Pheu Thai Party will probably win

[Guest kjun12]

Polls indicate that the Pheu Thai Party will probably be victorious and it seems that this will be the best thing for Thailand.Abhasit may well be well meaning but he also appears to be essentially powerless. One Thai said that he3 was just too young and did not have close friends in high positions to help him when he tried to do something. This seems logical and Thailand needs a leader with a strong hand. Even if Thaksin comes home I can't see that as bad as the situation we now have. The army in Thailand is just too powerful and, hopefully, they can be better controlled by another government. Good luck to us all.

[TotallyOz]

If the taxi drivers in Bangkok are correct, you are right in that this party will will. I have been saying this for a long time. I know of no Thai who is not wealthy that wants to vote for anyone other than Taskin's party.

 

I think it will be a landslide. I hope those that loose will stop trying to overthrow the elections.

[Guest fountainhall]

In its relatively short 79-year democratic history, Thailand has had 18 military coups, 18 constitutions and a host of coalition governments. Governments with absolute majorities have been in the 'minority', so to speak.

 

I agree that Yingluck Shinawatra's party seems to be heading for an absolute majority. I have a feeling that this time the predictions will not be skewed to any extent by the amount of tea money each party hands out, as recent history surely points to a considerable majority really wanting change and a righting of perceived wrongs.

 

The worry of most of the elites will no doubt be the talk of amnesty (and with it, the possibility of revenge), even though some party members have played this down by suggesting it is not a priority. On the other hand, we have Thaksin #1 saying he wants to be back in Thailand for the wedding of his daughter in December. If his sister is Premier, one would assume she will make that possible.

 

On the other hand, given her lack of experience in government, I wonder what chance there is of Pheu Thai gaining an absolute majority and then Yingluck stepping aside in favour of a more experienced politician (read: wheeler/dealer). That's what Sonia Gandhi did in India when she nominated Manmohan Singh as PM the day after her Congress Party was returned to power. And Singh is given major credit for the country's economic successes.

 

And yet, lurking still in the background will be the army. How will it handle a landslide, I wonder? The statements made in recent weeks by the acknowledged hawk, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, are clearly seen to be an attempt to be involved in the political process, no matter how many denials are made. If history is anything to go by, the army is surely unlikely to sit back quietly.

[PattayaMale]

This is the first election my BF has decided to vote. It took him awhile to find where to vote. But he found it and says he will vote #1

[KhorTose]

This is the first election my BF has decided to vote. It took him awhile to find where to vote. But he found it and says he will vote #1

 

Good for him. I just hope that the business community has enough moxie to stop the generals this time around. Another coup or riots will destroy any hope of future development in Thailand.

 

 

In the meantime read if you want some great reading read Andrew Marshall's great report on Thailand that uses the Wiki leak information. He had to leave Reuters (where he worked the Thailand desk for 19 years) in order to publish this.

 

Part 1 and 2 can be found here: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andrew-macgregor-marshall-why-i-decided-to-jeopardise-my-career-and-publish-secrets-2301363.html

Three and four soon to be published. Fascinating

[Bob]

Presuming Peua Thai wins a majority of the seats in the house, this will mark the fourth election in a row where a party supposedly representing the have-nots has accomplished that feat. In 2001, Thai Rak Thai for the first time in Thai history won by a landslide and was the first political party to have over half the members of the house of representatives (with some coalition building with other parties). In 2006, although the election was later nullified and the party dissolved, Thai Rak Thai won 61.6% of the vote and, for a short time, ruled on its own. In 2007, the Peoples Power Party won the majority of the seats in the election although short of an absolute majority. And now we have the 2011 elections where the "have-nots" party will likely win a majority of the seats.

 

These events - a political party winning a majority of the seats in the house of representatives - have never occurred before in Thailand and would seem to me to represent a fundamental shift in how the "have-nots" are responding to the old-line power structures of Thailand. And all in a short span of 10 years.

 

And the background to all of this seems to be the waning of the power of the Thai monarchy. The vast majority of the Thais love their King (the why for this probably can't be honestly debated here) but there seem to be clear signs that, once the current King has passed, that may no longer be the case. The current King and the adulation of the Thais for him from all sectors seems to me be the only glue that has kept an almost full class warfare from breaking out here. Without that glue in the future, perhaps we're going to see whether Thailand is going to look more like a modern democracy (with all its warts) or more like the horrid dictatorship in Burma. Unless and until the military leadership and elite accept that, for better or worse, they're subservient to an elected government, the direction Thailand is going won't be known.

 

But I have no doubt that we're witnessing the gradual unfolding of very interesting times in the Land of Smiles.

[Guest thrillbill8]

A political party that is connected to an organization that created grief on the capital last year has no reason to win in an election with people that have common sense. - But this is Thailand. I can see the whole cycle happening again. The "elites" will protest (also cause havoc in the city) ...maybe another coup... the whole repeat proving that Thailand cannot handle a democracy.

[KhorTose]

Errrr, I posted the wrong link to Marshall's story. Here it is

 

http://www.zenjournalist.com/2011/06/thailands-moment-of-truth/

[Bob]

A political party that is connected to an organization that created grief on the capital last year has no reason to win in an election with people that have common sense. - But this is Thailand. I can see the whole cycle happening again. The "elites" will protest (also cause havoc in the city) ...maybe another coup... the whole repeat proving that Thailand cannot handle a democracy.

 

The main platform of the yellow shirt group (led by ol' wacky Sondhi Limongkul) was that a majority of the upper house of parliament should be appointed rather than elected. Their reason was that they believed that the average Thai citizen, given they chose to vote for Thai Rak Thai in 2001 and 2006 and the People Power Party in 2008, are simply too stupid to elect the "right kind" of leaders. And that position came from a group (PAD) whose name means "people for democracy" (heck, almost like Fox News perpetually repeating its mantra of "fair and balanced" news reporting!).

 

Your apparent position (that anybody that votes for Peua Thai lacks common sense) sounds like something Sondhi would say. I also don't believe that it represents a fair interpretation of why the Thai electorate is going to support Peua Thai this week (or voted the way they did in the 2001, 2006, and 2008 elections).

[Guest fountainhall]

A political party that is connected to an organization that created grief on the capital last year has no reason to win in an election with people that have common sense.

At the time of the "grief" last year, I also raised my voice against the protests and the disruption. But not because of 99.9% of the protestors. Indeed, I wandered around the Rajaprasong encampment and posted photos on this Board just a few days before violence broke out. What surprised me was how 'normal' everything seemed. These were ordinary people, many with their young children, disrupting their lives, coming to Bangkok and convening to protest against what they perceived to be very real grievances.

 

At that time, I objected more to the fact that the leaders of any group of people had the apparent right to quite literally barricade off a large part of the centre of a capital city and severely affect the lives of those who lived and worked there for so many weeks - and let's not forget, it was a very large area and the barricades themselves were fiercesome. Of course, we have recently seen similar sorts of scenes in the Middle East. But even in Cairo, the rallies in the main square were nothing like as lengthy or as disruptive as those at Rajaprasong.

 

I suppose there's little point going over all that old ground again, but I blame the government for not taking steps to ensure that it did not happen. Once so many red shirts had assembled at Phan Ma bridge, something should have been done to prevent that peaceful crowd from moving further into the city. The government had plenty of time, as a good 2 or 3 weeks elapsed before it moved to the centre. But Abhisit and his partners were totally paralysed.

 

We still do not know who caused the bloodshed, and probably never will. If, as seems likely, the present government is kicked out, I think it's largely it's own fault. It has had plenty of time to address many of the problems in the countryside. Instead, it has dithered and dallied, and done far too little far too late. I doubt it deserves to be re-elected.

[Bob]

I suppose there's little point going over all that old ground again, but I blame the government for not taking steps to ensure that it did not happen. Once so many red shirts had assembled at Phan Ma bridge, something should have been done to prevent that peaceful crowd from moving further into the city. The government had plenty of time, as a good 2 or 3 weeks elapsed before it moved to the centre. But Abhisit and his partners were totally paralysed.

 

Probably right (little point to rehashing some of the history) and there's probably room for blame to be spread around a bit. Leading up to the redshirt protests were the events of the prior years including the 5-6 month occupation and trashing of Government House by the yellow shirts and then their protest at the international airport. And, given they suffered no consequences at all during those times, I do believe it led other groups to believe they could take similar actions with relative impunity (and one could argue that occupying the 3-4 block business area was less drastic than taking over the airport or Government House). Or one could possibly argue that the biggest problem the redshirts faced at the time was the color of their shirts.

 

Bad actors on both sides, no doubt, and then things naturally accelerated after the assassination of Seh Daeng. But for those that argue that any substantial portion of the redshirt protesters were violent thugs, they're simply dead wrong as you've noted. Then again, most of the soldiers were simply young kids doing what they were told although it's likely some were a bit rogue (the turkeyshoot into the temple from the overpass being a prime example).

 

Absent some reconciliation (and I see no evidence of that coming), what happened last year might later be viewed as just the preliminaries. I hope not but the underlying problems simply fester away.

[Guest fountainhall]

A very reasoned overview, Bob. You are absolutely right to bring up the yellow shirts protests and airport closure which did immense damage to the country's reputation - and a lot more to the economy than the red shirt protests last year.

 

I'd only pick you up on the suggestion that the Rajaprasong protest covered a "3 -4 block business area." I don't know if you were there. I walked through it and it was a vast area covering most of the blocks from Rama 4 right up Rajadamri to New Petchburi, and from Witayu along Ploenchit and Rama 1 to Phaya Thai. Whoever wins the election, I hope laws will be enacted to ensure that protests are confined to certain areas, and that there are statutory penalties for anyone who protests outside those areas and thereby disrupts the orderly running of the city.

[Bob]

Whoever wins the election, I hope laws will be enacted to ensure that protests are confined to certain areas, and that there are statutory penalties for anyone who protests outside those areas and thereby disrupts the orderly running of the city.

 

Yes, a good idea. I'm not sure how England handles such things but that's how the states and federal government handles protests and public gatherings.

 

I was never at the protest area and my knowledge of the area cordoned off was based on all the maps posted online in the newspapers. Probably was a bigger area as you note.

[Bob]

Part 1 and 2 can be found here: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andrew-macgregor-marshall-why-i-decided-to-jeopardise-my-career-and-publish-secrets-2301363.html

Three and four soon to be published. Fascinating

 

Parts 1 and 2 are now both online. Both are long reads but extremely interesting (almost none of the interesting parts can be repeated here or in Thailand due to the lese majeste law). Marshall's work is a substantial supplement to Handley's book and, at least to me, appears to be an honest and even-handed treatment of real events still unfolding.

[Guest fountainhall]

I have read both the articles. Yes, they are interesting and encapsulate the arguments nicely, but frankly, I see very little there that has not been printed or referred to elsewhere – in particular, as the writer himself says, in several issues of The Economist last year. If I recall correctly, all but one of the wikileaks comments were published in detail in Britain’s The Guardian newspaper. Yet, I noticed a particularly interesting one that I had not seen before and which seemed to contradict the content of another wikileaks cable mentioned in The Guardian but which the writer fails to mention – at least up to this point in his narrative. For obvious reasons, I cannot highlight it here. If anyone wants more specific detail, please send me a PM.

 

But I would like to steer the discussion back to one item I raised earlier in the thread – the amnesty proposal. What seemed a specific campaign pledge, was soon watered down as Pheu Thai candidates realised this was one of the most controversial policies around which the opposition could rally. As the Bangkok Post wrote 3 days ago -

 

Chalerm Yubamrung did not earn himself a doctoral degree in law for nothing. He is now putting his legal expertise to good use by heading the Pheu Thai Party's team in drafting an amnesty law that promises to be highly controversial indeed.

 

. . . when it became apparent that the idea would draw more flak than praise, its confidence in getting the amnesty proposal out of the blueprint stage paled, according to a party source.

 

Mr Chalerm, however, remained defiant. He was apparently convinced that the amnesty would be the ticket to bringing Thaksin home, ending three years of life in self-imposed exile . . .

 

With so many on board, the Pheu Thai's No.3 list candidate is certain that decreeing an amnesty to pardon everyone facing charges stemming from the political unrest since the Sept 19, 2006 coup - which drove Thaksin from power - will be a goal worth reaching for . . .

 

Mr Chalerm has tried to add a more agreeable ring to the amnesty plan by renaming the proposed amnesty bill as a national reconciliation bill.

 

But the essence of it will likely be intact, meaning a reprieve for Thaksin from the two-year jail term he faces for abusing his authority during his premiership . . . Mr Chalerm is certain the bill will sail smoothly through if Pheu Thai heads the next government.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/243895/thaksin-ticket-home---amnesty

 

As I have said above, I assume Pheu Thai will win with an absolute majority. I further assume it is 100% certain that Thaksin will therefore be back in Thailand sooner rather than later. And that does worry me.

 

Granted I am a non-citizen and my concerns count for nothing. Yet there is in my view absolutely zero doubt that Thaksin was – and remains - a crook, and that the full extent of his illegal pursuits have still to be uncovered. We know about the illegal hiding of his assets at the time of the 2001 election when his housekeeper and gardener were discovered to be owning vast numbers of shares worth hundreds of millions of Baht. This was “an honest mistake”, claimed the weeping Thaksin before the Constitutional Court. He was acquitted of wrongdoing and therefore escaped impeachment by an 8-7 vote, with one judge subsequently claiming he had been swayed, shall we say, by a feeling that Thaksin had to be innocent!

 

The same strategy was used with the Shin Corp. shares placed in his children’s names, an action which, once discovered, resulted in his having to forfeit around US$1.4 billion and directly led to the red shirt protests last year. We still do not know the full story behind Ample Rich and Win Mark, the offshore companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and active whilst he was Prime Minister. Yet, we do know that it was and remains illegal for those in government to hold offshore accounts.

 

The sale of Shin Corp. and the subsequent passage of the bill through parliament enabling Thaksin to avoid paying any tax on his Bt. 69 billion windfall, is only one of his many other abuses of power whilst Prime Minister. We know about the lunchbox filled with 2 million Baht in cash in the case involving his wife. We know of several cases of nepotism and the appointment of cronies who, it was later estimated, inflated the price of contracts for state projects by as much as 30%. I need not go on, other than to say that, in my book, whatever good Thaksin did to better the lives of the vast majority of Thais – and he did a lot - that does not give anyone a license to overlook his vast abuses of power.

 

There are many Thais who say: everyone is corrupt, so why single out Thaksin? That’s a hard question to answer, other than the one I used when this was aired in a thread last year – Prime Ministers and those in positions of leadership must be held to a higher standard. Thaksin singularly failed that test and so he falls into the same group as other plundering dictators like Marcos, Suharto, Mubarak, Gaddafi and all that lot (albeit in one of the minor leagues).

 

In the last few days, Thaksin has been popping up on many of the international TV channels openly admitting he has been steering his sister and providing advice to party officials. After all, he says, "I am the one with experience." I, for one, do not believe that this man is sincere when he says he is doing this “for the good of Thailand.” Having lived in Thailand virtually since his enthronement – oops, elevation to the highest political office – in 2001, I trust him even less than I would have trusted Richard Nixon. I haven’t the slightest doubt that revenge will be high on his agenda. What form that will take will, I suspect, be more subtle than his last shenanigans. But with other changes soon to be happening in the country – and thinking again about one particular wikileaks cables also not mentioned in Marshall’s story – I fear this man and the influence he will wield.

[Guest fountainhall]

I noticed a particularly interesting one that I had not seen before and which seemed to contradict the content of another wikileaks cable mentioned in The Guardian but which the writer fails to mention – at least up to this point in his narrative . . .

 

. . . thinking again about one particular wikileaks cables also not mentioned in Marshall’s story – I fear this man and the influence he will wield

I clearly gave insufficient attention to the full detail of Marshall's long account in my earlier reading. I now note that I was incorrect in making both the above assertions. There is no contradiction and the cable I thought had not been included is indeed there in black and white.

[KhorTose]

Well done, great summation and very good points. I agree Thaksin should have been convicted and jailed. The truth, however, is that the very people prosecuting him all shared some of the guilt or were doing some of the same things themselves. Furthermore instead of setting up a court who decisions everyone could respect they set up a handpicked corrupt court that made his conviction seems unjustified when, in fact, it was probably justified.

 

Always at the end I am afraid that I must return to my populist roots and respect the will of the people even when I think they are wrong. I am reminded of the elections of Nixon or David L. George when the people(parliament) elected them in spite of their less then sterling behavior. You did say, "Granted I am a non-citizen and my concerns count for nothing." However, it does count for a lot with me, but while I completely agree with your excellent summation, if the people want Thaksin, I will support them over a military cabal everyday.

[Bob]

.....if the people want Thaksin, I will support them over a military cabal everyday.

 

That to me is the key to democracy, the people get to choose. And, to me, the other key is that the military leadership must always be subservient to the government.

 

As to the amnesty issue, I have mixed feelings and I don't have the time at the moment to lay out all I would want to say about that. Yes, he's corrupt but in my view no more corrupt than most of the Thai elite. They convict him of a bogus charge (the conviction regarding his wife winning the bid on the real estate at the public auction was petty and, in my view, legally incorrect) yet the military's appointed Prime Minister (Surayud) is caught stealing a parcel of national real estate and he isn't even fined let alone charged with anything. Like President Ford (who, in spite of my absolute disdain for Tricky Dick, probably did the right thing), I think at times that an overall amnesty might be what's best for the country. For examples only, trials of wacky Sondhi and the yellowshirts for Government House and airport fiascos, trials of the soldiers involved in the turkeyshoot at the temple, trials of Shinawatra for the tax evasion or whatever, or even a trial of the military leadership who violated the constitution with their coup would seem to me to be totally disruptive to any chance of reconciliation and likely would lead to more violence. It's very hard to overlook some of these things - especially where the actions led to personal injury and death - but I really can't see how justice can be served while the country might be burning down. Obtaining justice (meaning trials and punishment) against the elite who've robbed and raped Thailand over the last 10 years alone would involve untold resources and probably another 20 years to resolve. And I don't believe Thailand has the mood or resources to go through all of that.

 

So, if an amnesty proposal would cover all of the key players, I might reluctantly support it - so long as it coincided with an earnest pledge that, from that day forward, anybody caught violating the law and constitution would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

In reality, I don't believe there is any good solution to this morass.

[Rogie]

A most excellent analysis made by Fountainhall, KhorTose and Bob. I seem in an 'existential' mood tonight so please forgive my musings, perhaps brought on by Bob's rather dismal but apt (see below) use of the word morass.

 

 

Greece is in the grip of a 48 hour general strike - watching the riots in Athens on television as the dire political situation in that country deteriorates, one is struck by the incomprehension felt by the average (non-rioting) man in the street. Those Greek citizens interviewed by the BBC wondering what they did to deserve this. They just got on with their everyday lives as they have always done, and then whoosh, the rug pulled out from under their feet. One can understand the various feelings of the people . . . rage (the rioters), anger, disbelief, puzzlement, denial, apathy. Who is to blame? I wonder what these same people were thinking not so long ago. They knew their country was in trouble, but did they know to what extent? It would seem likely to me most people (other than the politicians entrusted with sorting the mess out or a hardcore of troublemakers) just got on with their daily lives . . .a shrug of the shoulders perhaps or a dismissive wave of the hand at the government. "It can't be that bad, can it?" But it is. . . and it isn't going away. It's all a terrible nightmare.

 

I wonder what the average Thai is thinking as he contemplates which box to tick in four days time. Has he thought beyond the weekend to the months and years ahead? If so, has he really any idea how it might all unfold? Does he feel empowered and optimistic his vote will go towards changing the system for the better, or does he feel a dead weight in his stomach that whatever happens he'll be swept along by events way outside his control. A victory for democracy or yet another defeat? 1932 - an awful long time ago - it must seem almost meaningless. I expect some of those feelings the protesters in Greece (I use the term protesters to include anybody taking to the streets, rather than rioters which although the focus of news media is not a fair description of how most people behave) are now showing must have applied in Bangkok and other parts of Thailand last year in April and May's protests.

 

At the end of the day the genuine/peaceful protester's worst nightmare must be that it is all in vain. Nothing he can think, nothing he can do and indeed nothing anybody can do can make a real lasting difference.

 

 

Morass

 

1. (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) a tract of swampy low-lying land

2. a disordered or muddled situation or circumstance, esp one that impedes progress

(Collins)

[Guest fountainhall]

Interesting comparison, Rogie – and interesting, too, to compare the events now unfolding in Greece (and beginning to unfold in other massively indebted countries like Portugal and Spain?) with what did not take place when Thailand went down the economic plughole for many of the same reasons in mid-1997.

 

By that year, Thailand’s government had spent the county’s entire foreign exchange reserves in a vain and irresponsible attempt to maintain the value of the Baht at its inflated level. This was principally to protect all the elites, big corporations and even the government itself which had been borrowing massive amounts of US dollars to finance often speculative projects by benefitting from much lower rates of interest. Did the ordinary man in the street understand this – or even know about it? I doubt it.

 

Suddenly, with the kitty empty and speculators continuing their attacks, the government had no choice but to let the Baht float on July 2nd, an event which resulted in the currency quickly falling by 50% and soon bringing many other Asian economies and their currencies crashing down with it. And what did the populations of Thailand and these countries do when forced to accept hugely stringent terms for bailouts by the IMF and the World Bank, terms which included interest rates going through the roof? Did they take the Greek road and take to the streets? Did they go on the world’s TV chat shows to moan that the terms were irresponsible and they could not repay their debts and massive loans?

 

The fact is that no-one in Asia rioted. Some marched peacefully, but only for a short time. They all accepted their countries were in dire trouble, got on, as Rogie says, with their increasingly difficult daily lives and the business of dragging themselves out of the mess.

 

I suspect that many Thais recall these events only too clearly. If only for that reason, as in all elections since 2001, they are no longer willing to give those who caused the 1997 meltdown and their families and cronies carte blanche this time around.

 

Footnote: why is it that elected representatives in so many governments lose all sense of fiscal responsibility? I don’t refer here to the USA’s huge deficit – that’s the topic for another thread. I mean politicians’ total inability to look in the rear view mirror. The Thai/Asian economic crisis was in many senses similar to the example shown by Mexico in 1982 and again in 1994. Argentina followed in 2002. Now it's what economists are calling the SPIG group – Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece. It’s estimated that Ireland will take at least 50 years to pay off its debts! I have asked it before and ask it again: why in the name of reason are the politicians that caused these events to happen (or at the very failed to heed the warning signs) not serving very long jail terms?

[Bob]

I really don't see much comparison between what the Greek people are thinking (and doing) with what the Thai people are thinking let alone doing. A substantially different culture, education system, and political history.

 

Without trying to sound too negative (and hoping I phrase this right - and adding before I begin that I have great affection for the average Thai), the Thais compared to western people are generally shy and sheepish about any reaction to anything. For example only, a coup in Greece or the US or anywhere in Europe would have resulted in an immediate and bloody-as-hell armed rebellion whereas the general reaction in Thailand to such an event (19 coups within the last 80 years?) is not much beyond a whimper. They're taught to be subservient and their general education system makes no effort to teach them to think for themselves. And they seem to be struggling with those few in Thai society that are begining to do things (dress, eat, socialize, and even think) like those wacky falang. The old guard likes the system (and the profits that system brings them) just the way it's always been and, surprisingly, what's beginning to be a middle class (mainly in the Bangkok area) has historically tended to support the elite and conservatives. But maybe things are beginning to change (I'm shocked that Peua Thai is leading in the polls in the Bangkok area as neither the People's Power Party nor Thai Rak Thai ever won the most votes in that area).

 

I'd have a more positive attitude where all this is going but for the existence of an unrestrained military leadership. They are the ones who ultimately will decide if they'll either allow a democratic government to rule or whether they'll simply take over as they have done so many times before. As I've noted before, I don't see much difference between them (the Thai military leadership) and the thugs running Myanmar so I personally wouldn't bet much of anything that Thailand's own thugs won't take over again. And I would note that I firmly believe that the military leadership has been encouraged to engage in coups by other elements of the amataya but that's a topic that probably shouldn't be discussed any further here.