Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
If Thailand holds elections in July, will they be fair?
Yes …
and no.
Yes, they will be fair in terms of basic electoral process. I have little sympathy for the claims made by some on the opposition/red shirt side of politics that Abhisit will use electoral cheating and manipulation to hold onto office. These are exactly the charges that were levelled against Thaksin and his allies. It is entirely predictable that they are now being levelled against Abhisit.
Claim and counter-claim about cheating are part and parcel of political competition in Thailand. But it is a dangerous political ritual that, ultimately, weakens faith in the electoral process itself.
I have seen no compelling evidence that Thailand’s recent elections have not reflected the will of the electorate. If it is held, the 2011 election will be no different. It will, in overall procedural terms, be fair.
But, if Abhisit does manage to form another government after the election, broader issues of fairness will be far from resolved. Is an election fair when it is widely believed that powerful figures are only likely to accept one result? Is an election fair when the main opposition party has been neutered by the courts, not once but twice? Is an election fair when scores of key opposition figures have been banned from politics? Is an election fair when the alternative leader – illegally deposed in a military coup – is unable to contest it?
Of all these questions, the political fate of Thaksin is the trickiest for Thailand’s political future. As long as the Democrats are unwilling or unable to face him at an election, they will have to live with the charge of electoral unfairness. Many may think that such a caveat on the government’s legitimacy is a reasonable price to pay for a Thaksin-free Thailand. But it is a price that is paid in the currency of electoral fairness and while it may be a short term fix for some, in the longer term it may prove very costly indeed.
A Thai election is like a lateral pass in football. Not progress exactly, but a moment to reposition everyone and see who’s vulnerable to being outrun.
Benefits this time might include 1) accelerating the fracture and demise of the PAD, 2) pressuring the UDD to legitimize their popularity with policy, 3) forcing Thaksin to either assert red leadership or relinquish it, 4) encourage a rational assessment of the Democrats by some voters and the press, 5) prod the pundits into reading the Constitution again.
Also it decreases the chances of violence in April if there’s a poll in June/July. Maybe it’s a barometer of personal cynicism to think that this is good enough.
0
0
there will be election but i don’t think it will be fair. the history will repeat like as you say claim and counter claim. Abhisit might be clean but people around him are not. i don’t think opposition & UDD had to be so much worried if they lose, since opposition are the one who are truly talking about democracy, freedom of expression & believe in ballot. i believe opposition will respect the people choice, the military & Elite will do whatever it takes to keep opposition by-side & bring back democrat led government.
In the case of Thaksin, i think he should come back & fight for the justice. he should face a trail & show a great example for other people. i don’t believe he’ll lose the ground if he accepted the charge.Thaksin is not only the corrupted politician in this country. i believe he is still powerful figure in thai politics.
0
0
AW: “As long as the Democrats are unwilling or unable to face him at an election, they will have to live with the charge of electoral unfairness.”
Andrew, I think you’re off-track here. Given that Samak readily admitted that he was a surrogate for Thaksin, the Democrats did effectively face him in 2007 – and lost the contest by quite a margin of seats.
Subject to how PT actually present themselves in the promised election, it’ll possibly be near enough the same surrogacy again; certainly they’ve been making plenty of noises about a win for them bringing about Thaksin’s return – and it seems clear that it’s Thaksin choosing the party’s leader/PM.
In passing, I recommend a new CFR article by Joshua Kurlantzick – “Thailand: A Democratic Failure and Its Lessons for the Middle East” – at http://tinyurl.com/6ke8wby and also Bangkok Pundit’s comments on it at http://tinyurl.com/69qlxbj
0
0
Yes, they will be fair in terms of basic electoral process. I have little sympathy for the claims made by some on the opposition/red shirt side of politics that Abhisit will use electoral cheating and manipulation to hold onto office.
What a strange post Andrew. First you say the above and then you go on to make all sorts of excuses on why a possible win for Abhisit shows the next election to be unfair.
Why is it unfair?
Well for you it seems to be because Thaksin chose, and was allowed, to go into exile in order to escape a two year prison sentence. Or maybe it could be that certain politicians were banned from politics for five years for breaking election rules according to the constitution? Or could it be that bought politicians in the northeast deserted their leader and were persuaded to support the Democrats?
Why all the excuses?
Hopefully it’s because some see a real chance that Thaksin’s political party will not win the next election. I do hope they are right, but I, for one, am only cautiously optimistic. In my heart I would find it hard to forgive a man who organized and financed a failed putsch, (or revolution according to the reader’s beliefs), in which so many young workers and peasants were killed, while he lived a life of luxury.
But then again, everyone to their own and the man will probably receive a pardon in the near future.
0
0
I don’t care much about election to be honest, its not that I lose fate in electorate democracy, but as of now, Thailand is more of a dictatorship with election (similar to Egypt during Mubarak). Therefore, what is so good about election when the real power does not lies with the electorate?
Btw, Andrew you are wrong about this election being “fair” in terms of basic electoral process.
Looking into the detail, the new combination 125:375 split already give the Dem a head start since the N and NE got their MP seat diluted by 16 seats (I could be wrong about the number) while the south got only 8 of the MP seats taken away.
Furthermore, there should be no such thing as “early” election, since no one can be sure where the box is kept or who should be responsible to keep the ballot box “untouch” before the counting. This is certainly odd that anyone can allow to have early election with so much time span to the counting day. I don’t call this fair, but its not that I care.
0
0
Looking at the most recent polls, I think it will be very hard for Abhisit/Democrat to win in all parts of country except the South. This guy has earned the reputation of Dee tae pood (Good at talking only) while his economic policies (selling eggs by the kilo) and failures/scandal (palm oil) is like giving election victory on a platter to Thaksin/Pheu Thai.
For the simple above reason, the reds have strong reasons the ammat-supported Democrats is very likely to cheat in order to survive. But these people are ready, including guarding the ballot boxes.
0
0
Well written and persuasive, Andrew. As others have said – if every claim was taken seriously then there would be no politicians left to contest the election in Thailand.
I think to consider the current elections fair would be akin to holding one’s head in the sand regarding Thai political history. As history tells us, coup is the usual method of regime change in Thailand. It would be a very impressive show of patience and sheer bloodymindedness for a Thai voter to have faith in the electoral process these days…
PS – That said, im thinking this one might be a bit closer to call. I have been hearing quite a bit of support for Abhisit as a person and leader in northern presumed-red areas. He seems popular with the mae baan ….. maybe the ladies of Thailand could get him over the line?
0
0
As Thai politicians have little or no ethics or morals, you can reasonably be assured the election will not be fair. Far from it.
Which Thai DEMOCRATIC election has ever been fair?
The majority of Thai people are still controlled by a small percent of the population who manipulate and buy off the electorate, while for decades maintaining their clique like control over the kingdom and the majority of its resources. Its never been DEMOCRATIC.
Thailand needs a ‘social revolution’ not an election.
Yet where are the youth willing to fight for what is rightly theirs? Who’s there to lead them?
Its total apathy in Thailand compared to what has happened in Egypt and Tunisia.
The old Thai dinosaurs are cunning they have got the youth believing they as Thais are still superior to the rest of the world, if only they knew how their elders really saw them!
0
0
Sometimes our memories are a bit too short term, and yes I do include myself in this.
When we are talking about the fairness in Thailand’s parliamentary system and whether it is democratic or not, we should remember that every Thai parliament in my memory has had the balance of power controlled by provincial persons of influence. (Now some may say that is too mild a name for what is really a Thai version of the mafia, so be my guest in substituting whichever term you feel suits it best.)
Sometimes these influential people have there own smaller or even micro parties, while at other times they are part of major parties such as the Democrats or Puea Thai. My own memory was jogged by the re-emergence today of 78 year old Sanoh Thienthong to probably be a party list candidate for Puea Thai. Being one of the co-founders of TRT with Thaksin it was he who led a 79 MP faction of the NAP to join the TRT. This time the announcement at his ‘Alpine’ golf course home will have far fewer than the 79 MPs he bought with him last time.
Whether we look at new regulations in the most recent constitution or the one before that, Thailand does need some rules to try and clean out the corrupt political families. Coups are obviously not the answer, but neither is Thaksin and Robert Amsterdam.
0
0
I don’t think that anyone can claim that these elections will be fair. There is no way to justify that.
Will the electoral process be co-opted? Maybe, ballot box stuffing is a charge not unheard of in many democracies. Will each persons’ vote count for one vote? Yes, there isn’t going to be any kind of disenfranchisement there. Nor will their likely be any kind of Florida-state-esque disallowing of certain peoples votes. Will the will of the electorate be adhered to? There’s not much of a precedent for that…
By these standards I believe that we can see quite clearly that there probably won’t be any kind of unfairness from a purely operational standpoint but that doesn’t rule out the fact that it isn’t a fair race to begin with. When vote buying is so openly tolerated there is not basis from which to say that each party had a fair chance at election.
Some political parties are so entrenched in the lives of their regions that there is no uprooting them. No-one could ever hope to oust them in an election because of the depth of their integration into all levels of social life. They hand out a few hundred baht a day, everyday, to those who come to them. They own major industries, sponsor all the local events, have friends in the local police and military and have been landowners for generations. I’m speaking here of Chachoengsao Province but there are innumerable others. There is no opposition.
That being said, I still think that the electoral process must be allowed to go through. If you accept that vote buying is a part of the process here you must also accept that people are cunning enough to take the money and run whichever way actually benefits. All democracies go through a corrupt and dubious period. American, English, Japanese, French, Canadian – whatever. In the early days they were all rife with problems. Thailand has never had a chance to really experience democracy for a very long period of time.
0
0
The Democrats tried to win last time under military rule and friendly media with the army ordering all troops to vote Democrat. Common sense dictates that they won’t allow for a real result again, they will rig the election, and whoever complains will just be swept away with an inquiry that will confirm the result 18 months later.
Why take chances? Lock it up, if the Reds complain just gun them down again like the dogs they are perceived to be, plenty of ammunition floating around. Think it will be like the US with their insidious banker bail outs, the corrupt government and agencies just don’t care anymore how fraudulent it looks. If the jokingly home of the free doesn’t care, why would the Thais? Welcome to real democracy, bought and paid for to serve whatever Elite.
0
0
Ross Walker – 10
If you accept that vote buying is a part of the process here you must also accept that people are cunning enough to take the money and run whichever way actually benefits. All democracies go through a corrupt and dubious period. American, English, Japanese, French, Canadian – whatever.
Ross what should be said is that other countries try to regulate the abuses of the system by using the courts to punish the wrongdoers. Yet with Thailand, people who would consider themselves progressive complain about just such rules being added to the constitution and also in them being used.
0
0
I’d have thought that a secret ballot was an essential feature of a “fair election”. A Thai explained to me recently how it is possible in the current system to identify the choices made by an individual voter. While this may not be an important factor in large urban areas the consequences of defying the will of the local big man in rural Thailand are very serious and in my mind make it highly unlikely that any Thai election could be considered “fair”. Of course you would actually have to confirm that it is possible to identify what choices a voter made before making this claim. Two young Thai post-graduates (educated partly in Australia) from a rural part of the South have since told me why, after their first experience of the non secret nature of the vote, they decided to stop voting. Does anyone on this site have evidence that might support their assertions?
Frankly, if its true then its not surprise that some parties are confident of retaining their vote in core areas. If the vote is not genuinely anonymous then I would think that the ability of a voter to vote freely and not be intimidated are very low.
0
0
“other countries try to regulate the abuses of the system by using the courts to punish the wrongdoers. Yet with Thailand, people who would consider themselves progressive complain about just such rules being added to the constitution and also in them being used”
Les: Would the Democrat Party still in existence if those laws were applied consistently, without fear or favour?
Even if the electorate don’t always do their duty, you will no doubt have observed the fact that since being asked to sort things out, the good men in the Thai judiciary have a knack for being able to produce the desired result for any particular point in time.
Does that make you wonder at all?
0
0
Interesting especially on the discussion about Abhisit and whoever PT decides to put up front. However, it is likely after this election that CTP-BJT will deciding who gets to be PM and who gets to be in government/opposition. The new Purachai party may also fit in there somewhere with his funding coming from a similar background to BJTs it seems.
The question is would BJT and mates really want Abhisit back, and does that fit with how the elite view Abhisit. A Dem current coalition government is possible but with a different PM but probably leaving Korn at finance as he probably is the only relatively sane candidate. The interesting thing is that PT may also be viewing this scenario too and trying to adapt via a dinosaur leader to be an alternative to Dems with those who will chose. The chances of a PT-Dem government are very low. It really looks like the current mob with maybe a different PM or if PT does really well another Samak style darent do anything government.
One problem is that people in general want the country to move forward and get over the conflict and if the politicians keep being caught in a continuance of the conflict they open acceptance for other forms of government, but how do the politicians avoid this when they are fighting other agendas that are mutually exclusive and even when they try to create wriggle room their own shadows prevent it?
0
0
Nganadeeleg – 14
Les: Would the Democrat Party still in existence if those laws were applied consistently, without fear or favour?
Probably not, but that doesn’t make the laws bad, only their application.
…you will no doubt have observed the fact that since being asked to sort things out, the good men in the Thai judiciary have a knack for being able to produce the desired result for any particular point in time.
Does that make you wonder at all?
No, not really. That there is corruption in the judiciary is well known and has been there for a long time. Of course we have to add, ‘just as there is in the politicians’. What is encouraging is that at times we have seen some independence in the courts from the government. As I have often pointed out, most Western democracy do have centres points of power that tend to balance against a too authoritarian central government. The judiciary should be one of these alternative centres in my view.
So Nganadeeleg having answered your questions maybe you could answer two of mine. Should there be laws against political corruption such as vote buying? Are those rules put into the last two constitutions a bad thing? I know you can make an argument about their application and use, but I’m asking about the rules themselves.
0
0
Les,
There is a goodly amount of evidence that the courts in Thailand are used to prosecute abuses of the system, albeit selectively. The issue is not particularly that progressives say hypocritical things but, as Andrew pointed out, that all political parties make a mockery of the system and erode it through equally hypocritical accusations of vote buying.
I’d be interested in knowing why I get “-10”. You’re comment doesn’t really address what I was trying to say about the nature of Democratic systems and their histories.
0
0
Les: I’ve got no problem with having rules against vote buying provided the penalty matches the crime, and the laws are applied consistently.
(but an apparent occasional independence of the judiciary from government doesn’t give me much encouragement because I have grave doubts about their independence from a certain ideology prevalent in Thailand)
0
0
Don’t forget the role played by the Election Commission, which is quite happy giving red and yellow cards to any pro-Thaksin parties but very lenient to the Democrats. However, people in general are smarter and know this tendency, which explained why the lady commissioner recently wanted to quit.
0
0
Ross Walker – 17
I’d be interested in knowing why I get “-10тА│.
Sorry Ross, it refers to your comment being the tenth one – just a way of showing what comment I’m referring to.
Nganadeeleg – 18
I’ve got no problem with having rules against vote buying provided the penalty matches the crime, and the laws are applied consistently.
I can understand your disquiet about the application of these laws, but what penalty would you consider matches the crime. In the UK a number of MPs have been given custodial sentences for abuse of the expense system. I think, although I may be wrong, that the longest has been 18 months so far.
0
0
Les: A custodial sentenceof a 18 mths for the guilty person would be Ok if applied consistently (and much more appropriate than disbanding parties or banning executives).
In addition, in the by election in the particular seat I think the offending political party should not be able to contest it, so that would put the onus on the party to try to discourage the practice.
Overall, I don’t really think ‘vote buying has had much of an effect on election results in Thailand for several years now, but think if it is perceived as a concern then international election observers should be called in to help oversee the election procedures (and if someone doesn’t welcome international monitors then they shouldn’t complain about vote buying being a problem)
0
0
Sorry this might sound redundant from all the barrage response post to LesAbbey but I think there are several points that I think worth mentioning.
Probably not, but that doesn’t make the laws bad, only their application.
If the application is bad then the law is bad, no doubt.
Should there be laws against political corruption such as vote buying? Are those rules put into the last two constitutions a bad thing?
Now there are several types of corruption here eg. favoritism, inside info, tea money, so on and each need its own circumstances and action to be actually count as “corruption” so I will just discuss about vote buying here.
Now, do important point that we have to make before answering your question is how do we count which one is vote buying and which is not? does 2,000 bath give away by Abhisit consider as vote buying? if not then what’s the different between plain old money for vote and give away policy? say, we considered both different act just for argument sake, how do we punish the wrong doer? as of now, the whole party is responsible for an individual wrong doing, is that reasonable?
If we are looking at this as the “Sabanes-Oxley Act” for politician ( the most often heard argument that many elite use in attempt to protect the current law) but in the actual Sabanes-Oxley, if the executive (or anyone) was proven guilty of wrong doing, they don’t actually dissolve the whole company so where is the rule of law here?
I’m not arguing whether there should be law to punish on corruption or not because I think there should be, but the problem here is what was written on the constitutional now can be considered as a “bad law” and such, regarding to a quote from Edmund Burke; “bad law is the worst sort of tyranny”.
0
0
The question whether the elections will be fair or not is important in a formal western understanding of democracy. However, none of the social, economic or philosophical parameters that underpin the idea of “fair elections” are accepted or understood in Thailand. Neither by the electorate nor by the disposers.
Patronage is the name of the ecosystem and as long as the top dogs – no matter what positions they hold or if they are Amaat or not – adhere to it and military holds its unconstitutional ground (!), all “operational equality” and fairness in the electoral process are at best temporary make up. After all the huff and puff it will – perhaps with some new faces – be back to business as usual.
0
0
Whether the elections are “fair” or not will not matter so much, if as Snoth Thienthong is now predicting, Peua Thai wins a landslide :
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/04/02/national/Snoh-joins-hands-with-Pheu-Thai-30152357.html
0
0
Sanoh’s pronouncement makes it all too obvious that Thailand’s political mafia are once again determined to win the election for themselves. The duly elected party is thus completely meaningless. This man is undoubtedly amongst the very worse that this country has to offer.
0
0
I guess for many the question of fairness is far too subjective and so, whether the latest election is fair will depend on the result. Some will think it unfair if the Democrats form the next government while others will feel the same if the Puea Thai are in the driving seat.
Looking at the broader picture it raises questions about what laws are needed to make election fair, how they applied and what punishments should be associated with breaking these laws. We have to add that the role played by courts raises yet another question on whether the courts should be independent of government or of other influences in order to have ‘the rule of law’. (That Sanoh hasn’t spent a day in prison, (could be wrong), points to problems we have with that rule in Thailand.)
Now I see some think that the disbanding of political parties found cheating was far too harsh a law from the last constitution and campaign on that. Great if that’s how you feel, but there are far worse rules that really do limit democracy in my opinion. How about the one included a few constitutions back that said that an MP has to be a university graduate? Is that still there? Just think what the reaction would be in the UK, US or Australia to such a rule?
0
0
Two things are certain – 1) Sanoh will be a far harder nut to crack, than Samak or Wongsawat were.
2) Sanoh will have learnt from their mistakes.
I think he is probably the next PM – and perhaps a strong one, during immense instability, for a relatively long time, despite his age. His age – and experience – may well be a blessing.
0
0
c26
“How about the one included a few constitutions back that said that an MP has to be a university graduate? Is that still there?”
Last appeared in the 1997 constitution – no minimum education requirement in the 2007 replacement (though a period of education in the relevant changwat is one of the options available for “residence” qualification).
The longstanding minimum education requirement to be Senator is still there in the 2007 version:
Section 115.
(3) having graduated with not lower than a Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent;
0
0
chris beale – 27
I think he is probably the next PM– and perhaps a strong one, during immense instability, for a relatively long time, despite his age. His age – and experience – may well be a blessing.
Ha-ha Chris, good one.
This is an belated April fool joke right?
0
0
SteveCM – 28
Last appeared in the 1997 constitution – no minimum education requirement in the 2007 replacement…
Thanks Steve. That’s something that I consider a big improvement, probably because I left school at a very young age;-)
0
0
c30
“That’s something that I consider a big improvement…..”
Agreed – and as far as I can see – the only one. Massively outweighed by the other manipulations that were introduced.
0
0
There is a lot of talk about vote buying here.
What about MP buying? Thats even worse in my opinion.
0
0
c32
“What about MP buying? Thats even worse in my opinion.”
Fully agree. Reported to have been Bt40m a head to create Abhisit’s consortium – oh, sorry – coalition.
And, yes – I’m aware that others have done the same.
0
0
SteveCM – 33
And, yes – I’m aware that others have done the same.
The different between now and then is that the 1997 constitution prohibit the MP from voting in the parliament right after they change the party, they need to stay at a certain party for 3 months before they can cast their vote again which somewhat mitigated MP vote buying. Of cause, the 2007 constitution reintroduced the pre-1997 constitution concept again.
0
0
c34
Thanks, Tarrin – I missed that. Do you think the lifting of the 3-months before voting restriction was intended to allow defection for PM election? Certainly seems to have worked to benefit Abhisit Inc.
0
0
SteveCM -35
I don’t know about the true intention but for me personally I think they were put there specifically to help Abhisit, same with what bring Chuan to power. Historically, no one ever got benefit from mass defect as much as the Democrat party. Sort of like the elite version of vote buying, but never got that much attention because elite can do no wrong.
0
0
Less Abbey #30 :
In some ways, I wish my comments were “a late April Fool’s joke”
– but with so many coup rumours now swirling, and being taken very seriously indeed by Thailand’s top brass, it is obvious that the prospect of Snoh as PM of an essentially pro-Thaksin Peua Thai government, is sending very cold shivers down some very senior spines. Eg : http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/230542/military-leaders-unified-against-a-coup
0
0
As long as the Democrats are unwilling or unable to face him at an election, they will have to live with the charge of electoral unfairness.
Sorry Andrew, it is the other other way round. It is Mr T. who lacks the courage to return to Thailand and lead Peua Thai in an election campaign. And why should he, unless he is guaranteed bail pending appeal and a certainty of a royal pardon, something that will never happen in current circumstances, dot dot dot
Tthe next election will be determined by what the godfathers aka minority parties, and others do. That means Newin, Sanoh, Chavalit, and add into that Purachai. What is the price of their support for the Democrats or Peua Thai? You know the name, look up the number….
0
0
Excellent line from Jon Ungphakorn’s opinion piece in the Bangkok Post* yesterday:
“Maybe I’m paranoid, but I get the feeling that I’m seated in a plane that is being piloted by a masked figure to an unknown destination.”
Is he being “paranoid”? Doesn’t seem so to me.
* http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/230558/without-general-elections-catastrophe
0
0
I fail to see any outrage expressed here over Deputy PM Suthep’s comment that he “doesn’t respect farangs” and that therefore international election observers of the upcoming elections should not be allowed.
I sense from his obvious hatred of westerners and other recent acts, such as the proposed law to ban marriage between Thais and foreigners over 50 years of age, that there is a rising tide of racism being expressed by the ruling politicians these days to make political hay. What worries me is how widespread does this jingoism go? and how far has it spread among the Thai electorate? Are we westerners the next convenient scapegoats for the economic problems the government is facing, such as the skyrocketing price increases in palm oil, rice, and petrol?
0
0
Arthurson – 40
…that there is a rising tide of racism being expressed by the ruling politicians these days to make political hay.
Looks like another lesson learned, and not a pleasant one, from the TRT. Remember Thaksin won his first election partly on this theme. Or are we back to short memories again?
0
0
Regarding how ‘parties’ can know who voted for who in their district / electorate.
I don’t have a totally specific answer, but I have been told many times over several decades that large numbers of unaware and naive rural folks are still very intimidated bythe local kamnan / the local canvassers etc., and many are told by these people ‘we have ways of knowing how you voted’.
The bottom line, they are instructed where to put their mark on the actual ballot paper, those who illerate are given a twg or something similar and told to put their mark at the point of the twig.
They don’t understand at all what happens after they make a mark on the ballot paper, and many are simply too frightened to ‘step out of line’. If the do ‘step out of line’ shaming by the local community could be one very frightening result.
0
0
scorecard – 42
but I have been told many times over several decades that large numbers of unaware and naive rural folks are still very intimidated bythe local kamnan / the local canvassers etc.
What you have been told is a very old information indeed, maybe you should really do some research on how the Kamman actually know who the folks vote for and how it is very different now.
Furthermore, you might want to check the illiteracy rate in Thailand, its now standing at 98%, people are more educated now you know. We are not living in 1970s anymore and I really suggest you should up date on the reality you are living in.
0
0
The Democrats may be unwilling to face Thaksin in an election, as Andrew asserts, but face him they must.
Thaksin, himself, is making it very clear that he wants to make the election a national referendum about bringing him home with a free pardon. Under his party’s planned slogan, “Thaksin thinks, Puea Thai acts”, he will be running the country through his proxies, if PT wins. Shortly afterwards he would hope to return, regain his political rights and be nominated as party leader and PM after his nominee’s resignation. This may be a more difficult battle for the Democrats to fight than, if Thaksin were in Thailand in the flesh. He has become a saintly mirage that promises all kinds of goodies and can do no wrong to his Northern and Isaan supporters, whereas sthey might eventually have grown weary of his corruption and brutality, if he had stayed in power all the while.
0
0
Arthurson. That is hilarious. You mean to say you actually fell for Thai Visa’s April Fools Day joke about Thailand planning to ban foreigners over 50 from marrying Thai citizens?
Nationalism and racism are always cheap tricks available to Thai politicians of all stripes because Thais (and other Asians) are not educated to understand that racism is actually demeaning to the racists. Thaksin was no different with his attacks on the IMF for bailing out the bankrupt Thai economy and against the UN for criticising his brutal human rights record and his pro-East Asia, anti-farang policy early in his regime. Don’t forget that Abhisit (and maybe Korn too) is actually British. That is not to mention certain highly placed Americans, as was Thaksin’s son until he wisely removed his assets from Uncle Sam’s reach by renouncing his US citizenship.
0
0
Portman – 44
He has become a saintly mirage that promises all kinds of goodies and can do no wrong to his Northern and Isaan supporters, whereas sthey might eventually have grown weary of his corruption and brutality, if he had stayed in power all the while.
That also can be said to the Southern parton of the democrat voter, if you really flip trough some pages in Khow Sod or Matichon you will noticed that some of the villagers from the South are protesting to get the compensation money for the last year flooding. 377 votes was what Thaksin get for staying in office for 4 years you think he will get any less vote just by staying longer you should really look into history of how that actually turns out. Furthermore, I’m pretty sure that the people from the North and NE are more weary of the elites’ (note that I’m not mentioning anyone neme) corruped and brutality than what they get from Thaksin.
0
0