Now that Samak is showing his true colors, massacre denials, retreading of the popular to the masses extra judicial Thaksin style drug murders, do you think Thailand is now better off than under the coup government?

Is Thailand better off? Probably not.

But I am going to go with the Younghusband view of the world an give it time, betting that democracy is inherently better than the alternative (even when the government clearly doesn't believe in it). That, and I'm quite enjoying driving about listening to the parliamentary channel at the moment (it pendulums between absolute drivel, and an eloquent MP or twenty talking about governance and other interesting topics). I wish more people on this board could understand Thai a bit better and listen to some of the stuff, then you'd understand that many people here aren't complete morons, and actually smarter than most of us.

But I digress.

I only hope that this governement is given sufficient chance to hang itself by its own actions. I note that the critics are remaining relatively quiet, slowly giving them enough rope to do the jobs themselves.

I do hope this is the case, a la Barnharn and Chavalit governments, which were so inept, incompetent and corrupt, that a new election is demanded. All this depends of the Democrats getting their act together. As other smarter people than me have said elsewhere, the Democrats were expecting government to be handed to them on a platter after the last coup. Although it wasn't, I dare say they did nevertheless miss a good opportunity. Lets hope they don't stuff up a second time.

So we will wait for the first no-confidence motion, whenever that is, and see what happens after that.

Jingthing, I shall not vote, since your poll is asking me to decide between equally bad alternatives, also called "being between Scylla & Charybdis". I have enclosed below a short story to illustrate what I mean. Maybe this is old hat to you, but perhaps some readers may find it of some interest. Sorry about the formatting, can't seem to get it right when I copy/paste:
Scylla and Charybdis, in Greek mythology, two sea monsters dwelling on the opposite sides of a narrow strait, the personification of the dangers of navigation near the rocks and eddies. Scylla was a horrible creature with 12 feet and 6 long necks, each bearing a head with 3 rows of teeth, with which she devoured any prey that came within reach; she lived in a cave on a cliff. Across the strait, opposite her, was a large fig tree under which Charybdis, the whirlpool, dwelt, sucking in and belching forth the waters of the sea three times daily, engulfing anything that came near. When the Greek hero Odysseus passed between them, he was able to avoid Charybdis, but Scylla seized six men from his ship and devoured them. In later times, the geographical position of this dangerous passage was believed to be the Strait of Messina between Italy and Sicily, with Scylla on the Italian side. Scylla, originally a beautiful maiden loved by a sea god, had been transformed into a monster by her jealous rival, the sorceress Circe.

These two beasts of greek mythology became a common way of saying that both choices given would dam_n the chooser. English versions of this saying include:


• Damned if you do, damned if you don't

• Between a rock and a hard place

• Between the devil and the deep blue sea

• To choose between cholera and pest
• To choose between different Thai governments
• Dilemma: A state of uncertainty or perplexity especially as requiring a choice between (two) equally unfavorable options

Edit for typos and clarity

This post has been edited by MeaMaximaCulpa: 2008-02-24 15:57:17

I say, Samak is not in the role in eighteen months time.

I am voting firmly in favour of military dictatorship because quite frankly I am sick and tired of Thai democracy. Why every few weeks they all seem to be voting for something or other and whenever any sort of voting is in sight they close down my favourite cocktail bar, all the beach bars and my supplier of fine wines.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks democracy should be based on sobriety has made a sad and fundamental misinterpretation of the whole thing.

Bring back the tanks, stop the elections, open the cocktail bars!

Samak might be very proud to consider we consider him so bad that a dictatorship is better. I figured the results would be like this, but not this much. Wow.

Anything is better than Samak.

The problem is democracy only works well when there is an established middle class and a fairly educated public. Thailand doesn't have either of those things so it's easy for the extremely corrupt or authoritarian types to gain control. The reason why Thailand has had so many problems is because this social pendulum keeps swinging back and forth.

This may be a bit controversial but Thailand should consider a system like Singapore's. A benevolent authoritarian government that seeks to establish a middle class and laws to keep a developing free market economy. The problem is selecting an individual with a vision that would guide Thailand forward in good faith.

Reading this article makes me wonder what will happen in Thai politics when these subsidies are removed. Clearly the true price LPG GAS BENZEEN we call it petrol where I come from and at approx 73 baht a Litre.
I personally think that there will be dissent.
PTT Plc, the majority state-owned oil and gas company, expects the government's oil and gas subsidy policies to cost it 63 billion baht this year, according to chief executive and president Prasert Bunsumpun. The liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) price-support scheme alone is projected to cost the company around 50 billion baht, as it needs to import the fuel at a price of US$950 a tonne but has to sell it for the equivalent of $330.

My vote goes to the coup installed government. The military at least has a system and objectives. Not the best, but it worked/s.

Thailand could use an O/H political system.

Actually, I worked under Samak (TCP) back in the late 80's (Chatchai government) and he was as careless then as now. Full of hot air too.

First of all thanks to Crushdepth for ressurecting this thread, I somehow missed it in it's first life.

The by line says it all "Is democracy an improvement?". This echos what I have thought for a while, and occasionally voiced the opinion, that is democracy the right form of government for South East Asia?

Certainly if you compare the present load of bumbling old cretins with other neighbouring countries it is easy to come to the opinion that some form of autocratic one party state does seem to have it's advantages. Obviously I am considering fairly benign forms of government, no-one in their right minds would offer the Burmese system as a viable option.

The problem with Samak and the PPP is that they have, by their own admission, embroiled themselves in the mire created by Thaksin and the TRT and seem to be wasting valuable effort trying to get him and his cronies off the hook. What they should have done is stand up and say "okay some of us are ex TRT and some are not. We are going to embrace the same populist policies originated by the TRT but we are not going to become mired down by the past and the legal actions against certain people, in fact we will adopt an entire neutral stance on that issue." Another thing Samak should have done is be his own man and choose a cabinet based on qualifications not kow-towing to Thaksin and his cronies to create a government of such ineptitude that people yearn for the return of the TRT.

btw sometimes I wonder if the single party system wouldn't be better suited to certain other countries in the world. Recently I watched some programs on TV about the building of the new airport, national theatre and national stadium in Beijing. I compared them with my own country's bumbling efforts to prepare for the 2012 Olympics and felt a deep sense of shame. Then it hit home, the money for all the buildings going up in Beijing for 2008 has come from central funds, the land has been appropriated (some as long ago as 1959), the architecs chosen, contracts let and construction completed. No inter party political sniping, criticism allowed to a point but beyond that no, no NIMBY groups protesting that the land would be better used for a sanctuary for depressed glue sniffers, no whinging scrotes objecting to public funds being used for facilities they personally will never use.

Maybe communism aint so bad after all. Here in VN you'd hardly know it is a communist state. There is corruption on a grand scale, there is poverty, there is crime but the people seem very happy and get on with life. Mind you poverty does that to a person, if you have to bust your a55 all day just to earn a crust it don't leave much time for political aspirations.

The main difference to me is that Singapore has a good system of governance. It may be run by crooks, but they have some respect for rules and regulation and deal harshly with people that flout the system. Thailand lacks any credible system of governance to prevent abuse of the system, that's why Thai politicians can behave like a troop of monkeys fighting over a packet of peanuts, and get away with it too.

Democracy just doesn't work unless its supported by a solid governance framework. The state of politics is kind of depressing, Thailand could easily end up as the new Burma IMHO.

Singapore is lucky in many respects. The founding father of modern Singapore Lee Kuan Yew disliked corruption and had a strong belief in education, a free market, and rule of law. His family has controlled Singaporean politics since he was established and since then Singapore has become a modern 1st world nation.

The ruling politicians there are hardly crooks. The penalties are harsh and unforgiving for corruption that's why Singapore ranks consistently in the top 5 least corrupt nations in the world.

The problem is Thailand needs to find an individual who has this sort of vision and bring a large population of people together. It's a very difficult feat and i'm not sure if Thailand has the sort of aggressive leadership required to bring it together.

Successful democracies have always had things in common. Middle class educated population is important as well as infrastructure to bring it about. Unless Thailand starts right now it'll be almost an unattainable goal.

Well, I went with democracy--and it because I like Samak. I think one minor problem with the poll (not that it's meant to be scientific anyway), is the choice is between an individual and an institutional change. It probably should have been between democracy and coup. I must admit it was hard to actually put the little dot in the box next Samak's name--felt a little like cleaning up dog poop!

Military coups are like suicide--it's always best if you just wait out the problem before doing anything!

Samak

"The ruling politicians there are hardly crooks. The penalties are harsh and unforgiving for corruption that's why Singapore ranks consistently in the top 5 least corrupt nations in the world."

Agree- they may be a lot of things but crooks is not one of them.

The pay for MP's and Ministers is deliberately very high so as to discourage corruption and other manipulation

Politics in Singapore might be interesting when old Harry and the restof the founding fathers pass away but their is a dynasty of sorts. They also point to the Chinese model of economic growth as well now to substantiate a les than western democratic ideal and other restrictions.

All in all I think most singaporeans are very happy with their "Social contract" and would not change anything - in fact the general populace are probably more conservative than the govt - like in many countries ie UK and USA it could be argued.

How's that bird park :-) the toy of the husband of some big wig in Singapore, total vanity project that loses $$$$ truckloads annually ;-)

Overall though no doubt Singapore has done better with their system than any of the surrounding countries; also made easier by just taking the place over and it being so small along with the port location and proximity to two fairly inept countries. The level of corruption is minimal; nepotism is rife, but the people ending up in the positions of power are still pretty great.

However, for Thailand while the Democracy of the last 7 years has been fairly poor, the reality is that in today's environment if you want access to EU and USA then you have to at least pretend to do what they want, one of which is being a democracy. Of course one could argue that America would prefer a completely corrupt system with a propped up ineffectual leader as per Vietnam, Dominican Republic, latin America, Iran etc etc - but at the end of the day better to have that than to be on the outside like say Cuba. And being an actual decent democracy, while no guarantee to market access (as per NZ with anti nuclear effectively ruining their chances to sell lamb etc in the world's largest single country market) is at least a step in the right direction and can actually pay off by having a better operating country.

Longterm, democracy, a working democracy is probably a good government system as long as you have the right people risnig to the top, and the populace can see wood for trees. Thailand has neither (actually many countries struggle with the second) - guys like Chalerm, Samak and Mingkwan types are useless and hopeless.

However, we probably need to go through this step, and hopefully this time people will actually remember just how cr*p these guys have been, so that voters become marginally more discerning and the good guys (and there are plenty) actually start getting involved with politics.

Checks and balances to keep meglomaniac billionaires away from the government tills are vital, that is the other thing Thailand is missing - to be more exact - they are there but with enough power Thaksin was able to remove all of them bar the power of the educated middle class.

Well I disagree somehow. Democracy would work, just the problem is that here isn't democracy and many other countries are more and more away from democracy. If you buy votes all 4 years, than this is something complete different than democracy.
Maybe not the democracy, the corruption is the problem.

A coup is the quickest way to get that screaming idiot Sondhi and his sidekick PAD fool off the streets for good. I say let the tanks roll!

I think you fail to understand that TRT engine is what got PPP into power; and controls the pursestrings and ability to stay in power; therefore Samak is working for that TRT group, as are his cabinet.

Samak himself is relatively inconsequential in what he does day to day; the funders and masterminds behind PPP are on the verge of going to jail and losing a large chunk of their personal fortune; therefore while everything else may be going poorly, the entire focus on a family right now is not to go to jail and not to lose their fortune.

And obviously most of the TRT policies were populist and completely unsustainable e.g. fuel subsidies so they can't roll them back out now, besides which the main reason they got in is because most of Isaan and the North are waiting for them to allow their hero Thaksin back into power.

If anyone was voting on a policy basis, PPP would never have got in!

Actually, the PPP's political platform would have generated a lot of votes (outside of the major cities) given they promised people everything they wanted to hear. One of their major policies was to lower prices. Six months into this government, and prices continue to go up up up.

No, what I was saying is that PPP=TRT=PPP in essence. Sure they are in a coalition but their partners are little more than makeweights to be tolerated until the main players redress the balance of power in their favour. But IMO they would have fared better, and cut the ground out from under the PAD, if they had distanced themselves from Thaksin and his cronies. Of course that is easier said than done given those very people are the paymasters but given the support of the northeast they should have been able to win anyway.

Yes Samak is inconsequential as is the rest of his government and they are merely there as a democratic way of getting the real crooks off the hook.

Correct, you can't buck the system. Oil prices are outwith the control of this, or any, government. Subsidies only work as long as the money pot remains solvent or else the country start selling the family silver. Sooner or later reality strikes and Thailand is heading for one major reality check.

Yes, they would love Thaksin back at the helm. Makes you wonder who was behind the rumour of Samak being detained on his return from Brunei. No smoke without fire and a civilian "coup", by Thaksin, would be more palatable worldwide being possibly seen as redressing the balance.

If anyone is voting on a policy basis, the democrats will never get in. They don't have any besides getting rid of Thaksin. Before the election, they just managed to show a number of pretty faces, hoping the "old order" will take care of the "administrative" things. Since, it's the PAD that holds the front of the stage.

The only people who have the qualification to run this country are the 111. Anybody who isn't completely selfish should know what to do. After that, if the democrats wake up and decide to play their role as a (real) opposition party, it could only be a win win situation for this country.

Yes, PPP=TRT; that's why they were elected. Samak would never have been elected if he wasn't perceived to be a proxy for Thaksin. And yes, I agree that they are predominantly a democratic way of getting crooks off the hook. A much better thing for Thailand, or any country, than for the military to dominate the justice system (military dictatorship) as happened in 2006-2007.

There is another post similar to this. The strange feeling one. I get so confused that sometimes I think I'm on the How many farangs are here for sex? thread.

"The problem is Thailand needs to find an individual who has this sort of vision and bring a large population of people together. It's a very difficult feat and i'm not sure if Thailand has the sort of aggressive leadership required to bring it together."

Absolutely. Long live the King.

Is the USA a Democracy? Bush stole both elections. This is not a shot at anyone, but Stalin also said something like - It's not the voters who decide an election, it's the people who count the votes that decide an election. He could have added "or the Supreme Court." Not that I have a problem with this. Why can't a good man play dirty? Watch this election coming up. I'm hoping people are so sick of what's been going on, and the bad guys will reveal just what kind of pigs they are, that the people will say enough. They'll have to trash all the computer voting machines and film each person verbally voting.