CalgaryII

On the one hand, Ms. Y. opponents highlight her non-Prime Ministership quoting her Thaksin links, on the other hand the decry the absence of the Prime Minister from venues where the Opposition can 'have a go' at her. Me thinks they protest too much. It is an enduring testament to her political skills that throughout her electoral campaign and prime Ministership, that Mr. Abhisit has been 'grasping at air'............. Poor baby.

Brilliant politics......... It really 'pisses off' this Opposition, that they can't lay a glove on her.......... The above statement suggesting wrongdoing, is obviously Opposition agenda, but there is no need for her to be there, given the clear track both these issues are on. There will not be serious departures from the expedited groove they are on. Just an opportunity for MP's to vent, with one side self-servingly and predictably screaming "hurry-up and haste", with the other side denying same and moving things along as they should be. Ms. Y. also doesn't need to be there to counter over-and-over, the Oppositions attempt to convince the unheeding public with its tiresome anti-Thaksin paranoid agenda with respect to charter amendments......Ho-hum.

Unsubstantiated claims removed.

No bona fide Red Shirts consider Jatuporn a 'shameless opportunist"......................None...... You don't know any bona fide Red Shirts...to suggest otherwise along with those Jatuporn opinions absolutely confirms it. Maybe someone is convinced he was a shameless opportunist and told you that, but that was not a Red Shirt. I suspect we are dealing with agenda here, not factual data.

Calgaryll, a legend in his own small mind, spraying his redundant philosophy in everyone's face and no doubt insisting that everyone will be given 40 acres and a mule under Thaksins rule.

This is a worry. Acording to Calgaryll a whole bunch of Thai people have been lying to me, my wife and our friends for ages, all the time secretly admiring the revered Jatuporn. Maybe the shame was too much?

They perhaps weren't lying and were led to believe what they believed, by his political enemies, but they were most assuredly not bona fide Red Shirts. Given the political power of Nathawut and Jatuporn, I'm sure those who are politically threatened by Thaksin, would be equally threatened by these two, and would vent accordingly. Nathawut and Jatuporn are revered by all Red Shirts, whether their political opposites like it or not.

At risk of being off-topic, just saw some internet photo's of Thaksin's meeting with Red Shirts in Vientiane today, and talked to people who were there. Some comments and photo impressions:

• As discussed previously, Laos was very restrictive about the whole thing, allowing only a temple visit and related ceremonies.
  
• Sure enough, there was Thaksin using a megaphone, without a sound system.
  
• The spacious grounds in front of this temple, Wat Prathaat Luang, was wall-to-wall Red Shirts.
  
• Very emotional by all concerned. Many tears shed by participants, and by Thaksin in appreciation of such overwhelming enthusiasm.
  

Not sure what all that legalese referenced above means, but I do note the focus just happens to be a revered leader of the UDD/Red Shirts.......The fact he is singled out speaks volumes, and is a testament to the correctness of revising a coup-inspired Charter. In light of this type of thing, it demonstrates the validity of the rationale for doing so:

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

A revered leader of the red shirts?

Not according to the majority of the red shirts I know here in the north. Most consider him little more than a cowardly thug they could well do without.

If that is your opinion, then you don't know any red shirts where you are in the north. And I am 100% confident in saying that, even though I don't know who you are or where you are. No bona fide Red Shirts, if any, consider him the way you describe. And that is a fact my friend. Sometimes unsupported agenda spin, can be spun marginally plausibly. This one cannot. 100% sure!

Well sorry Calgaryll old chap but it could be that the red shirts I know in the CM area are those who advocate a fair deal for the poor (which I certainly support) but who also recognise that Jataporn is a shameless opportunist. They are not hard core and whilst they see Thaksin as a talismanic figure they also accept he is probably the biggest criminal in Thailand. They do like Yingluck though!

No bona fide Red Shirts consider Jatuporn a 'shameless opportunist"......................None...... You don't know any bona fide Red Shirts...to suggest otherwise along with those Jatuporn opinions absolutely confirms it. Maybe someone is convinced he was a shameless opportunist and told you that, but that was not a Red Shirt. I suspect we are dealing with agenda here, not factual data.

Again, some clarification on this regular attempt by the media at 'historically contextualizing current events" as above......If he is such a deeply divisive figure, how is it that he was able to engineer a significant electoral victory last year, with which he was publically linked. For the Opposition and those who self-servingly coup-ed him out of existence to characterize him as such, are basically communicating the agenda of their minority electoral position in Thailand, for which he continues to be a threat. ...........Also avoiding the coup-based context of his 'jail term for corruption' is misleading. Within that context, an entirely different light is shone on the issue. Winning elections is not corruption, as much as the coupists would suggest otherwise.

The above article quoting a coupist opportunist can be catagorized accordingly........ Both being the key beneficiary of the coup, and then being summarily dismissed by the anti-coupists at their first electoral opportunity, puts his comments into both context and perspective........ It is perfectly understandable that there is no love lost by Mr. Abhisit's for his political nemesis...... One engineered the political dismissal of his adversary coup-istically and therefore non-democratically, the other engineered the dismissal of a 'selected' political adversary electorally and democratically....... I can't recall a similar dump by Thaksin on Mr. Abhisit. But then Thaksin is probably thoroughly aware of his engineered political roots and hence not subject to similar vitriol.

The guy has near zero credibility as a source for anything other than bullshit.

and HIV contaminated blood

Beautiful photographic example of a Thai Government MP going about his daily business on a highly professional level ! Sad bstd!

Look at the hatred in his eyes! I've never seen an MP look with such disdainful vehement as this unqualified nobhead.

Yeah I did write that. This man is pure evil, and the sooner he disappears from walking life the better for all - including your croonie lot CalgaryII !

I can't believe he hasn't even been knee-capped yet, but then I'm sure there's a few waiting to take him out completely at the given oppo.

-mel.

Protesters protest....Leaders lead.

Not sure what all that legalese referenced above means, but I do note the focus just happens to be a revered leader of the UDD/Red Shirts.......The fact he is singled out speaks volumes, and is a testament to the correctness of revising a coup-inspired Charter. In light of this type of thing, it demonstrates the validity of the rationale for doing so:

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

A revered leader of the red shirts?

Not according to the majority of the red shirts I know here in the north. Most consider him little more than a cowardly thug they could well do without.

If that is your opinion, then you don't know any red shirts where you are in the north. And I am 100% confident in saying that, even though I don't know who you are or where you are. No bona fide Red Shirts, if any, consider him the way you describe. And that is a fact my friend. Sometimes unsupported agenda spin, can be spun plausibly, this one cannot. 100% sure!

No way. A very large percentage of red-leaning people cringe every time Jatuporn opens his mouth and wish he would go away. The guy has near zero credibility as a source for anything other than bullshit.

Nope......agenda-speak....nothing more, nothing less.

If that is your opinion, then you don't know any red shirts where you are in the north. And I am 100% confident in saying that, even though I don't know who you are or where you are. No bona fide Red Shirts, if any, consider him the way you describe. And that is a fact my friend. Sometimes unsupported agenda spin, can be spun marginally plausibly. This one cannot. 100% sure!

I doubt it.

Maybe only a fact in your own little world. (village)

Nope, a fact nation wide in the UDD/Red Shirt movement. One needs to understand that this movement is extremely cohesive, even with independent branches. It has bonded strongly, mostly from being beaten on by the coupists, who they finally ejected during the last election. That bonded, cohesive Movement has a number of leaders, with the two prominent ones being Jatuporn and Nathawut. Both of them revered. In fact if you see the logo, it has three people - Jatuporn and Nathawut being two of them. When I encounter instances as above, suggesting the Red Shirts have negative opinions about those two guys, that tells me the person has no knowledge or contact with Red Shirts.

Not sure what all that legalese referenced above means, but I do note the focus just happens to be a revered leader of the UDD/Red Shirts.......The fact he is singled out speaks volumes, and is a testament to the correctness of revising a coup-inspired Charter. In light of this type of thing, it demonstrates the validity of the rationale for doing so:

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organizations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

A revered leader of the red shirts?

Not according to the majority of the red shirts I know here in the north. Most consider him little more than a cowardly thug they could well do without.

If that is your opinion, then you don't know any red shirts where you are in the north. And I am 100% confident in saying that, even though I don't know who you are or where you are. No bona fide Red Shirts, if any, consider him the way you describe. And that is a fact my friend. Sometimes unsupported agenda spin, can be spun marginally plausibly. This one cannot. 100% sure!

Not sure what all that legalese referenced above means, but I do note the focus just happens to be a revered leader of the UDD/Red Shirts.......The fact he is singled out speaks volumes, and is a testament to the correctness of revising a coup-inspired Charter. In light of this type of thing, it demonstrates the validity of the rationale for doing so:

However, over 90 deaths on one side are not to be relegated to a statistic and is accordingly extremely self-righteous, comparatively speaking.

Please don't post false information - over 90 deaths was not had on one side.

That is the commonly accepted figure, although the UDD/RS claim there were more. They have video and commentary discussing how Red Shirt bodies were furtively removed very quickly and not recorded as killed. If not 80 Tawp, feel free to correct the matter.

Over 90 dead on one side is not the commonly accepted figure.

To other Red apologists: This is why we harp on unclear posts talking about 91 dead, as less knowledgeable posters will think it means 91 red shirts, and not red+soldiers+journalists+civilians etc.

If not 90 in your opinion Tawp, feel free to correct the commonly accepted figure.............Perhaps a ratio of one side compared to the other, would more aptly demonstrate comparative armed capabilities.................. Bottom line, to have one killed was too many, considering the legitimate and electorally proven validity of the protesters. Beyond that, such a numbers game is absurd".

However, over 90 deaths on one side are not to be relegated to a statistic and is accordingly extremely self-righteous, comparatively speaking.

Please don't post false information - over 90 deaths was not had on one side.

That is the commonly accepted figure, although the UDD/RS claim there were more. They have video and commentary discussing how Red Shirt bodies were furtively removed very quickly and not recorded as killed......... If not 90 in your opinion Tawp, feel free to correct the matter.............Perhaps a ratio of one side compared to the other, would more aptly demonstrate comparative armed capabilities.................. Bottom line, to have one killed was too many, considering the legitimate and electorally proven validity of the protesters. Beyond that, such a numbers game is absurd.

"This marks a fall of five places as the Kingdom received deteriorating scores for political risk after the election of Yingluck Shinawatra as prime minister last July"

Quickly slip in some agenda here. Maybe no-one will notice.....why not!

Never mind that the 15 variable risks have no correlation to political risk and Ms. Y......... Would the coup installed electoral minority Govt. of Mr. Abhisit - the unelected chosen one - have done better........... Considering the slippery political slope he was on, I somehow don't think so. I would suggest that the electoral 'righting of the good ship politics in Thailand" probably prevented a slide greater than this one of five places. At least the political instability problem has been fixed.

fixed, by who?

Voters.....Not complicated.

Quickly slip in some agenda here. Maybe no-one will notice.....why not!

Never mind that the 15 variable risks have no correlation to political risk and Ms. Y......... Would the coup installed electoral minority Govt. of Mr. Abhisit - the unelected chosen one - have done better........... Considering the slippery political slope he was on, I somehow don't think so. I would suggest that the electoral 'righting of the good ship politics in Thailand" probably prevented a slide greater than this one of five places. At least the political instability problem has been fixed.

This whole dust-up by the Opposition suggesting there is a 'rush to judgment' is very understandable from their perspective. Going backward would be their preference, considering the felonious culpabilities of their leadership, who should be recusing themselves in any event. Contrarily, advancing and making progress is self-servingly being spun as 'hurried and hasty"................. An interesting use of the political maxim "Tyranny of the majority". They never referenced "tyranny of the minority' during their coup induced administration that was challenged at R'song, and thoroughly discarded by last years voters.

The above is very true.

However, over 90 deaths on one side are not to be relegated to a statistic and is accordingly extremely self-righteous, comparatively speaking. There was no equality in both tragical consequences, nor political intention. Diminishment to equal status of the two sides is often attempted by coupist apologists, both by throwing up 'political smoke', or trying to move the focus, amplifying and embellishing the limited fightback the protesters were able to generate, regardless of the color of clothing used by those spearheading this fightback. The overwhelming trained and armed firepower the coupists brought to the political confrontation cannot be diminished or justified by demonizing the meager and paltry resistance. The context is also often obscured. It was anti-coup resistance to coupists, and not a State exercise of maintaining public order. It was a political thing and not a law enforcement issue, as the coupists self-righteously try to spin it. Last year's election clearly showed who was repudiated and who was validated.

"Deja vu" all over again...... These summary statements of fact purporting to give historical context to current events, seldom reflect the realities..... In the case above, it wasn't a feeble fightback by protesters that turned things violent. It was the launch of armed coup supporters advancing toward a political demonstration at the Democracy Monument which started the fightback by protesters. What else did the coupists expect. Why were armed forces dispatched in the first place, instead of Politicians, to resolve an easily resolvable political matter. .......The pro-coupists were prevented from reaching the anti-coup demonstrators. As long as it is clear who was advancing on whom, to make clear what started violence. Pro-coup forces attacking a justifiable political demonstration started violence, not those defending themselves and their legitimate protest, as validated in last year's election. .....Also what is called a "Government military operation" above, were in fact defenders of the coup. Dispatched by people who could not countenance opposition to it. Red Shirt protesters were anti-coup protesters calling for an election to restore governing validity. Something they belatedly achieved in last years election. Failing to reference that, is revising an historical context.

Having a popularly elected Parliamentary majority is excellent. Avoids the kind of USA legislative gridlock that the Democrats would most assuredly precipitate for absolutely everything the PTP attempted. Implementing electoral imperatives will not be kind to the Democrats, so fortunately they are unable to block and frustrate them. For them, not only charter reform and reconciliation efforts are hasty and rushed, everything would be.

The current mantra of the anti-charter amendment Opposition...... trying to make the word "progress" synonymous with 'hurried'. To them the only way it wouldn't be 'hasty', is if it was going backward, sinking into oblivion through verbose bloviation. Their persistent agenda of casting charter reform as being single individual focussed, belies their identical motive when tampering with it in the first place, after their coup, thereby necesitating current remedial actions. All this smoke obscures the actual motive for charter revision as follows:

It is these seemingly innocuous, off-the-cuff references to R'song stated as fact, are 'in fact' misleadingly designed, historically revisionist statements............. R'song was not an anti-govt. protest.....it was an anti-coup protest. This kind of revisionism is simply Coupists trying to hide behind anti-Govt. rhetoric...... What protesting taxpayers fought and died for, was not against any Govt., but against the theft of their political rights - the right to be governed by those they select..........Hence their mantra about early elections, that were violently suppressed and denied by those who feared losing them, as indeed happened last year...........To this Opposition who will be faced with the truth of what they did, as described above, any progress to that objective would be a 'rushed". They want to drown this thing in interminable processes until it fails just by the sheer weight of itself.

With respect to comparing Thaksin and Hun Sen, for the purpose of denigrating Thaksin, is seen for what it is.

"Visiting the sins of one upon the other" doesn't hold water, with Thaksin's electoral bona fides.

Given these undisputed electoral realities, clearly separates the two. Those who wish to perpetuate this specious argument, need to resort to finding fault with Thaksin's electoral success............... Good luck with that.

Hun Sen and Mr. Abhisit would be a better comparison...but they don't like each other....Go figure.

I notice a couple points have been raised repeatedly the last several days, including in the above Post. One being the linking of Mr. Abhisit, Suthep and Thaksin in the same Amnesty discussions. This is ilogical when considering the meaning of 'amnesty'. In current discussions, 'amnesty' is associated with the political sphere. As much as some try to introduce the 'red herring' of the drug war, that was a law enforcement circumstance and not political. Hence it does not apply. In that light, there is clear separation between Abhisit/Suthep and Thaksin. Thaksin's political thing was building a majority electoral base and winning elections, for which he was 'coup'ed' out of existence, as much as the coupists try to self-servingly suggest other reasons. Winning elections is clearly not an 'amnesty-able' offense. Abhisit/Suthep on the other hand, are associated with defending a coup, resulting in deaths of those opposed. An act which was repudiated in the subsequent election, which validated those who were opposed. Such deaths and violence are very much a matter for amnesty discussions.

Another point made frequently in anticipation of the Red Shirt/Cambodia thing, is the notion of 'visiting the sins of one on the other', as in the case of Thaksin and Cambodia's Hun Sen, in spite of Thaksin's electoral bona fides. But that discussion is off topic here, and will be pursued elsewhere.