To rely on a fraudulent system to stay in power is detrimental to Malaysia in the long run.
0
0
WTF!?!?! They showed the concession/acceptance speeches on TV, all but 5 minutes each, and immediately cut to the Royal news. Not showing the Q&A with PM Yingluck. Great timing. Had to switch to Al Jazeera.
0
0
Thaksin mentioned in VoiceTV that the establishment and those who have tried to obstruct PT to power should reconsider their attempt and respect people’s voice.
0
0
Thaksin mentioned his plan back to Thailand at the end of this year was still uncertain.
0
0
Checkmate . The election results demonstrate how Aphisit’s crackdown on Red protesters in 2010 was excessive, shameful, and a complete strategic failure. All the Dems had to do is establish a reasonable time for new elections to end the protests. Instead, they chose brinksmanship and violence.
Some interesting questions: Would the Dems have been so resoundingly defeated had they just called for elections initially, before the crackdown. Would Yingluck have emerged? Would there have been the pre-election backdoor deals involving Thaksin directly? Aphisit’s tenure has been a political failure on many levels.
Nobody can out-think Thaksin in a chess match. He’s a brilliant chess player. His opponents will forever doubt every move they try against him going forward. Who is eager to challenge him now?
0
0
Now, the question is..will Abhisit resign from being a party leader?
0
0
Now our new PM ought to make a few signal moves to define her new administration.
It would be nice to hear her order Thai troops away from the Cambodian border, to demonstrate her commitment to treating neighbors as friends; and to allow the people on the ground on both sides of the border to come up with a plan for longterm peace between the two nations, to demonstrate her commitment to grass roots democracy and decentralization; and to allow the Royal Thai Army a rest, now that there is a competent civilian regime, to demonstrate the reality of civilian rule in Thailand. After the past five long years.
As well if would be good if she would order a real, impartial investigation of the death of Pvt. Wichien to demonstrate her commitment to human rights; and to back that up with a real, impartial investigation of the disappearance of Somchai Neelaphijit, and the administration of justice to those who ‘disappeared’ him, to demonstrate the fair-handedness of her commitment.
Other such signal moves are possible as well… strike while the iron is hot and flush of victory, the joy at the first female Thai PM, are still generally shared, and the opportunity for thinking new and doing new is ripe.
0
0
A joke by Chuwit comparing ‘someone’ with Pla-Lai (eel with its slippery skin) who always gets to be part of the government.
http://lockerz.com/s/116620822
0
0
A great analysis. Thank you.
0
0
[…] Walker and Nicholas Farrelly, writing for the New Mandala, hopes that Thailand will rebuild its confidence in the electoral and democratic processes Tonight’s result is a remarkable return […]
0
0
It isn’t over until they dealt with the red/yellow cards storm that is sure to come up next. Then maybe some court decision will try and dissolve the PT party again. Doubt the elite will ever go down quietly.
0
0
This is a great victory for Thailand. Who ever think they can play a dirty trick to bring down this government will have to face with 14 millions people who vote for Yingluck. This is a very strong victory for the Prue Thai Party since this election was under a great influence of the Democrat. The democrat used all kinds of dirty tricks in this election but they still lost, they never learnt from the past.
0
0
Had Abhisit embraced the red shirt movement, today he would have been re-elected. This was either a strategic mistake by the Dems or else the Royalists pulled the strings of the PM. Either way it was a losing strategy. Thaksin will come back in due time and will pull the strings as he did now. For the sake of real change in the powerstructure of Thai politics this is a positive result. For too long the rural people didn’t have any representation and voice. Thaksinism will eventually go but democracy has a chance now that the poor people are more enlightened.
0
0
It’s time for idiots to bow out.
0
0
Some of these comments worry me because they seem to conflate voting for Thaksin with voting for democracy. Yes, lets reject the coup and the entrenched elite. But lets not overlook Thaksin’s blatant self interest. Lets hope the new new government prove themselves as inclusive, progressive, and non-confrontational leaders. I have to say I am not optimistic they will do more than simply suit Thaksin’s financial interests without really changing deeper social divisions.
0
0
Fraud probe could change poll results.
0
0
LondonEye: It is a bit difficult to conceive of a 72% turnout as somehow not representative. I know Abhisit said something similar when he started talking about a majority didn’t vote for PT, but he’s fudging. Maybe a question to be asked is whether the anti-Thaksin lot will now be “progressive, and non-confrontational.” I somehow doubt it.
0
0
Oops, sorry, but by representative in my previous comment, I meant representative of a spirit of democratic participation.
0
0
The people of Thailand have spoken… with a roar. I hope even those whose ears have been plugged with years of “democrat / royalist” bull*&* can hear the call of the Thais. This is real majority, not just some claims of -you don’t understand Thai people rubbish.
0
0
Robert Dayley #5
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”.)
0
0
There is a window of opportunity for things to move forward now. Those extra-parliamentary forces should recognize that the more they meddle the more people go the other way. PTP have done better than PPP did and the Dems have gone down. Lets hope that PTP are allowed space to form a government without pressures and to get on with running the country and delivering on their promises. It shouldnt be forgotten that the establishment gave this election at a time they chose, called it a let the people decide election and have even with perceived advantages and years to undermine their opponents lost. They may yet realise that the world is a changing place and they are increasingly out of touch with it and have no tools to change this
Parliament is also going to be fun with Chuwit in it. He makes Chalerm look positively boring and has more fire than the velvet assasin that was Chuan years back.
0
0
Robert Daley – 5
Nobody can out-think Thaksin in a chess match. He’s a brilliant chess player. His opponents will forever doubt every move they try against him going forward. Who is eager to challenge him now?
Robert, do you think you may possibly be a little too gushing, a little too North Korean even?
Seh Fah – 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”.)
Isn’t that what the yellow shirts were saying about Somchai?
0
0
Fantastic result. Maybe we can all book tickets back to Thailand now?
0
0
“Whatever the locally-specific reasons for the Pheua Thai victory, at a national level it is an impressive one.”
Ok let’s accept the majority’s choice but let’s not forget those locally-specific reasons for Yingluck’s victory also.
Thailand’s north and northeast where Pheu Thai gained the most votes are home to the obvious vote-buying scheme, and the country’s rural populations who are promised some goodies (read: easy money) from Pheu Thai’s populists (as in 2001’s One Million Baht One Village Fund Program).
Seeing that Thaksin has referred to his sister as “my clone”, I doubt if the new government will be less corrupted and authoritarian as his brother’s has proven to be. As a resident of Chiang Mai, hometown of both the new and ex PM, I’m distressed by what kind of developments the government will bring to the province. Back when Thaksin was in power, he has been known to initiate many mindless (read: tasteless) mega tourism projects that did more to attract tourists than improve the residents’ quality of life. A Disneyland-like amusement park on part of Suthep mountain, a cable car project on ecologically-sensitive land of Chiang Dao mountain, you name it. Thankfully all these appear to be forgotten
Considering the peculiar mindset and insensitive development policies Thai Rak Thai, now Pheu Thai party, is prone to, I am not optimistic.
0
0
LesAbbey — # 22
You are to be congratulated because while your colleagues (including Prayuth who refuses to speak for 2 weeks) are now in deep mourning period, you keep on shouting alone near the lost battle-field last night.
0
0
The right result, but neither a huge step forward or backwards for Thailand.
Thanks to the work of good journalists, the last 5 years have been educational. We now know: The 2006 coup was the army’s message to Thaksin that “you can take all the power in Thailand, except ours.” The riots in 2010 were largely Thaksin’s message to the army that “you can thwart every attempt at equality in Thailand except elections.”
Now that both parties have shown their cahones and conditions, a compromise is possible. Thaksin makes a deal with the Queen’s army and everyone gets to emerge as winners in a system that remains largely bereft of transparency and accountability.
More money will get spent upcountry on development, which is good and long overdue. Other than that…
Succession is the earthquake. The election was just about earthquake-proofing the buildings. The story continues and let’s all pay attention to the small details.
0
0
Yea the Reds & Puea Thai won – I mean Thaksin won…
The people spoke yesterday and they should leave it now, let the PT party run the country for a bit. Let the poor realise they will still be poor and the price of living will still go up. Let them watch as their great leader steals more from the country and their social position does not change, because in all truthfulness, this is politics in Thailand and THAT is a dirty game, not for the people, but for power for people like Thaksin…good luck Thailand, it really looks like a stable country now after it has charged a man with corruption against the state and then allowed his sister to become PM…Thailands Imelda Marcos…
Dont forget the people voted for Hitler too…
0
0
Les Abbey # 22
You’re quite right. He could have been talking about Somchai Wongsawat in 2008. Or Suchina Kraprayun in 1992. Or Seni Pramoj in 1976. Or Thanom Kittikajorn in 1973.
0
0
The ‘people have spoken’ but the land remains divided. Check out the map of seat distributions. The problems have not gone away.
@Robert: 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?
0
0
@RalphKramden #17: I am saying there is a difference between procedural democracy and substantive democracy. Yes, the result was an example of procedural democracy, but Thaksin (when he was PM) was known more for lining his own pocket than addressing social divisions on anything more than a basis designed to secure votes. I am no supporter of the ‘anti-Thaksin’ lot either.
0
0
Alex – 24
Why thank you Alex for your kind words. I have a feeling it’s going to be far easier to argue from the opposition side over the next couple of years. Even looking at the comments above it seems different to just a day ago. Some of the red shirt supporters who were already troubled by being linked to Thaksin are going to find it even harder as the PT government swings into action. (Is it confirmed that the good gentlemen of Chonburi have joined the government yet?)
0
0
“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?
0
0
Simon #28,
I’m actually more amazed at the incompetence of Abhisit in regards to those issues. That and he had the gall to do the same to the Rohingya Boat people.
0
0
#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?
0
0
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.
0
0
londoneye: My point is that 3 elections have clearly demonstrated a political preference and a determination to have that choice recognized. No democracy can begin without recognition of the voice of the people.
On the inevitable “Dont forget the people voted for Hitler too…”; of course they did, it was an electoral system. However, if my memory os correct, not once did the Nazis win a majority in parliament (until they stood as the only permitted party). When Hitler stood for president in 1932 he was beaten by 8m, votes in the 1st round and 6m, in the 2nd round.
0
0
[…] Walker e Nicholas Farrelly, escrevendo para New Mandala, esperam que a Tail├вndia reconstrua [en] sua confian├зa nos processos eleitorais e democr├бticos: Tonight’s result is a remarkable […]
0
0
It appears that for Western observers their perspective is idealistically skewed viewing the ‘Red vs. Yellow’ debate as liberal democratic forces versus outmoded monarchy/military power, which is rather oversimplifying things. Although the 2006 coup was highly controversial, lets not forget the powder keg the Thai Rak Thai party under Thaksin ignited in the Deep South of Thailand, destroying the past decade of restorative peace initiatives between Buddhist and Muslim Thai relations. Furthermore, in 2006, then Foreign Minister (of Australia) Alexander Downer condemned the Thai military for ousting an allegedly corrupt, but democratically elected government. Which was rather ironic since it was apparently fine for Coalition (foreign) forces to oust the leader of Iraq (a sovereign state).
Additionally I don’t think it is unreasonable for people to be bringing up the past political instability/crimes/mass murders that occurred under Thaksin’s time as head of the Thai state. The issue is not whether or not people acknowledge this before speaking, it’s rather people seem to be highly biased against the Democrat party and are painting them as incompetent trigger happy thugs, while at the same time illustrating Thaksin as the future of a unified and democratic Thailand.
Comments such as, ‘The election results demonstrate how Aphisit’s crackdown on Red protesters in 2010 was excessive, shameful, and a complete strategic failure. All the Dems had to do is establish a reasonable time for new elections to end the protests.’ illustrates this point well. At the time the Aphisit government had arranged reasonable election time lines, however opposition then made more (unreasonable) demands which contributed to the break down of negotiations and led to the riots. Plus Bangkok was hardly the image of stability before those riots owing to Red shirt protestors burning down significant buildings in the CBD of Bangkok and significantly damaging the economy by halting business in those sectors. The problem was both sides had a lot of unaddressed grievances that kept escalating. So no one side is to blame, both sides played a part.
Overall lets have some balance here. Don’t paint Thaksin as a heroic man of the people, because that is an idealistic delusion, and lets give some credit to the Aphisit government. They were in a bad situation trying to do the best they could. This post probably sounds very bias, but I’m simply trying to balance out the idealistic bias already posted.
0
0
First order of the day:
Who ordered the killing of 91 people in Rajprasong.
Who are the people responsible for it?
Who are the ‘men in black’?
Yingluck and Phuea Thai… do you dare actually investigate and isolate all those responsible for the escalation?
My instincts say not… and all we will get is another one-sided investigation :0)
0
0
LesAbbey, # 31
You are most welcome to argue from the opposition side (against Yingluck) from now on. I am sure you share Suthep’s warning that if more than half of the country is controlled by reds, there will be “change” in administration. As you can see from the coloured political map, the reds are already in control of Isan, the north, part of central region, and outer/northern part of Bangkok, do you think the defeated Democrats can still defend the south for another few years ? Btw, the Chonburi clan (actually they are former TRT) has decided to join Yingluck’s coalition.
0
0
Dickie Simpkins #39
What killing of 91 people at Ratchaprasong?
As far as I can recall, there were 26 people killed at Khok Wua Intersection on 10 April 2010 (5 soldiers and 21 civilians) and 42 people killed at Ratchaprasong on 14-19 May 2010 (41 civilians and 1 soldier). There was also the fatal wounding of Seh Daeng on 13 May 2010, and possibly other deaths as well.
Please don’t just repeat the inaccurate Red Shirt allegation that 91 civilian demonstrators were murdered at Ratchaprasong. It’s almost as bad as the army’s absurd claim that they didn’t kill anyone at all.
0
0
Seh #41
Whatever the deal, 91 people died.
Abhisit’s government did nothing to find accountability or to isolate the factors (usually it is a series of mistakes) that lead to the unfortunate killings of people, soldiers, and reporters. (Mostly people who are/were red shirt supporters though).
Will Yingluck be any better?
Or is more of the same just the name of the game?
0
0
Dickie Simkins # 42.
I don’t recall anyone being found guilty of the deaths in October 1973 , October 1976, May 1992 or Tak Bai in 2004, let alone the “war on drugs”, Khrue Seh Mosque, or the War to Liberate the State of Pattani (sorry, the campaign to suppress the separatist insurgency). I’m not expecting anything different from Yingluck, but we can at least try to keep published accounts of what happened as accurate as possible.
0
0
Seh Fah #42
My point exactly, no change in the game.
I’ve read your comment maybe about 20 times, maybe you are trying to tell me something?
Or do you simply enjoy restating what I am stating to include more specifics and semantics?
Or rather, what is your point exactly?
Mine is simple if you haven’t got it; I will spell it out.
For all the talk here about accountability, deaths, justice etc. etc., I am saying that there is no difference, especially if a backdoor deal has been made. I don’t believe Lese Majeste will be reduced, just reused to benefit another political group.
Having said that, let’s note the positives (since I feel you’re quite nitty gritty on details)
The people have spoken, they would rather ‘their’ dictator who takes action and does things rather than a do-gooder who does zilch. I find that 5 years after the coup (the same amount of time Thaksin was in power), that the peasants return to him constantly is less about Thaksin now and more about a message to those who are in power. This is my reading of the outcome, there will be hundreds (if not thousands more), and given that each of us has our own ability to perceive than perhaps millions and millions more readings are available! Probably why I wasn’t so bothered about spelling it out exactly. And in case you get all shocked, the term peasants here is used as a metaphor. And not as in I met her for lunch either.
Given the current situation, and the fact that (ideally) the new government would not want to really delve into any investigation that would blame anybody, especially those on their side who played a part in seriously upping the ante, that we are just going to have more of the same.
With that scenario, will the Red Shirts, given that they were the majority of the people who lost their lives, still pressure this government for the seemingly lost Truth? See: my concern is less the government and more about what people will do.
So now, we will know if the Red Shirt is independent or not. Or rather, will it be found out that it’s just another patronage network biding the needs of its master. Now, I point no accusations here, I don’t know if it is or is not. Jim Taylor says it is independent and self-sustaining, Les Abbey says it is a patronage network. I’m letting the factors of time + action tell me.
The question I ask, and why I ask is because I’m one of those dudes who (in Thai political terms) like effective Opposition politics and threw my hand in to the very clean dude who did 4 times better than expected. If you’re shocked at why he is very clean… then I say he has had more people bathe him than I can possibly imagine!
Having said that, and given that this question was raised throughout by Phuea Thai and by extension the Red Shirt movement; I would like this new 4 seat opposition ask the same, since unlike the other parties involved, they really were not involved.
0
0
Dickie Simpkins # 44.
You asked “Who ordered the killing of 91 people in Rajprasong?” Your question is based on an inaccurate assumption.
There were in fact two major incidents of violence in April-May last years, the first at Khok Wua in which 26 people were killed, and the second at Pratchprasong in which 42 people died. There were also 23 deaths elsewhere.
During the first incident it is apparent that the army came under sufficiently heavy fire to suffer 5 men killed and a number of others wounded, several severely, while in the second incident only 1 soldier was killed, and friendly fire was a possible cause. It is also probable that the majority, but not all, of the 21 civilians killed at Khok Wua and the 41 civilians killed at Ratchaprasong died as a result of military gunfire.
My point is that what is required is an impartial, competently conducted investigation to determine, as far as possible, the cause of death of each and every victim and the person(s) responsible. Questions based in inaccurate assumptions, like “Who ordered the killing of 91 people in Rajprasong?” when the total killed there was 42, and the partial retraction “Whatever the deal, 91 people died”, will not advance the search for truth and are less than helpful.
Only a properly constituted and empowered fact finding commission could do that. And given the Thai record in the wake of similar incidents, particularly October 1973, October 1976 and May 1992, I’m not hopeful this will happen, even under a Phuea Thai government.
0
0
#45
“Only a properly constituted and empowered fact finding commission could do that. And given the Thai record in the wake of similar incidents, particularly October 1973, October 1976 and May 1992, I’m not hopeful this will happen, even under a Phuea Thai government.”
that is exactly what I am saying.
Maybe with more jest, but given that we are talking about lives taken, perhaps I should not be joking about these very serious issues.
I just can’t help myself with the simplifications of the questions when, “an impartial, competently conducted investigation to determine, as far as possible, the cause of death of each and every victim and the person(s) responsible. ” has never occurred in Thailand. And mind you, I didn’t make the question up, I am simply repeating the question the government in waiting has been asking when they were in Opposition.
But given the political realities, I am hopeful that berating the questions back to them will create the nuance (from mindful people such as yourself) required for such an investigation.
So while you find my questioning unhelpful… I find it that it is the best thing that should happen. So I suppose that is where we are different.
0
0
@Dickie asked: “who ordered the killing, and who are the person responsible for it?”
As to your first question, no one actually knows who ordered it.
I can, however, answer you on the second question: who is responsible?
This is the rule of criminal complicity:
http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3010/3010lect03.htm
-the doctrine of respondeat superior — this establishes the notion of “vicarious liability” where a [b]master is responsible for the illegal conduct of their servant. The relationship is what creates the liability. It dispenses with the element of actus reus in the same way strict liability dispenses with the element of mens rea.[/b] Officers of a corporation can be punished by imprisonment only if the corporation has been held “criminally liable” first, the officer has been found guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance by their corporation, and (unless stated otherwise in statute) the officer causes, requests, commands, or in any way authorizes the illegal act to be committed.
So according to the doctrine of respondeat superior (as explained above), a master has a duty to stop his ‘servants’ for committing a criminal wrong. [b]He might not be liable for the wrong which his servant commits if he does not know about it. But once he knows that his servant has done something wrong, he has the duty to stop his servant from committing a wrong immediately. [/b] Failure to stop his servant from committing a wrong means the master will be held responsible for the crimes his servants committed.
Now, we know that the army killed the protesters. This is indeed a criminal wrong. So the master of the army would be responsible for their wrong, according to the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Now, who is the Head of Thai Armed Forces?
Thai Constitutional 2007:
http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html
Section 10 of the 2007 Constitution clearly states who is the Head of Thai Armed Forces. Look it up, if you want to know who is responsible 😉
0
0
Democracy throw buying votes cannot be considered democracy. It is a common tactic utilized by Thaksin to pay community leaders a fee for collecting ID cards from towns people in their province and surrounding rural areas. These community leaders then claim the right to cast the votes for these people. Democracy throw bullying votes cannot be considered democracy. I have heard of many Thai employers in Australia, who support Thaksin & who employ Thai nationals, use coersion upon these Thai nationals to vote for Thaksin. If this can be done so blatantly here in Australia, one must think what is happening in Thailand.
The rhetoric that Thaksin has been under attack from the elite of Thailands Socio-economic class is questionable if you consider the fact that in the past few years after the coupe against Thaksin , we have seen a slow down in the Thai economy, but after this election the domestic money market has begun to move in a more positive direction. If the premise had any element of truth would we not have seen the complete opposite. We in the west are simply being feed the old cliche of rich vs poor. There are many things which are not discussed and many things that are to intricate to be explain but a easiest way is to simply say, if anyone here really knows Thailand, they would probably think that the phrase “Money talks, Bullshit walks” was most likely coined there.
0
0
“Seh Fah”:
“…while in the second incident only 1 soldier was killed, and friendly fire was a possible cause.”
Friendly fire was the definite cause of that incident – it happened in front of me and a few other photographers (i have a very horrible photo of the soldier).
I would not be so hung up on the numbers, as both the number ’91’ and the term Rajaprasong are representative for all of last year’s calamity. Also soldiers, the dead PAD protester, the dead cops, and the dead journalists were humans whose life was gambled with (i don’t see any color in the dead – just lost lives).
Of course the “truth” is a very complex issue, but chances are that this time much of the “truth” will come out, at least substantially more than in previous violent incidents here. But will people believe it then?
Personally speaking – the day after the elections i was quite depressed. I was thinking of why there could not have been an agreement for long overdue elections before April 10 last year, why the government was going on and on then about the “silent majority” (which has spoken now), somehow justifying its refusal by mob rule, silent majorities supposedly on its side, and whatever not. For what? One more year in office?
Many lives could have been saved.
0
0
Nick Nostitz – 47
Personally speaking – the day after the elections i was quite depressed. I was thinking of why there could not have been an agreement for long overdue elections before April 10 last year, why the government was going on and on then about the “silent majority” (which has spoken now), somehow justifying its refusal by mob rule, silent majorities supposedly on its side, and whatever not. For what? One more year in office? Many lives could have been saved.
I can understand your wish that the events of April 10th. 2010 didn’t happen, that circumstances before then had been different, but it did happen and it’s important we should know the ‘whats and whys’ of it.
Your wish that Abhisit government had a different policy on early elections can be matched by those that wished that Thaksin and the UDD had a different policy on regaining power. In the end it comes down to who fired the first lethal shot and who benefited from it. I guess we all have our own suspicions on that.
0
0
Democracy on Sale #46,
In a Democratic society, electoral vote is considered to be a basic right.
You might not like it, but seeing how voting is an integral part of Democracy. May be it is YOU who does not fit in?
You can’t increase your vote by getting a PHD, nor by paying more taxes than the others. By that definition, Thaksin should have at least millions of votes more than an average beggar. The system just doesn’t work that way.
0
0
Seh Fah, we still can’t find who killed King Rama VIII. How many years it has been since? You should know how cover-ups work in this country by now. If someone high up enough wants something to be forgotten, it stays forgotten.
Skeletons? Cemeteries of secrets is more accurate.
0
0
[…] Farrelly)ыКФ ьЭ┤ы▓И ьДаъ▒░ыбЬ эГЬъ╡ньЭ┤ эИмыкЕэХШъ│а ып╝ьг╝ьаБьЭ╕ ьДаъ▒░ ьаИь░иьЧР ыМАэХЬ ьЛаыв░ые╝ эЪМы│╡эХШъ╕╕ эЭмызЭэЦИыЛд. ьШдыКШ ьК╣ыжмыКФ 2006ыЕД 9ьЫФ 19ьЭ╝ ъ╡░ы╢АьЭШ ь┐аыН░эГАыбЬ ым╝ыЯмыВЬ ьаХъ╢МьЭШ […]
0
0