righteous

The worst thing that could happen to PT is if AV goes to jail. His awkward, unlikeable demeanour and complete lack of ability to relate to the lower classes is one of the main reasons the Dems are perennial losers. PT should be fighting tooth & nail to keep him out of jail.

PT made a huge error (assuming they can control DSI ). Now AV is playing the role of the victim in front of the international press and at the same time is blaming Thaksin for all this injustice. The moment the Dems have been waiting for. And trust me that they will rub it in. Expect non-stop interviews, just as Thaksin was doing.

Going after AV and Suthep is a desperate and stupid move.

(And......if AV would also have billions (stolen from the hard-working Thai taxpayers) hidden in offshore bank accounts, the lower classes would also relate to him).

Unfortunately the people want someone to be found accountable for the deaths in 2010. PT have to show their supporters that they aren't abandoning them now they are in power. I very much doubt this move is A. expected to result in a guilty verdict or B. meant to remove AV and Suthep from the political arena. It smacks of appeasing the reds, those that took to the streets and campaigned to have their voice heard, those that lost family members.

During the interview Abhisit kept harking back to the findings of the "independent" commission but with no acceptance of the fact that so many people struggle to see a commission set up by the Democrat Government to investigate the deaths of protesters under their watch as independent. I found the comment at the end of the interview about accepting any verdict, even the death penalty to be in very bad taste. When talking about an incident that claimed the lives of so many this show of mock bravado was misplaced; the protesters, bystanders and journalists that were shot in the streets had no choice but to accept their "sentence", they had no trial, no chance of appeal and no voice.

I think Abhisit knows full well he won't be sentenced to the death penalty even if found guilty, which let's face it is a very remote possibility and to make such comments shows a distinct lack of empathy with his own people. It was a very cheap and obvious shot across the bows of Thaksin when the situations are not really comparable. He would have gained far more credibility in my eyes if he had used the interview as a platform to express his deepest regret over the events of 2010 and acknowledge that the Thai people need some closure, some justice even if he feels that pointing the finger at him is misplaced.

The talk of amnesties to white wash crimes with no mention of the rewrites to the constitution that achieved remarkably similar aims for the Dems also came across as an incredibly cheap and hypocritical shot...

"Article 37 - The granting of amnesty to the junta for executing the coup"

Amen to that!

Political mis-information and agitation at its worst. " ......activists show up at the DSI to protest against requests to bail the pair”

The Democrat leaders are meeting with the DSI to hear the allegations against them. As they have not yet been charged or warrants issued, the DSI has no right to detain them, and certainly does not grant bail, a function of the court.

But what does the crowd outside believe, after listening to this BS artist.

This BS artist happens to be one of the most powerful leaders within the electoral majority of Thailand, and for good reason.

Put him and Abhisit on the same stage and discover who is the lesser politician, charismatically speaking.

So all those thousands of voters are screwed up, or this "BS" characterization is.

Is the New Year looming frighteningly? I don't think so.

The pessimism in this article takes a different view of Political interaction between an elected Government and Opposition than I would.

This is not political conflict, no-body's suffering due to political intrigue, there is no political power struggle, renewed fighting, frightening internal feud....It is Politics as usual, and occurs in most Parliamentary Democracies. Why should the Thai context be characterized as armageddon......Whoa, time for perspective here.

Sure, constitutional reform brought heated debate in Parliament...so what. Doesn't everything.

Is there a tad of a sense that when this Opposition is not governing, everything must be going to ".... in a hand-basket".

Ms. Y and company are doing just fine, and should that change, the next election will take care of it.

Wot's the problem?

How can anybody support/oppose the charter amendment when PTP have never said what the problem is with the current charter, and exactly how it will be changed?

So far as I can make out, it will be changed to whitewash all of Thaksin and families past crimes, as well as any future misdeeds, and take power away from the NACC. Has anybody seen reported any details of the proposed changes?

This may answer part of your question, and is an indication by the PTP what they see as the problem with the current charter:

>The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

>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.

>Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

>The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

But we are still totally in the dark as to what the changes will be. Why is it being kept a secret? The very way that it isn't being disclosed is starting to hint that the changes might not be good for either democracy or the general public.

That is the whole intent of the exercise....to find the most credible process of deliberating what changes need to occur in the face of these problems.

A bit of a reach, indicating that 1,255 respondents represent all people in Thailand. These opinions only represent 1, 255 people and that is giving benefit of the doubt that there were 1,255 people - who were they, who selected them, and why these issues and questions?

All these Polls need to be considered within the context of who conducts them and why.

In this instance, there is references to Politicians in a negative light, people generally being confounded by this Constitution thing, many not having a clue what it is all about, pardonings and amnesty's for politicians, questioning why constitutional revisions are neccesary, etc.

All issues coincidentally propagated by one side of the Political Divide....Or is it coincidental?

".............. there is references to Politicians in a negative light,...........

Are there actually circumstances under which Thai politicians might be viewed in a positive light? And I do mean from any parties, not just PTP.

Politicians and lawyers are favorite targets of abuse, and quite rightly so in many instances.

However, here in Thailand with certain sectors of the political sphere, it goes much further than that.

There are those who have no affinity for Electoral Democracy, in part because they cannot win elections. This deficiency causes them to cast about for alternatives, first of which is to demonize elections. And how better to do that then malign the product of elections, namely Politicians.

When I see Politicians assailed as a class in Thailand in a concerted fashion, it is an attack on Electoral Democracy. It goes beyond simple denigration of lawyers and politicians.

How can anybody support/oppose the charter amendment when PTP have never said what the problem is with the current charter, and exactly how it will be changed?

So far as I can make out, it will be changed to whitewash all of Thaksin and families past crimes, as well as any future misdeeds, and take power away from the NACC. Has anybody seen reported any details of the proposed changes?

This may answer part of your question, and is an indication by the PTP what they see as the problem with the current charter:

>The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

>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.

>Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

>The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

It would be interesting to know the party affiliation of the respondents.

And of the Pollsters ------except I know it, as reflected in Post #2.

But you make an extremely valid point.

No nation holds the PM responsible for loss of life during a riot.

There was no riot.

There was a 2006 coup - a delayed reaction protest against that coup in 2010 - an attack resulting in many deaths on those protesters instead of an easily achievable political solution - A protest and acting in self-defence does not a riot make - the protesters demands for an election and not letting the coup 'stand', were vindicated in subsequent elections.

The election validated the protesters as they knew they were being governed by an electoral minority.

Responsibilities for the deaths from those political events need to be ascertained, in order to give pause to future endeavours in this regard.

This applies in equal measure to both sides.

Sometimes obvious things get lost in the shuffle and "Political Noise". Take for instance this reference to affinity clothing colours. An example of this is in the above article and its' reference to the "Red Shirts". It deprives this Movement of a political context. Their defining moment came with their protest against a coup (2006), and electoral demands of 2010. This puts things in "Political perspective"

Referring to Bangkok's political upheaval of 2010, ignores the political upheaval of the 2006 coup. When contextualizing these two events together, makes some sense of the 2010 "political upheaval" and "civil protest" referenced above. It is not helpful when generic, non-political terminology is used when describing political events

Suggesting that the Thaksin TV thing of yesterday has "Stirred an uproar in Thailand" or has "the Govt. beset", gives far too much credence to the opposition trying to score political points. Opposition noise does not equate to an "uproar in Thailand" or "besetting the Govt".

The article above does a good thing when qualifying itself. On the one hand it impugnes negative motives to the Govt when identifying its' constitution revision policy as "unrelenting", but then contextualizes it properly by pointing out the ideological underpinnings of these initiatives in its' quote of Natthawut.

A bit of a reach, indicating that 1,255 respondents represent all people in Thailand. These opinions only represent 1, 255 people and that is giving benefit of the doubt that there were 1,255 people - who were they, who selected them, and why these issues and questions?

All these Polls need to be considered within the context of who conducts them and why.

In this instance, there is references to Politicians in a negative light, people generally being confounded by this Constitution thing, many not having a clue what it is all about, pardonings and amnesty's for politicians, questioning why constitutional revisions are neccesary, etc.

All issues coincidentally propagated by one side of the Political Divide....Or is it coincidental?

Beware of re-direction of difficult conversations. Difficult for some agenda's. The best defense for some is to "Change The Conversation - Quickly (CTC-Q)"

• In this case - the murder investigation of Abhisit/Suthep, CTC-Q to the war on drugs.
  
• Deaths at R'song, CTC-Q to "Men In Black"
  
• Accusations of R'song realities as concerning Abhisit , CTC-Q to Somchai
  
• If all else fails, CTC-Q to Thaksin.
  

Classic cases of offense being better than defence. Who can argue with that.

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

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.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

yes, but why is violence inevitable?

This onion I suspect has a number of skins, one of them being that some significant and influential elements of society are undemocratic. Electoral Democracy is not sacrosanct to them. They see nothing wrong with trying to overthrow elected Governments where the means justifies the end, when they are unable to win elections.

Case in point is the agenda of some to demonize all Politicians, which is an indirect attempt to undermine elections which produce them. I saw a so-called Poll today again projecting this anti-politician agenda under the guise of researchy type stuff.

I know Politicians and lawyers are favorite punching bags, but in this case of demonizing Politicians, it has greater motives.

A

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

The present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

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.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution.

Every one of the above is not only wrong, but is straight out of the red-shirt propaganda machine. The last point is hilarious. It's that Dubai criminal who is the greatest cause of divisions here.

Interesting too that you left out that it was (democratically) accepted by a referendum - a first for Thailand.

A coupist Constitution with a referendum conducted under the auspices of a coup-rooted Government is invalid.

are the institutions incapable of solving this issue without Violence?

that alone means there is a need for a new constitution.

The biggest problem, is that one side of the political divide is unable to win elections.

If they could 'contemplate their navel' and re-position themselves with new leaders, it would be better for everyone. Competitive elections winnable by either side would eliminate the need for protests and seeking Governing power via the judicial system. Their responsiveness to societal needs would also improve in order to be electable.

And there definitely is a need for a revised constitution as follows:

^^ Post No: 13

Wow - bring on the revolution!

The red shirt leaders (as distinct from the majority, most of whom were paid to attend) organised the protest to overthrow the government to try to get their boss's ill-gotten gains back. They were offered early elections by Abhisit (on TV) but a call to one of them (Jatuporn?) instructed them to refuse.

If you are indeed Carra, then you have a very poor understanding of what happened in 2010, not to mention a very westernised, simplistic view of politics here.

An offer is not an agreement.

The MO of one side of negotiation is not the business of the other.

Only offers, discussions and subsequent agreements.

To characterize an offer as an agreement doesn't fly.

An offer was made, it was countered and discussions died. To characterize this as negotiations is incorrect. To whitewash one side while demonizing the other doesn't fly either. Discussions were not conducted in good faith. Period!

The protesters wanted an election. They were offered an election. They rejected that offer. Not exactly sure why rejected what they asked for.

Sent from my HTC phone.

No offer was rejected...It was countered. It wasn't good enough to offer dissolution of Parliament. A firm election date acceptable to the other side was never negotiated.

To accuse one side of somehow being incorrectly influenced has no bearing on this thing. Influences on the other side were equally suspect. But never mind, most negotiation teams have influences outside themselves. But regardless, who has input to any particular negotiation team is inconsequential to the desired end result.

^^ Post No: 13

Wow - bring on the revolution!

The red shirt leaders (as distinct from the majority, most of whom were paid to attend) organised the protest to overthrow the government to try to get their boss's ill-gotten gains back. They were offered early elections by Abhisit (on TV) but a call to one of them (Jatuporn?) instructed them to refuse.

If you are indeed Carra, then you have a very poor understanding of what happened in 2010, not to mention a very westernised, simplistic view of politics here.

An offer is not an agreement.

The MO of one side of negotiation is not the business of the other.

Only offers, discussions and subsequent agreements.

To characterize an offer as an agreement doesn't fly.

An offer was made, it was countered and discussions died. To characterize this as negotiations is incorrect. To whitewash one side while demonizing the other doesn't fly either. Discussions were not conducted in good faith. Period!

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

How would you explain the mobs that stormed to his house to pour infected blood and throw bags of human faeces?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

Protesters and demonstrators by definition need to "act out" to get attention. Placidity gets them nowhere. Abhisit needed to dissolve Parliament presaging elections, the aim of the whole exercise.

And act out they did. Spread blood. Mobile rallies. Confront soldiers away from protest areas. Blockade a shopping and business area. Storm parliament. Throw molotov cocktails. Storm Thaicom. Blow up a colonel. Shoot some soldiers.

Not near enough!

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

How would you explain the mobs that stormed to his house to pour infected blood and throw bags of human faeces?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

Protesters and demonstrators by definition need to "act out" to get attention. Placidity gets them nowhere. Abhisit needed to dissolve Parliament presaging elections, the aim of the whole exercise.

Elections were the issue. Not Abhisit. He was a focus only insofar as he could facilitate them.

More than 44 per cent said the government should clearly explain why constitutional amendment was needed and it should listen to comments from different groups of people.

Hear, hear!

Isn't it clear enough already? Its sole purpose of the amendment is to bring Takky back home "cooly", or maybe people rather want to hear nice excuse than hard truth...

Yes, it is clear enough - to the minority side of the political divide.

As with the GOP in the States, there needs to be a re-think of these positions if there is any chance of electoral success in the future.

"........2010, when the red shirts held protests against the Democrat-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva".........Uh, not exactly. Their principle demand was for elections, not the ouster of Abhisit and Co.

It was anti-coup and pro-electoral, not anti-Abhisit.

Let the ICC investigation lead where it does. The UDD is begging for its' participation. Those who oppose reveal themselves.

Those people who are begging for the I.C.C. to become involved in Thailands judicial matters would be well advised to re-read the Aesop fable ''The King Of The Frogs.''

A salutatory lesson in being careful for what you wish for as you may well get it..

I presume the UDD has only one response, "bring it on!"

They are just wiping their brow with relief that it isn't the ICC (so far).

In the unlikely event that occurs, only then they would sweat!

Don't worry, if and only if the Thai government officially let's the ICC investigate, the task will be well defined. Any aspects related to Pheu Thai party list MP UDD leaders will be off limit.

Of course you are correct but these PTP numb nuts best be careful what they ask for. They just may get more than they bargained for. I expect the ICC would frown seriously on a two million Baht lunch box given to them to secure a favorable verdict for the PTP/red shirt gang.

Let the ICC investigation lead where it does. The UDD is begging for its' participation. Those who oppose reveal themselves.

Bottom line, advocates of ICC particpation and those who oppose it, speaks volumes, however they rationalize it.