Election Archive Home
Top Analysis
AW and NF in Canberra, 1.30 AM: The coup of September 2006 was a bold roll of the dice. It was based on the hope that what has been termed the “network monarchy” could displace the electoral appeal of Thaksin Shinawatra. The coup was followed by a concerted ideological campaign that sought to contrast the disinterested virtue of the king’s “sufficiency economy” with the profligate populism of Thaksin’s path to economic development.
But the gamble has not paid off. Thaksin’s proxy party, People Power, will form Thailand’s next government (unless the military wants to chance its hand on an even more reckless gamble). People Power will not command a parliamentary majority, but its electoral authority in the parliament will be considerably greater than the drafters of the post-coup constitution would have hoped. A deal with just one other minor party may be enough to achieve a workable majority.
Since the pre-coup political crisis, respect for electoral legitimacy has been steadily eroded in Thailand. But now the electorate has given a clear signal that Thai voters want to choose their own government regardless of the ideological and constitutional manipulations of those who seek to disenfranchise them. The electorate’s affection for the king is not at issue, but this vote represents a rejection of the “sufficiency democracy” path mapped out for them by the military regime over the past year.
Previous Analysis
AW and NF in Canberra, 11.30 PM: The Democrat Party have only themselves to blame for their disappointing poll result. They have been given every assistance to win. Their nemesis, Thaksin, was removed by military force. Their opposition, the Thai Rak Thai Party, was dissolved. And in the campaign leading up to this election they received not-so-subtle backing from the palace and the military. But, even with all this extra-electoral support, they still seem incapable of putting together a convincing electoral performance.
In early 2006, at the height of Thaksin’s political crisis, the Democrat Party made a fateful decision. Knowing they would lose Thaksin’s snap election they decided to boycott it. Of course, they tried to justify the boycott from the high moral ground of anti-Thaksin outrage but to many observers it was clear that they were simply not willing to join Thaksin in an electoral fight.
This was a short-sighted act. Of course, they would have lost the election of April 2006 if they had contested it. But the Thaksin vote was soft, even in parts of his heartland, as indicated by the low voter turnout and the high “no-vote” recommended by the boycotters. In all likelihood they would have gained ground, considerable ground, from their low-point of 2005 when they won only 96 seats in the 500 seat parliament. With some solid grass roots campaigning they would have been able to steadily chip away at Thaksin’s electoral dominance.
Instead they took the extra-electoral route, sabotaging the 2006 snap election and then endorsing the coup that followed. Now they are back in the political game but not in government. They have put in a much better performance than 2005 but at what cost? The highly regarded 1997 constitution has been torn up. The monarchy, to whom the Democrats have pledged unswerving loyalty, has lost much of its veneer of being “above” politics. And Thailand’s democratic system itself has been weakened by yet another military intrusion into the political system. There is very little for the Democrat Party to celebrate tonight.
***
AW and NF in Canberra, 9.10 PM: It appears increasingly likely that the People Power Party will form Thailand’s next government. The most likely outcome will be a coalition between People Power and two of the smaller parties (probably Chart Thai and Pua Paendin). But there is some chance that People Power may win more than the 240 seats required to govern in its own right.
The central question for Thailand’s democracy is this: will the royalist-military elite that staged the September 2006 coup be willing to accept the election of Thaksin’s proxy party? Finding themselves back at square one after 15 months will be a bitter pill to swallow. Military action against the election result seems highly unlikely, though it cannot be ruled out. More likely is a concerted judicial attack on the elected government. This may take the form of a series of challenges to constituency results. The current military regime has worked hard to keep the spectre of electoral irregularity and vote buying alive and they may waste no time in arguing, as they did in relation to the Thaksin government, that the People Power victory was bought from an ill-informed and easily manipulated electorate.
How do you say “Groundhog Day” in Thai?
***
AW and NF in Canberra, 6.30 PM According to the Bangkok Post the king spoke on Friday urging “the armed forces and police to be a strong pillar in stabilising the country.” Thailand, according to the king, needs “strength and honesty to prevent it from collapsing.”
“You are soldiers. But that does not mean you have to rely on weapons for your operations,” he said. The King acknowledged the problems in the country, which is in need of reconciliation. “The country now is still not in order. But you can restore the order and make it strong with your strength.”
Surely this would have been a good opportunity to emphasise the importance of electoral democracy in bringing about stability. Instead of urging respect for the wishes of the electorate the king chose to emphasise the unifying force of the army.
Why?
35 responses so far ↓
1 Grasshopper // Dec 23, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I think it is quite odd that he believes? (or just says) that Thailand can ‘collapse’. IMO, maybe he is projecting his reign as symbolism for all of Thailand. Maybe the importance of the military will be much more overt with Vajiralongkorn (who has a degree in military strategy?) and therefore to maintain the monarchy as it is, he is emphasising the importance of the military now.
2 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Dec 23, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I suggest the King’s speech to the armed forces and the police should be seen together with his similar speech to the judges just days earlier. Taken together, they indicate, I think, that the palace circles (the king, Prem, Surayut, etc) are just gearing themselves up to the stage of ‘preparedness’ to any eventuality after the elections, whatever that maybe. I don’t think even they, however “divine”, could predict with certainty the outcome of the elections. But they know, as we all do, that they could only be more troubles ahead. (Even if the Dem win, troubles could hardly be avoided).
3 Adam Carr // Dec 23, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Could someone resolve this for me: Looking in from the outside, as someone who would like to see Thailand become a modern progressive social democracy, Abhisit and the Democrats look much like model western liberal democrats than do Thaksin and Samak, who seem to be corrupt demagogues. Yet all accounts suggest that the Palace, Prem, Sondhi etc (ie, the old undemocratic elite) want the Democrats to win, while the masses, at least outside Bangkok and the South, continue to want Thaksin, or a proxy for him such as Samak. So who should progressive foreigners who want to see Thailand prosper and become more democratic support?
4 Teth // Dec 23, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Nicely done with the touch of irony, but what needs to be said is that the Palace has always been conveniently supporting whatever regime fits their purposes, rather than the democratic or progressive regime.
5 Adam Carr // Dec 23, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I wasn’t intending to be ironic. I really don’t know the answer. I thought Thaksin was a demogogic crook, but of course I can’t support military coups or government by courtiers either. To western liberal eyes, Abhisit seems a much more acceptable politician than Samak, whom one of my Thai friends today called “a loudmouthed clown,” but not if he’s just going to be a front for the old elite. It seems an unpalatable choice.
6 wordwallah // Dec 23, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Adam:
Thaksin IS more a demographic cook than a “demogogic” (sic) anything.
If you’re serious in your question, you might want to consider “supporting” (whatever that means in this context) whomever the Thai electorate elects. Even if they don’t appear to share your taste for “modern progressive social democracy” as that appears to “western liberal eyes”.
How does your Thai friend feel about the HM the King’s most recent advice? He may be something of a clown himself to “western liberal eyes”, no?
7 Adam Carr // Dec 23, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I always try to be serious when I ask political questions. So I won’t be responding to silly sarcastic answers. If you’ve got something intelligent to say, say it.
8 Grasshopper // Dec 24, 2007 at 12:13 am
Thankyou for speaking for all western liberals Adam, but what makes Abhisit look more like a model western democrat exactly? I’m sure if you take everything at face value you can rationalise that there is no liberalism and only people who sort of look and act like the people who formulated these crazy ideas which delude us all.
Do you think Samak is any less liberal than you or me or anyone else that’s a product of their environment? You should want whoever it is that does not see social progression as ‘modernisation’ or ‘liberal empowerment’, but instead a figure who can inspire Thai people to progress Thai identity without becoming globally isolated for having a different appreciation of power or freedom. Maybe this way, as western ascetic liberals, we can do what western liberals do best apparently, and individually ‘grow’. (As opposed to collectively assimilate..)
When you find this inspirational person, please tell me.
9 Adam Carr // Dec 24, 2007 at 12:31 am
OK I see I am only going to cheap sniping and point-scoring rather here than any worthwhile discussion. Bye.
10 wordwallah // Dec 24, 2007 at 1:06 am
Adam:
Thanks for not responding. Perhaps I should have shaped my comments in such a way that they would not look “silly” (and apparently unintelligent) to “western liberal eyes”.
You referred to Thaksin in the past tense. We appear not to have been following the same election, so I bold-faced my sense of Thaksin’s present presence.
By “demographic cook” I wanted to suggest that like any successful politician in a western liberal democracy, Thaksin mixes up a blend of platforms/programs to appeal to the demographic that is most likely to put him into power. It would appear that almost 50% of the Thai electorate agrees with me. It also appears that this is something quite new, possibly revolutionary, in Thai politics. It might turn out to be Thaksin’s most lasting legacy if liberal democracy continues to wend its way into Thai political culture.
My comment about your “supporting” anyone at all in the Thai political scene stands. Even a “western liberal” should understand that the democratic process takes precedence over individual preference where government is concerned; the people behind Abhisit have made it abundantly clear that they do not agree with this notion. The clown and the “demogog” may not, in the end, win out over Abhisit’s clean, movie-star face after all.
My question about your Thai friend was not intended as sarcasm. If he shares the common attitude toward HM the King and his supra-political “advice” to the nation, then surely to “western liberal eyes” his comments on Samak come pre-packaged with more than a few grains of salt, if not quite a fuzzy red wig and bulbous red nose.
11 Bangkok Pundit // Dec 24, 2007 at 1:40 am
“The Democrat Party have only themselves to blame for their disappointing poll result”.
Actually, most polls predicted they would get around 120-130 seats so I don’t think it is a disappointing poll result for them. They won less than 100 seats at the 2005 election so around the 160 amount is a good figure for them. Their problem is their coalition partners have done very badly. Actually, I would say there is greater support by the military for Puea Paendin than for the Democrats. Yet this support for Puea Paendin doesn’t seem to have helped them. If the military had really supported the Democrats I wonder what that would have done for their poll numbers. The military can control or limit the information that people receive, but they can’t make people vote for their candidates. The elite should take notice.
According to Abhisit, this is the highest number of MPs that the Democrats have ever won.
12 Suriyon Raiwa // Dec 24, 2007 at 1:55 am
Mr Carr–Your questions are fair. And good answers would be complex. But, for now, three observations, intended to be be neither point-scoring nor sniping. First, I think that your Thai friend is wrong on Samak. He is a bright guy, and one of the finest orators in Thai politics for decades. His politics are not “liberal”, but he has never claimed that they were. Much more could be said about this man, and it has been depressing in recent months to find that media (and blog) commentary on him has been marked by ignornance of his career, failure to consider the tendencies in Thai political culture and ideology that he has embodied, lack of analysis of his apparent ideological shift in throwing his lot in with Thaksin, little interest in the origins or depth with the royalist Network surrounding Gen Prem, and insufficeint scrutiny of whether Thaksin can reall trust or “control” a man like Samak. Second, sure, Aphisit may look like a good, Western-style liberal from afar. But he is a creature of privilege who, unlike–say–FDR, has never transcended his privilege to appeal effectively to ordinary voters. All the fine talk and brilliant policy in the world are useless in a democratic order if they reside in a political leader with little demonstrated committment effectively to pitching them to the electorate. If Clio is wise, she will consing Aphisit to her dust-bin soon. Not least, this would be good for his party, as many of the real democratic politicians in the party know. Third, Thaksin is indeed a crook and a murderer, but the fact is that he and his party developed, campaigned on, and implemented a platform that Thailand’s electoral majority found to its like. And therein lies the answer to your question. The voters want PPP and if their support for PPP proves a mistake, well, they will have the chance to vote it out at the next general election. Progress can be a tricky notion, but honoring the will of the voters seems like a pretty good thing. As said, sir, there is far more to say about all this … And Andrew’s advice to an NM reader who posted queries similar to yours a day or two of you seems pretty good to me: try to find and study a copy of the new special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia. Oh, yeah, keep reading NM, too …. Some of us here try to write in a constructive vein.
13 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Dec 24, 2007 at 2:16 am
I agree that in absolute number this is probably the Dem’s greatest success (I’m not sure about their relative number to the overall seats in the House in 1976, for example). And this is exactly the point Abhisit was stressing a short while ago at his news conference, during which he pointedly refused to ‘concede’ victory to PPP, or rule out the possibility of Dem forming a new gov. However, I don’t think one should look at it this way given the circumstances. Following the coup (which arguably partly resulted from the Dem’s ‘gamble’ by boycotting the 2006 elections) and the passing of the junta Constitution, a lot of people (perhaps the junta itself – I’m not sure that it supported the PP more as BKK pundit says) expect the Dem to win the majority or close to the majority of seats. Only when the elections were in full swing did the poll started to come out that the PPP would win.
14 Adam Carr // Dec 24, 2007 at 11:56 am
Thanks to Suriyon Raiwa for an enlightening answer.
15 nganadeeleg // Dec 24, 2007 at 2:01 pm
It looks the Democrats ‘pitch’ was accepted reasonably well, except in the north/north east regions (which happens to be where most of the seats are)
Unfortunately, it still looks like a very divided country to me.
16 Andrew Walker // Dec 24, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“It still looks like a very divided country to me.” – would you prefer it if everyone voted the same way?
17 Historicus // Dec 24, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Apologies that this is late; I was in the countryside and had limited access to the internet. It may still be of interest to some.
This brief report is impressionistic and based on limited visits and discussions. I drove from Bangkok to Korat via the Cholburi highway then to Chachongsao to Wang Nam Khieow, via Highway 304, and then to Korat city. I visited various sites around Korat – Amphurs Sung Noen, Non Daeng, Muang and Si Khiew. In Korat city I visited the local election commission office and a number of other government offices (following Democrat canvassers). In Non Daeng, I visited a village and the district office. I did not talk to a huge number of people, and was mainly observing. I did speak with a couple of candidates, both Democrats.
The first impression, following a few days in Bangkok, was that usual election advertising declined quickly as one moved into the NE. I am not sure if this is common, but by the time I got to Korat city, there were almost no election posters displayed. Given that they fill every space in Bangkok, it was interesting to see so few posters in Korat. In the city, finding a poster is difficult indeed. One of the campaign managers for the Democrats told me that this was because the electoral laws did not permit much advertising. When I pointed out that Bangkok was flooded with advertising, he simply shrugged.
Out in the villages, in Wang Nam Khieow down to Pakthongchai, I noticed plenty of posters along the road – still less than in Prachinburi. In Non Daeng, I saw very few posters, mainly on the main roads, but very sparse indeed. Not one house in the two villages I visited had any poster displayed.
In one village, where I had more time, the villagers I spoke with claimed to have almost no election information. The only printed information seemed to be the official booklet on all parties. The villagers claimed to be very confused about the election; this was two days prior to the ballot. They claim to know nothing about policies or the candidates. All claimed that this was very different from previous elections.
In this village, my informants claimed that no money had yet been paid to them for votes, but that they suspected that village heads and kamnan were being paid by several parties. When about 100 villagers were bussed from this village to the amphur for an evening election talk by the Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, the rumour was that the village organizers were being paid per head for the villagers they delivered to the two-hour meeting. About 1,000 showed up. On the same evening, a Democrat rally some 100 kilometres away apparently had 200-300 people show up. When paying for votes is discussed, Phua Paendin is often mentioned, but again in the context of community leaders. Machima was said to have paid weeks ago; way too early it was said.
Hua khanaen viewed the counting. Maybe money would have been paid to villagers following the result.
Adding to the confusion in this village, quite large numbers of people had been removed from the electoral role. At one time, some 40% of voters had reportedly been removed, apparently on the orders of the district officer. An interview on Channel 11 with the deputy secretary of the Ministry of Interior indicated that this practice was widespread and unlawful.
In this village, however, some names have been added back. One woman I spoke with had argued at length with the headman, saying that removing people from the roll was illegal just because they weren’t in the house when he visited. He reportedly argued that he was following orders to remove all names of people not in residence when he visited the household. This woman’s household had 8 on the household register, and 4 were removed. Two of these have been added back since then. One of these had to talk with the village head, deputy head, the local election official (a teacher) and two deputy district officers. The family women (3 of them) patiently harassed each of these officials until a document was issued to allow the women to get her right to vote back. Apparently this removal depended on the district officer, as in Phimai district this seemed not to have happened (according to relatives of these women living in that district).
In the end, this village voted strongly for PPP (75%). It had been a strong TRT village in 2005.
Meanwhile, back in Korat city the election campaign was virtually invisible. The Provincial Office has a big platform set up, but nothing else is visible, apart from a few signs on official buildings urging people to vote and to shun vote-buying. There have been big rallies for most parties, and candidates are canvassing, including inside government offices.
Democrat candidates seem resigned to the support that will go to other parties. They are Aphisit supporters, but seem to be mostly left to their own devices in the area. It seems that the Democrats have almost no local organization. Rather, the teams seem to be the candidates’ personal staff and supporters. Some of the comments I heard suggest that there is some concern that the factions in the party are undermining each other already, apparently on the basis that Aphisit is not going to look good at the head of a party that looks like it will be defeated by the PPP. Chuan people seem to be seeking to replace Aphisit. Chuan and others reportedly spoke in Korat and didn’t mention the party leader at all.
Meanwhile, on election day, in a village in Amphur Na Dee (Prachinburi), a headman told me that removing people’s names from the roll was ordered by “higher ups” who wanted a big percentage turnout. This was said to have been a problem during the constitutional referendum. The headman said he’d been told that the higher the turnout, the more democracy there was. So they removed as many people as possible because they had a target turnout figure to meet.
18 nganadeeleg // Dec 24, 2007 at 5:13 pm
“Would you prefer it if everyone voted the same way?”
Not necessarily, but I do think it would be better if the split was not on such a geographical basis.
19 Dickie Simpkins // Dec 24, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Andrew,
I think you are misrepresenting his point. He is simply making a statement with no sense of judgement that the whole country should have voted in ‘absolute’ terms. Like most people, he was hoping the election would bring about some type of political stability so we can look forward to a new beginning. However, the divisive PPP (who ran a very negative campaign against every party) came out on top. Now, with the history of TRT, the small/medium parties are scared of joining because they don’t want to be eaten again, on the other hand, they don’t want to miss out on forming a government and get their share of the spoils…
Does it mean a country will be better without any division or different points of view? No, absolutely not. But essentially, as the PPP were so insistent on their plans for amnesty and clearing Thaksin’s name, they didn’t get a popular mandate for that. So while the gentlemanly rules gives PPP the choice to form the government, they really cannot run on the schemes they were planning to run. It may work for them, after the fall of government, they can say they need more votes to ‘clear’ Thaksin’s good name.
On the other hand, a quick second election might work against PPP especially now that the military has shown that they will accept the result whichever way it falls, meaning that the PPP can no longer garner anti-Junta votes any more.
Now, I am only stating my point of view and analysis on the current events here, and I have refrained from giving my personal preference (as the title of this post is ‘analysis’). So before anyone starts sniping me personally, I ask you stick to the points mentioned.
20 Dickie Simpkins // Dec 24, 2007 at 5:43 pm
In reply to #13,
I do believe the military gave tacit support to PP and were hoping that PP would eat into the PPP’s support in the North East. The Democrats and the military aren’t exactly big fans of each other, but the only reason the military were approving Abhisit’s PM-run is because they felt he wouldn’t confront them or any grey-haired men out in the open.
I truly feel that this election is more the failure of the PP than any other party. Chart Thai have proved they are always a force to be reckoned with. MT imploded, and RuamJaiCP never had a strong political base anyways. It would be interesting if these factions PP, CT, MT, RCP, joined forces to be the ‘third alternative’ under a single banner. However, I find it unlikely as all these leaders are hyenas looking for the best piece of meat.
Again, my conclusion, PP is the biggest failure of this election. Democrats have a lot to be proud about, and PPP have the most to be happy about.
21 Historicus // Dec 25, 2007 at 12:02 am
A correction to 17 above:
I said: In the end, this village voted strongly for PPP (75%). It had been a strong TRT village in 2005, but should have stated: In the end, this village voted strongly for Phua Paendin (75%). It had been a strong TRT village in 2005.
22 Srithanonchai // Dec 25, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“Does it mean a country will be better without any division or different points of view?” >> Perhaps, it is time to consider the meaning of “division” and “difference”, including the context of the discourse on “division” that has developed in Thailand.
23 Michael H. Nelson // Dec 25, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Historicus, thanks very much for your impressions.
Your observations re election advertising in Korat are very similar to Chachoengsao municipality. The town itself was virtually advertising free, except for the about eight locations that the muncipality had designated as places were the candidates could place their signboards. Thus, the “sign space” in the municipality was dominated by commercial signs and those representing Nation, Religion, Monarchy. Same in the small Sanam Chai Khet municipality.
As well, outside of the muncipal area, the number of small signboards increased. When I accompanied the director of constituency 1 through endless rural roads, almost all intersections, or where two rural roads met, had signboards. This was all the more visible as there is little color other than green and grey in these areas. At major interersections, only the election commission was allowed to place big billboars. The candidates were confined to their small signboards, and had a hard time competing with the huge billboards of commercialized Buddhism. Posters could only be placed at boards provided for by state and local government authorities, but not at private places, such as housewalls. The otherwise well-liked banners hanging on fences and from ceilings of shops were also prohibited in this election by the ECT.
24 Historicus // Dec 26, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Re: #17
I sent a correction that seems to have gone missing. I said, “In the end, this village voted strongly for PPP (75%). It had been a strong TRT village in 2005.” This should have been: “In the end, this village voted strongly for Phua Paendin (75%). It had been a strong TRT village in 2005.”
25 Sidh S. // Dec 26, 2007 at 2:31 pm
For me, this is actually a very good result for the country. PPP, as many have expected, have won the most votes – but not enough to govern on their own.
Those needed 7-8 votes (maybe more with the determination of yellow & red cards) will prove to be highly critical (not to mention very expensive). It is also critical that they lost badly in Bangkok (PPP’s Dr.Suebwonglee was visibly frustrated). Those two factors alone will make it extremely difficult (and tricky) for them to deliver their main election-winning promise to the Northerners and Northeasterners – “we will bring PMThaksin back and clean his
record” (at the very least, doing so, may break their second most important promise “we will bring great economic growth”)… Any potential coalition partners (who all have a love-hate relationships with PMThaksin) are well aware of that and the negotiations may take a life of its own independent of PMThaksin (who some commentators on Thai TV mentioned could be “fooled” by PPP
- and Samak-Chalerm will soon reveal their own agendas once vested with state power. PMThaksin may have also played his cards prematurely today, revealing his intention to return to politics in Feb-March as “advisor” to PPP).
Reducing all of PMThaksin’s opponents into “network monarchists” or “sufficiency democrats” may be quite simplistic as articulated by many of the above comments. The only thing they have in common is precisely PMThaksin – while seemingly share little else. Another important reason that the Democrats boycotted the 2005 elections is quite practical – election funding. They have already lost two expensive campaigns in 2001 and 2005; spent 5 years in opposition (no source of ‘income’ of being in power); and have lost many of their financiers in big businesses (and influential provincial families).
Facing another full-blown assault by the invincible, well-oiled TRT electionmachine may more likely lead to political extinction than gaining more parliamentary seats mentioned by Andrew. Money was and still is highly influential in Thai politics and we must factor in PMThaksin’s then unfrozen 73 billion baht from the sale of ShinCorp (he might just bring forward the buying of an English Premiership team or two – or likely wow us with more cool election gimmicks).
The election results also geographically matched the referendum’s. Many of PMThaksin’s opponents already saw this as dire predictions and called for the elections to be pushed further back – into 2008, which was pointedly refused by PMSurayud. Why? Why not take more time to “engineer” a more desirable result? Why not be more ruthless like coup makers are expected to be elsewhere and finish off all nominees of PMThaksin (or even PMThaksin himself!)?
Many Thais who do not like PMThaksin are disappointed with the CNS and Surayud government for precisely that reason, accusing them of being faint-hearted (or even chokers).
Maybe they are (as we all have our skeletons in the closet – an PMThaksin proved skillful in exploiting the “holier than thou” cards) – but this can also be read in another way. They have engineered a ‘Thai compromise’. The 1997 Constitution’s implemented decentralization and TRT’s ‘populism’ has already
forever revolutionalized Thai politics – which is already much more responsive to the local populace with at least two extra layers of elected governments (for the past year nationally Thailand may be under a coup-government, but below that level, the country is democratic – an interesting phenomenon). On the other hand, PMThaksin’s centralization and monopolization of power increasingly led to unaccountability and overt corruption (selling ShinCorp and publicly bragging how clever he was at dodging taxes reflects the degenerated condition the TRT government was in. For Australians, imagine Theresa Rein, PMKevin Rudd’s wife, holding on to her business and seeing it grow exponentially from government contracts, through Rudd’s two terms of 6 years then selling it for hefty profit without paying a dollar of tax – and still maintaining she did no wrong). And that was only the tip of the iceberg of the TRT government corruption – the stories doing rounds in the Thai public service and private sectors bidding for government contracts reveals that the rot is unprecedented. Evidences? With many senior bureaucrats involved, most of these cases will not see the light of day. The best chance to find incriminating evidences seem to be those that involve international partners – and some these have already gone to court… Here, one wonders why PMThaksin wants a verystable PPP coalition in place before he returns to “fight” the cases… With the 1997 Constitution, senior politicians have been tried in court and convicted for corruption. While corruption is still rife, a former prime minister being formerly tried will surely aid in the long term, imperfect fight against corruption, the major Achilles heel of Thai democracy – which ironically, is possible because of the coup (so yes, Thai democracy still have a long tortuous road ahead) .
I think Mr.Abhisit put it aptly on Sunday night when he said he hoped a potential PPP-led government will “put the interests of the Thai people before House #111 and PMThaksin” which drew angry responses from the crowd at PPP headquarters. However, I believe if they do, then the country will have made great progress towards democracy. I am also certain that this is being seriously debated within PPP’s potential coalition partners and also a critical factor on the negotiating table with PPP. With the countries greatest political
price within reach, Samak and Chalerm may cut a ‘deal’ to isolate PMThaksin – but TRT/PPP hardliners will also have their say. These are very interesting 3-4 weeks and the declaration of yellow and red cards on Jan 3rd by the Election Commission will add to the complexity (if PMBanharn’s deft manuever hasn’t already! If he had his way, he would either be a PM in a PPP coalition or taking key ministries in a Democrat led one).
26 Chumporn // Dec 26, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Well said Suriyon.
27 wordwallah // Dec 27, 2007 at 5:13 pm
re: #24
Well said, indeed.
As opposed to the “ignorance of his (Samak’s) career” evinced in recent media and blogs, Suriyon’s knowing characterization of Samak as “a bright guy, and one of the finest orators in Thai politics for decades” is both “constructive” and “enlightening”.
Mr. Carr asked an apparently faux naif question about whom a progressive liberal westerner should support in this election and Suriyon “constructed” a thumbnail portrait of Samak that left out such telling (to a western liberal) strokes as his role in the Thammasat massacre, his subsequent attempts to block memorialisation of those who died therein (presumably because they were “Vietnamese”), his comparison of Bangkok homeless to stray dogs during the “street-cleaning” prior to the APEC summit and his suggestion that elephants be shot in order to dissuade their mahouts from parading them down Sukhumvit. Then again, it is doubtful that such a fine orator as Samak composed the memorable lines “Kill them, kill them” that poured out of radios prior to the slaughter in 1973, so there is that.
I hope this attempt to be more “constructive” will contribute to Mr. Carr’s ongoing enlightenment as he continues to read NM, especially the more “constructive” contributors like Suriyon.
28 wordwallah // Dec 27, 2007 at 5:28 pm
correction: “… prior to the slaughter in 1976…”
29 Chumporn // Dec 27, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Thanks, wordwallah for your very constructive and enlightning comments on Samak. It is very surprising to me that neither Apisit nor his democrat party has ever used that part of Samak you mentioned as their weapon. Tell me if I’m wrong.
30 Grasshopper // Dec 27, 2007 at 11:31 pm
wordwallah, But Samak is such a great chef! How can someone be held accountable for suggestions like “kill them all” and “shoot the elephants” as though it is defining of his character. Surely you’ve shouted ‘kill them all’ before. Focus on his cooking, he cooks with love! The democrat party obviously believes in fair play which is why they lost. Would you want a lovely curry full of variation or a cold bowl of noodles that have no dressing? Exactly.
I objected to the “cheap” way a western democrat could ask: who ought a western democrat support in the Thai election? As though western democrats emersed culturally in cosmopolitanism are in anyway able to be on one side or the other. As though being a liberal democrat enables one to be part of a universal club. The main thing for us cheap cosmopolitans is that democracy is back in Thailand.
31 Bangkok Pundit // Dec 28, 2007 at 2:36 am
Chumporn: Perhaps, one should look at Prem and his friends and what they were doing in 1976. Surayud also doesn’t have a blemish free record in 1992 either. Or perhaps the Dems just don’t want to upset their military friends from bringing up past incidents relating to coups?
32 nganadeeleg // Dec 28, 2007 at 9:09 am
Pundit: Even though PPP clearly won the election, I am wondering do you really think Samak is a suitable person for PM ?
BTW, which party were Prem & Surayud standing for in the election?
33 wordwallah // Dec 28, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Chumporn: I agree with Bangkok Pundit’s post and would add that since a goodly slice of the Dems’ natural constituency would share Samak’s apparent contempt for the poor and preference for military solutions to political problems, bringing up those items in his resume would possibly have sent some of them running into the arms of the PPP. More a backfire than a weapon, then. Not to mention the near-certainty of another libel action.
Grasshopper: I guess that makes me a “cheap cosmopolitan” too. I am unaccountably happy about the outcome(s) of this election… so far. This, in spite of the fact that, as a western liberal, I don’t really see myself “supporting” anyone in a Thai election. I responded to Adam Carr’s original post because I’m interested in the problematics of my having “western liberal eyes”, albeit focussed quite differently from Mr Carr’s, and therefore in need of corrective lenses to see well in the Thailand that I live in.
34 Bangkok Pundit // Dec 29, 2007 at 6:34 am
Nganadeeleg:
Even though PPP clearly won the election, I am wondering do you really think Samak is a suitable person for PM ?
It depends on what you mean by “suitable”. Given the options available to PPP then he is the most suitable person available to be PPP. Is he my favourite or first choice? Not really. I have neutral feelings about Samak. Chaturon would be my preferred PPP person, but well he is one of the 111 so no can do.
PPP don’t really have anyone else who is that experienced. Mingkwan looks good on paper, but he is untested and has no political experience. Samak is no political fool. Thaksin knows that from the time they didn’t see eye-to-eye in the mid 90s. PPP need some experience so Samak is a suitable person to lead in the circumstances.
They are hardly going to go with Banharn (even that recent poll with Abhisit leading in popularity stakes 51% vs 40% for Samak had Banharn at only 9%) and Suvit was a possibility, but ain’t an option now. Gen. Chetta has health problems. And well Snoh is Snoh. change. Samak will not be a one man show either. You and I both know he won’t dominate policy. As an oratorial figurehead he is ok. Samak will have to tone down his rhetoric to survive. If he doesn’t PPP he will go. So it depends on whether he wants it enough to be civil.
BTW, which party were Prem & Surayud standing for in the election?
Which party was Thaksin standing?
35 Restorationist // Dec 31, 2007 at 6:54 pm
It seems pretty clear that the conservative elite is now going to overturn the result – or at least try to make a Democrat-led coalition of the also-rans possible. Bad time of the year, I know, but I’d like to hear comments on these shenanigans.
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.