On Dec 4, 7:53 am, Good Soldier Schweik
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:40:28 -0800 (PST), xis2...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> >One of the topPADleaders is Chamlong Srimuang, a former general with
> >close ties to Gen Pren Tinsulanonda, the king's most senior advisor.
>
> The above statement is an example of the level of understand that
> either you, or the individual you quote, have of Thailand.
>
> General Chamlong did in fact work for General Prem, his secretary, if
> I remember correctly.
>
> Chamlong's first political activity was to run, and be elected,
> Governor of Bangkok. He formed the Palang Darma political party (and
> now we get to the good part) he is the individual that brought Thaksin
> into politics as a member of the Palang Darma party.
>
> While your quotation implies that Chamlong, having close ties to
> General Prem, is obviously anti Thaksin while the truth is that having
> brought Thaksin into politics and observed his actions he has
> developed an aversion to Thaksin's activities.
>
> In other words, an individual who has had the opportunity to observe
> Thaksin at close range dislikes him.........ever wonder why?
Thailand is all about cronyism, influence, power games, corruption.
All the pots and kettles are various shades of black. Thaksin is no
worse and no better than any of the other players. In a country only
recently introduced to democracy, very few of the power brokers are
keen to relinquish even a fraction of their influence to
representatives of the people. We are witnessing the various moves on
the board, with the yellow and red 'armies' as pawns. Whether the end
game is near or not, and who has the surprise moves up their sleeves,
neither you, I, nor any other amateur newsgroup pundits really have
much of a clue.
The bottom line though is that if the PAD group and its 'invisible'
backers thought their position was supported by a majority of the
population, they simply needed to wait for the next elections and
convince people to make their opinions of Thaksin and his allies felt
via the ballot box. If there are fears of election-rigging, then
international observers could have been invited in.
However rather than wait, they preferred to bring the country to the
brink of anarchy, cost the country billions, put many tens of
thousands of ordinary folk out of a job, and provoke a situation
leading to the inevitable loss of lives. However correct or otherwise
they are about the legitimacy of the current government, if they had
truly believed in democracy and the strength of their own position,
then they only needed to bide their time until the next elections.
It's that simple.
However they were fully aware that they did not have, and are unlikely
to have in the near future, the popular support required. Their goal
and that of their business/military etc backers is to regain their
grip on power by alternative means. Their clearly-stated agenda
includes watering down people power via a revised constitution that
hands government over to a 70/30 proportioned, appointed/elected body.
In such a scenario the Bangkok/southern elite and middle classes would
be the dominant force in Thai politics for the foreseeable future.
The PAD has as good as admitted this, suggesting that the northerners/
rural communities are not intelligent/educated/informed enough to
vote. On that basis we had better do away with the one man - one vote
system in most democracies around the globe (didn't the US electorate
vote for a 'B' movie wannabe cowboy with an IQ of 85 to run the most
powerful nation in the world? If that's proof of the average
intelligence of the American voter, then the world's in big trouble.
And I won't even mention Bush). (Sorry, just have).
pg's
http://frogblog-thaidings.blogspot.com/ |