Not everything can be analysed rationally but it is possible that the brinksmanship of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) is part of a well-considered strategic push. Stepping back from the cut and thrust of protest tactics we thought it worth reflecting on the ambitions that have drawn the PAD into its attack on the apparatus of Thai government.
To remove Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej is the stated goal. Watching the unfolding drama in Bangkok it appears that the PAD leadership and its backers may have several possible “endgames” in mind:
1) They may hope that the king steps into the fray and asks, to guarantee national “reconciliation” among other things, that Samak resign. A compromise Prime Minister — perhaps someone who cannot be tagged as a dreaded “politician” — could then step into the void unopposed by any Thai who values the king’s word. Whether even the king (with his carefully calibrated “charisma”) could risk such an “anti-democratic” intervention is unsure. Of course, the PAD may also be hoping that other political or military pressure may encourage Samak to resign.
2) Elements within the PAD may hope that an escalating confrontation could motivate an army faction to mount another “extra-constitutional” intervention: a coup. Whether such an effort would be acceptable to the general populace or to the rest of the Bangkok elite is uncertain. It is, let’s not forget, less than two years since their last effort, in September 2006. And such a play could, fatally and forever, remove any doubt about the position of parliamentary democracy in a system where the PAD retains any influence. For everyone involved the risks may be just too great.
3) The PAD may, more modestly, be hoping to de-stabilise the Samak government sufficiently that its management of the economy and society is brought into further disrepute. Perhaps there is hope among some in the PAD that a confrontation in Bangkok, however resolved, could prepare the way for a stronger Democrat Party showing in future elections. Perhaps there is also some hope that if a compromise can be worked out, perhaps with an interim “government of national unity”, the PAD will be able to take on a role as an un-elected “PM-maker”. In the uncertain times ahead the PAD may see such arbitration of electoral democracy as the best defence of the kingdom and its (non-parliamentary) institutions.
4) Elements within the PAD may also be hoping that a heavy-handed government response to the current protest may provide them with some politically useful symbols of repression (and perhaps even some martyrs) that could be used to invigorate future phases of their campaign.
Whether any of these “endgames” are currently driving the PAD brinksmanship is, of course, still open to debate. Perhaps they are just hoping that if they raise the temperature enough, something — anything — will have to crack.
30 responses so far ↓
1 Dog Lover // Aug 27, 2008 at 11:43 pm
This might be an end game of one sort or another, but let’s not forget where this particular round of PADism began. They could not accept the election result. PAD has been used by others and has had their own agenda to get rid of the government since it won the election. This is one more push.
2 redandwhitestripes // Aug 28, 2008 at 2:17 am
“Whether even the king (with his carefully calibrated “charisma”) could risk such an “anti-democratic” intervention is unsure”
Let us remember that the king rarely speaks in direct terms. In your proposed scenario it is likely that HM would simply equivocate and leave the direct speech to a privy councillor behind closed doors. The real message would not be made public. Therefore HM is seen only as the wise man with words of reconciliation yet the stated goals is still achieved.
3 Rick Doner // Aug 28, 2008 at 2:40 am
I’d be grateful to hear people’s thoughts on the Democrat Party’s strategy vis a vis the PAD.
4 Michael Connors // Aug 28, 2008 at 8:46 am
Can I suggest that this sort of analysis is much more useful than the tendency to label PAD mad and telling people to go home (who is listening?), as usually occurs here. Whatever our political positions, some attempt to understand things is much better than insisting people be “rational”.
5 jonfernquest // Aug 28, 2008 at 12:51 pm
You forgot: “break the coalition.” Confidence of coalition members has wavered continually. The current government needs a coalition to stay in power.
“A compromise Prime Minister — perhaps someone who cannot be tagged as a dreaded “politician” — could then step into the void unopposed by any Thai who values the king’s word.
Why use the negative? There are “leaders” and then there are what could be likened to a “conductor” of a “rent-seeking orchestra,” that in the end just consumes the nation, leaving people to foot the bill in the future. (Keep an eye on suspicious looking counter-intuitive high budget projects like the Bangkok bus rental scheme.)
“Whether even the king (with his carefully calibrated “charisma”) could risk such an “anti-democratic” intervention is unsure.”
Implicit assumptions here are a nice change.
6 Dog Lover // Aug 28, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Michael Connors: Not sure if this is a bit of misplaced pomposity or something else. The earlier thread asked whether it was time for PAD to go home. Had they done enough? Indeed, there were similar questions raised in a number of press editorials. An entirely reasonable question for the people who read NM at the time. Where is your contribution to this supposedly “more useful” analysis? It’d be interesting to get your take on current events rather than your views on what is appropriate blogging.
7 manning sawwinner // Aug 28, 2008 at 1:41 pm
PAD, a l”enfer, vous savez.
8 Contributor // Aug 28, 2008 at 6:23 pm
As an outsider I cannot see how PAD can step back without loosing their face. Words from Chamlong “stay or we lose” are symbols of a strong need to keep going. The question till when and where? Having sent TS out, having Samak on very thin ice and probably stepping down in December, cause of Party Dissolution, PAD needs some recognition or some martyrs to feed their cause so they will keep going to ( not even they know where) in the hope of something that can support at least their ego. If they step back now it is curtains. No one anymore will gather upon their request and the Leaders know that. So my believe is that they will keep pushing (or standing-sitting) till the other part does something that they can claim as a victory and pack their bags. From the Government side it looks that they are engaged in winning the battle, by starving and fatiguing the demonstrators. Hence all the gloves ( and “tenderness”) used to tackle the situation.
9 matty // Aug 28, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Firstly I would repeat my apologies to PAD, Chamlong Srimuang and Sondhi Limthongkul for my rash to condemn them and calling them names I am too embarrassed to repeat. I take back every negatives I directed at them and I now laud their courage and their purpose and even their stubborn journey ‘to educate’ the Thais about the dangers of the Thaksinism and its corruptive influence still, even while Thaksin had exiled himself to escape Thai justice.
I personally believe that PAD’s strategy and philosophy is just that: to totally ensure that Thaksin’s corruptive influence in Thailand had been removed brick by brick . . . and to obstruct any Thaksin wannabe, or any Thaksin proxy, from assuming powers to govern.
10 amberwaves // Aug 28, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I’ve been thinking along similar lines to “Contributor” for some time now. Whether the PAD can directly force Samak out seems to me to be just part of the game.
What’s more important is that they be *perceived* as the force responsible, though the eventual collapse of Samak’s coalition seems to me to fall more into the category of a natural disaster, political-style.
It’s pretty apparent at least some of the PAD are playing the long game, and if people believe you have political muscle, you are a player. They’ve shown awareness of this all along, for example with all those constant cryptic leaks about military backing to the always gullible Thai press.
11 fall // Aug 28, 2008 at 11:43 pm
1. Got a very slim chance of intervention. No bloodshed yet, not even anti-mob confrontation.
2. Slight possibility since Panlop command some soldiers, but they lack momentum due to no bloodshed.
3. Prolong protest would only hurt the PAD, not put blame on the government.
4. This is the obvious choice. Either actual or provoke confrontation.
But Chamlong must be baffle and out of tactic by now, since everytime he took someone on the street(except SET-beer protest). There were either confront or being beat up.
12 Jotman // Aug 30, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Especially if the reports coming in today are true, it would seem that each and every one of your four points is in the process of being actualized as an integral part of some kind of an overall strategy. I’m impressed. Especially, with the way the most unlikely of the quad, #4 (martyrs) is succeeding. Great list guys.
13 Jim Taylor // Sep 1, 2008 at 9:59 am
Matty what corruption? Thaksin?? this has not been proven at all that he or his government were any more or less corrupt than the previous governments- unless you want to condemn someone on the propagandising and inconclusive bullshit of PSTV’s Sondhi Lim and his media cronies. Thaksin did not break any laws while he was in government. Unless you want to believe a judiciary stacked by khor Mor Chor with anti-Thaksinites still trying to legitimise their illegal actions against Thailand’s progressive 1997 Constitution. Incidently, you may not know this, but Sondhi has a personal grudge on Thaksin that goes back to 2001. The whole issue involving Thaksin is personal. Sondhi is, and has been for a long time, heavily indebt and wanted Thaksin to bail him out using his influence. Needless to say he did not do that. Sondhi aspired to be like Thaksin and could not make it. His cunning and talent is to make this into a public vendetta through spins, lies and fiery empty-rhetoric day in day out over some five years. This has had an impressive brainwashing impact in Thailand especially among middle classes. Sondhi, PAD and their well-paid small “army of louts” and junkies bused in from the south (Baht 3,000/head) are losers. As are the Democrats (hoping to make a government through any means), the seventy-six Senators emplaced by people appointed by Khor Mor Chor, and of course the Puppet Master Prem and his elite and corrupt disgruntled cohorts. These are the folk behind the small but extermely noisy and well financed rebellion aginst a legitimately elected popular government. PPP have been judged not on performance as they have never been allowed to govern. So how can they be criticised? When Samak campaigned he said those who do not favour the coup choice him; those who do not want the current illicit 2007 Constitution (which protects the coup makers and their cronies) choose PPP. He made it clear before elections this was his agenda. The day he announced his government PAD made the comment on the intent to bring the democratically elected PPP down. PAD are a small dictatorship and have made it clear that even if they bring the current government down they want a say in the election of the next PM and a stacked 70:30 system of government. What democracy is this? Be better informed boys.
14 nganadeeleg // Sep 1, 2008 at 11:16 am
Jim Taylor: Welcome back, there are a few outstanding questions for you over at this thread:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/08/11/pad-and-the-democrats-will-miss-thaksin/
(see post #37 onwards)
You may also be interested in my proposed (laymans, non academic) solution to the current standoff, which I have briefly outlined here:
http://www.nganadeeleg.blogspot.com/
I am trying to be constuctive
15 matty // Sep 1, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Jim Taylor you like polls don’t you?
I refer you to a poll at
http://www.nganadeeleg.blogspot.com/
and by a vote of 3:0 (Bangkok Pundit, Fonzi(TJTS) and Vichai N), Thaksin was unanimously voted as ‘Thailand’s Mother of all Corruption’ still.
That is why current PM Samak is in big trouble because he continues to be overly protective of Thaksin Shinawatra.
16 Jim Taylor // Sep 2, 2008 at 9:48 am
Media bias:
Here is a text from the online Bangkokpost:
“The army intervened early on Tuesday after pro-government demonstrators attacked opponents occupying Government House and killed at least one protester from the People’s Alliance for Democracy”.
The truth? it was actually a taxi driver shot in the head by a PAD thug. Anti-PAD groups against dictatorship do not carry firearms.
17 Khun Stillwater // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:42 am
PAD strategy can be monitored by viewing their live streaming media and archives.
It’s not hard but you need to know the language folks—plain and simple.
There are people who masquerade as political commentators who can hardly wade through of simple modern Thai. That’s the truth—this is directed at so-called “scholars”!
But you need to follow it all in Thai and see with your own eyes the kind of people who are on stage. What you get is a large spectrum. Allegations of PAD trying to EXCLUDE the poor and being elite is a nasty smear.
If anything I got tired listening to unionized labor leaders who are hardly elite.
I’ve listened to announcements of mosques donating food to the hundred of muslim PAD protestors and to the band “Hammer” a favorite among people of that faith.
Specialists in the area of Isan would be SHOCKED to see the number of people from that region joining PAD.
PAD is many things but foremost it’s a movement which encourages Thais to exercise their free speech peacefully. Not enough credit has been given to 90+ days of protest destroyed by HIRED Pro-gov gangs and police who oddly use batons and tear gas against PAD.
Worst yet is PPP members who love Samak/Thaksin being in the area (or were they leading the mob?)
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30082352
What a way to visit your constituents—AT NIGHT during a confrontation.
You can target Sondhi’s past in the world of business but the balance in PAD comes from the balance provided by other PAD leaders from different sectors.
Keep believing every keyword from Thaksin or Samak’s mouth “Democratic election” and you just missed the point of PAD: People’s Revolution
18 Ed Norton // Sep 4, 2008 at 11:48 am
Somewhere someone made a point on NM about Chai-Anan Samudavanija and his support for Sonthi Lim and PAD. By chance I was looking through some old press clippings and came across an article on Chai-Anan in the Bangkok Post of 3 Aug 1996. In it he was defending a proposal he made for a constitutional drafting committee where MPs had apparently suggested that the drafting committee should be made up of people drawn from particular occupational categories. He stated that such a proposal was tantamount to fascism. I sort of thought this was interesting given his apparent support for the 70:30 new politics proposal by PAD leaders who are his close associates.
19 amberwaves // Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Go find your clippings for 1983 and you find an even better historical precedent. The idea comes from factions in the army.
No clippings available? You can find the same information in The Military in Thai Politics, 1981-86. by Suchit Bunbongkarn. Or see recent articles by Michael Connors in Prachathai and elsewhere.
20 Stillwater // Sep 4, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Jim, Anti-PAD groups against dictatorship do not carry firearms.
We don’t have footage of who held the gun.
We do however have your boys wielding a very large knife and slingshot that night. A photo is part of the yahoo gallery—google with “pro-government knife bangkok protest yahoo” to see the image.
PAD does have sticks, goggles, helmets, shields and tires.
Pro-gov rioters have their headquarters currently at Samut Prakan’s city square where alcohol is distributed and truckloads of men are moved into BKK to confront PAD, again led by PPP LEADERS!
Your Pro-gov rioters have also been known to expose their privates for the camera, throw stones and there is extensive footage of them attacking PAD (before their stage was even set up) in Udon Thani.
Have you been following the news???
21 Ed Norton // Sep 4, 2008 at 11:34 pm
amberwaves: I’m not at all sure what you refer to. I was commenting on Chai-Anan opposing the idea of functional groups in a constitutional drafting committee and his point that such an arrangement, that did not allow people to vote, amounted to fascism. If you are refering to the idea that Chai-Anan was then opposing, then your references to 1983 and Suchit are way past the beginning date of this idea. There were appointed members of parliament from virtually the beginning and the great propagator of so-called Thai-style democracy was Kukrit Pramoj in the early 1960s when he supported Sarit’s authoritarianism. Actually Kukrit used the term “Thai-style government” then because he thought “Western-style democracy” simply didn’t fit Thailand. In this sense, PAD leaders and their hopelessly named “new politics” trace a legacy at least back to the military authoritarianism of the late 1950s.
But maybe I have missed the point.
22 Stillwater // Sep 5, 2008 at 8:29 am
For reference:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/040908_News/04Sep2008_news23.php
PAD’s idea of a new political system simplified in English.
Sometimes it’s better to stick to exactly what is said by PAD rather than try to derive or interpret what is said.
While I understand Ed Norton’s concerns there is also a flipside to their ideas. Nothing can really stop vote buying and we can assume it will continue—the appointed representatives from various labor related groups could still look out for the interest of their constituents.
An example would be that many farmers for instance are influenced to vote a certain way which may end up hurting their interests, however their union leader can still maintain the right to vote in the exact opposite direction.
In this case the farmer has his/her choice and yet still exert pressure on their occupational representative if they choose to.
I’m noticing that many people would rather oppose PAD than realize the possibility of a clean and more efficient government.
23 Jim Taylor // Sep 5, 2008 at 11:47 am
PAD is at last being exposed for it is: a vested interest group of thugs who what to regain some vestige of the past when the military ruled and a government of the people was ineffectual. Midnight University and even factions of the Press Association are condeming PAD. A seminar held over the weekend involved some key academics (some of who are doing an about face after supporting Khor Mor Chor earlier) AT LAST coming out to disagree with PAD. These persons are worthy of naming (excuse my transliteration):
1. Prinya Tewanarumitkun (Law, Thammasat)
2. Nuanoy Trirat (Econ, Chula)
3. Somchai Prichasilapakun (Dean, Law, Chiangmai)
4. Praja Komkiratee (Pol.Sc., Chiangmai)
5. Sutthacahi Yimprasoet (Arts, Chula)
6. Surichai Wan’Keo (Pol.Sc., Chula)
7. Pitchaya Pongsawat (Pol.Sc., Chula)
8. Phairoj Pholphet, Human Rights Commission of Thailand
Further, an example of the bullshit generated against Thaksin and the TRT can be seen by exposing the influential political scientist Chai-Anan Samudavanija a key drafter of the illict 2007 Constitution.
This is from the independent Thai e-news web site. It was Chai-anan who behind Article 7 to appoint a PM outside of the election process and who collected a petition of ninety-five gullible (at the time) academics to present to the king. The king refused. This led to the coup. During the current PPP Government he started again the rumour about the Finland rebellion group intent on bringing the monarchy down and replacing it with a Republican system. This was a spin of huge proportions implicating Thaksin a couple of years back. Chai-anan works for Sondhi Lim and writes for his Manager publication- another opportunity for fiction spin. He supports the 70:30 clause and says that Thailand should not be a nation of full democracy but go backwards to the ancien regime dominated by the kharatchakan (government officials) system. He recently told Thai folk not to worry if there is another coup and to ignore what outsiders say (after all -look at the Philippines or Indonesia!)
Before the election there was a rumour that the military were going to field a political party and- guess what? -Chai-anan was the man who wanted to be the military’s prima donna. According to this article he has even greater personal ambitions (see thaienews@googlegroups.com). They run exposé of these people regularly.
24 Ed Norton // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:02 pm
stillwaters do not always run deep. I’ve actually read PAD’s proposals in simple English and simple Thai. After all, they are not particularly complex and nor are they new, despite the label “new politics.” The vote-buying allegations continue to be the PAD fallback position despite the fact that there is little evidence of the mass vote-buying they claimed for the December election. My point remains, PAD supporter and ideologue Chai-Anan referred to such arrangements as fascist-like in 1996. He was right and I think his observation is more than appropriate today.
25 Khun Stillwater // Sep 5, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Oh Ed, I thought you’d be more mature than this stillwaters do not always run deep. (^_^) I think that sentence falls under the “irrelevant” part of the paragraph of rules.
Sometimes I overestimate people on NM. I thought this was a place to voice ideas/opinions (with evidence) or to guide people to educational resources. Not a place to poke fun of usernames. After all, like in other public forums you have pretenders hiding behind false identities all the time. Even people who talk to themselves and support their own posts under another id. It happens and I’m sure we’ve met them!
Jim an example of the bullshit generated against Thaksin
bullshit Thaksin can’t seem to dispel with evidence.
It’s not just Thaksin—it’s also the DAMAPONG FAMILY which needs to be examined closely.
The courts were in his pocket, otherwise he would not be allowed to tour the world on a “vacation” from politics. Come on, we gave him a headstart and he still has his passport.
This thread was about the PAD strategy and attempts to understand it but it evolved into how Thaksin is a poor, poor victim in all of this and the fall back to the issue regarding PAD and the military. The thing is when it comes to political ideas, rarely anything is “new” under the sun. Some American parties try to emulate their predecessors and even borrow ideas from across party lines. If Ed is being sincere then PAD needs better ideas.
Ed there is little evidence of the mass vote-buying they claimed for the December election
Ed you may want to take this issue to the courts Thailand’s Election Commission has ruled that the governing People’s Power Party commited electoral fraud in December polls and should be dissolved.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hG71oGl1LokvZphtDQZzL44nzc3QD92UCSF80
Sondhi’s mistake was to even discuss his new politics and should have kept it simple to just pointing out the obvious rather than confusing people.
1) Samak is a puppet (even few Thaksin supporters here can deny this).
2) Thaksin still plays politics and will continue to still be involved
“The news agency added that PPP members have already registered a new political party, which is expected to be housed in a building owned by Thaksin.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/thailand.protests/?iref=mpstoryview
Shouldn’t you all be cheering that Thaksin has turned into a political hydra. Thaksin will be with Thailand for a long time.
3) Thaksin is interfering in the judicial system
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.cambodia/2008-06/msg00592.html
If he wasn’t such a stingy man and gave 5 million instead of 2—there would be no problem (^_^). It was such a petty little case compared to the matter forever swept under the rug google “Thaksin extrajudicial killings”. PAD should have nailed him on this count.
Funny how some democracy loving westerners overlook HUMAN RIGHTS.
In closing Ed a vested interest group of thugs who what to regain some vestige of the past when the military rule . You can say the same of Thaksin.
Thaksin has classmates and associates in the police and military–I’m more concerned with a pro-Thaksin coup against Samak. Thaksin’s thugs are well armed and have leaders who are proud to appear in the media such as : ขวัญชัย ไพรพนา . Look him up….
26 David Brown // Sep 5, 2008 at 3:07 pm
vote buying is a key topic in this ….
does anyone know if anyone has tried to do the numbers on vote buying?
I wrote down some ideas on how to structure a reearch project:
Vote Buying
========
-check any pre-election polling
-seats in contention
-swinging voter identification
-party/politician competition
-how many votes could be bought (at 400B per vote?)?
-what was the winning margin in each electorate?
-estimate how many votes that would actually need to be bought on one side?
-what if both/multiple sides were buying votes, needing additional funding to achieve a given result?
-voter success in accepting money and not changing their actual vote (secret ballot)
-what evidence is there?
-what is the total amount of vote-buying that is proven?
-how much is not proven?
-are there plausible reasons why this money has not been traced?
-are there any conclusions that have been published by election observers about the Thai election practices?
-is there a conclusion, vote-buying is/is not a significant factor in Thai “free and fair” elections?
…….
very simplistically
a friend of mine suggested that perhaps 100M Baht could be spent
so, dividing by 400B per vote gives 250,000 votes max influenced
about 40M voters, margin 2M?
not enough money
so my conclusion is that its a beatup:
buying votes – I dont believe made a significant difference to the
election results (its the policies stupid…. through 4 democratic elections in a row!
compare this with the PAD offer
some corrupt rich people “nominating” the members of parliament for their own benefit?
I go for voting by all the Thai people every time instead of the corrupt few raping the country as usual
as someone said, the losers in elections always have ego issues, its a
measure of civilisation how they control it
27 Stillwater // Sep 5, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I appreciate the thought put into David Brown’s reply. You can skim over the past Yongyuth case to see if it supports your ideas or not:
http://www.thailandqa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19106 (thread copied from BKKpost)
I don’t know about pre-election polling in very rural far flung places. I’ve never read of pre-election poll stats taken in those areas although I assume if one were to research this someone has to simply ask the local abbot at the temple who he thinks his lay followers would choosel.
Just wanted to add to your list: non-cash vote buying. I found it fascinating that very very cheap gifts can be handed out sort of like tickets to claim a cash amount later on after the elections are done with and the box removed. Then how is one to appraise the gift/item and at the same time find where they claim the cash?
I know that sounds weird but coming up with an average amount to buy one vote is hard because there is local skimming by village elders so you can imagine if the village elder gets a budget to sway the vote he may end up keeping a good portion. If a villager decides to provide info on the amount he received—how is an investigator supposed to determine the original large sum given to the village headman?
It’s certainly hard to get hard numbers on “vote buying”.
The issue is vote buying may be too specific a term.
Vote swaying is more like it. You don’t have to hand out cash as people walk away from the box. In fact cash may be too obvious. Vote buyins has evolved and become very sophisticated. Take into account that at the local level, strongmen have jobs and angle for contracts.
You don’t transfer money into an account. That’s so passe! You give contract jobs in construction or other form of employment. Keep the contract coming, keep the villagers, who are your employees working. That’s the sad part. Some people need it to survive.
All is well.
Oh dear, I just convinced myself vote buying is okay and if I can’t find cashed check stubs or money transfer records it doesn’t exist on a very large scale.
One other element in vote swaying (not unique to Thailand) is Thaksin and “Buddhism”.
Thaksin have tapped into the Dhammakaya elite. What Dhammakaya is in Pathum Thani (well their main complex but they have 2?branches in the USA).
Do you think that Dhammakaya’s several thousand strong supporters if swayed by their abbot, Dhammachayo, to vote for the PPP or its future incarnations has any influence? Thaksin made $$$ donations to the temple.
Yes ofcourse this happens in the USA too where the GOP’s strategy has always been to use the church to do their promo.
I go for voting by all the Thai people every time instead of the corrupt few raping the country as usual
I think the PPP elite count for more than a “few”. You forgot to count Thaksin’s overseas associates who are also in on the game.
I’d like to see more voter education. Have you all noticed the LACK of voter reading material distributed in the rural areas? That’s another key issue—education. Elections are decided in rural karaoke bars, temples, factories and everything is done VERBALLY.
If our average voter wanted to study the facts–he or she has very little to study (other than the roadside billboard). If flyers are made how many are actually distributed?
David have you heard about Samak’s national referendum idea?
It should work out well since Thaksin sold Man-City shares (or the whole team I can’t recall at all). If Thaksin’s bank account is happy, he wins again. Just watch.
28 David Brown // Sep 5, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Stillwater,
firstly thanks very much for your nice comments
I think the main point here is that while everyone carries on about vote buying, its the policies, such as decentralisation of contracts and work into a region that is probably much more important in determining votes…..
so, a party that has attractive policies can leave the vote buyers in their dust…. and I think thats what has happened in Thailand…. the PAD and the traditional power brokers are just slow learners and dont know how to live in the new Thailand…
maybe the traditional politicians actually spent more money that the TRT and PPP but still lost! no wonder they are upset
29 Ed Norton // Sep 5, 2008 at 10:59 pm
stillwaters run over! I do not have the time or energy to reply to everything you say. I do want to say that I stumbled into this conversation as I was looking for the thread on Chai-Anan. On that, you say that Sondhi Lim was mistaken to express his ideas. I agree. However, I am thankful that he did, for it was revealing on his political colours to many. But a couple of comments. Your evidence for *mass* vote-buying (the terminology I used) is irrelevant. One case (or even a few) does not make a mass, and the EC essentially agreed that there was not mass vote-buying and the election observers concurred. You seem to be saying in your recent post that governments should not offer policy choices (roads, railways, bridges, development funds, social welfare etc.) to voters as incentives for them to vote for them. How would that be organised so that there was no competition on policy? By an appointed parliament perhaps? Finally, I made no comment about military and thugs in this thread.
30 Stillwater // Sep 6, 2008 at 6:13 am
Ed, I do not have the time or energy to reply to everything you say. I’m in the same situation Ed. I came here and posted a BKKpost link to Sondhi’s ideas for reference because I noticed that especially the non-Thai folks studying this situation haven’t done their homework: read what is on manager.
If you want to attack PAD and protect Thaksin and his puppet at the very least you ought to quote PAD. Isn’t that the way to go? Or are you going to keep trying to interpret through weak inferences from English sources. It’s like everyone has become a clone of the overwhelmed Dan Rivers who called PAD “elite” but then does a video of how the train station is empty because the train workers are on strike. Or is he saying unionized workers are “elite”. What’s happening is there are statements made in the media or blogs such as this one which are contradictory to what is going on in PAD as we speak.
Attack PAD by studying their FREE STREAMING MEDIA right here:
http://www.manager.co.th/ Left column red button. Don’t just sit there and study ONLY the English media.
You seem to be saying in your recent post that governments should not offer policy choices (roads, railways, bridges, development funds, social welfare etc.) to voters as incentives for them to vote for them.
Ed, you may be in too much of a hurry to be reading my posts carefully.
How is it legal to trade votes in for contracts which benefit certain elders/village headmen or local powerful businesses? In the end the regional elites still benefit from these deals.
That’s how you monopolize a region’s businesses and at the same time intimidate voters to vote a certain way. It’s almost how some missionaries work—you gotta convert to get the fringe benefits of food and water which the incompetant government could not provide. The incompetant gov. being corrupt vote buying admin.
You call this rural development and “social welfare” when I’m talking about private businesses teamed up with politicians to secure an area.
Two different things.
A social project by Thaksin comes to mind Baan or Ban Ua-Arthorn project. Google it and see how well that scheme worked out.
Populist ideas are fine—if they aren’t corrupt.
But we don’t have to discuss only contracts. You can even pull in drugs into the mix. Read “Drugs for Votes” http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/topstories.php?id=124480 (sorry it’s a PPP example–my bad)
Ed How would that be organised so that there was no competition on policy? .
There should be competition—but the competition gets destroyed if politicians are always going to favor certain contractors over the other. It’s localized “special interests” disenfranchizing voters from choosing what they want.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.