Jump to content
Technical Difficulties Read more... ×
BANGKOK 15 November 2018 23:49
rooster59

Yingluck’s escape will likely hurt Pheu Thai, says survey

Recommended Posts

Yingluck’s escape will likely hurt Pheu Thai, says survey

By Jitraporn Senawong 
The Sunday Nation

 

598ec050d6173e3b08d9a238e4bfebae.jpeg

 

Majority of respondents believe ex-pm’s absence will be felt in next election

 

Three quarters (75 per cent) of survey respondents think that the Pheu Thai Party will have a difficult time campaigning at the next election and will have only a slim chance of leading a governing coalition after its leader Yingluck Shinawatra fled the country.

 

According to the Suan Dusit Poll released yesterday, some 70.2 per cent said that Pheu Thai could suffer internal divisions now that Yingluck is gone, and 80.9 per cent think the party will need new leaders.

 

Nearly two-thirds, or 60.4 per cent, of respondents said the absence of the former prime minister could shake the party’s popularity, while 58.8 per cent said that it might also need new policies and strategies.

 

The survey was conducted by Suan Dusit University from September 4-8, with 1,187 people nationwide asked about their thoughts on Thai politics after Yingluck skipped the verdict-reading in her court case involving her government’s rice-pledging scheme.

 

The poll also looked at impacts on other political parties, including Pheu Thai’s arch-rival, the Democrat Party. Some 71.1 per cent of respondents thought that the Democrats could become an alternative for voters.

 

Two-thirds (67.7 per cent) of the respondents thought that Yingluck’s flight from the verdict set an example to others to refrain from corruption. And 48 per cent said that other parties could now have a chance to win elections.

 

The majority of the people surveyed – 77.3 per cent – agreed that they would have to wait and see how Thai politics would go now that Yingluck had fled.

 

Meanwhile, the junta is preparing to hold its first official press conference on the investigation into Yingluck’s escape route and any potential accomplices. Rumours continue to abound that the military deliberately let her slip the country.

 

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha has reportedly instructed officers to speed up their work and complete their investigation.

 

Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan has ordered officers to hold a press conference on the investigation after revelations on Friday that Yingluck had been seen in Sa Kaew province in a sedan near a military checkpoint close to Cambodian border. This occurred less than 48 hours before the scheduled delivery of the final verdict on the rice-pledging case on August 25.

 

Officers were searching for the driver of the sedan, according to reports.

 

Prawit said yesterday that he believes Yingluck fled the country with help from people inside Thailand, but he had no idea who they might be. However he also claimed that the investigation had progressed.

 

Meanwhile, security sources gave conflicting information about the checkpoint where Yingluck was last seen.

 

A security source said that the checkpoint was under the responsibility of the Burapha Force and was mostly busy. Security measures were tougher for arrivals than departures because officers had to focus on illegal immigrants, he said.

 

The vehicles departing the country would be searched only if they were suspicious or there had been prior notification by other forces, he said, adding that the Yingluck’s sedan had not been on the watch list. “It’s impossible for officers to check every car leaving the country because we have to consider the impact on the people, too,” the source said.

 

“Every checkpoint has the same standard. Unless we were notified of a person’s flight or of any suspicious vehicles, we would not step up measures against people departing the country,” he said.

 

Army chief General Chalermchai Sitthisat had not passed down any orders regarding the matter, he said.

 

Another high-ranking security source asserted that the checkpoint seen in the footage was not that of the Burapha Force.

 

But he admitted that it would have been difficult for officers to do anything or apprehend her if they had really found Yingluck at that time. It was before the verdict day and she was still regarded as innocent, he explained.

 

As to speculation that Yingluck fled through Cambodia, the source said this would be impossible unless she was allowed to do so by officials there. He did not think the former PM would have fled via the natural land border, because it was “all forest and mountains with hidden land mines”. It was unlikely that she would take such a route, he said.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30326259

 

 
thenation_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-09-10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

The poll also looked at impacts on other political parties, including Pheu Thai’s arch-rival, the Democrat Party. Some 71.1 per cent of respondents thought that the Democrats could become an alternative for voters.

:cheesy::cheesy::cheesy:

 

Does anyone believe (regardless of what the "poll" says) that 'Reds' are going to vote for the Dems?

 

These polls are hilarious....

 

98.48567% of people in my house agree!

 

Edited by Samui Bodoh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rooster59 said:

According to the Suan Dusit Poll released yesterday, some 70.2 per cent said that Pheu Thai could suffer internal divisions now that Yingluck is gone, and 80.9 per cent think the party will need new leaders.

"new leaders"

 

Statement of the obvious really, although Yingluck was reported to have little to do with PTP recently, as the verdict approached, that coming from PTP itself ?

 

Yes of course they will need a new face to present the party, the question is whether it will be a family-member again, or not.  Which IMO is where the "internal divisions" bit comes in !  Is there any faction strong-enough & rich-enough & motivated to take control of the party away from the Big Boss ?  Probably not. :wink:

 

Regarding PTP's ability to win the next election, whenever that will be, well if they think they will fall short of their usual target 50%-of-the-vote, then they will surely just do-a-deal in-advance for a coalition-party to join them, or absorb one or-more minor-parties after the results are known. 

 

And then declare yet-again 'majority popular-support', and another 'landslide victory', for their vampire-squid of a political-grouping ! :laugh:

 

TRT/PPP/PTP have done this every time except 2005, which was (lets be honest) a genuine landslide & outright-victory for Thaksin, the formula for gaining-power works. So why would they ever abandon it ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

"new leaders"

 

Statement of the obvious really, although Yingluck was reported to have little to do with PTP recently, as the verdict approached, that coming from PTP itself ?

 

Yes of course they will need a new face to present the party, the question is whether it will be a family-member again, or not.  Which IMO is where the "internal divisions" bit comes in !  Is there any faction strong-enough & rich-enough & motivated to take control of the party away from the Big Boss ?  Probably not. :wink:

 

Regarding PTP's ability to win the next election, whenever that will be, well if they think they will fall short of their usual target 50%-of-the-vote, then they will surely just do-a-deal in-advance for a coalition-party to join them, or absorb one or-more minor-parties after the results are known. 

 

And then declare yet-again 'majority popular-support', and another 'landslide victory', for their vampire-squid of a political-grouping ! :laugh:

 

TRT/PPP/PTP have done this every time except 2005, which was (lets be honest) a genuine landslide & outright-victory for Thaksin, the formula for gaining-power works. So why would they ever abandon it ?

 

Er...ahem... isn't forming a coalition (when you don't have a majority of the seats) standard operating procedure in every parliament in every country that has one?

 

Respectfully, why would that be a bad thing here?

 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Er...ahem... isn't forming a coalition (when you don't have a majority of the seats) standard operating procedure in every parliament in every country that has one?

 

Respectfully, why would that be a bad thing here?

 

Cheers

 

Absolutely S.O.P. here in Thailand, especially if the Big Boss wants to guard against the risk of anyone ever being tempted to do-a-Newin ever again, the problem might be when you then absorb the coalition-partner afterwards, before the next election ?

 

Does that sort of thing really strengthen democracy ?  Or does it just crush the minor-opposition, and cement TRT/PPP/PTP as being unable to be beaten in a straight election ?   Clever political-manouvering I'd agree, but it makes it awfully hard to overturn a corrupt government, at the ballot-box ?

 

Hence my  (slightly OTT, I admit, trying to add humour)  'vampire-squid' comment. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Yingluck’s escape will likely hurt Pheu Thai, says survey

That is why the Junta allowed it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

 

Absolutely S.O.P. here in Thailand, especially if the Big Boss wants to guard against the risk of anyone ever being tempted to do-a-Newin ever again, the problem might be when you then absorb the coalition-partner afterwards, before the next election ?

 

Does that sort of thing really strengthen democracy ?  Or does it just crush the minor-opposition, and cement TRT/PPP/PTP as being unable to be beaten in a straight election ?   Clever political-manouvering I'd agree, but it makes it awfully hard to overturn a corrupt government, at the ballot-box ?

 

Hence my  (slightly OTT, I admit, trying to add humour)  'vampire-squid' comment. :cool:

 

You raise two issues in your second paragraph that I find interesting.

 

First, can a (corrupt or not) government be tossed out by the voters at any time?

 

It is difficult to give an answer with 100% confidence as there are so many factors involved, and not all of them can be quantified easily. That said, I believe the answer is yes. One can never know exactly what will happen in a campaign, and more than once a party/candidate has does something stupid which has cost them the election (see the recent UK election). However, one requirement that I think is required is that the opposition needs to be seen as a potential "government in waiting" and has 'earned' that label. Yes, these are a nebulous factors, but I believe that it is one of those things that "everyone knows" even if it cannot be explained. 

 

This is one of the interesting questions in Thai politics. Are the Dems considered a "Government in waiting"? Yes, I think they are. The question that I ask myself is have they 'earned' that label? My view is that they haven't, but rather that they are simply the alternative to a 'Red' government. I suspect that they are never going to do well until they can offer either a platform which has wide acceptance or a leader who is seen in a better light than the current one.

 

The second issue is whether it is better that a party form a coalition before or after an election.

 

There is something to be said for having a lot of parties going into an election as that gives voters a wide array of choices.

 

However, I tend to come down on the side that it is better to have 'big tent' parties rather than a bunch of little ones. The main reason for this is that the coalition building process AFTER an election doesn't seem too democratic to me. For example, if you voted for party 'A' based on a specific policy, and that policy gets negated during the coalition talks, then your vote has essentially been negated. In essence, your are voting for the negotiators rather than a policy or policies.

 

I prefer to see large 'big tent' parties with wide-spread support going into the election as that seems the best way to know what you will get. 

 

Any thoughts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

You raise two issues in your second paragraph that I find interesting.

 

First, can a (corrupt or not) government be tossed out by the voters at any time?

 

It is difficult to give an answer with 100% confidence as there are so many factors involved, and not all of them can be quantified easily. That said, I believe the answer is yes. One can never know exactly what will happen in a campaign, and more than once a party/candidate has does something stupid which has cost them the election (see the recent UK election). However, one requirement that I think is required is that the opposition needs to be seen as a potential "government in waiting" and has 'earned' that label. Yes, these are a nebulous factors, but I believe that it is one of those things that "everyone knows" even if it cannot be explained. 

 

This is one of the interesting questions in Thai politics. Are the Dems considered a "Government in waiting"? Yes, I think they are. The question that I ask myself is have they 'earned' that label? My view is that they haven't, but rather that they are simply the alternative to a 'Red' government. I suspect that they are never going to do well until they can offer either a platform which has wide acceptance or a leader who is seen in a better light than the current one.

 

The second issue is whether it is better that a party form a coalition before or after an election.

 

There is something to be said for having a lot of parties going into an election as that gives voters a wide array of choices.

 

However, I tend to come down on the side that it is better to have 'big tent' parties rather than a bunch of little ones. The main reason for this is that the coalition building process AFTER an election doesn't seem too democratic to me. For example, if you voted for party 'A' based on a specific policy, and that policy gets negated during the coalition talks, then your vote has essentially been negated. In essence, your are voting for the negotiators rather than a policy or policies.

 

I prefer to see large 'big tent' parties with wide-spread support going into the election as that seems the best way to know what you will get. 

 

Any thoughts?

"First, can a (corrupt or not) government be tossed out by the voters at any time?"

 

You think yes, conveniently ignoring that it becomes impossible if a large enough bloc of voters are willing to ignore the corruption when enough benefits are thrown in their direction. Then, when the corrupt politicians are thrown out and prosecuted, you claim political persecution.

Should the ballot box over-ride criminal law? Does political popularity absolve crime?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

You raise two issues in your second paragraph that I find interesting.

 

First, can a (corrupt or not) government be tossed out by the voters at any time?

Good thoughtful post there ! :jap:

 

Unfortunately I believe that a corrupt government can become impregnable, despite regular elections, I'd look to Cambodia as an example.  Or perhaps Singapore, where it's perhaps less-corrupt, but still very firmly in-power despite any opposition which might arise.

 

56 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

<snip for brevity>

 Are the Dems considered a "Government in waiting"? Yes, I think they are. The question that I ask myself is have they 'earned' that label? My view is that they haven't, but rather that they are simply the alternative to a 'Red' government. I suspect that they are never going to do well until they can offer either a platform which has wide acceptance or a leader who is seen in a better light than the current one.

I certainly agree that the Dems are flawed, and only credible by-default, how much that's Abhisit's fault I'm not sure, but I suspect he has to live with factions he'd rather be without.

 

56 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

The second issue is whether it is better that a party form a coalition before or after an election.

 

There is something to be said for having a lot of parties going into an election as that gives voters a wide array of choices.

 

However, I tend to come down on the side that it is better to have 'big tent' parties rather than a bunch of little ones. The main reason for this is that the coalition building process AFTER an election doesn't seem too democratic to me. For example, if you voted for party 'A' based on a specific policy, and that policy gets negated during the coalition talks, then your vote has essentially been negated. In essence, your are voting for the negotiators rather than a policy or policies.

 

I prefer to see large 'big tent' parties with wide-spread support going into the election as that seems the best way to know what you will get.

 

Again a very good point, we all talk about the Dems & PTP as though they were true nationwide parties, but while they command some support in each others' heartlands, I think they still both suffer from being coalitions of regional-factions led by power-brokers who can deliver their local vote.

 

Unfortunately those power-brokers then expect their rewards, local-investment & ministerial-jobs or juicy-handouts, which means both main sides are inevitably corrupt to a greater or lesser degree.

 

I'd love to see the old leaders withdraw, and the parties have a good shake-up and recombination, based on policies rather than power-brokers, but I don't really see this happening yet.  Press the green Reset-button, if you like, except that too is proven not-to-work ?

 

Meanwhile one party now has a dominant position, and if it sees that weakening then it can and does 'buy-in' a couple more blocks of votes, that's a recipe for no-change isn't it ?  I wish I had a better answer.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, gamini said:

Can there ever be any democracy in Thailand when all major political parties have exactly the same right wing business policies?. No taxes for the rich. i.e. capital gains etc. Thai voters have no politcal choice. There are no socialist, workers. farmers or green parties.

 

I think there is a great deal of truth to your post. And, I hope one day the Thai people get some of the choices you listed.

 

I would simply say that the road to a fully functioning democracy is a long one.

 

Before Thai people get a choice of " socialist, workers. farmers or green parties", there needs to be an end to the coups. And then we need to see an elected government peacefully hand over power to another elected government.

 

Call me an optimist, but I believe that Thailand has already embedded the idea that a 'legitimate' government needs to come from an election. As to the rest, it'll take some time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Good thoughtful post there ! :jap:

 

Unfortunately I believe that a corrupt government can become impregnable, despite regular elections, I'd look to Cambodia as an example.  Or perhaps Singapore, where it's perhaps less-corrupt, but still very firmly in-power despite any opposition which might arise.

 

I certainly agree that the Dems are flawed, and only credible by-default, how much that's Abhisit's fault I'm not sure, but I suspect he has to live with factions he'd rather be without.

 

 

Again a very good point, we all talk about the Dems & PTP as though they were true nationwide parties, but while they command some support in each others' heartlands, I think they still both suffer from being coalitions of regional-factions led by power-brokers who can deliver their local vote.

 

Unfortunately those power-brokers then expect their rewards, local-investment & ministerial-jobs or juicy-handouts, which means both main sides are inevitably corrupt to a greater or lesser degree.

 

I'd love to see the old leaders withdraw, and the parties have a good shake-up and recombination, based on policies rather than power-brokers, but I don't really see this happening yet.  Press the green Reset-button, if you like, except that too is proven not-to-work ?

 

Meanwhile one party now has a dominant position, and if it sees that weakening then it can and does 'buy-in' a couple more blocks of votes, that's a recipe for no-change isn't it ?  I wish I had a better answer.

 

 

 

Let me disagree... respectfully! :smile:

 

You mention two regional examples; Singapore and Cambodia. I agree that you would need a rather large crowbar to get some changes there.

 

However, I do think Thailand has already passed that threshold. Street protests have already knocked off both a 'Yellow' and a 'Red' government here; the precedent has been set. I suspect that it would be much harder with the current or future 'Green' incarnation, but I am also optimistic there. Evidence suggests that the 'Greens' are simply incapable of governing effectively (think 2006 and the current incarnation), especially on the economic front. They are, in my view, incapable of delivering economic growth to a degree where they can maintain popularity. Essentially, they do themselves in; the control they need to stay in power negates economic opportunity.

 

Yes, I think the 'Yellows' are simply a default party against the 'Reds'. But, I think 'Mark' has simply had his day. Sometimes in politics you get a chance, perhaps two, but his are already used up. Perhaps some new blood at the top would make a difference, however I think the secret paymasters won't let that happen for a bit. The problem with new blood is that sometimes it isn't controlled easily, whereas 'Mark' is. 

 

As for the 'Reds' and 'Yellows' becoming national rather than regional parties, I think it is a process of evolution, IF the coups stop. A regional party cannot really last too long, even with a majority. The natural process of political evolution will take care of that, IF it is allowed to do so.

 

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Before Thai people get a choice of " socialist, workers. farmers or green parties", there needs to be an end to the coups. And then we need to see an elected government peacefully hand over power to another elected government.

Absolutely true. Continuous coups have robbed and hindered the development and maturity of democracy in Thailand. If you looked at matured and developed democracy like in India and Japan, you can see the rise of political parties that have guiding principles like those you mentioned; green, workers and socialist; all campaigning for the people's mandate to govern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sponsors
×