United Democrary for or against Dictatorship?

[Interested]

Has everyone forgotten Caretaker Prime-Minister Taksin? I read In Media Khoa Sod’s editorial about Abhisit’s rise to power with the aid of the armed-forces? Yet I seem to recall a general lack of public confidence in Taksin at around the same time. Didn’t he himself recognize this lack of confidence and offer to hold an election, stating that if he didn’t receive enough votes he himself would resign? I seem to recall also that opposing parties had little opportunity to organize themselves for this “election” and therefore Taksin stood alone with no opposition parties. The election went ahead and the result in Taksin favor was not even luke-warm. Ultimately Taksin did not receive the number of votes he had hoped would secure his continued Premiership and magnanimously he offered to stay on in power until a new PM could be elected.

Do I imagine his valiant offer to stay in power as the “Caretaker Prime-Minster” until a new Prime Minster could be elected democratically? Didn’t he remain in this position for a number of weeks before departing for a European Summit not as Thailand’s envoy or “Caretaker Prime Minster” but as Thailand’s Prime Minister?

I seem to recall it was this point the Military stepped in and the Coup occurred, a military personnel took over for exactly one year whilst certain issues involving assets pertaining to the Caretaker Prime Minister where looked into.

Thailand then had two successive Prime-Ministers, were either of these elected by the people? One who when asked a question would have to defer for 24hours before offering an answer and another closely related to and some might say answerable to Caretaker Prime-Minister Taksin himself.

UDD I can’t remember, what does this stand for? United Democracy against Dictatorship? Or United Dictatorship against Democracy? As an outsider looking in it seems that democracy already exists here in Thailand, it is dictatorship that is trying to take-over. There is nothing democratic about what the Red Shirts are doing and why does Ex-PM Taksin even get mentioned at all?

[trtrz]

Has everyone forgotten Caretaker Prime-Minister Taksin? I read In Media Khoa Sod’s editorial about Abhisit’s rise to power with the aid of the armed-forces? Yet I seem to recall a general lack of public confidence in Taksin at around the same time. Didn’t he himself recognize this lack of confidence and offer to hold an election, stating that if he didn’t receive enough votes he himself would resign? I seem to recall also that opposing parties had little opportunity to organize themselves for this “election” and therefore Taksin stood alone with no opposition parties. The election went ahead and the result in Taksin favor was not even luke-warm. Ultimately Taksin did not receive the number of votes he had hoped would secure his continued Premiership and magnanimously he offered to stay on in power until a new PM could be elected.

Do I imagine his valiant offer to stay in power as the “Caretaker Prime-Minster” until a new Prime Minster could be elected democratically? Didn’t he remain in this position for a number of weeks before departing for a European Summit not as Thailand’s envoy or “Caretaker Prime Minster” but as Thailand’s Prime Minister?

I seem to recall it was this point the Military stepped in and the Coup occurred, a military personnel took over for exactly one year whilst certain issues involving assets pertaining to the Caretaker Prime Minister where looked into.

Thailand then had two successive Prime-Ministers, were either of these elected by the people? One who when asked a question would have to defer for 24hours before offering an answer and another closely related to and some might say answerable to Caretaker Prime-Minister Taksin himself.

UDD I can’t remember, what does this stand for? United Democracy against Dictatorship? Or United Dictatorship against Democracy? As an outsider looking in it seems that democracy already exists here in Thailand, it is dictatorship that is trying to take-over. There is nothing democratic about what the Red Shirts are doing and why does Ex-PM Taksin even get mentioned at all?

I agreed with your sophisticated view. Sometimes people tend to label Thaksin as democratic through their superficial judgement, but for those who remember the conditions in 2006, Thaksin was barely democratic in his way.

[Takeo3]

Listen, Thaksin and his redshirted followers have won every election since more than 10 years, but they could not stay in power because a military coup, and then later because the yellow shirts didn't acccept the democratic outcome of the elections, didn't accept the choice of the majority of the Thai people in the ballot box. They occupied the airport and damaged the Thai economy, and the army refused to move in. Abbashit and his democratic party (what's in a name) have received muh less votes than the Thaksin supporting parties, yet he's ruling the country now. So I think it's time for new elections, let the Thai people decide who rules Thailand, and accept the choice of the Thai people! (but pad doesn't want that, it thinks the votes of the Thai elite in Bangkok should be more important than the votes of "poor uneducated" poor people from Isan who happen to be in larger numbers).

[Jefferson]

So takeo3, are we correct in concluding that your position is all things Thaksin are good and all things yellow are bad?

Were not both Somchai and Samak elected under EXACTLY THE SAME procedure as Abhisit? If you say no, then please explain.

By the way thaksin acted and the way both you and the red mob are acting, I think that you all really support democracy.......so long as it is YOUR candidate who is elected. I eagerly await your explanation of how and where I am wrong. Many thanks.

[trtrz]

Listen, Thaksin and his redshirted followers have won every election since more than 10 years, but they could not stay in power because a military coup, and then later because the yellow shirts didn't acccept the democratic outcome of the elections, didn't accept the choice of the majority of the Thai people in the ballot box. They occupied the airport and damaged the Thai economy, and the army refused to move in. Abbashit and his democratic party (what's in a name) have received muh less votes than the Thaksin supporting parties, yet he's ruling the country now. So I think it's time for new elections, let the Thai people decide who rules Thailand, and accept the choice of the Thai people! (but pad doesn't want that, it thinks the votes of the Thai elite in Bangkok should be more important than the votes of "poor uneducated" poor people from Isan who happen to be in larger numbers).

Your view is also superficial and catagorise Thailand social structure into Bangkok elites and poor Isan people, such perspective is limited and therefore failed view the situation throughly.

Most of the PAD are middle classes, while it is true that most UDD are working classes or the mass. However, the elites that has been labelled superficially by foreignly media is in truth separated almost equally into two sides and this is the power struggle of elites that use middle class to crash with working class in their struggle for power. Where the elites of both sides use media to control and radicalise society.

Democracy can only occur when people have knowledge prudence and be able to judge on the information they received. Right now the votes is just a scoring board for the result of PR and propaganda of both sides. People vote on emotion that been fermented by the media and not rationally according to their own needs.

If true democracy exist in Thailand, where people choose their leaders rationally without being influenced by the dark art of pursuasion,why don't the rural working class support Abhisit instead of trying to ousting him since he is the first ever PM to do Land Reform that would greatly benefit them?

This the tragic part of Thailand, people don't vote for what best for the country, but from what they feel. As long as people don't vote based on their true needs rationally, democracy does not exist in Thailand.

Therefore, without enough skills to judge the information given and rationalism in politics, democracy is just a word thrown around in Thailand that does not exist substantially.

[Takeo3]

So takeo3, are we correct in concluding that your position is all things Thaksin are good and all things yellow are bad?

Were not both Somchai and Samak elected under EXACTLY THE SAME procedure as Abhisit? If you say no, then please explain.

By the way thaksin acted and the way both you and the red mob are acting, I think that you all really support democracy.......so long as it is YOUR candidate who is elected. I eagerly await your explanation of how and where I am wrong. Many thanks.

Somchai and Samak have been elected to office by parties which won the elections. Abhasit's party never had as many votes as the parties who supported Somchai and Samak. You know very well that the democratic vicctory of the "red" parties was cancelled by the justice (which everyone knows is full of pad supporters, this is Asia, not the West , by "coincidence this happened at the same time PAD occupied the airport, which was of course never prosecuted) which decided to disband the parties and ban several party members from participating in politics. A few others have than be bribed to defect to the other side. THAAT' how Abhasit came to power, not trough the ballot box.

[Takeo3]

Listen, Thaksin and his redshirted followers have won every election since more than 10 years, but they could not stay in power because a military coup, and then later because the yellow shirts didn't acccept the democratic outcome of the elections, didn't accept the choice of the majority of the Thai people in the ballot box. They occupied the airport and damaged the Thai economy, and the army refused to move in. Abbashit and his democratic party (what's in a name) have received muh less votes than the Thaksin supporting parties, yet he's ruling the country now. So I think it's time for new elections, let the Thai people decide who rules Thailand, and accept the choice of the Thai people! (but pad doesn't want that, it thinks the votes of the Thai elite in Bangkok should be more important than the votes of "poor uneducated" poor people from Isan who happen to be in larger numbers).

Your view is also superficial and catagorise Thailand social structure into Bangkok elites and poor Isan people, such perspective is limited and therefore failed view the situation throughly.

Most of the PAD are middle classes, while it is true that most UDD are working classes or the mass. However, the elites that has been labelled superficially by foreignly media is in truth separated almost equally into two sides and this is the power struggle of elites that use middle class to crash with working class in their struggle for power. Where the elites of both sides use media to control and radicalise society.

Democracy can only occur when people have knowledge prudence and be able to judge on the information they received. Right now the votes is just a scoring board for the result of PR and propaganda of both sides. People vote on emotion that been fermented by the media and not rationally according to their own needs.

If true democracy exist in Thailand, where people choose their leaders rationally without being influenced by the dark art of pursuasion,why don't the rural working class support Abhisit instead of trying to ousting him since he is the first ever PM to do Land Reform that would greatly benefit them?

This the tragic part of Thailand, people don't vote for what best for the country, but from what they feel. As long as people don't vote based on their true needs rationally, democracy does not exist in Thailand.

Therefore, without enough skills to judge the information given and rationalism in politics, democracy is just a word thrown around in Thailand that does not exist substantially.

even in the west people vote based on propaganda not based on rational decisions. does it mean there is no real democracy in europe or the US? And by the way I thinkk the people who voted for "red" parties mde a rational choice. They want change, and the rule of Thaksim beneftted them, at least that is what I hear whenever I tak to people from Isa. So who are you to say that their choice is wrong and that their votes shouldn't count?

[trtrz]

even in the west people vote based on propaganda not based on rational decisions. does it mean there is no real democracy in europe or the US? And by the way I thinkk the people who voted for "red" parties mde a rational choice. They want change, and the rule of Thaksim beneftted them, at least that is what I hear whenever I tak to people from Isa. So who are you to say that their choice is wrong and that their votes shouldn't count?

Yea, 80 years ago in Germany they did

Meanwhile, i believe where democracy works and thus where there is true democracy propaganda doesn't work else it is not democracy because those who controls the information controls the power and so the power is no longer in the people's hand.

On the other hand, I think the votes of everyone should count equally and it is inevitable that for democracy. However, I doubted Thaksin regime would benefit them in the long term though. Despite, prosperity in the first 4 years, people started to suffer from poverty from rising private debt and to be honest the coup shouldn't happen, because Thaksin would eventually lose support if his policies brought down the economy, both fortunately and unfortunately that could not happen now.

[Takeo3]

even in the west people vote based on propaganda not based on rational decisions. does it mean there is no real democracy in europe or the US? And by the way I thinkk the people who voted for "red" parties mde a rational choice. They want change, and the rule of Thaksim beneftted them, at least that is what I hear whenever I tak to people from Isa. So who are you to say that their choice is wrong and that their votes shouldn't count?

Yea, 80 years ago in Germany they did

Meanwhile, i believe where democracy works and thus where there is true democracy propaganda doesn't work else it is not democracy because those who controls the information controls the power and so the power is no longer in the people's hand.

On the other hand, I think the votes of everyone should count equally and it is inevitable that for democracy. However, I doubted Thaksin regime would benefit them in the long term though. Despite, prosperity in the first 4 years, people started to suffer from poverty from rising private debt and to be honest the coup shouldn't happen, because Thaksin would eventually lose support if his policies brought down the economy, both fortunately and unfortunately that could not happen now.

In the US, but in Europe as well, the press is not neutral and politicians use propaganda even ies to get elected. They spend a lot of money. So did Bush, so did Obama, now is the US not a democracy? the oly problem for democracy is if information is controlled by one side only. This is not the case in Thailand. As a matter of facts most press in Thailand is anti Thaksim...
you say evntutally Thaksim policy would lead to policy. OK, let's see, so far we have seen the contrary. you say each vote should count equally. OK, o let's have new elections, ok? let the Thai people decide. they have acces to thaksim and anti thaksim press and they can decide which one they believe. that's exactly what the reds are asking for. let the thai people decide who should rule Thailand, not thaksim, not PAD.

[trtrz]

In the US, but in Europe as well, the press is not neutral and politicians use propaganda even ies to get elected. They spend a lot of money. So did Bush, so did Obama, now is the US not a democracy? the oly problem for democracy is if information is controlled by one side only. This is not the case in Thailand. As a matter of facts most press in Thailand is anti Thaksim...
you say evntutally Thaksim policy would lead to policy. OK, let's see, so far we have seen the contrary. you say each vote should count equally. OK, o let's have new elections, ok? let the Thai people decide. they have acces to thaksim and anti thaksim press and they can decide which one they believe. that's exactly what the reds are asking for. let the thai people decide who should rule Thailand, not thaksim, not PAD.

But, in these countries people still vote for policies that these politicians offered, which they usually will get. On the other hand, people in Thailand vote for the sake of voting and often votes on the basis of who they like, which is due to subjective emotion. i am not saying this is also the case that occur in developed countries, but it occurred less so in like UK.

Most press is not anti-Thaksin when Thaksin is in power. I know that press like The Nation and also Matichon has anti-Thaksin opinions, but considering newspaper that actually have more readers in the Thai public like Thairath and Daily News, they were reluctantly pro-Thaksin.

Well we will have new election on Nov 14 don't we? but guess who reject it?