righteous

An interesting contrast today, with this UDD/Red Shirt leader, honored and respected by a huge swath of the Thai electorate, being harassed judicially, while we have the following headline currently running also, quoting in part - PAD Leaders fail to show up............

Speaks volumes, and is what the 'double standards' thing is all about. These two news reports running simultaneously on the same day is uncanny! (51)

One must keep this in perspective. All of this noise is only representative of one side of the political divide, the minority side. But I suppose that is the job of an opposition, is to make noise about stuff. It doesn't serve them well in the long term however, when the electoral majority elected those for whom this is just so much opposition folderol, and of little import.(257)

>I don't buy into this notion of political stress, even to the point where they borrow the USA terminology of a "political cliff" of sorts. There is no more political stress in Thailand than any other Democracy, in spite of all the noise. Also defining the two sides of the political divide by their "group affinity colours". I really wish the media would stop that, and use political descriptors reflective of the political context.

>This article is certainly correct when informing about Abhisit's Thaksin fixation. But he is just reflecting his political constituancy. It was good that in the last election, Thaksin was "front and center". The PTP made no secret of his association with both the PTP and the election. The voters also knew this, and voted accordingly. This puts the Opposition in a difficult position, in their ongoing "demonize Thaksin to validate the coup" agenda.

>I don't understand the success characterization of the Democrats with respect to affirming Democracy by this writer. That is a spurious claim at best. Until Mr. Abhisit wins an national, popular election. Gaining power via Parliamentary procedures does not apply. This in spite of those who wish to cast it within the realm of Parliamentary normalcy. Those in the know, know what happened.

>Suggesting that Yingluck can "Pacify Opponents" or get them off their Thaksin fixation, is a totally unrealistic expectation. That will never happen, and one can be thankful for Electoral Democracy to keep things organized. The best that one can expect, is if this Opposition decides to broaden their political base through a strategy designed to achieve electoral success. This will need to begin with some sort of leadership review. Mr. Abhisit has a lot of political baggage with which to try and mount another electoral challenge. (78)

Slowly, but surely, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Dream on, Sunshine. Just how long have you been in Thailand, I wonder?

Yeah, I know. I've been here long enough to know you are correct!

And again , how given the order !!??

The most important question of the entire tragedy.

A question that will never be answered.

Some question the characterization of this event as a "crackdown". To them it was an "attack".

Slowly, but surely, the chickens are coming home to roost.

>The Democrat Party in both its' opposition to changing a coup-rooted charter, and Abhisit's persistent efforts to change the conversation to Thaksin within constitution amendment discussions, is amplified in this article. It won't help them broaden their political appeal nationally......This is too bad, when a two-party political system is desirable. When one Party is not in an electively competitive position, does a disservive to Electoral Democracy.

>Constitutional reform was a basic plank of the PTP which led to their election - the Democrat Party lost - so get over it already....... Also, to link oneself so closely to a coup-based document, also strongly serves to associate them with the coup-based administration. It seems that distancing oneself from such undemocratic practices would be good for future political success. Broadening political appeal should be job #1 for the Democrat Party IMHO. Their strategy in this instance narrows it.(116)

You are doing an extreme disservice to a document going back many decades. The Constitution does not have its "roots" in the 2007 changes to it. Referring to it as you have done is an insult to Thai history.

Now please inform us all exactly what changes will be made and how it will benefit the Thai people because I don't think you know.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

What changes will be made in light of why they need to be made, have not been pre-determined.

The need for changes however, are self evident, as listed below:

>Not sure how this will play out, or if this is just a big show with little substance.

>The Airport protest leaders never saw the inside of a jail, whereas Jatuporn, Natthawut and others were ushered into jail without delay. This even included ankle and wrist irons for heavens' sake. There is no more egregious example of double standards than this, for many people. Until they see the leg-irons on Abhisit and Suthep, will there ever be a semblance of judicial balance for these people.

>I read some of Suthep's comments elsewhere. They give as clear an indication of where this is going as anything. His biggest concern was what he stated was the "annoyance' of having to defend himself. The nature of the charges were not of any concern for him, just their 'annoyance'.

(296)

It seems that many articles about Abhisit, include a large photo of the man.

You are assuming that the 66% who voted in the General Election would all vote yes for the charter change - i think that is highly unlikely to be honest.

In my view, the Red Government has quite a battle ahead of them to get the whole-sale rewrite of the charter through, but then if they fail to win this vote they are just going to change it piece by piece anyway...

Yup!

As currently constituted (pardon the pun), the charter is an existential threat to them. It was formulated by their Political opposites following a coup which unseated their elected Govt....As the UDD/Red Shirts have often reiterated to the PTP..."You let the current constitution stand, you will only have yourself to blame for what will follow. We can't save you from that"......Watch UDD/Red Shirt support for Ms. Y. and company fade, if they don't have the "B...." to address this crucial issue, one of the major planks on which they ran in the last election.

Don't know who 'digital media" is, but they were fuzzy on some historical details.... To speak of political upheavals in generalized terms and then to erroneously suggest they were anti-Govt., does not characterize them correctly. They were not anti-government, but anti-coup..... Their principle demand affirms that.... Their demands were for an election, not the elimination of a Govt. or Prime Minister...... This is not by accident...... Some political elements wish to characterize the demonstrators as being anarchic, with no Democratic redeeming values. References to coups and such, gives these demonstrators too much validity from an Electoral democracy Point-of-view, for their liking........ One only needs to 'walk in the moccasins' of those affected by the deaths of 91 family members to fully appreciate the judicial initiatives described in this article....... A non-involved, calculated political perspective ignoring this reality, and seeking to characterize a trained and well-armed military in a favorable light with respect to the obvious vast preponderance of these deaths resulting from it, must be very troubling for these people.

Sigh....again.

Who is this?.....Al Gore

Mr. Abhisit up to his normal modus-operandi.....that is 'change the conversation' . In this case seeking to divert attention away from reform of a coup-based charter from which he was the ultimate beneficiary, to talking about simplistic motives by its' supporters. Supporters who happen to be the electoral majority, considering the election of Ms. Y's Govt, who made no secret during the election campaign of favoring constitution reform.

When one couples this with his oft "change of conversation" from R'song deaths to "Men In Black", it is no wonder that he is despised by a large block of the electorate. When mentioning Abhisit to this majority electoral block, it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

It puzzles me why the Democrat Party continues to think it can achieve electoral objectives with him at the helm. Other Democracies would have dumped such a leader long ago.

How can anyone take you seriously? Yesterday you were on here saying the red shirts had nothing against Abhisit, that they just wanted an election and here you are saying they despise him!

>Yes, I did say that yesterday Moruya. At R'song, their target was not Abhisit or the Democrat led Government at the time. Their objective was to reverse the coup that put an electoral minority Govt. in place, and seek to rectify the matter via an election. The subsequent election did that. So no anti-Abhisit-Govt-Democrat Party.

>Getting back to Abhisit, I really think he is retarding the advance of the Democrat Party. I happen to be a firm believer in at least a two-party system. Forget about those non-ideological minority parties which are merely fiefdoms of individuals masquerading as political parties.

>His biggest impediment is never having won a national, popular election. His only elevation to prominence has been via Parliamentary machinations. As much as his supporters try to characterize them as normative, and try to amplify and imbue those shenanigans with electoral validity, it just doesn't fly. Anyone in the know, know what happened.

>But is there a leader within the Democrat Party who could lead them out of this political morass and move their political orientation to the middle of the political spectrum? I hope so, and that they find him/her soon. A competitive election is in everyone's interests.

Mr. Abhisit up to his normal modus-operandi.....that is 'change the conversation' . In this case seeking to divert attention away from reform of a coup-based charter from which he was the ultimate beneficiary, to talking about simplistic motives by its' supporters. Supporters who happen to be the electoral majority, considering the election of Ms. Y's Govt, who made no secret during the election campaign of favoring constitution reform.

When one couples this with his oft "change of conversation" from R'song deaths to "Men In Black", it is no wonder that he is despised by a large block of the electorate. When mentioning Abhisit to this majority electoral block, it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

It puzzles me why the Democrat Party continues to think it can achieve electoral objectives with him at the helm. Other Democracies would have dumped such a leader long ago.

>If the complaints described in this article of those who challenged the NHRC are valid, then it follows, that their actions are justified, when one sees this organization proceeding with 'business as usual'.

>There has been a lot of disregard and 'minimizing' in action and deed by many significant political elements, for those who suffered the loss of family members for political reasons that could have been avoided, with politically mature, negotiating actions.

>Obviously the mother of a nurse slain in a temple is most egregious in this regard.

I take minor issue with several statements in this article, where opinion is indicated as fact to some extent, either directly or implied:

1 - Implying significant 'political strife' in Thailand, thereby making charter reform problematic - I would suggest that the coup of 2006 aside, and its' 2010 aftermath, there is no more 'political strife' in Thailand than anywhere else. A heated political atmosphere to be sure, but that is "the nature of the beast", here in Thailand and most other countries..... There are those who like to suggest that Thailand is unique in this regard, but usually those are people sympathizing with the Opposition, for whom anyone in power other than themselves, is akin to armageddon.

2 - When the coup of 2006 happened, the implication that it was due to Constitutional grievances and therefore justified, is a reach. The majority voters in the last election would certainly differ with that, considering the Govt. they returned to power.

3 - To suggest the "ruling Camp doesn't need a new charter" would be contested by many, especially the UDD/Red Shirt Movement. They are heaping pressure on the Govt. to do just that, claiming that there is only so much they can do to protect Mz. Y. and company from another coup. According to them, if the charter is not amended, the Govt, have only themselves to blame. These people consider the current, coup-originated charter as being an existential threat.

(320)

Should this be a problem to the degree stated here, and if armageddon follows these erroneous Govt. policies as this editorial suggests, the next election will take care of it.

This broad-brush condemnation of PTP policies concerning the entire past year, smacks of Opposition posturing that reflect their basic beliefs. These being that if they are not in charge, the country is going to "H... in a handbasket".

There is a certain arrogance in that, not lost on those who have elected Ms. Y. and company. Agree or disagree with this editorial, its' opinion cannot escape the political context within which it is offered.

"Me-thinks they protest too much"..... Is there a fear that having a Government responsive to the electorate is a recipy for their own ongoing electoral demise....Perhaps!

>Thats about the way it was (Post #57-MrSlatersParrot)

>Although it is in the interests of some to characterize these protesters as a non-political, anarchic rabble, devoid of all decency, standing up to the angelic military, and more importantly, those who deployed that military. Never mind they were 80% women.

>Plus, to separate them from their reason-for-being, the coup, all the better.

>Than the most ridiculous characterization of all - they were terrorists.......Unbelievable.

>In hindsight, everyone now realizes they were simply asserting their democratic rights. To be governed by an electoral majority, which they represented, and which they proved in the next election. .................Everyone knows that now - they knew it then!

>Certainly puts into context their principle demand of elections, which Abhisit tried desperately to delay. A delaying effort resulting in the killing of over 90 people....Unconscionable.

>Will he now pay the price?....I doubt it. Maybe losing face will be enough. He is now reduced to faux bravado as shown above, and desperately trying to change the conversation.

This can't backfire.

The Democrats are so deeply unpopular in the poorest regions of the country that this is a win-win for the government.

Guilty verdict satisfies Thaksin, the red shirts and their sympathisers, not-guilty (carefully spun) exposes the corruption in the court system and re-enforces that the elite, the coup-makers and their associates never go to jail.

It's brilliant politics from the master (underhanded admittedly). It also paves way to have all these niggling little 'politically motivated' guilty verdicts annulled.

Watch, and learn.

Yeah you wish.

There's not going to be a guilty verdict. Everyone knows it. This is just typical Red Shirt lakorn for the poor masses. Brilliant politics? Yeah only the uneducated 'poor' would see it as such.

The arrogance of denigrating the electoral majority is astounding at times. The disrespect for the Thai electorate is pervasive throughout everything the Opposition musters. They have the firm belief, that if they are not in power, things are out-of-control.

Until they rectify such underlying perceptions, and acquire leaders who don't look down their noses at everyone but their "electoral minority own", they will remain in the political wilderness for the foreseeable future.

And that is as it should be!

Not that I have any naiive expectations that Abhisit will be held judicially accountable. No more so than the Airport seizure and coup leaders - the "Mother of all" double standards.

Why do red shirts always need to be told not to protest?

Because if they're not told, then that's the problem?

Seriously though, there are sections of the red shirt movement which will demonstrate far more readily than the rest of it. I imagine the demonstration in front of the DSI was not going to be a massive gathering, maybe just a few hundred or a thousand or so of the more jittery types in the movement - the more active activists if you like.

These smaller groups need to be reigned in as their presence could be a contributor to a violent outcome - they either attack or are attacked. So I believe Nattawut was just trying to dissuade this smaller group from demonstrating as the issue is not contentious enough to risk any confrontation or antagonism being splashed all over the news. He wants this to pass without incident.

The fact that calls are often made for red shirts to 'not demonstrate' just shows that there is no need for them to do so in order to maintain the upper hand in the political situation as it stands, as far as their leaders are concerned.

An upper hand electorally achieved and maintained, I might add.