virtualtraveller

Bangkok descends into chaos. Yingluck is the elected leader, she is clueless. This is the defining moment of this brief experiment of 'Proxy prime minister'. We don't want proxy prime ministers, she should quite, there should be an election, Peua Thai should put forward a suitable candidate if it believes it deserves to win. The seeds of this latest crisis have been two years in the making, Yingluck foolishly let it play out to the extreme. She's clueless.

If this is what people spontaneously sign up to in the streets of Bangkok (not bussed in or paid) just from the amnesty bill, imagine if Thaksin set food in Thailand. They would be back on the streets and some! No, no, this has been a game changer for the Shinawatras, they may manage to survive for now but they are mortally wounded, they won't get an absolute majority at the next election, they likely won't get their 2 trillion and they won't regain the popularity she enjoyed when she was new. It's difficult to say where this will all end up but Thaksin's dream of coming home on his terms is dead. Yingluck has proved to be a disaster as Thaksin's clone and I"m wondering how much longer Peua Thai MPs are going to put up with this ridiculous suicidal arrangement.

Pity a 10-year old boy has to be dragged into this. Whatever the background to this story, if you get to a situation that members of your family are so hated as to be pursued like this then perhaps you need to reflect on how your 'family' is running the country like a 'family' business, when it's supposed to be a democracy 'by the people, for the people, of the people'. It's a very effective way to get Thaksin to rethink things, when his various siblings and their offspring are finding it hell living in their own country. His fault, he's turned this whole political rumble into Shinawatra vs everyone.

Achievements: presiding over a govt that has become the most despised in recent memory, tearing the country apart.

She loves democracy above all: but turns a blind eye to a shocking amnesty bill

Is in charge: by Thaksin pops up with comments almost weekly that mirror the decisions of the govt

Get out of here you imbecile, you take us for fools.

How about putting out an apology for trying to pull a fast one on the country with the amnesty bill, reversing your previous pledge? That might help. This is just verbal cunning linguist speak. Usual Peau Thai deception.

When unemployment rate is so low, you can raise minimum wage, but productivity is also low so you end up becoming uncompetitive. Everyone here has a job and another and another, which is good but they are inefficient. The whole business model of this country is based on that and it's unsustainable, there are new and hungrier countries entering the fold.

This is guy is one of the more sensible Puea Thai heavy weights, pity he can't see how his party is nothing more than a personal family fiefdom. He should go off and form a new party, one that represents the people not a person. We need to move on from this old school strong-man politics model, it's unhealthy, just ask Yingluck. She's having to deal with the fallout. Peua Thaksin party needs to be totally dismantled.

He's been awfully quiet, letting his sister take the heat, I wonder what he must be thinking, that was the biggest rally probably in the history of the democratic country last Sunday all in hatred to him. Do you think he reflects on this before going to bed, or doesn't care. Either way, it was a pretty brutal message sent out, he's not going to come home to a red carpet.

More proof that electing a total novice, and not a very clever one, really is disaster and unsustainable. Who's idea was that? remind me?

Surapong (who can't even speak English as foreign minister) did you put in that letter the fact that the crisis is mostly to do with rejection of our country being run from Dubai by your cousin who is supposed to be in jail for major corruption.

Just open the books to an independent auditor, that's all we need.

It's getting absurd even by Thai politics standards. Give Tarit a week and he'll ramp up the charges to 'murder' then ask the courts to rule against themselves. It's quite unclear to me if the DSI has a mandate to accept the case so the Dems can sue the DSI for taking on the case and the courts can refuse to accept judgment because they don't think the charter empowers DSI to rule.

It's interesting because buses of pro and anti govt supporters are coming into Bangkok and I'm wondering how the police will manage to be selective.

It's actually typical of Peua Thai's usual strategy, by putting in a bunch of spurious complaints to the courts the two party's fate's become paired, thus when Peua Thai get cut down on realistic charges and the Democrats get let off on petty charges, it still likes like the courts are biased in the eyes of the masses.

He says he doesn't recognise the justice system in one sentence then in the next want it to try Suthep for sedition. Get out of here, could we have some better goons running this country.

Ask her in the censure debate, live on TV, in front of millions. See what she does, na ka.

Obviously not the speech the defence minister's lackey Suranand would write.

Could mean coup. Could mean we will stand back and watch you two sling it out. Could mean 'we are going to get dragged into fixing this'.

This is very significant.

actually it's all about timing. Puea Thai can call a snap poll any time they want and still likely win. Right now is the wrong time, the farmers aren't getting their paddy pledge, Yingluck's popularity is at an all time low, and they need to survive long enough to get start writing out the 2 trillion cheque. Don't forget, almost everything they've done has been aimed at winning an even bigger majority at the next election and burying the opposition, plus getting their men into various agencies, panels, courts. Hasn't quite worked out for them. The senate bill was killed because PT were rushing it through ahead of next March senate elections. Dems are putting on the pressure because they may never have a better chance of stealing PT voters away.

The hawks among the Democratic party need to show some common sense and avoid stooping to the levels we will now see from PT and UDD, you've scored well, now let them engineer their own slide in popularity. They will come back with even more radical attempts and in light of their recent actions they will look even more like villains, give them enough rope to hang themselves.

If it really gets out of hand your ultimate weapon is to resign from parliament en-mass and tell your supporters to boycott all bi-elections, it will throw the assembly into chaos and turn the who thing into a farce. They will have no choice but to dissolve govt and start again, which means likely losing their outright house majority and weakening their position to push for a new charter.

Now, compare this nitwit to the following statement from the opposition, see the clarity, and holistic approach;

Point of clarification...

Many incorrectly assume that the Democrat position
regarding the Senate selection system is to retain the roughly half appointed, half elected format. This is not the case. Most democrat MP's proposed for all Senators to be elected but that the election process should be different from that of the Lower House. For example, I suggested that the election be from a list of professionals representing all sectors. Meanwhile, Khun Abhisit proposed an election which groups together provinces as a single constituency.

Either way, the main purpose is to ensure that the Upper House is not an effective copy of the Lower House, as Phua Thai would have it, given that its role is to scrutinise MP's and the government that is voted-in by the MP's.

Yours sincerely,

Korn Chatikavanij

No irony there Nattawut, talking about power from an undemocratic source eh? And how would you classify Thaksin, no irony at all.

The court reasoned that the amendment bill violated the check-and-balance system between the lower and upper chambers by having all senators come from elections.

So where were the Constitution Court when the 1996 Constitution decided on wholly elected Senators? How does the Constitution Court expect to be taken seriously if it's verdicts are whatever they feel like at the time.

dear Fab4, I may have missed who asked the CC to rule on the 1996 constitution and what was their decision can you point me in the direction of this gross abuse of power?

PS: The draft submitted to the Parliamentary meeting was not the same as submitted by Udomdej Ratanasatien: court. The process was illegal.........Court says charter amendment bill was significantly altered before it went to the parliamentary floor........... Court also criticises Parliament's refusal to give bill critics enough time to speak against it during debate........ Each of parliamentarians can only use the ID card to register once for a meeting. The clips and witnesses showed some used many ID cards.......The clip showed Narisorn ... holding a stack of over 2 ID cards and pressed the button to read the cards ( register) many times in a row...

Why cant this government just play it by the book, why must they always cheat, deceive and lie, the reality is they are their own worst enemies. My guess is it because they are the henchmen of a convicted criminal and its their nature.

Well it may have escaped your notice that the 1997 Constitution was the first one written by "the people". It was also the first time a fully, directly elected Senate had been brought into being. It was also the first time a Constitutional Court was formed. So here we have in the present day the Constitutional Court saying that directly elected Senators are unconstitutional, but from 1997 and up to 2006 the Constitutional Court said nothing about the supposed "unconstitutionality" of that arrangement.

So what has happened between the old Constitutional Court and the new one? A Coup (and two judicial coups) that's what. At least they shied away from a 3rd judicial coup.

First Senate was noted for becoming a total rubber stamp for Thaksin, part of the problem. The present constitution was as much 'written' by 'the people' as the last one, in that a panel of experts drew it up, mostly based on the previous charter, closing holes but adding a few 'anomalies' which could be rectified if the two parties put their heads together, don't forget that, warts and all, the 2007 Charter passed a referendum, the 1997 wasn't put to referendum. Certainly people favour the 1997 version because of all the 'holes', I wonder why?