Thailand 2011

[Gustaf]

I read that polling indicates a Thaksin victory. It is of course dubious whether polling reflects actual public mood and if election results will reflect actual public mood in a country like Thailand. And even then it is even more dubious whether official results will reflect actual results. And finally whether the government will reflect even the official results.

It's a long way to go if you don't have the military behind you in Thailand, it would seem.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf has struck me as fond of him from his posts before.

Whatever the case I'm in favor of the liberal party known for being the opposition to previous right-wing military regimes over the party that put a former officer of one those regimes in the PM spot.

I'm not fond of him. I find it interesting that you or Opebo would support the champion of the poor (however corrupt he is) over the reactionary establishment. For instance, I thought you were opposed to monarchy, so why do you support the monarchist side?

And, quoting from Wikipedia: "Without meeting much resistance, a military junta overthrew the interim government of Thaksin Shinawatra on 19 September 2006. The junta abrogated the constitution, dissolved Parliament and the Constitutional Court, detained and later removed several members of the government, declared martial law, and appointed one of the king's Privy Counselors, General Surayud Chulanont, as the Prime Minister. The junta later wrote a highly abbreviated interim constitution and appointed a panel to draft a permanent constitution. The junta also appointed a 250-member legislature, called by some critics a "chamber of generals" while others claimed that it lacks representatives from the poor majority.[30][31]
In this interim constitution draft, the head of the junta was allowed to remove the prime minister at any time. The legislature was not allowed to hold a vote of confidence against the cabinet and the public was not allowed to file comments on bills.[32] This interim constitution was later surpassed by the permanent constitution on 24 August 2007.
Martial law was partially revoked in January 2007. The ban on political activities was lifted in July 2007,[33] following the 30 May dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai party. The new constitution was approved by referendum on 19 August, which led to a return to democratic elections on 23 December 2007."

Sounds very liberal and democratic to me. See, even though I'm not left-winged and not particularly fond of politicians like Thaksin I still don't like fascist military coups. Funny thing is, I thought you didn't either. But I guess that if Opebo likes them they must be good.

[Gustaf]

Oh, and here is the description of the anti-Thaksin PAD which led his overthrowal:

"The PAD consists of mainly of royalist upper and middle-class Bangkokians and Southerners, supported by the conservative factions of the Thai Army, some leaders of Democrat Party, and members of state-enterprise labor unions.[2][3]"

Sounds very liberal indeed. Further down:
"Citing the claimed failure of popular democracy in Thailand, the PAD has suggested constitutional amendments that would make Parliament a largely royally-appointed body.[26][27] It was strongly opposed to Thaksin's populist economic policies and attempts to decentralize political power. The Asian Human Rights Commission has noted of the PAD and their agenda that, "although they may not describe themselves as fascist, have fascist qualities."[28] The PAD is largely composed of royalists, has regularly invoked king Bhumibol Adulyadej in its protests, and has claimed that its enemies are disloyal to the monarchy.[29][30][31] It has openly called for the military and Thailand's traditional elite to take a greater role in politics.[32] The PAD is fiercely anti-Cambodian, with PAD leader and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya calling Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen a "gangster", "crazy", a "tramp", a "slave", and saying that he would "use Hun Sen‘s blood to wash my feet."[33]"

It's good to see you know which side to take here, BRTD.

[Gustaf]

By liberal party I was referring to the Democrat Party.

Thaksin's people on the other hand put this fascist and murderer in power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samak_Sundaravej

That was after Thaksin was exiled and his party forbidden. Very liberal.

Anyway, here is your nice little party:

"The party upholds a constitutional monarchist and conservative position.[2] Numerous party members such as Somkiat Pongpaibul and Minister of Foreign Affairs Kasit Piromya were members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD, commonly known as the "Yellow Shirts"), the royalist movement that helped overthrow Thaksin Shinawatra.[3] The party's electoral support bases are mainly richer constituencies in Bangkok and Southern Thailand. Since 2004, Democrat candidates won three elections for the governorship of Bangkok."

So, beyond the fact that it's basically the same as the PAD it doesn't sound very liberal. In any way.

Furthermore:

"A fact-finding panel at the Attorney-General's Office found that the Democrat Party bribed other parties to boycott the 2006 parliamentary election to force a constitutional crisis, and voted to dissolve the party. A junta tribunal acquitted Abhisit and the Democrats of the vote fraud charges, while banning Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party for similar charges. Abhisit supported the junta's 2007 Constitution, calling it an improvement on the 1997 Constitution.[17]"

The most amusing thing is of course that the guy you brand as fascist was a member of the party which you branded as liberal and anti-fascist. Which just goes to show that you're being completely clueless and is just desperately trying to support your beloved idol in his support for the fascist side in Thai politics.

[Gustaf]

You're seriously just BSing. Let me post what I did again, then:

"The party upholds a constitutional monarchist and conservative position.[2] Numerous party members such as Somkiat Pongpaibul and Minister of Foreign Affairs Kasit Piromya were members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD, commonly known as the "Yellow Shirts"), the royalist movement that helped overthrow Thaksin Shinawatra.[3] The party's electoral support bases are mainly richer constituencies in Bangkok and Southern Thailand. "

I mean, do you have no reading comprehension? It's always been defined as being pro-king and anti-democracy.

"Although having no representatives in the cabinet, the Democrats had key representatives in the constitution drafting committee. Headed by Seni Pramoj and dominated by royalists under the direction of Prince Rangsit and Prince Dhani, the 1949 Constitution elevated the throne to its most powerful position since the 1932 overthrow of the absolute monarchy.[8] Among its features was a senate whose senators were to be appointed directly by the King. The constitution triggered protests among much of the public. It was attacked as contrary to the purpose of the 1932 revolution. Critics were branded republicans and communists.[9]"

You're basically just trolling here. There is no foundation for your position at all. It seems that during a period of time the military was actually for democracy which is why the Democrat party opposed them. Right now they are allied with the military and the king against democracy. They have lost a couple of elections but both times managed to outlaw the winning parties. How is that liberal?

---------------

Your Hitler and Mussolini analogy is amusing because that is precisely what you're doing. You're saying that a party that was once against the military must be the left - sort of like when people say that because Mussolini was originally a socialist or Hitler's party was called a worker's party they must be left-wingers.

If one looks at actual policy and voter bases there is no question that you're wrong.

Let me cite for you once again:

"The Thai Rak Thai party had a populist platform, appealing to indebted farmers - which had become indebted as a result of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 - with promises of a strong economic recovery. The party also reached out to rural villages, and struggling businesses. Thai Rak Thai's policies have included a 30 Baht per hospital visit scheme, an extended debt moratorium for farmers, 1 million Baht microcredit development funds for all rural districts, and the One Tambon One Product project."

How is that not more left than the party of the rich guys who wants to give more power to the king and is supported by the army?

[Gustaf]

But, hey, I'll give you a deal: if you admit that you're willing to throw all your professed political ideals and principles over board and support a fascist political grouping just because some random guy on the internet that you've never met supports it (because he's a fascist) I will leave you be.

I don't care that you like fascists I just want to see you admit it.

[Gustaf]

The Hitler thing was in reference to libertarians saying things like "Well Hitler expanded the power of government so he was obviously left wing." It's blatantly idiotic to anyone who isn't a radical libertarian, but it's not too far off from calling Thaksin some type of left winger on those grounds. It should be blatantly obvious that all Thaksin cared about was pandering to his base of voters anyway. Robert Mugabe's base of support could also be described as "rural poor" and he started out with similar economic policies too.

Thaksin's party was called "Thai Rak Thai", which means "Thais Love Thais". That's basically a sentiment echoed when the BNP says things like "Britain for the British." He was an extreme nationalist and the rural poor often respond well to nationalistic sentiment. I've heard libertarians say things like that the BNP is left wing too. Was Jorg Haider left wing? His party proposed the nationalization of all agriculture, something that no other party did. In addition to his nationalism Thaksin had a horrible record of corruption, vote fraud, and a horrible human rights record of extrajudicial killings. Do you think the Muslims in southern Thailand are all fascists or aristocrats? That's what their voting patterns would imply if you accept "Thaksin = leftist/opposition = fascist" Did Samak become a leftist at some point before becoming PM too?

Furthermore the last election before Thaksin's ouster was boycotted by ALL opposition parties, not just the Democrats but also the conservative Chart Thai Party. Thaksin's party was later banned for pretty blatant vote fraud.

And Thanom Kittikachorn, a supporter of democracy? LOL.

Oh are you calling Xahar and Hashemite fascists too? They share opebo and I's views in regards to this.

I'm not saying that you're a fascist. I'm saying your only reason to oppose Thaksin is that Opebo does so. I never Thaksin was a great guy. But there can be no question that the party of the poor is more of the left than the party of the rich. Why do you want to support giving the unelected monarch so much power? Why do you oppose redistribution of wealth to the poor? Why do you oppose letting the party with more popular support actually running in the election?

All Thai politics seem pretty corrupt. Regardless, the rich elites always accuse the left parties and groups of being corrupt. It's what the Dixiecrats said of black office holders during the Reconstruction, for instance.

What is really amusing is that neither you nor your beloved Opebo would ever support the party that wants to give money to the poor against the party that wnats to protect the priveleges of the rich in any other country. Opebo does so because he actually lives there idn isn't a real left-winger and you do so because he does which is even more stupid.

[Gustaf]

So are Xahar and Hashemite fascists or people who based their political views only on what opebo supports? Are the Muslims of southern Thailand hardcore royalists?

I've no idea what they said on the topic. You seem to think that one must either have your idiotic view or be a devout supporter of the King, since you always fall into some kind of either-or fallacy (I'm sure it has a cool name on wikipedia or tvtropes that you can look up), but that's not true.

For instance, I can recognize that Thaksin is likely a corrupt bastard while at the same time realize that he's the more left-winged of the political sides and that it's reasonable that whoever has the most popular support should be allowed to form the government in a democratic society. As well as thinking that breaking down the traditional elite is probably a good thing in such an unequal society.