Thread: Thai elections 2011-Thai PM sets stage for tough election

Looks like Yingluck has it sweet with her redistribution of wealth from rich to poor.
What a vote winner for PT.

Hope she redistributes all the sado farangs cash to

Have the international observers arrived yet to prevent the amart junta coup monger proxy dems from fixing the election again

From Twitter today:

TAN_Network TAN News Network

Chart Thai Pattana leader Chumpol announces in Suphan Buri party won't join Pheu Thai and will keep pledge with Bhum Jai Thai

13 minutes ago

^..... and you can take that to the bank.

Time for a reminder: "A week is a long time in politics" (former UK PM Harold Wilson)

From Twitter today:

TAN_Network TAN News Network

2.7 mln register to vote in advance on June 26 with BKK seeing highest number of people registered

16 minutes ago

Originally Posted by SteveCM

From Twitter today:

TAN_Network TAN News Network

2.7 mln register to vote in advance on June 26 with BKK seeing highest number of people registered

16 minutes ago

In past elections, it is this damn advance voting thing that has been diddled with the most.

The biggest problem is maintaining control of the ballot boxes over an extended period of time. Switharoos of ballots is not impossible.

Originally Posted by SteveCM

^..... and you can take that to the bank.

Time for a reminder: "A week is a long time in politics" (former UK PM Harold Wilson)

LOL.....yeah, you sure can take that to the bank.

^
Four more weeks of this bidding war and elderly Thai will probably start thinking all their birthdays have come at once - and wouldn't it be great if they had more of them?

^ Difficult to imagine how Panitan could have managed to say anything less - and yet he still ends up saying

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

“But I could be wrong,”

I hope there are enough ballots to stuff those voting box,

can't wait to see the face of the PT nutters once they lost,

they will probably go apeshit like Thaksin will in his 1000 USD a night Dubai Luxury Suite

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255406040010

Democrats thank Yingluck for promising to create peaceful election climate

BANGKOK, 4 June 2011 (NNT) – The Democrat Party has expressed appreciation for Pheu Thai prime minister candidate Yingluck Shinawatra’s promise to coordinate with the red-shirt group in fostering a favorable atmosphere for the upcoming election.

Democrat Party Spokesperson MD Buranaj Smutharaks stated that his party was grateful for Ms Yingluck’s assurance that cooperation would be sought from Pheu Thai party-list candidates who were also core leaders of the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) in avoiding all movements that could cause turmoil and disruption of the 3 July election. He said an amicable climate ahead of the poll would help prop up Thailand’s credibility in the eye of the international community and would be the first step towards true reconciliation.

On behalf of the Democrat Party, MD Buranaj insisted that all political parties must have equal opportunities to hold their campaigns in each area, especially during the last leg of the election campaign. Even though some issues remain causes for concern, such as former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s lingering influence and various political ploys of certain groups, the Democrat Party is adamant it will continue focusing on its policies and candidates.

Bizarrely this wasn't posted earlier....strange....or did I not see it?

We don't need another round of illegal killings

EDITORIAL

We don't need another round of illegal killings

By The Nation
Published on June 4, 2011

Globally, it's now accepted that the 'war on drugs' has failed; Thai politicians should heed this and work instead at eradicating causes of abuse

Riding on the fear among the voters, party after party is declaring war on drugs and other evils in society, while one in particular has vowed to declare victory on its "war on drugs" within 12 months.

Nowhere is this message louder than in the Pheu Thai Party camp, where the de facto leader, fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra, declared from abroad that within a year Thailand would be free of its drug problem.

But we have heard this before, haven't we? And judging from his three-month "war on drugs" in 2003 - a period during which about 2,500 people became alleged victims of extrajudicial killings - another round of killings would put Thailand even further into the human rights spotlight.

People said a coup against an elected government was a setback for the democratisation process. But isn't killing so many citizens in such a short time frame also a big step back from a civil society where justice, rules, regulations, social norms, sense of fair play and due process are supposed to be upheld?

The fact that Thaksin's war on drugs in 2003 was popular doesn't make it right. If anything, it reflects the weakness in this society. The tendency to go for something drastic, regardless of how controversial or illegal it may be, reflects poorly on us as a nation.

Drugs, like many other ills, are a social problem, not a criminal problem. Drug dealing and abuse stem from many factors. From peer pressure to lack of opportunities and unemployment, the very fact that people turn to illicit drugs is a testimony to the fact that they feel they have nothing to lose or that they don't have much to live for.

Instead of hunting them down and killing them, why not tell them that our elected leaders will give them a reason to live? We shouldn't be talking about false hope here. Candidates need to be straight with their constituents instead of making far-fetched promises without talking about consequences.

Yes, all of us want an equitable society. But are we willing to go as far as paying 40-to-50-per-cent taxes as in some European countries in exchange for social services from the state? The answer is very likely no, or else politicians would be making this their party platform.

The problem here is that we don't trust our elected leaders to deliver on promises, but we elect them anyway. If we want better governance, we are going to have to make them accountable for their actions and stop going for quick and short-sighted solutions to our problems.

Thaksin also talked about taking the drug case to Thailand's neighbours. He said that back in 2001, but the Burmese government told him that Thailand's social ills were not Burma's problem.

And instead of getting the Burmese at least to take action on the drug-production side - namely putting pressure on opium warlords and drug armies like the United Wa State Army - Thaksin did more to help whitewash these drug outfits than curbing the supply of illicit substances coming out of their laboratories along the border.

Remember the bogus Yong Kha Crop Substitution Project in the Wa-controlled area that the Thaksin administration was suckered into giving Bt20 million seed money to while the rest of the world shunned it because they saw through it?

For Thaksin, good relations with Burma were good for his family business. Remember the Bt4-billion loan the Thaksin administration made to the military government in Rangoon to purchase satellite services sold by Thaksin's family-owned communications businesses?

Funny thing was that the money came from the US. Folks in Washington said they didn't know that Thaksin was going to use it for Burma because it was a violation of the sanctions the US has put on the military regime.

Thaksin has a track record of going to any lengths to do anything to benefit himself. For him, what's good for him is good for Thailand. And now his party is making all kinds of promises - the same ones Thaksin used to make - and doing it in his name.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

At the same time, the Pheu Thai Spokesperson pointed out that MD Tul’s action was in violation of the electoral law as he had misled voters about Ms Yingluck and the Pheu Thai Party. Therefore, he said the legal team would submit a letter with the Election Commission (EC) within next week to propose for its consideration on the matter. If found guilty, the activist could face a prison term of ten years and a fine of between 20,000-200,000 THB and could also be banned for ten years from partaking in elections.

All the TD armchair experts had better be a bit careful with what they say here. Wouldn't want any gullible Thai readers to be 'misled' by one of their Anti-PT / Anti-Dem rants

Surveys useful but can be misleading: pollsters

Surveys useful but can be misleading: pollsters

By Kornchanok Raksaseri
The Nation on Sunday
Published on June 5, 2011


The results of opinion polls could be misleading while also indicating trends and keeping people aware of the upcoming election, academics say.

In a seminar hosted by The Nation's sister publication Krungthep Turakij, academics and conductors of opinion polls discussed the advance of poll surveys in Thailand with a more considered process. But they said people should not make political decisions based only on survey results.

Assumption University's Abac Poll director Noppadon Kannika said readers should pay attention to the "margin of error" indicated by pollsters conducting the surveys.

"If the survey shows two political parties having close popularity, it is difficult to say which party will actually get more votes," he said.

Noppadon gave an example that from a survey party A might beat party B by 40 to 38 per cent. But with a 3per cent error margin - a statistic that indicates the possibility of a varied result, meant party A might actually have a popularity rating from 37 to 43 per cent, while party B might have a popularity rating from 35 to 41 per cent. There was also the chance that party B might beat party A, if it was actually more popular.

Pichai Ranatilaka Na Bhuket, deputy dean at the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA)'s School of Social and Environmental Development, said readers should consider the sampling of each poll. if the sampling was not proportionate with the actual population, the poll result was likely to be unreliable.

"Polls will not change the decision of those who have made up their minds," he said. Poll results might only influence people that could not make up their minds very close to the voting time.

Suan Dusit Poll's Sukhum Chaleysub said: "Thais follow trends. They think if many people would vote for a particular candidate, they assume the candidate is a good choice."

Noppadon said poll results could affect people's decisions. There are people who like to back the winning side, while others would vote for the underdog.

Pachitchanat Siripanich, director of NIDA, said she was glad more and more advanced surveys were being conducted in Thailand, as the polls and publication of the results helped keep people aware of the July 3 election. Polls should give some information to people although people's opinions changed all the time.

Kiatanantha Lounkaew, director of Dhurakij Pundit Poll Centre, said opinion polls emphasised the importance of information and were an important part in Thailand's democracy development.

He disagreed with the ban of publicising poll results seven days before the election day.

Sukhum felt the same: "The closer the election, I think the poll results should be publicised and updated daily."

He also noted loopholes in survey results that might hide the real thinking of people being polled.

"Was it really that the respondents haven't made up their mind or that they didn't want to tell us [how they would vote]? We have to put 'decided but preferred not to answer' in the choices as well as 'undecided' to get the most accurate result," he said.

"The poll results may mistakenly make political parties and politicians optimistic by saying a large proportion of voters have not decided when actually they had low popularity," Sukhum said He said more deliberate poll surveys would be a better way to judge the election result.

"When respondents answered whom they would pick as their choices, we have to rate the answer considering other answers from the same respondent. For example, if a respondent picked Candidate A, but said he or she "might" go to vote, we will rate the point for the candidate as 0.5 instead of 1," Sukhum said.

Noppadon said his centre also weighted its calculating and invested more in getting a large sample of respondents and trying to get the most accurate result.

He said the public should be aware of three kinds of polls: "slave polls" or "servant polls" conducted by or for politicians, unreliable polls conducted without scientific methods and mobilised polls conducted by people pretending to survey but actually trying to frame political opponents.

Chart Thai Pattana-Bhum Jai Thai alliance may be dissolved

Chart Thai Pattana-Bhum Jai Thai alliance may be dissolved

By The Nation on Sunday
Published on June 5, 2011

Chart Thai Pattana Party leader Chumpol Silpa-archa yesterday hinted that the political alliance between his party and the Bhum Jai Thai Party could be dissolved.

Chumpol said Chart Thai Pattana and Bhum Jai Thai promised to team up in carrying out political activities mostly on amending the Constitution. They have not discussed their stance on the formation of the next government.

Chumpol's remarks came after the Bhum Jai Thai Party issued a statement that it would not join Pheu Thai to form a government. The Pheu Thai Party had earlier shut its doors to the Bhum Jai Thai, publicly announcing that its party executive board decided against forming a coalition government with the Bhum Jai Thai because of different policies and ideologies.

Chumpol also downplayed as insignificant the incident that Pheu Thai and the Bhum Jai Thai are shunning each other. He said both parties were only vying to win votes since they were eyeing the same target group of voters.

Asked about the possibility that small and medium-sized parties would form an alliance to boost bargaining leverage and ensure a chance to join a coalition government, Chumpol said he had to wait for the election results. Chart Thai Pattana hopes to win at least 35 seats.

'People care about future, want results'

'People care about future, want results'

By Thanitaya Tanapisutkul,
Chularat Saengpassa
The Nation on Sunday
Published on June 5, 2011


Former Thai Rak Thai exec Phumtham hopes for a clearcut victory in election

As a former executive of the now-dissolved Thai Rak Thai (TRT) Party, Phumtham Wechayachai has been serving a five-year political ban. Yet, he still talks about politics and has always been keen to comment.

This political observer has a key message for Bangkok voters too.

He wants to see them hand a landslide victory to their most favoured party.

"Only with a landslide win, is there a clear political statement," Phumtham said.

In an interview with The Nation on Sunday, Phumtham analysed the two biggest political parties' chances in the upcoming election. The following are excerpts:

What are their (Democrat and Pheu Thai parties') selling points? Which one has an advantage?

The Democrat Party will have a good chance if people think the current government has worked hard enough. To me, people care more about which party can deliver concrete results. Policies come later. In fact, both parties have some similar policies too.

You have had experience conducting polls. What do you think about current polls, which find Pheu Thai as the most popular choice?

Most pollsters have come up with similar findings. They are quite reliable. Political parties should use these findings to improve themselves. Election campaigns have just begun.

Judging by the poll results, how high is the possibility of a Pheu Thai landslide victory?

It's too early to comment now. Let's wait and see first. But the current poll results suggest that people want to give Pheu Thai an opportunity to run the government. It seems people are unhappy with the Democrat-led government in one aspect or another.

All political parties think Bangkok voters will finally determine which party wins the election. Poll results now show Pheu Thai Party is the most popular, though. Does it mean Bangkok people have already forgotten about the red riots and its links to Pheu Thai?

Of course, Bangkok people know about the red riots and 91 deaths during the dispersal operations. Such knowledge has of course shaped their decision on which party they should vote for. But to me, Bangkok voters care most about the future. They want to know how the country's economy will move ahead and who will be able to stop commodity prices from soaring. They want to see a better change.

It seems Bangkok voters are set to hand a landslide victory to a certain party.

Bangkok people must have thought that if election results confirm a close race, current problems will persist. So perhaps, Bangkok voters will treat the upcoming election like a public referendum. Perhaps, they will cast a ballot in a way that shows the society what they want. They will say it out loud which direction the country should move towards. A clear-cut victory will clear any doubt about where the country should head to. That should be a good solution in itself.

Does this mean Bangkok people have forgotten that they are the ones who demanded that Thaksin Shinawatra should step down?

Today, the political fight is not between Thaksin and Abhisit Vejjajiva. It's between Abhisit and Yingluck Shinawatra. It's a fight between his Democrat [Party] and her Pheu Thai [Party]. Thaksin is just an important man, someone so many people in the society respect. Thaksin's ideas are not monopolised by the Pheu Thai. If the Democrat Party wins the election and finds Thaksin's ideas good, the Democrats can implement them too.

Do you suggest that Bangkok voters should consciously think about how to end ongoing conflicts when they cast ballots this time?

I think Bangkok voters want to see an end to conflicts. When the conflicts stop, their lives will change for the better.

By the way, the voters who are now undecided seem set to become the decisive factor.

Both the Democrats and Pheu Thai have their solid supporters. But there are so many people out there who have no clear political affiliation. These people are the majority. These people will likely vote for the party that brings about reconciliation. In this aspect, Pheu Thai Party enjoys the advantage because it's the bullied. When the bullied vows not to seek revenge, that's a good beginning for reconciliation.

How would you compare Abhisit and Yingluck?

If Abhisit is not the prime minister who has run the country over the past few years, he's almost invincible when compared with Yingluck, who has just stepped into politics. Abhisit is a seasoned, experienced politician. But Yingluck's bid to be premier comes at the right time. At the moment people feel Abhisit's government is unable to tackle people's problems well enough, Yingluck steps in. Today, people know Abhisit is good at talking and debating alone. Yingluck, meanwhile, has an image of a working woman who can get things done. People of course prefer the one who can deliver real results.

Yingluck seems to represent Thaksin. Is this her weak point?

Yingluck said from the very beginning that she wanted to solve problems, not to seek revenge. People in society want to see reconciliation. Because she has spoken clearly, she has received a warm welcome from society. Yingluck has informed society that everything will go in line with the rule of law. Indeed, the government should assign neutral people or organisations to ensure justice.

In your opinion, what should be done?

First of all, truths must be told to the public. Secondly, everyone should embrace reconciliation. Last but not least, those responsible for deaths during the crackdown on red-shirt demonstrators must show responsibility.

Should an amnesty be initiated now?

It is just a part of efforts toward reconciliation. And importantly, society must be engaged in the process.

What do you think about the suggestion that Pheu Thai Party won't be able to form a government even if it wins the election?

I urge all sides to respect election results. The people's voice should be respected.

You have made political comments via twitter.

It's a channel to air my opinion and give cautions. I am not bent on destroying anyone. I think everyone in society has the right to comment on the government's work.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Pheu Thai complaint against multi-coloured-shirt leader

Pheu Thai complaint against multi-coloured-shirt leader

"People who benefit from the move to discredit Yingluck are none other than those who side with Dr Tul. His action is not gentlemanly because he is harassing a woman who is volunteering to solve the problems of the country and the people,'' he said.

Interesting defense, playing the sexist angle...

Not gentlemanly?

So therefore she is above reproach, right? Unless of course a female politician makes an accusation against her...

Curiouser and curiouser....

Still, it was said elsewhere that the evidence against her was weak. So why are they worrying? If anything they've drawn more attention to this matter.

Is either party likely to be able to make significant change in the status quo? Corruption, power of the military etc.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

But we have heard this before, haven't we?

yes , but not from THe Nation when these events were actually happening.

Originally Posted by Sailing into trouble

Is either party likely to be able to make significant change in the status quo? Corruption, power of the military etc.

Only to the extent that it benefits themselves.

Originally Posted by tomta

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

But we have heard this before, haven't we?

yes , but not from THe Nation when these events were actually happening.

The Nation has been a strong opponent of Thaksin, unlike other papers it wouldn't back down when AIS ad revenue was withdrawn. When the killing was going on complained about Thaksin's death squads.

The editorial was very good and has drawn the usual silence from the Thaksin supporters.

Maybe one will now come out and give the customery 'yawn', as it's all forgotten by them anyhow.

The nation is nothing but a tool of the amart junta proxy illegal goveverment
It should be chasing down the murderers of the 91 innocents.
Should be shut down