Thai Supreme Court Dissolves PPP (Taksin Party) Major blow to government

[grantcart]

Source: The Nation (Bangkok - English language paper)

Constitution Court dissolves People Power Party


The Constitution Court dissolves People Power Party and ban its executive board members for five years

Read more: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30089984

---

This means that the senior members of the government and the Prime Minister have been completely discredited and will now have to leave politics for 5 years.

The business community no longer has any support for the government parties and all support for them, except for the peasants that they hire for demonstrations, is gone.

The King's birthday is December 5th. It is inconceivable that this crises will last past that date. Usually the King adresses the country with a moral (and very entertaining) allegorical address and story that helps focus on moral and national issues.

With the Army again promising to not attack the protesters it seems as if the protesters are on the verge of a major win.

Hopefully the government will call for general elections, the protests stop and elections will be held without further changes in the constitution.

The Court ruling will be seen as further condemnation of Taksin, the PPP, and moral support for the protesters.

[rpannier]

1. A Positive First Step

The sad part is...Thaksin has the support of the rural poor and normally I will support people like that.

However, he's a criminal and he used his office to enhance his wealth -- not unusual here in Asia. But unacceptable nonetheless.

[grantcart]

6. Ahmadinejad also has the support of the rural poor.

My in laws are all rural poor Thais and they are the sweetest people in the world. I have my retirement house in a very rural area (5 miles from the Burma border).

Having said that the rural poor have zero political sophistication and will follow the candidate who shows up with a few movie stars has a free meal and hands them 500 Baht. The urban working poor, unions, academics, etc. opposed the TRT, PPP and Taksin the day that he passed legislation to sell the Shin Corporation to Singapore interests for B 1.8 Billion.

There are quotes circulating (which may not be true) that Taksin wants to replace the Royal Family. If that were true the rural poor would roast Taksin alive.

[paulk]

2. I don't see how the airport protesters

and their demands for the abolition of direct democracy

are an improvement over the PPP.

[grantcart]

4. The PAD is for clean elections and don't hold a particular ideological point of view

More importantly they do not represent any particular commercial interest.


The academic proposals for constitutional changes from one man one vote are nothing more than talking points.


Today after the government was resigned the PAD left the airports without any promise of constitutional reform. The PAD will be satisfied with any new government that is not a 'puppet' regime of Taksin.

"The next government must sincerely agree to introduce new politics and must not be a puppet regime for Thaksin Shinawatra," said a statement by the PAD.



Otherwise, it continued, the airports may be seized and shut down again.

Thailand didn't have 'direct democracy' but blatant 'I will buy your vote for $ 10. democracy' in which the rural poor sold their votes to interests that only gave token support for rural initiatives, conducted thousands of 'extra judicial' assasinations (police killing several thousand suspects before trial) and passed laws that allowed them to sell Thai companies to foreigners for billions of dollars (which they then used a couple of million to buy off rural votes).


The PAD leaders do not want political office and have no business interests to promote. They are supported by both devote lay Buddhist, Union Leaders, and academics.

[paulk]

7. that seems a pretty simplistic reading of PAD's motives

It seems clear that Limthongkul has "business interests", since Thaksin is one of his chief media rivals. And the role of the monarchy in this - with their fear of Thaksin's rural populism and the threat it implies, needs to be examined. Thaksin's parties two election victories prior to his stepping down were overwhelming wins. I can't subsribe that level of support to just vote buying. And the people I know in the Chang Mai area who supported him were certainly not "rural poor".



This whole coup (by any other name) seems motivated by class concerns and even ethnic (Thaksin has indigenous blood) ones. I don't see how the PAD is any different than the PPP.

[grantcart]

8. Out of 30,000 active PAD members you have selected one of the few that is

a business owner.

The PAD is completely different from the PPP or any of the parties - it does not seek political power perse, does not feel candidates but simply wants to bring and end to the 'purchased regime' of the Taksin era.

To call it a coup is absurd because the PAD never had ambition to replace the government, the standard definition of a coup. Chamlong who had a very successful term as Governor of Bangkok retired from politics when he had a better than 50/50 chance of becoming Prime Minister.

Your facts are just 100% wrong


Taksin's heritage is Hakka Chinese but like all Thai of Chinese descent had some intermarriage. Virtually all politicians and all business people in Thailand have significant Chinese bloodlines. All of the PAD leaders share the same type of bloodlines, which in anycase is of no importance to the Thai people (100% or from Chinese descent). The only places that you will fine truly ethnic Thais in leadership positions are the military, the police and the Royal Family, although if you go back far enough even the Royal Family had some Chinese influence.

Taksin's overwhelming political support was from the rural poor and no one contests this. You could find some supporters in Bangkok and some even in the South but they are not his main source of support. Of course since he is from Chieng Mai and that was his power base you will find more Taksin supporters there than anywhere else.

The PAD has one businessman on its board and Limthongkul's position on the board has more to do with the fact that he was once Taksin's strongest supporters than the business he owns

Taksin didn't have rural populism he mouthed populist sentiments so that he could get laws passed so that he could sell his Chin company to Singapore interests for B 1.8 billion dollars which he did within hours of passing the legislation that was designed to help him personally.

The rest of the PAD board is filled with Unionists and Activists, so your right it was opposed by classes, Taksin representing the billionaire class and PAD representing the middle class, unionistsm, NGO leaders and rural activist;

Here are excerpts from the other 4 PAD Board members that you neglect to mention


Somsak Kosaisuuk is the secretary of the Thailand's Federation of Government Owned Enterprise Labour. He was very active in organizing a campaign against the privatization of Electrical Generation Authority of Thailand. He is well known and well respected among the Government Owned Enterprises employee.

In February 2006, he was selected by People's Alias for Democracy (PAD) to be one of their five leaders.


Pipob Thongchai is a famous Non Governmental Organization leader who advocates for a wide range of issues. He has been active since he was a college student, at the time of which he held the position of the Secretary of the University Student Federation of Thailand. He is also an ex-member of the Council of Socio-economic Consultant of Thailand, Committee for Democratic Advocacy of Thailand, Children's Foundation of Thailand.

In February 2006, he was selected to be one of the five leaders of People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the group that launched the major campaign demanding Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to resign.

Apparently soon after he and NGO's called for the royal intervention, there was a coup by the royal-support military in September 19, 2006. The people's movements in general have named him and his gang as the good friends of the military junta.


Somkeit Pongpaibul (สมเกียรติ พงษ์ไพบูลย์) was a Professor at Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. Now, He became a member of the Thai House of Representatives in 2007 from Democrat Party and a leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, and the co-founder of the Mass Party. Somkeit is an advocate for the poor and a major critic on Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Somkeit claims to have been investigated three times for organizing protests for poor farmers against government officials and politicians. In one interview he mentioned

"In one investigation, they told me that I was supposed to spend my time in school rather than organizing a rally against the government. I spoke right back 'in their faces' that I have never seen any professors who spend their teaching time hanging out with politicians being investigated.
Somkeit claims to have written many academic papers and provided many academic researches regarding social development and strategy to counter poverty. He is also a regular contributor to many newspapers and magazines.




Major General Chamlong Srimuang (Thai: เล็ก, Traditional Chinese: 盧金河 Simplified Chinese: 卢金河, Lu Jinhe, born 5 July 1935) is a controversial Thai activist and former politician. A former general, he was a leader of the "Young Turks" military clique, founded and led the Phalang Dharma party, served for six years as governor of Bangkok, led the anti-military uprising of May 1992, and is a leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, a group dedicated to the overthrow of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and later of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej. Chamlong supported the military junta that overthrew Thaksin in a coup. A devout Buddhist and supporter of the controversial Santi Asoke sect, he is celibate, a vegetarian, and claims to have no worldly possessions.

As to what you can or cannot subscribe to the issue of TRT and PPP's extensive vote buying has been proved three times.

1) When the Constitutional Court banned the TRT

2) When the Constitutional Court banned the PPP

and

3) When the PAD pursued an unpopular protest movement to bring down the government, the Prime Minister could have easily proved that he had true popular support without the vote buying by simply calling for new elections and won the campaign. The level of scrutiny was so great now that the vote buying would have been exposed in full detail and despite the fact that they knew they were going to lose power when the Army and Police refused to follow their orders they still clung to power knowing that they could never win an honest election.

My family lives in Mae Sai and every single person in the villages they live in sold their vote en masse in concert with the village 'phu yai's' negotiation.

Of course Taksin could prove that he is innocent of the charges by returning to Thailand and defending himself in Court.

[Doctor Cynic]

3. But wouldn't someone again form a rural populist party?

There will always be a core group of supporters.

[grantcart]

5. None of the parties are 'rural' parties.

All of the parties are 'urban' based parties that develop regional bases in rural areas. The Democrat Party (no 'ict') for example has a long tradition of support in the South and always does well there.

The other parties are always making efforts in up country areas, but it is in the rural North and rural Northeast where the parties make an effort.

What was different with the TRT and the PPP was that they made it into a monopoly and actually bought enough votes that they had a stand alone majority.

Vote buying has no become such a contentious issue that it will have to be done more discreetly and more modestly. I do not believe that we will ever see an effort like the one that Taksin engineered.

The banning of political participation by the Constitutional Court is a very draconian punishment for a politician and if you get prosecuted and found guilty you cannot run for office or participate in a party for 5 years.

Most likely there will be a 'gentleman's agreement' between the remaining parties to divide the areas that they will work in giving each party an area that will be 'exclusive' and areas that they will compete in.

With a multi party system and coalition government the norm there is more incentive for the parties to work together even as they compete for 1st 2nd 3rd etc.