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

^^

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

No he/they won't. But, what a great incentive, if you're on the fence, not to vote dem...

Not sure about Abhisit - he'd probably [cough] "reluctantly" answer his party's call to stay on (duty, responsible thing to do etc etc) unless Korn is ready to step up and help him off with a parting shove. I think Suthep would know he's toast and would happily slide back down south to look after his [cough] "interests" - just trying to avoid being caught up in an incoming government's traditional hunt for those who became "unusually wealthy" under the previous administration. Not a problem for him to hold on to his MP status to assist in that - just ditch the party offices.

Bangkok Post : Rivals shrug off Yingluck's warm welcome

Rivals shrug off Yingluck's warm welcome

• Published: 15/06/2011 at 03:31 PM
• Online news:

Democrat and Matubhum candidates in the far South say the warm welcome given to Pheu Thai's Yingluck Shinawatra during her election campaign trip to the region will not affect support for their parties’ policies.

Phaisal Toyip, the Matubhum candidate in Narathiwat’s Constituency 1, said on Wednesday that he was not worried about Ms Yingluck’s apparent popularity during election meetings.

Her promise to set up a special administrative zone in the three southernmost border provinces, if in government, was aimed only at pleasing a certain group of people, Mr Phaisal said.

The majority of people in the region saw no benefit from this idea, he said.

Matubhum candidates had worked closely with local constituents for years, working on solutions for the problems in the region.

He believed Ms Yingluck’s campaign tour would have no impact on southern voters’ support for his party.

He really wanted the Pheu Thai top party-list candidate to regularly visit southern constituencies, so she would learn more about their real problems and needs.

The Democrat candidate for Narathiwat’s Constituency 2, Surachet Wae-arsae, was similarly confident. He said Ms Yingluck’s campaign tour in the region would not shake his party’s voter support. Most residents were fully aware what direction the country should take after the July 3 election, he said.

Originally Posted by SteveCM

How so? Perhaps it's time he took note of the state of employment opportunities there - particularly for youth.

Setting up BOIs and the like to attract industry to boost local economy is exactly what needs to be done in the south. The issue in the south is far more related to disenfranchisement than about religious conflict.

Giving southern provinces more autonomy is not the solution. Investment is what's needed. "It's the economy stupid".

FT.com / Asia-Pacific - Full interview: Abhisit Vejjajiva

Full interview: Abhisit Vejjajiva

By David Pilling and Tim Johnston in Bangkok
Published: June 14 2011 17:43 | Last updated: June 14 2011 17:43

On June 14 the FT spoke with Abhisit Vejjajiva, Thailand’s prime minister, to discuss his party’s prospects in the July 3 general elections, last year’s political violence, and the role of the military among other topics.

Financial Times: What’s the atmosphere on the campaign trail?

Mr Vejjajiva: Good. I’ve enjoyed going out and meeting people all groups, farmers, factory workers, people in the market and so on.

FT: Because people say you are not as comfortable with farmers and factory workers, although this may be propaganda.

AV: I think you’ve said. This is the eighth election I’ve been involved in as a candidate, not counting the other local elections I’ve had to campaign in. I find it hard to believe that people could say I don’t enjoy going to meet people. I’ve done this for 20 years.

FT: The polls don’t look very good.

AV: They look OK to me. It’s a tight race and I always like to be the underdog: it makes your people work harder.

FT: But it does look unlikely that you will get a majority.

AV: I don’t accept that. It is possible. I think one of the things that is becoming a big issue is the income guarantee programme for farmers which Puea Thai says it wills scrap, I think a lot of farmers are now feeling threatened by that.

FT: What are your internal polling numbers say?

AV: We are slightly behind. Seat allocation is a little tricky in a system like this, but we are looking at two parties getting between them about 400 seats, so either side at 200.

FT: What do you think are going to be major issues going into the final weeks, do you think it will turn negative?

AV: I think the alternatives are becoming clear. For policy issues, I’ve mentioned farmers, I think that’s a big difference. We would be very happy if farmers decided on that one issue. But I think what is becoming more and more of a concern is that Puea Thai is still very much centred around the idea of amnesty and whitewashing Thaksin. It is not the country’s nor the people’s priority. They want their economic problems, particularly in terms of high prices addressed, they want to see issues like drugs being one of the top concerns. The last thing they want to see is more conflict and controversy surrounding proposals like that.

FT: But if this is a referendum on Thaksin, which it kind of looks like ...

AV: If Puea Thai wants this to be a referendum on Thaksin, let them say so explicitly and stop campaigning on issues like Bt300 [a day] minimum wage because then we really know what people are voting for.

FT: When they say “Thaksin thinks, Puea Thai does” (one of the party’s slogans), isn’t that fairly explicit?

AV: Yes, but a factory worker might think that Thaksin is thinking Bt300 minimum wage for him but actually Thaksin is actually thinking of an amnesty for himself. It is not fair on the electorate.

FT: But if he wants an amnesty ...

AV: It will take how many months before that happens? So why do people’s problems have to wait and take second place to his own problems?

FT: But it is not as though Puea Thai would have to freeze all policy ...

AV: Thaksin cannot come back yet.

FT: But they can work on him coming back and run the government at the same time.

AV: They tried that with Samak and Somchai.

FT: When you said at the Foreign Correspondents Club that this vote would be a choice between the Democrats and chaos ...

AV: I said it was one between us taking the country forward, moving beyond the old conflicts and another that wants to drag us into these conflicts. And clearly the proposal on amnesty is going to be one such controversial issue that splits our society again

FT: But if the majority of Thais want an amnesty and vote ...

AV: How do we know that?

FT: It is part of their platform.

AV: As I was saying, you could be betraying people’s trust because I’ve spoken to some people who say they are voting for Puea Thai because they want Bt300 minimum wage. You can’t make that specific claim

FT: That people are voting for amnesty?

AV: That’s right. And they are putting up highly unrealistic policies just to grab votes: ipad for children, Bt300 minimum wage, rice mortgage scheme ... All this is going to cost something like three times the available budget.

FT: Have you costed that?

AV: Yes.

FT: Just suppose Puea Thai wins a plurality or an overall majority, do you think you and the people around you would accept that.

AV: We always accept election results.

FT: But there has been a history when election results have been overturned, one by a coup ...

AV: Oh? When was there an election overturned by a coup? We had a coup in the middle of an election.

FT: There is a history of Mr Thaksin’s opponents using extra-democratic means ...

AV: No. There is a record of Mr Thaksin’s parties engaging in illegal activities, that is why Thai Rak Thai was disbanded and subsequently also with the People’s Power Party. The coup took place in the middle of an election campaign. We think the coup was a setback for the country, we didn’t support it.

FT: The question is whether Mr Thaksin’s opponents will accept a victory by Puea Thai. You have stated very clearly you will accept it, but do you think the other players on the Thai political scene – the PAD, the army – will accept it?

AV: They should.

FT: But do you believe they will?

AV: I think they will. When Samak was Prime Minister nothing unusual happened until he started talking about amnesty, because people felt that that was a proposal that was going to subvert the rule of law. You’ve never had court verdicts and cases being whitewashed for any particular person. I can’t understand why they want to put their own narrow interest before the country’s putting the country at risk.

FT: If they did start down the road to an amnesty you do think that would risk chaos.

AV: There is a risk. If they don’t engage in illegal activities there is no way they can be disbanded.

FT: Do you see any evidence that they are engaging in illegal activities?

AV: We don’t know yet, but the electoral commission is talking about a couple of cases that might disqualify a couple of candidates, but we don’t know which candidates.

FT: But in the country they say that all parties indulge in the same tactics?

AV: We’ve had also some of our candidates disqualified. The rule applies to all parties.

FT: Do you think it is a good rule?

AV: I do, and I wish there would be better enforcement. Not disbanding parties as such, but I think executive committee members should be held accountable for this because usually they are actually party to what is being done.

FT: Individuals should be held to account not whole parties?

AV: But there is also collective responsibility of the executive committee. If it is clearly done for the party rather than just the individual.

FT: There is an impression that the law is being applied unequally.

AV: That is because you are listening to one side. Think of all the cases of Thaksin and the red shirts that they have won. When that happens, why don’t they complain at the injustices.

FT: I think they are thinking of all the cases they have lost.

AV: But they don’t mention the ones they have won.

FT: But if you look at the number of cases the Democrats have lost ...

AV: We haven’t done anything wrong. Somebody comes up to you and hits you in the face, they get punished, should you get punished as well?

FT: You were absolved on a technicality on the TPI Polene case ...

AV: I could point to the fact that the EC (Electoral Commission) initially said we didn’t do anything wrong until the red shirts surrounded their offices and then they changed their decision.

FT: So you are saying that the EC is subject to pressure.

AV: Yes, and you will notice that all the complaints lodged against Thai Rak Thai, PPP were not lodged by us and we never interfere or intimidate anyone. All the cases brought against the Democrats are done by the Thaksin parties, always. And yet they are the ones who say they disagree with disbanded parties.

FT: Do you think that it is right to brand some of the reds who are now running with the Puea Thai party as terrorists?

AV: We take the definition from the international community into the law, I think that happened after 9/11.

FT: You don’t think that it is strange that people who are blowing up policemen (in the south) are regarded as common criminals?

AV: Not all of them. Some of them are brought under charges of terrorism.

FT: I hadn’t heard of that.

AV: Exactly.

FT: Do you know how many?

AV: I don’t, but I’ve asked and they say it depends on the cases. If it fits the definition. The trouble about the south which makes it hard to bring charges of terrorism is that violence has to be linked to certain demands but what are the demands in the south.

FT: You’ve been quite active in trying to open channels of communications with the insurgents in the south. How is that going?

AV: I think talks with groups to hear their views, grievances are always helpful. And I know that officials of various agencies have channels of communications and they should be kept open.

FT: No decision have been made yet?

AV: Not yet, not least because there is quite a diverse group of people in the south so that there’s not yet unity as it were. And when the incidents happen no one takes responsibility, no demands as such.

FT: What’s your assessment of last May. A lot of people died, many thousands were not armed although there may have been armed elements within them.

AV: And we tried our best to separate out the two groups. We exercised restraint, we offered political solutions that were always rejected by their side.

FT: You’re talking about the offer of elections?

AV: Exactly, which would have been six months before what we ended up with. We didn’t want the losses to happen and we tried to handle the situation as best we could. You know what happened in the middle east, a lot more people come up to me and say “we understand, it is really tricky”.

FT: Do you have any regrets, is there anything you would do differently?

AV: I’m not sure what I could do differently, but I’ll always regret the fact that there were losses.

FT: Why isn’t the inquiry moving faster?

AV: We should ask the people directly involved. They will tell you of the obstacles, but I can imagine it is going to be hard to get to the bottom of things when there were chaotic conditions surrounding each case.

FT: Why do people look at the middle east and say they understand.

AV: You see the level of violence and the level of losses that have taken place.

FT: But these are thuggish governments who are on the wrong side of history, I wouldn’t have thought you would want to be compared to those.
AV: Exactly, so you can conclude that we weren’t a thuggish government.

FT: Do you think it is acceptable to use snipers as crowd control? Human Rights Watch said this was not a conflict zone ...

AV: Do we have now a clear case where snipers were used?

FT: We have pictures of people with sniper rifles and spotters?

AV: I have explained what they were doing. You’ve seen the footage. There was a guy who was about to set fire to a vehicle, he was shot in the foot.

FT: So none of the head shots were from snipers?

AV: We can’t say 100 per cent, but just getting a still picture of people up there trying to control the crowd and to conclude that these were snipers that kill people just isn’t quite what we have evidence for and we’ve had clear demonstrations of the footage of what I just said happened and if I wanted to shoot that man dead he could have done, but he shot him in the foot just to stop him setting fire to a vehicle.

FT: Shooting someone in the foot is an acceptable method of stopping someone torching a car?

AV: What would you do?

FT: I don’t know.

AV: I’m not sure how injured how badly injured the guy was. But if the real story was about snipers killing people at will, why would that happen.
FT: 3,000 sniper rounds?

AV: I don’t think so, where would we put them all. The biggest accusation about using snipers from above is about the temple case. Can you tell me the motive of those shootings? The demonstrations were over, why would soldiers want to shoot at people when the demonstrations were over?
FT: Are you saying that no one was shot in the temple?

AV: No, people were shot in the temple. But by whom? That’s the job of the investigating committee. They are trying to get to the bottom of it, but to conclude and to say that you have to conclude that those people were shot by soldiers just isn’t fair. I know the orders were very clear: don’t move into the area, people were in the temple. The only reason those guys had to move in was because Central World and Siam Square were set on fire and they had to protect the fire engines and that was all they were doing.

FT: So you’re confident that the soldiers didn’t shoot anyone?

AV: They were certainly not ordered to shoot people unless it was in self-defence and I can’t for the life of me think why they would want to shoot people in the temple because all that would lead to is to land the government and them in trouble. What would it achieve? Doesn’t it make more sense to believe that when they were shooting from the BTS they were fighting with those people who were shooting at fire engines and ambulances. I got a call from a foreign journalist saying he was shot and needed an ambulance: we tried to send an ambulance in and whenever it tried to go in it was shot at, so we had to place soldiers there to protect the ambulance. These clashes happen.

FT: The last time we met, you said your mission was to reconcile the country, it seems that has not happened.

AV: There is more work to be done.

FT: There seems to be a lot of support for Puea Thai in the north.

AV: When I became leader of the Democrats we had a 7 per cent share in the northeast, I saw one poll which wasn’t favourable to us put us on 27 per cent.

FT: Do you think you’ve done enough on reconciliation?

AV: I want to do more.

FT: Can you give us a run down on what you think your achievements on the reconciliation have been?

AV: The whole point is that we want a government which will try to address all groups problems. I’ve tried to reach out. When recommendations were made about the need for legal assistance and bail for detained red shirts, we provided that. I think we got about at least 50 or something granted bail. These people weren’t even looked after by the red shirt leaders, we provided it. But when they come out, they are not going to support me, but that’s what working for everybody is about. You just have to try and calm everybody down. I’ve decided to cut my term short to allow people to have their say. These are concrete steps that we take, but you can’t please everybody and if reconciliation means only caving into everything Thaksin demands, I don’t think that is reconciliation for the rest of the country. Why is Puea Thai now beginning to sound a little more hesitant about amnesty?

FT: Do you think this election has a chance of ending the divisions?

AV: Yes I do. If we were voted into government it is a strong signal that the country now wants to move beyond the problems of Thaksin and I will do all I can over the next four years to work of everybody, to prove that everybody has a voice.

FT: What happens if you don’t win the vote?

AV: It is up to whoever wins. But there are not encouraging signs with people like Chalerm saying they first thing they would do is to whitewash Thaksin and go after me and Suthep: that doesn’t sound like reconciliation to me.

FT: If you lose, will you quit?

AV: It depends. If I feel I have set the party back I have to take responsibility.

FT: Do you have a number in mind?

AV: It depends on lots of numbers. We had 160 seats last time, suppose I won 150 but we became the biggest party, would I have to resign? So I can’t say. I’ll know it when I see it, don’t worry.

FT: You put out a rather strange document on Facebook, what was that about?

AV: I just wanted to set the record straight. So much speculation, comments, criticisms about these things. I’ve avoided talking about these things because I didn’t want to ... I just wanted to get on with my work, but when election times comes, it is incredible, people begin to say things about these events that are simply not true, so I just wanted to set the record straight.

FT: You’re referring to the allegations that the military were involved in creating the coalition?

AV: I was just pointing out what I did, the facts that I know and some of the things that are often overlooked. Like is it legitimate to have a prime minister from a party that doesn’t have the most seats – they were proposing someone from an even smaller party and if the military was controlling all these MPs – Khun Pracha is a very good example, he hosted a lunch for me to lend his support and two days later he says he is running against me: what happened to the military coercion?.

FT: Are you satisfied that the military is remaining as above politics as it should at the moment?

AV: It should, and I think they have every intention to.

FT: “It has every intention to”. General Prayuth has made some comments which while not partisan have been interpreted as being politically loaded.

AV: I don’t know if I’ve read all his comments, but what is important is that he is not partisan.

FT: There is a feeling that the military is a very big political force in this country.

AV: If find it quite odd. Their job is defined in the constitution. The coup was clearly not democratic, we didn’t support it, and I am on record as probably the first party leader to say that we didn’t think it was right to have a coup. But the role of the military since power came back to the people by the elections, they helped the government of the day uphold the law. And I find it odd that Thaksin now says he regrets his policies in the south and that was allowing police and military to engage in an eye for an eye sort of policy. We were the ones that came in and said we need to reduce special powers, the military acted professionally, followed our policy, why is that interpreted as the military being in control of the government instead of saying “this is a clear instance where the military complies with government policy”.

FT: Do you think there is a danger of a coup if Puea Thai wins?

AV: There is a risk of instability. And you just have to ask why, as political parties, as representatives of the people, do you want to risk the country’s future just to whitewash one man.

FT: Is there a danger if he comes back they will launch another coup?

AV: I think the military must surely see that they are still bearing a lot of the burden from the last coup. Why would they want to get into deeper, carry more burden from another undemocratic act.

FT: So you think they’ve learned their lesson?

AV: Yes, I think the leadership of the military recognise that.

FT: Why have the PAD deserted you?

AV: I won’t comment.

FT: Do you think the vote no campaign will damage you at the ballot box?

AV: Potentially it could take away some of our support, but we are asking people to exercise their rights and voting will probably get them the least desirable choice for them.

FT: A lot of extra ballot papers have been printed this time. Is there a danger ballot stuffing.

AV: The EC is in charge and I can tell you that there will be no repeat of the 2005 elections.

FT: In what sense?

AV: There was even a clip on YouTube of stuffing ballot boxes in 2005. We were in the opposition then and we knew what kind of things they used in terms of state power.

FT: Your coalition parties seem unhappy with your comments? Is that a problem?

AV: I think he’s retracted his comment already, Khun Chumpon. It is time for us to go out and talk to the people and then let us listen to the people on July 3 and we’ll take it from there.

FT: And you’ve been able to talk to the people, there were predictions of violence?

AV: There have been some attempts at disruptions, but so far nothing serious.

FT: The campaigns have been reasonably positive ...

AV: I think so.

FT: Is there a danger that it might degenerate?

AV: We’re not going to do it.

FT: What do you make of Yingluck’s candidacy? Were you surprised at it?

AV: No, we had anticipated it. I think it was a choice that was designed to get maximum confidence for supporters of Thaksin’s party so we knew it was a logical choice.

FT: What do you make of her?

AV: I think the electorate needs to know more about here because she is still quite new to them and a good way of doing that is to have debates, dialogues ...

FT: But you don’t think they will?

AV: That’s right and I think people deserve at least to have a chance to make comparisons.

FT: So you’re pressing for a TV debate?

AV: It is up to the organisers, they are trying to organise some, but if she’s going to turn them down, there isn’t much you can do.

FT: If they are trying to make it referendum on Thaksin ...

AV: If they were as explicit as you put it I wouldn’t be so concerned, they have to wrap it with lots of policies to tempt people to vote for them, and they are doing it under the wrapping of reconciliation, so it’s not as open as you say.

FT: In some ways, if she wins this election, you’ve had two years in power and you are running neck and neck with a man who hasn’t set foot in the country in three years? Would you agree with that analysis?

AV: Running neck and neck? Sure.

FT: with a man who ...

AV: has built up enormous net worth, who has been in power and monopolised power and intimidated all opposition for six years, yes. And also we had to preside over one of the severest economic crises in history.

FT: Just as you called an election, commodity prices started moving against you ...

AV: That is actually the biggest factor for us slipping in terms of support, exactly that. High prices hurt, and people when they are hurt, they look first to the government.

FT: Thailand is the world’s third largest producer of palm oil ...

AV: When you say third you have to look at the numbers, it is a distant third. We recognise that those difficulties were caused by our attempts to control the price.

FT: Was that a mistake in retrospect?

AV: Yes, and I say so in campaign speeches, that my mistake was not allowing the retail price to go up by about Bt10 more, that would have solved the shortage problem, but it would mean more expensive palm oil now, which is why it is not so easy to say if it was a mistake.

FT: What about the diesel subsidy, it looks like populism?

AV: We’ve managed without getting the oil fund into the red, when Thaksin was trying to do it, it went into debt of Bt100bn which had to be solved by subsequent governments.

FT: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

AV: But it’s not two wrongs. The fund is there to stabilise the price of diesel. When the oil price was low we collected money, and when the oil price is high we use that money to help people, that’s not two wrongs that’s two rights.

FT: So it’s nothing to do with populism?

AV: Well, if it was populism, why would we collect money when prices are low. We reintroduced excise tax, that had been scrapped by the previous government. We actually increased excise tax by five baht, that doesn’t sound populist to me.

FT: Do you agree with the characterisation of some of your policies as populist?

AV: What’s your definition of it? All I can say is that our policies have been responsible, we’ve got a set of policies that for the first time encourage savings as well. That hasn’t been the case in the Thaksin days. National Savings Fund, bring people into social security, making contributions, when we dealt with problems like debt, we didn’t give a moratorium, we restructured them moved it from loan sharks to banks. Very different approaches.

FT: What is your biggest contribution to Thailand during your two years in office?

AV: For the country, steering it from the economic crisis to a quick recovery and now on very strong economic foundations, but for the people, the income guarantee programme is a radical change and it has changed so many millions of lives among Thai farmers, and the free education and income support for the elderly are also policies that meant a lot to millions of Thais.

FT: Are you disappointed that there hasn’t been a better response?

AV: No people expect you to solve their problems, you solve one, they’ve got new ones, you’ve got to solve new ones.

FT: Do you think the polls are misleading?

AV: Some are misleading, not all of them. I think the ones that are reasonable put us maybe 3-4 per cent behind, but the ones that have 50 per cent undecided, I wouldn’t even bother reading them.

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by SteveCM

less than the 165 seats

was 170 .............

do I hear 150

Winning the same number of seats as last time would be a very severe blow given that the number of seats increased from 350 to 500.

Edit: sorry got the numbers wrong.