Politics: What is behind Democrat Party’s excellence at “Media Manipulation & Character Assassination?”

Pridi's character "Assassinated"

  • By Ranger, Thai Intel’s political journalist

Yesterday, as the Thai parliament debated changing the military drawn constitution, Thailand‘s democrat Party, lead by Abhisit, devoted about 3 – 4 hours to attacking Thaksin’s character.

Then it accused an MP, who bitterly debated the Democrat Party, of being drunk in Parliament.

In historical terms, it was the time in Thai history of UNESCO recognized Predi Panomyond, who just bought a constitutional monarchy system to Thailand.

What bought him down, was a shout in a movie theatre, that quote: “Predi killed the Thai King.” From there, like wildfire-Predi’s character was assassinated.

That shout in the movie theatre, here in Thailand, is what many Thais say, is the character of Thailand’s Democrat Party-throughout the history of Thai politics.

And saying that about the Democrat Party rings true.

Thailand’s Democrat Party, takes its roots in Thailand’s legal system, with the party always stacked with lawyers turned politician. And its action, in Parliamentary debate, especially with the no confidence debate-have always been focused on “Character Assassination” of its opponent.

But like what occurred to Pridi, what the Democrat Party realizes, is that the “Character Assassination” needs to be heard-by a great many Thais.

And thus, the Democrat Party, like cutting edge stock market technical analysis is extremely tune in, to the movement of the flow of things-like how news can impact the way Thai people thinks.

And thus, unlike most other Thai political parties, the Democrat Party, devote a great deal of attention to news media-and here in Thailand, have pocketed a great many news outfit-into its pocket.

Thus with the Democrat Party, it is this combination, of cutting edge lawyers at Character Assassination, coupled with a cutting edge management of news flow, and again coupled, with a cutting edge close relationship with many of Thailand’s media.

What have resulted, is clearly, a very potent and powerful Democrat Party.

However, for about ten years now, the Democrat Party have failed to win any Thai general election-with often loosing a landslide.

What is going on?

There is a very old Thai saying, going back for 10s of years now, that the problem with Thailand’s Democrat Party, is that it is great at “Politicking” but horrible at “Managing Thailand.”

However, this criticism has been around for so long now, clearly, the Democrat Party knows of this weakness-and by most accounts, when Abhisit ruled Thailand for that few years-this problem has been tackled-such as bringing in Korn, the former finance minister, who is knows as a cutting edge financier. Then the policies of Abhisit, in general, looked very much like a photo-copy of Thaksin’s policies.

But what happened-as Abhisit still lost the  last election in a landslide? Here, there have been many theory, and Thai Intel’s theory differs than most.

Yesterday, in parliamentary debate to amend the military drawn Thai constitution, as the Democrat Party opposes the changes to make the Thai parliamentary representative system stronger, out of the shackle of a “Judicialize” Thailand under the Thai establishment rule, one Democrat Party MP, said in Parliament, broadcasted across Thailand, quote: “The name of the Democrat Party means Democracy.”

Many in Thailand, have called the Democrat Party of Thailand, to change its name, to something like “The Conservative Party of Thailand” or “The Far Right Wing Party of Thailand” or “The Establishment Party of Thailand” or “The Military Party of Thailand” or something alone that line-to even, “The Royalist Party of Thailand.”

The fundamental fact is, as the Bangkok Post recently commented, something like, quote: “Forcing the Thai people to choose between Democracy and Royalism, is a negative thing to do.”

Since the Yellow Shirts entered Thai politics before the 2006 coup, fundamentally, all the Democrat Party have been doing, is forcing the Thai people to choose, between Democracy and Royalism.”

If there is one Thai Intel advice to give to the Democrat Party, is that it is acceptable, to be excellent at “Media Manipulation” and “Character Assassination” since god knows, globally, there is a great many political party that does the same-but fundamentally, there has to be more, than just trying to stuff Thai royalism, down the throat of the Thai people-especially, at the expense of Democracy.

In sum, the choice for the Democrat Party, appears clear-in that it must up-date, its bacis philosophy, to keep up with the changing times in Thailand-as Thai Intel wonders, what is the Democrat Party really offering Thailand-apart from the entertaining characted assassination and media manipulation.

  • The following is from the Bangkok Post:

Pheu Thai: Let House deal with Chalerm

    Published: 26/02/2012 at 06:28 PM

    Online news:

Pheu Thai will let parliament decide on how to handle allegations that Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung was drunk during the charter amendment debate on Friday, a party deputy spokesperson told a news conference on Sunday.

Sunisa Lertpakawat said all parties must respect the parliament and let it consider how to deal with the matter. The party believed the parliament had a mechanism and channel to establish and verify facts behind the drunk-on-duty allegation against Mr Chalerm.

It was too early to say whether the House’s ethics committee should investigate the matter and all parties would have to wait until the parliament has its say, Ms Sunisa said.  

Asked if the incident affected the party’s image, she said Pheu Thai still remained committed to promoting quality among party members, serving the people and realising its policies announced during the election campaign.

Meanwhile, Mr Chalerm on Sunday sent his lawyer to file complaints at Samaedam Police Station in the Bang Bon area, asking police to prosecute two Democrat Party spokespersons, Chavanond Intarakomalyasut and Mallika Boonmeetrakul for accusing him of being drunk and three daily newspapers for their coverage of the accusation. 

Chalerm: I was not drunk

Mr Chalerm said he could not file a police complaint against Democrat MP for Samut Songkhram Rangsima Rodrasamee, who was the first person to accuse him of being drunk, because she was speaking during a parliamentary debate.

Ms Rangsima called on Mr Chalerm to act like a man by apologising for his alleged misbehaviour.

She and the Democrat Party are discussing whether to file an interpellation on Wednesday seeking an explanation from Mr Chalerm and also from Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for her visit to the Four Seasons Hotel on Feb 14.

Ms Yingluck said she had not spoken to Mr Chalerm about the matter yet. The opposition had the right to examine Mr Chalerm, she added.

Mr Chalerm on Saturday admitted he drank alcohol before joining the parliamentary debate but strongly insisted he was not drunk.

“I had only one or two glasses at a wedding ceremony for the son of Kamronwit Thoopkrachang [acting chief of Provincial Police Region 1] at Impact Muang Thong Thani and I was not drunk,” Mr Chalerm said in a telephone interview with the Bangkok Post Sunday.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s