righteous

If the "Thai's" think along the same lines as the "foreigners", then based on the rather heated "debates" here on TV amongst the (mostly) foreigners, there is never going to be any "reconciliation" whatsoever here in Thailand. The 2 x sides are so far apart on what each thinks that there simply is no middle ground anymore. Neither will back down or compromise, neither will make any accommodations with the other, neither will accept anything less than what "they" want. So what's the answer or solution?

Excellent question.

I may quibble with the notion of there being extra-ordinary political divisions in Thailand more than anywhere else. Things are pretty heated in other countries also, with respect to Politics. Just the nature of the beast. The only difference I see, is perhaps the attitude of the minority side of this political divide thinking they are God's gift to Thailand, and anyone governing other than themselves, must be taking the country on a path to armageddon. They can't understand why the electorate doesn't see that, making them quite comfortable in doing away with elections altogether if they could. It is the vein of thought out of which comes the condemnation of all Politicians as a class. Demonization far exceeding normal jibes at lawyers and politicians.

The answer to your question?........IMHO is continuance of Electoral Democracy, with hopefully some professionalizing of it. In spite of all its' weaknesses and blights that are obvious to everyone, especially those of us from mature Western Democracies. I cannot think of anything better to keep things somewhat politically organized. We have seen the alternatives born from the 2006 Coup caper, when those who consider themselves 'born to lead Thailand" - elections be damned - couldn't contain themselves.

Cancelled by self

Your very best post so far!!

LOL

Be nice

Some of Abhisit's statements quoted in this article are not very constructive. Almost every utterance of his includes a Thaksin reference, He seems to be 'hard wired' into this change the conversation mold. Not smart. This can be easily turned on him as follows:

• The bit about 'bowing to Thaksin" - Who was he bowing to when hoisted into the PM position. I'm sure there were many. No-one believes he was a "lone ranger"...Not then...Not now.
  
• Twice in these quotes, he uses the old saw of preferencing a Thaksin reference with the agenized-laden "fugitive' label, erroneously avoiding 'political exile' reality. The Media can now do likewise with him, quite correctly preferencing his name with "Alleged murderer". For reasons we can all speculate about, I don't think this will happen.
  

I noticed a strong contingent of Red Shirts on the Bonanza stage on Saturday, suggesting the UDD is working hard in the South drumming up support. Democrat Party blanket political ownership of that area may be weakening a tad.

I don't understand why the "bar" will be higher this time, than when a coup administration held a similar referendum. At that time it was a simple majority for approval, while now, this article suggests it needs to be 50%-plus. But then the coup was not Democratic to start with, and was not there at voter behest. That probably gave them more arbitrary, non-democratic powers to set their own standards. Democratic governance not being one of them.

Don't you mean prefacing?

Thank you!

Some interesting points-of-view, a couple of which scream for a retort, such as:

• Thai's love for a Constitution...Huh?....There are Constitutions and then there are Constitutions....Coup originated one's don't make this grade. Those are just "self righteous, justification and legitimizing" documents for an assault on the principle of Electoral Democracy, whereby the Governed choose the Governors.
  
• Civilized manners by both Thailand and Cambodia...Huh?.... Doesn't that conveniently whitewash internal Thai, Nationalist and Anti-Democratic crazies? (391)
  

One can only speculate about Yingluck's assertion to overhaul the constitution, as being of personal conviction, or forced upon her by her constituancy, which also just happens to be the electoral majority......She made a very astute observation about this referendum being 'birthed' by the Constitution Court. This Court claiming legitimacy of the existing Constitution, disregarding its "Coup source", is what leads to such comments....All this does, is simply characterize the CC for its' judicial orientation.......which have in the past led to Double-standards and judicial coup complaints...........Opposition types and their accolytes continue to beat the "Thaksin return motive" as a way of hiding their own...that being retention of the coup initiatives of which they were a part (198)

24 million times 500 baht vote encouragement, will be a costly manner, i guess some more fake millions of rice have to be exported on paper only to never have been moved and the 15.000 baht per tonne cashed once more

Unfortunately, vote buying is the scourge of Electoral Democracy in Thailand. It can be said with assurity however, that all sides are equally guilty, and all sides are equally guilty for not doing anything about it.

One side's attempt to appear angelic in this regard and who have difficulty in winning elections, even use the scourge to denigrate elections. For them, it is a convenient cudgel with which to demonize Electoral Democracy and are very motivated to retain the practice for that reason.

It can also be persuasively argued, that because all sides do it equally, no side benefits from it. The last election would have come out the same way it did, with or without vote-buying.

That said, in spite of all its' warts, faulty Thai Electoral Democracy is still better than any alternative, IMHO.

^^

Yes, you are correct. The Red Shirt leaders were offered elections...However, not in the form they wanted, therefore requiring modification and negotiation in order to reach an agreement. Always keep in mind the difference....An offer is not an agreement. It is an opening to discussion if you wish.

Lets just grant you the claim that they received an SMS...unsubstantiated, but for argument sake here lets say that is true.......Who was Abhisit receiving SMS's from?... There are a number of people behind any negotiation team.....There were behind the UDD/Red Shirts and also Abhisit....unless you will try to claim he was a Lone Ranger....which everyone knows would not be true.

So yes, it may be true that the Red Shirts received input from Thaksin, but the pro-Abhisit crowd studiously avoids speculating who was pulling Abhisits chain.

All that said...the fact remains that Abhisit made an offer, he refused to negotiate to an agreement, preferring to "let the dogs out" so to speak.

The pro-Abhisit spin of the dastardly Red Shirts refusing a very generous offer, and deserving what they got, conveniently ignore the fact that an offer is not an agreement. Refusal to negotiate to an agreement will play prominently in those legal entanglements of both Abhisit and Suthep.....And this from a gnarled old Labour Negotiator.

>In some respects, the PTP should let Abhisit go-ahead and politically hang himself. The more he opposes an effort to restore Democratic practices following a coup, by decrying efforts to reform the coup constitution, the more he becomes tightly linked to that coup. He has so much political baggage already, this will simply add weight.

>I marvel at the Democrats complaining about Jatuporn's bail situation, when only several days ago there was a headline indicating PAD Leaders failed to show up at a court hearing for their Airport caper. For some people, there is no shame.

Take some Immodium...........Please!

LOL

"But former deputy finance minister Viroon Tejapaibul made a gain in office, reporting a net worth of Bt181 million. He had Bt166 million when he joined the government a year ago" - If I was Viroon Whatever, I would challenge what this statement implies. Have them either 'put up or shut up' so to speak.

One can spin it every way times a million, but a coup-based constitution is coup-based.

I am not aware of any nation, who when they rectified a self-serving coup for the perps., via a return to Electoral Democracy, let the equally self-serving constitution remain the law of the land.

Just doesn't happen!

There are Thai's who make a persuasive point that colonization is not baggage. That Thai pride at not being colonized is misplaced. The price of non-colonization was very steep. One can only imagine the place of Thailand in SE Asia, had it not paid that price, they suggest....With respect to the Thai-Cambodian border thing, it was not state conflict, but internally generated by some for political purposes. Suggesting there is a personality-led diplomacy here, and some overiding national interest held by others, is subtle agenda.

The final paragraph of the 2007 Constitution, Section 309, legalises the coup of 2006 and all actions by the military junta prior to and after the coup which overthrew the TS government.

It is the military's Get Out of Jail Free card. The fact that it affects TS criminal record is secondary.

Changing the conversation is very neccesary for some agenda's.

To see the Democrat Party come out so furiously in favor of maintaining the legal status of the coup and all actions by the military junta shows their affiliations. This association will affect them very negatively in future elections.

Right now,Thaksin's politically motivated criminal record is the least of their problems. The alleged murder charges against their own leader is something they are also busy "changing the conversation about".

Quite obvious to most that the murder charges against a couple of the democrat leaders are a plain and simple blackmail attempt by ptp and nothing more.

Those who had family members affected look at this entirely different.

The final paragraph of the 2007 Constitution, Section 309, legalises the coup of 2006 and all actions by the military junta prior to and after the coup which overthrew the TS government.

It is the military's Get Out of Jail Free card. The fact that it affects TS criminal record is secondary.

Changing the conversation is very neccesary for some agenda's.

To see the Democrat Party come out so furiously in favor of maintaining the legal status of the coup and all actions by the military junta shows their affiliations. This association will affect them very negatively in future elections.

Right now,Thaksin's politically motivated criminal record is the least of their problems. The alleged murder charges against their own leader is something they are also busy "changing the conversation about".

"Article 309 endorsed all actions of the 2006 coup regime".. ^^...The operative phrase here being "The Coup regime"..........any other questions?

But for the PTP, there is a silver lining to this cloud. With the Democrat Party linking itself so closely to defending this "coup regime", certainly positions them accordingly. I'm sure this is not lost on the majority electorate.

Just solidifies the notion, if it needs solidification, that throughout all this political to-and-fro, following the bouncing ball, always suggests that it is the Democrats who are the principle benficiaries of coups. Is it any wonder therefore, they are defending 309 tooth and nail, and trying the Thaksin change-of-conversation trick behind which to hide their true motives....not to me it isn't.

"Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted. The MP's who made the coalition to choose him were elected" - From Post 537 ^ (Maidu) ----- This is what is normally referred to as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", suggesting the technically correct Parliamentary machinations conferred popular electoral blessings on Abhisit's being hoisted into PM position.

Also trying to muddy the waters by suggesting Somchai was elected similarly is a reach. His Party was popularly elected and was just changing leadership. Big difference. Again, trying to use those minor personal-fiefdom, so-called political parties as lending legitimacy to anything, is scraping the bottom of-the-barrel for justification.

There is another saying.... Abhisit, with his political baggage, will win a national election ":When H... freezes over".

That being the case, the PAD-Dem's are stuck with a "sow's ear". As long as they remain stuck with an Alleged murderer as their leader they remain in purgatory....Good luck to them. Glad I'm not trying to defend that position.

Are you from the US? You seem to have difficulty understanding the Westminster system. Single MPs and factions have the right to defect from a party, especially when that party has been found guilty of malfeasance such as electoral fraud, equally as much as minor parties that declared that they would never form a coalition with PTP can decide later to do so.

The ignorant and uneducated may be led to believe that this was an unethical, even illegal, procedure by persons hoping to cause unrest, but their feelings of being disenfranchised are based on false premise. Or given your phrasing, sold a pig in a poke.

Popular, National Elections vs. Parliamentary machinations........My dear man, what is so difficult to understand about that. Trying to confer similar status and legitimacy on the latter as the former, is grasping at straws. But then that is all some have....and if all else fails, just have a coup. Those dam_n elections anyway.

Although technically correct as you say, given parliamentary procedures and all, it is a litte bit like a murderer getting off on a technicality. Talking about murderers....no, another time.

Mr. Abhisit would love to have the electoral clout of the guy he constantly tries to self-servingly demonize....who can blame him for that, poor fellow.....what was that I said about grasping at straws!

"Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted. The MP's who made the coalition to choose him were elected" - From Post 537 ^ (Maidu) ----- This is what is normally referred to as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", suggesting the technically correct Parliamentary machinations conferred popular electoral blessings on Abhisit's being hoisted into PM position.

Also trying to muddy the waters by suggesting Somchai was elected similarly is a reach. His Party was popularly elected and was just changing leadership. Big difference. Again, trying to use those minor personal-fiefdom, so-called political parties as lending legitimacy to anything, is scraping the bottom of-the-barrel for justification.

There is another saying.... Abhisit, with his political baggage, will win a national election ":When H... freezes over".

That being the case, the PAD-Dem's are stuck with a "sow's ear". As long as they remain stuck with an Alleged murderer as their leader they remain in purgatory....Good luck to them. Glad I'm not trying to defend that position.

^"A standing MP, who was put in power by election"...No he wasn't. Parliamentary machinations don't count. Supporters may wish to cloud this thing by referencing it as an election, it doesn't fly. Every one in the know, knows what happened. Until he wins a national, popular election he has not been elected. To confer such honour on him is far-fetched. I know Parliamentary systems, so don't even think of trying to normalize his elevation to the Prime Ministership via their procedures.

His alleged murderous intent is all wrapped up in his refusal to negotiate an offer to an agreement. He knew the consequences and took them, albeit at other's direction IMHO. He wasn't flying solo...far from it.

Yes, Korkaew did address the humongous UDD/Red Shirt rally at Bonanza, Khao Yai last night. The only difference between this rally address and others by him in the past, is that he was accompanied by his wife and two children up on stage, who stood beside him his entire speech.

As an aside, skimming media headlines this morning, I see scant attention paid to this huge political rally, easily the most significant political event of yesterday. Without getting into a numbers game, suffice it to say, participants were awed by the turnout, and organizers would have been super pleased.

Lack of media attention to this event demonstrates their orientation. I can just imagine if this had been a PAD-Dem event how it would have been treated. Reminds me how similar nation wide events were ignored previously, and then they wondered what hit them when R'song happened.

>"The media reflects the readers and the people who are consumers. The Thai media is not very big on getting ahead of public opinion," - This is a very meaningful quote from this speaker. It strikes me as meaningful not only from the perspective he is addressing, but in all things Political. Every time I inquire about why most people from the anti-Amart side of the political divide pay scant attention to the mainstream media, preferring their source, in particular Asia Update, I get the same response, "the domestic media is beholden to one side of the political divide due to its ownership linkages. Plus it is controlled by powerful elements of the anti-Red Shirt persuasion". By this, I reference print media, television and Public Opinion Polling.

>This is an interesting point this speaker makes, and may reflect similar underpinnings. In addition to it being anti-Red Shirt and being ignored accordingly, is it viscerally anti-Southern issues as well? I am the first to admit I am not steeped in understanding of the Southern insurgent issues, but does the same apply in that instance, with respect to the orientation of the media with its' roots and influences? (344)

My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV...

The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms.

The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation.

Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms...

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

H... of a Post F. I haven't been over in this thread, but reading some of the Posts here, like this one, I should have been. Great way to show the agenized caricature being touted in the Opposition Camp. Equally amazing, is how many buy into this spin. This Post is worth saving considering its creativity, and I will do so.

So, if the court tries Abhisit and Suthep it will be doing its job, but if it tries Korkeaw and the other UDD leaders it is engaging in Judicial harassment?

Many folks are waiting to see Abhisit and sidekick Suthep in prison shackles also. That would go a huge way to get at the stigma of "double standards". It may serve to bring the balance you reference.

I wonder of Korkeaw will be a speaker at the humongous rally of the UDD/Red Shirts at Bonanza, near Khao Yai tomorrow.

He will be extremely well received if he does. One thing the application of these 'double standards' do, is create a victimization aura around them. In fact, a book authored by Jatuporn, features a photo of him on the front cover in prison shackles. It is a rite-of-passage for some.