Ji on an elections and who hates them

17 10 2014

Ji Ungpakorn has posted on the recent statements by The Dictator and his flunkies on delaying elections:

Elections postponed while anti-reformist show their true colours

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

While the dictator Prayut was huddled with the Chinese and Japanese representatives in Italy, he had previously told reporters not to “speculate” when elections would be held again in Thailand. Many analysts are predicting that elections will not take place at least until 2016, thus rubbishing the initial promises of the junta to hold elections next year.

     Meanwhile a panel of anti-reformist junta lackeys were pontificating about the legacy of the 14th October 1973 uprising against the military and how this would “influence” the present anti-reform process.

     This academic meeting was not banned by the junta, unlike pro-democracy seminars.

     Kamnoon Sitisamarn, former military appointed senator, said that having parliamentary elections with political parties nominating their own candidates for elections, was the same as the Chinese government’s insistence that it has the sole right to select the candidates for “elections” in Hong Kong. Now most of us would see the parallels between the Chinese dictatorship and Kamnoon’s masters in the Thai junta, but Kamnoon believes that MPs should not belong to political parties and should be “independent”. Independent of democratic accountability no doubt! So, all western democracies are really dictatorships, according to this anti-reformist. We can see what kind of future system these people have in mind.

    Anek Laotamatas, well know[n] academic who glorified the Thai middle classes in his writings, tried to rewrite history by claiming that he represented the views of the October heroes from 1973. This mealy mouthed ex-communist said that in those days the students were against dictatorship, but the most important thing was that they loved the king! Anek is well known for despising the rural people who he believes are trapped in a patron-client relationship. We can only guess that for Anek, only the middle-classes, who called for the coup and wrecked the February elections, can be trusted to develop democracy.

     One of the problems with Thai academia is that they shy away from debate, even when there isn’t military rule, and therefore academics are used to just spouting any old rubbish and expecting their students and the general population to just listen obediently.

     Manit Suksomjit, a retired media professional, claimed that Thailand had suffered from a “parliamentary dictatorship” and that the biggest problem was the stupidity of the people who elected crafty intelligent politicians. No doubt it would be better if the lower classes were denied the vote or maybe if good people like Manit could veto election results.

     Finally, Tawatchai Yongkitikoon, rich banker and secretary of the Thai Bankers Association, said that the real problem in Thailand was corruption. He waxed lyrical about “wonderful” corruption-free Singapore. “No one in Singapore complains about the lack of democratic rights”, he declared. Maybe so, because you risk losing your job, your flat or even risk jail if you are too forthright in Singapore. What is more, the top politicians, who manipulate elections, pay themselves higher salaries than the U.S. president. Nepotism is rife in the island state. Yet, all this cannot possibly be corruption, of course!

     What a shower of excrement now inhabit the National anti-Reform Committee.


Actions

Information

3 responses

27 10 2014
Yellow reform | Political Prisoners in Thailand

[…] Anek is one of the ideologues of anti-rural propaganda that denigrates voters as bought, duped and ignorant. […]

27 10 2014
Yellow reform | Political Prisoners of Thailand

[…] Anek is one of the ideologues of anti-rural propaganda that denigrates voters as bought, duped and ignorant. […]

27 10 2014
Yellow reform I | Political Prisoners of Thailand

[…] Anek is one of the ideologues of anti-rural propaganda that denigrates voters as bought, duped and ignorant. […]