What if Pheu Thai Wins?

[Gadfly]

You obviously didn’t like my questions. Don’t take it so personally. They are fair questions. Keep the heading of this thread in mind - the question: "What happens if PT wins?"

 

Let me give you a quick example. You listed four people on PT’s party list, and then conclude by saying: “these people are simply unacceptable to Payarut to be in Parliament. I am not sure I disagree.â€

 

Payarut is the chief of the Thai Army. Thailand has had 18 coups. The military has a history of intervening in Thai politics. In this context, when you say these people “are simply unacceptable to Paryarutâ€, it’s absolutely reasonable to ask: “Do you think the military will intervene to prevent these four from becoming MPs?â€

 

It’s not only fair, but it’s an obvious question from your comments. Since you added, “I am not sure I disagreeâ€, it’s also fair to ask if you think such intervention is justified. By making a statement that can obviously be read to suggest that you think such intervention is justified, it creates a question that is begging to be asked. And I asked it.

 

Indeed, your statements are certainly more suggestive than my questions. Indeed, I don’t suggest or state anything, but you did pique my curiosity with your statements, and I am simply asking the obvious questions raised by your own comments.

 

If you don’t like my questions, well, too bad. Be more careful with your statements.

 

The liberal bias nonsense and references to Amsterdam are just misdirection and noise. The Credit Suisse Report you cite is interesting and, if you had responded with just that link, your response would have been more productive.

 

There are two points in that report. First, they list a decisive victory to the Democrats that gives them more seats than PT as one of three possible outcomes. They do this on 7 June 2011. It may be possible in the sense that I might get struck my lightening walking down the street tonight, but it’s not credible enough to merit serious discussion.

 

Second, CS doesn’t rule out intervention. Indeed, they refer to reports in local newspapers about that possibility, but don’t comment on it or assess it all. In any event, thanks for the link to the CS report.

 

[ThaiHome]

It’s not that I don’t “like†the question; what I don’t like is your continued lack of thoughtful analysis, constant repeating of UDD rhetoric as if it is fact simply because it has been repeated in the western press and you putting words in my mouth.

 

You have again, as you so prone to do, put words in my mouth. I said that the 4 UDD leaders (there are actually about 10) on the PTP party list was “unacceptable†to Payryut and I did not disagree. You then made the leap that I was saying Payrut was going to lead a coup if they were elected and I agree with that.

 

Here is the definition of “unacceptable†according to Merriam-Webster:

UNACCEPTABLE

: not acceptable : not pleasing or welcome.

 

Now, there is little doubt that the PTP winning and certain members on party list becoming MP’s is “not pleasing or welcome†for Payrut, but how do you then jump from that to me saying he will lead a coup? And that I agree with the coup. What I did say, was I agreed it was not a pleasing or welcome outcome.

 

Yes indeed the military has intervened 18 times since 1932. Several of those were coups unseating other military governments. One was a coup against itself. Please cite any similarities to the present situation and any of the previous coups and the support that would be required that would lead one to think a coup is likely if the PTP wins.

 

All your argument (and the people speculating on the likelihood to further their own agendas) consists of is the fact the military has done it 18 times before, so they can do it now. No context or history of the previous coups, no analysis of how the current situation matches other situations that provoked a coup, no mention of the what the military could gain in having a coup. Nothing, just they have done it 18 times before, period.

 

As far the CS report, you have misstated what it says about the military intervention. You said:

“Second, CS doesn’t rule out intervention. Indeed, they refer to reports in local newspapers about that possibility, but don’t comment on it or assess it all. In any event,â€

 

What the report actually says is:

The press and pundits have speculated on possible negative reactions from the military, including some sort of destabilisation campaign or a coup. The Nation newspaper, for example, reported on 7 June that a recent warning from the army commander to an unnamed group not to try to gain political power “was interpreted as referring to Peua Thai, leading people to assume he [the commander] would not allow the party to become the next government.â€

 

This far from not ruling out intervention and is actually dismissing the idea as speculation of the press and pundits. It gives the example of one article obviously speculating to arrive at the conclusion that a coup would take place if the PTP wins.

 

 

Anyway, the “group†the general was talking about was not the PT political party. He was referring to the republican element within the UDD. Certainly if the PTP were to bring back Jakrapob and Giles and put them in the cabinet, then Payrut would be taking a long hard look at where the PTP was going as would much of the country.

 

You asked the question what will happen if PTP wins and forms the government. I answered, which you never commented on, instead going on about clichéd “yellow shirts†and “coupsâ€. It is obvious in your post you don’t want thoughtful analysis, you want a chance to spread your rumors, rhetoric, and idle speculation about what happens if the PTP wins and how bad it will be for westerners here. Just more of you being Henny Penny.

 

TH

[Flashermac]

Just off hand, I'd say comparatively few of the 18 coup or coup attempts were against elected governments - maybe half a dozen? The rest were between generals squabbling over power. The figure 18 is thus very misleading. After all, "democracy" began with a coup against the legal government - one which was planning to start democracy on it's own, though the very junior military officers and civil servants did not know that.

 

p.s. Dr Ji has openly stated he would like to see a socialist republic, preferably Marxist. He apparently thinks Hanoi is a shining example. I'm sure his distinguished father would be very displeased with him.

 

[ThaiHome]

Just off hand, I'd say comparatively few of the 18 coup or coup attempts were against elected governments - maybe half a dozen? The rest were between generals squabbling over power. The figure 18 is thus very misleading. ...

 

My point exactly. In recent times, a “sanctioned†i.e. one that would succeed, coup happened only when fighting broke out in the streets.

 

Worth noting, that the same group that claims the army “murdered†unarmed protestors by mowing them down with automatic weapons and snipers are the same one that are loudly proclaiming the Army will stage a coup if the PTP forms the government.

 

Anyone else see the connection?

TH

[Gadfly]

@ TH, et. al:

 

Let me get this straight: I ask what you mean when you say PT is “not acceptable†to the military (or yourself), I then ask the obvious question, ‘well, then, how do you think they will respond, if PT wins and do you think that such a response would be justified’ (paraphrasing here), and you respond with several paragraphs parsing the word “acceptable†and spin in a very obvious attempt to back away from your statement that the PT is not acceptable. You claim all you meant to say is that it would not be “pleasingâ€. And then complain because I am not providing a “thoughtful analysisâ€? Come one, be honest.

 

I am asking questions, perhaps provocative ones, but I am asking what people think will happen if PT wins by getting more or most of the votes. A good question since the polls show PT well ahead of everyone else. If you say a PT win would not be “acceptable†to military, you have to expect follow-up questions and not feign shock about a purported misunderstanding of the word "acceptable". That's just silly.

 

The Bangkok Post had this to say about the acceptability of of a PT victory in the context of a statement made by ... about voting for “good†people and not voting for bad people:

 

It's true Gen Prayuth didn't name any party in his address. One has to read between the lines who he deems as "good people" and who he considers "impolite" or "wrongdoers".

 

To many analysts, it's not difficult to decode his speech. Reuters, for example, released an analysis that said Gen Prayuth's warning of a repeat of the old situation was "a not-so-subtle reference to a decade of elections won by Thaksin allies" and "a move to discredit Yingluck Shinawatra's Puea Thai Party and stem its momentum following opinion polls that show it is likely to win the most votes in the election".

 

Another poster shrewdly commented: “Just trying to think of another 'democracy' in which a. The chief of the army would comment on a general election, and b. He would be given any more consideration than any other pundit.â€

 

And then to suggest that I thought Thaksin’s antics were any better or to suggest they justify the current antics. My position on this has been clear from the outset: a pox on them both.

 

I do think the Thais should get the government they elect without any interference from ‘invisible hands’ or whatever else you want to call them. I probably won’t agree with that choice, but it’s not mine to make. Nor is it a choice that should be made by unelected hands or posters on this board.

 

And my question really is what do you think is going to happen if the Thai people choose – and it appears it will happen – a party that is not acceptable to these unelected hands? Will they 'red-card' them out of a win? Willl they use other ploys to change the results? Will we have chaos? Or will they accept the results?

 

Let’s stay on point, shall we?

[Flashermac]

I think it comes down to what is meant by winning. The foreign press likes to say that Thaksin's people "won" the last 3 or 4 elections. I'd say they won one elections and came out on top in the rest. Does a party win if it doesn't have a majority and cannot form a government on it's own?

 

I expect no party to have an outright majority. If PT has the most seats but not a majority, don't be surprised to see some fast manuevering by both PT and the Dems to try to form a government. It could go either way. If PT does secure a majority and thus really wins, things could be interesting. I'd expect a period of wait-and-see from Takky's opponents. What happened after that would depend on what PT tried to do once back in power.

 

 

[Gadfly]

OK, that's a reasonable and fair response.

 

But what concerns me is when a party falls short of a majority and there is arm twisting by the men with guns to - and, to be fair, incitements as well - induce smaller parties to form a coalition with the party that garnered less votes.

 

A recent poll of Bangkok votes (presumably more sophisticated) not only shows they favor PT by a wide margin, but that a majority don't expect the elections to be fair. This means that if the Dems win because of red carded PTs there will understandably legitimacy of the elections. From Bangkok Post: "Asked about their confidence in the Election Commission holding a free, fair and transparent election, 57.1% of the respondents felt negative..." This is not good for the Dems or Thailand.

 

And matters are not helped by comments coming out of the Army's Chief: This from the conservative columnist at the pro-Dem Bangkok Post:

 

The army chief's latest move, to put troops on full alert in anticipation of possible chaos after the July 3 election, is more likely to cause confusion and apprehension rather than helping to ease the tension and worries.

 

One blunder leads to another blunder… and another…

 

Yes, I am referring to the conduct of Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, the army commander-in-chief, in the past two weeks, which seems to be erratic and worrisome.

 

It started about two weeks ago when the army chief, apparently not in a good mood, lashed out at the conduct of a Pheu Thai candidate in Bangkok’s Constituency 9, Pairoj Issaraseripong, for allegedly obstructing the drug suppression operations of members of the Task Force 315 unit at Sap Charoen housing estate on May 23.

 

And this also from the excellent commentary from a BP reporter who has been reporting on the army for years: :

 

Gen Prayuth urged all voters to elect qualified candidates who are clean, ethical and loyal to the monarchy. He also called on the silent majority to show their power and openly opposed voters who were thinking about voting "no", asking them to reconsider that position.

 

The army leader's remarks cannot be interpreted as anything but a show of his stand against the red shirts and Pheu Thai.

 

None of this looks good for Thailand. And it's not because of Amersterdam's spin for Thailand. The Dems and the powers-that-be are shooting themselves in the foot. One misstep after another. It's incrediable.

 

 

[gobbledonk]

I still dont think the election will be the tipping point, but then I dont live in Thailand. The worst possible combination would be:

 

a. an election result that didnt please the hotheads

 

b. the elephant-in-the-room-that-we-dont-discuss-here happening shortly thereafter

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ThaiHome]

“I ask what you mean when you say PT is “not acceptable†to the military (or yourself), I then ask the obvious question, ‘well, then, how do you think they will respond, if PT wins and do you think that such a response would be justified’ (paraphrasing here),â€

 

You are doing a bit more then paraphrasing; you are attempting to change what you asked. Here is what you asked:

“1. Do you think the military will intervene to prevent these four from becoming MPs?

 

2. Do you think the military is justified in intervening to prevent these four from becoming MPs, be it intervention judicially, by strong arming smaller parties to join a Democrat party that has substantially less MPs than PT or directly with military force?â€

 

That is hardly asking what I mean by “unacceptableâ€. That is already putting a answer into the question. That is called a leading question or as I put it, “have you quite beating your wife yet?â€

 

You are now trying to back away from that and making it seem I am the one changing the question by using what “unacceptable†actually means. “Unacceptable†does not mean using force to stop something and that is the conclusion you jumped to.

 

I answered your question anyway giving reasons why I think they will not intervene and then ask you what are your reasons for thinking they might. The only reason you seem to have is they have done it 18 times before so they must be going to do it again. You have not responded, instead going on to something different.

 

As I have no desire to keep up with your constantly shifting goalpost, I will withdraw from the discussion and you can just keep posting your nonsense that some think is just so brilliant but in fact, when it is actually analyzed shows, you only repeat stock phrases you read and make no attempt to actually figure out what it all actually means.

TH

[Gadfly]

I answered your question anyway giving reasons why I think they will not intervene and then ask you what are your reasons for thinking they might.

 

OK, it's clear to me now that you don't actually read what I post. That also helps explain why you take this so personally and some of your stranger remarks. I also don't want anyone reading the tail end of this thread to think that I said the military will intervene. I have not.

 

If anyone bothers to go through this thread they can read the part about how you say a PT win would be "unacceptable" and draw their own conclusions about what that means. I think it's fairly obvious and I think the back pedaling is pretty obvious as well. The posts speak for themselves.

 

What no one will find is what you suggest about my posts: me predicting a coup or anything of that sort. I have certainly commented on the saber rattling and odd comments coming out of the military. But I am not the only one: other posters here have done so and even the conservative Thai press has expressed concern about those statements. And I provided a few links to several of the many articles on this in the conservative Thai press.

 

The point of all this was not some sort implicit prediction of a coup. That would be silly and I wouldn't dare try. Rather, it's to highlight a serious problem here in Thailand.

 

Since I guess were summing this up now, let me provide a link to an excellent article in today's Bangkok Post by a respected scholar on Thai affairs, who makes the following observation:

 

To avoid a post-election dead-end, an agreement and understanding among the key protagonists is needed. Both sides of the Thai divide are now locked in what can be framed as "mutual assured damage" whose manifestations have sapped Thailand's overall vitality and incurred substantial opportunity costs.

 

Since the military coup in September 2006, the anti-Thaksin coalition has failed to turn back the clock far enough to pre-Thaksin times. They came up with a new constitution, dissolved two Thaksin proxy parties, banned scores of Thaksin-aligned politicians, effected an opposing coalition government led by the Democrat Party, and crushed anti-government demonstrators during the Democrats' rule. Despite these manipulative, coercive and suppressive manoeuvres, the forces supportive of the 2006 coup have not, and still cannot, win elections. But they can keep winners from ruling.

 

On the other hand, Thaksin's parties have won elections at will in the 21st century, and always by a comfortable margin. As a third-rate team with much less political talent remaining after two party dissolutions, Pheu Thai should not be polling well ahead of the Democrats. Somehow the Democrats just have not got the job done if they cannot win this election when the rules, referees and stadium guards have all been stacked in their favour.

 

Anticipating an ad hominem attack on the author, Dr. Thitinan Pongsudhirak, I have provided the wiki link to his bio (just click on his name) so anyone reading this can draw their own conclusions.