lannarebirth

Abhisit is at least trying to be PM of ALL Thailand. That includes the red shirts, the yellow shirts, the multi-color shirts. the shirt non-aligned, etc. The reds try to act as if they are the ONLY faction against the government (which they paint as yellow shirts when they clearly are not) and their red faction must get all its demands met or if not, hold the entire country hostage under threat of real and threatened violence and anarchy. These rather extreme yellow pronouncements make clear it can never be that simple.

Wrong.

Abhisit clearly failed to be the PM for ALL Thailand and he never even tried it to be.

I disagree. Thailand is a highly entropic environment. Abhisit is working hard to remove or neutralize some of the variables that can lead to the destruction of the state. He has brought the command of the military (regardless of rogue elements) under the fold of the central government. His is the only legitimate government or other body that wants to start a national dialogue on the role of the monarchy in Thailand's future. He has sought negotiations with leadership elements of the demonstrators and has not, despite their unlawful assembly, castigated the rank and file members. He has sought to neutralize an enemy of the state that controls a political party and backs an insurgency. All the while while maintaining open communications with the entire population. It's a f'ing enormous undertaking and almost no one wants him to succeed. Despite that he presses on and says he will resign if he can't effect change.

As far as being PM to the ENTIRE population, his measures to give direct price supports to rice growers rather than to middlemen has wide support. His measures to overhaul the education system and extend the term of years available for free extends to all Thais. His measure to implement land taxes to FUND these measures is without precedent and you'd have to be pretty obtuse to not see that is the rich and middle classes who are the payors in that scheme and it is the poor who shall be the payees.

Abhisit is more the prisoner now, cowering in his barracks under military protection, hated, it is hard to see when he will ever see the light of day again.

Please tell, why is so allegedly fearful of the peaceful reds? What would they do to him?

Abhisit didn't solve the problem while he had the chance, peacefully at the ballot box, by getting elected and defeating the reds that way.

He left it too late, and now his future doesn't look too bright ...

I like Mark.

It would be great if he could lead the RED to bring this country into full democracy.

Unfortunately he was born on the wrong side of the fence.

I know you know that no one has pursued the purported agenda of the Red Shirts more than Abhisit. It remains to be seen if their non acceptance of that fact lies more in the blocked messages they never receive or whether they are just disingenuous and have other, more destructive aims.

The timesonlineuk has a very good editorial calling for elections in Thailand. Abhisit must step down or be removed immediately. Aung San Suu Kyi's recent comments concur.

No they don't. You got caught out in that lie before but now you're back peddling again? One really has to question what kind of government is acceptable to people who use lies and distortions to press their agenda.

So, the country is divided, and it has been for a long time.

Will snap elections fix that?

In a word, no - it will inevitably just mean more of the same.

If I knew what would "fix" it I would probably be getting enormously overpaid at the UN instead of being retired here - or, on the other hand, maybe that would make me totally unsuitable for a top UN position.

The "fix" lies in the evolution in Thai society and culture. That evolution must be aided by good central policy, checks and balances, the rule of law, and equal enforcement of that law. IMO this administration, with all its flaws, is dedicated to being a part of that evolution. I just don't see any other viable alternatives to it on the horizon. Ironically, the success of this administration, now and maybe in the eventual next election, may give impetus to others in other parties to come up with candidates and policies not based on authoritarianism and patronage. I live in hope.

Consider yourself one of them.

This particular ploy was used by Thaksin in the hope that an election victory would lessen the courts appetite for pursuing a popularly elected leader. That strategy had already worked for him once in his assets concealment case. Judges interviewed later said they ignored the facts of the case and ruled in the majority "not guilty" because they believed he had a popular mandate to govern and they didn't want to rock the boat. That particular dereliction of duty is responsible for just about every problem that has followed.

He did give me a quick brainwashing last week on his way from Samut Prakaan to Chiang Mai.

Thaksin was the only PM to have a real mandate and that was part of the problem.... I told him.

That wasn't the problem The problem was he thought that election victory made him above the law and for too long he was correct in that assumption.

Paraphrased quote by Thaksin, which I can't find right now: Democracy is not the goal, it is the means toward an end.

OK, Sorry, forgot the name.

In respect to the question of a society's responsibility to control lawlessness

and I quote -

"The Crime Control Model is based on the proposition that the repression of criminal conduct is by far the most important function to be performed by the criminal process. The failure of law enforcement to bring criminal conduct under tight control is viewed as leading to the breakdown of public order and thence to the disappearance of an important condition of human freedom."

--- Mr. Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra (thesis)

I think this quote leaves very little question as to what Prime Minster Abhisit and the Thai authorities must rightfully do.

End of story.

Amazing! Absolutely amazing. I wondered many times what Taksin would do in this (Abhisist's) situation. Well, I prefer not even to guess...

Dissolution of the parliament and a snap-election?

Thai snap-election set for April 2, 2006

Friday, February 24, 2006

In the face of mounting pressure and a hostile political climate in urban areas, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has announced the dissolution of the lower house, the House of Representatives of the country's parliament.

The move follows an audience earlier today with the King at the Dusit Palace and is despite defiant statements yesterday that the PM would neither step down nor dissolve parliament. An increasing number of voices have questioned Thaksin's suitability to hold the office of Prime Minister, with a petition to the Constitutional Court and a student-led petition for his impeachment contributing to the political uncertainty.

...

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Thai_snap-elec...r_April_2,_2006

Another myth busted.

So many people know nothing about Thaksin other than what their rich friends have told them.

Nice spot.

Consider yourself one of them.

This particular ploy was used by Thaksin in the hope that an election victory would lessen the courts appetite for pursuing a popularly elected leader. That strategy had already worked for him once in his assets concealment case. Judges interviewed later said they ignored the facts of the case and ruled in the majority "not guilty" because they believed he had a popular mandate to govern and they didn't want to rock the boat. That particular dereliction of duty is responsible for just about every problem that has followed.

animatic or lannarebirth, please would you be so kind as to educate me!

why do the reds not want to wait for scheduled election date do you think?

It cant be down to an army reshuffle can it?

personally, although I hope the reds win the election out of principle.. even though I prefer Mr A... I too wish the reds would go home, and do whatever they do until its time for polls..

thank you.. if you have the time or inclination...

IMO it is a combination of the military reshuffle and succession issues. The military has long had it's nose in various projects in the provinces but as long as their raison d' etre lived they could give the illusion of cohesiveness. If Thaksin were present here during a succession I think he could scoop up alot of military, who are not loyal to him per se but looking to get paid. These would form the backbone of his "muscle" as he moves Thailand to a more authoritarian government. Abhisit IMO is likely to reshuffle in a way where "professional soldiers" are promoted that are not only loyal to ^^^ but also understand they are servants of the people and not their masters. It's a big f'ing mess and it's baby steps forward and possibly giant leaps backward.

This is what I'm talking about:

"We are an army for the nation, for the monarchy and for the people. We will do our job without taking sides. We will follow government policy," Anupong said.

vs. this:

"Thaksin appoints brother Army Chief"

"Thaksin appoints brother in law Police Chief"

"Thaksin brother in law to replace samak as PM"

There have been so many reports that rent-a-reds have had their Thai ID cards confiscated that I take that as a FACT for at least a portion of the paid for reds. The poster who brought up the death threat brings up a REAL issue. It can't be easy for people who want to QUIT to quit without at the very least extremely negative reactions, and potentially much worse. Anyone who has observed the more thuggish elements of the reds is not at all surprised by this kind of management by intimidation technique.

You can just go to your local office and get another one - takes no time. The notion of confiscation doesn't come into it. Knowing the identity of protesters and issuing them Red ID does have something to say for it - one the one hand it's an attempt to make infiltration by the security forces less likely and on the other it provides a means of using duress to ensure compliance (we know who you are and where you live.)

OK, but there is also the payment part of it (only paid upon "completion") and also the intimidation aspect of being a quitter. So many did join just for the excitement and money part of it and did not fully sign up for the killing and dying part of it. Again, this whole dirty business aspect of their methods points out again that the red shirt movement is totally devoid of moral authority.

They may be off the per diem. There were reports not long ago where followers needed to register to qualify for the 100k-250k baht being offered when HE returns. Maybe that deal came with an open ended time frame but it was implied that it would be over soon. I think these folks are going to be fighting amongst themselves soon enough.

I admit that I havenot read all the posts on this topic yet, but the battery on my notebook is near empty, so I skipped to the end. I just wanted to report something that I have found extremely disturbing - and this is absolutely not a troll. At the moment I am in the US with some Thais from Burirum. They call home every morning here to get the latest goings-on. Today I heard that one of their relatives has a problem. He signed on as a red shirt because it was between crops. He really doesn't cae much one way or the other about the cause. He just felt it was good pay for what probably would be a fun trip for a few days to a week in Bangkok.

Well, things have stretched on, and he wants to go back home. He swears that he was told that since he accepted the money he could not quit. He was told that he would be klled if he abandoned the protest now.

I don't know if any of what I was told is true, but I know the people that told me this believe it completely. If it is true, that is a very serious new twist in this whole agonizing story.

Thanks for your report. There have been MANY reports that the paid for rent-a-reds have had their ID cards confiscated and can only get them back after they have "finished" their job. How they define finished and whether they can opt to quit early is something I haven't heard talked about until your report. At this point it is hard to say whether what happened to this rent-a-red is official red shirt policy or just a case of a over-zealous commander.

I've been wondering for a few days now whether or not those barricades are to keep soldiers out or keep followers in. It's an unconfirmed report but its interesting to read, thanks.

Then Abhisit rejected negotiations out of hand. Just at the moment when Thailand needed a statesman, Abhisit acted like a politician.

That is incorrect. Abhisit has not rejected negotiations. What he did was turn down the Reds latest ultimatum and gave his reasons for doing so.

IMO it is a combination of the military reshuffle and succession issues. The military has long had it's nose in various projects in the provinces but as long as their raison d' etre lived they could give the illusion of cohesiveness. If Thaksin were present here during a succession I think he could scoop up alot of military, who are not loyal to him per se but looking to get paid. These would form the backbone of his "muscle" as he moves Thailand to a more authoritarian government. Abhisit IMO is likely to reshuffle in a way where "professional soldiers" are promoted that are not only loyal to ^^^ but also understand they are servants of the people and not their masters. It's a big f'ing mess and it's baby steps forward and possibly giant leaps backward.

thank you! sounds very plausible!

I should have added that he needs that constitution changed in a very specific way ASAP.

animatic or lannarebirth, please would you be so kind as to educate me!

why do the reds not want to wait for scheduled election date do you think?

It cant be down to an army reshuffle can it?

personally, although I hope the reds win the election out of principle.. even though I prefer Mr A... I too wish the reds would go home, and do whatever they do until its time for polls..

thank you.. if you have the time or inclination...

IMO it is a combination of the military reshuffle and succession issues. The military has long had it's nose in various projects in the provinces but as long as their raison d' etre lived they could give the illusion of cohesiveness. If Thaksin were present here during a succession I think he could scoop up alot of military, who are not loyal to him per se but looking to get paid. These would form the backbone of his "muscle" as he moves Thailand to a more authoritarian government. Abhisit IMO is likely to reshuffle in a way where "professional soldiers" are promoted that are not only loyal to ^^^ but also understand they are servants of the people and not their masters. It's a big f'ing mess and it's baby steps forward and possibly giant leaps backward.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/S...ory_518839.html

You might check out the above link for Aung Sang Suu Kyi's opinion on why the military orchestrated Abhisit govt and the military's constitution are doomed to failure.

you're _SICKENING_. do you hear me loud & clear?

Aung Sang Suu Kyi states, she's _not_ commenting on Abhisit gov. what she tries to express is a an inherent systemic failure if military rules sets rules of the games - & she's speaking _for_ & _from_ her & myanmar perspective.

let me say it again, YOU ARE SICKENING! as she had actually denied any comment on Abhisit government - but _YOU_ _CLAIM_ she did!

Did she comment on why Thaksin and PTP blocked constitutional reform?

Puea Thai MP Chalerm Yubamrung yesterday said the party had changed its mind and would not join the coalition government and the Senate in supporting the six amendments proposed by a special committee on national reconciliation and charter amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the party also disagreed with any plan to hold a public referendum on the charter changes. It also would do all it could to have the 1997 constitution reinstated.

The abrupt about-face could upset a meeting today of government, opposition and senate whips called to decide whether to proceed with the amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the Democrat Party had a hidden agenda and wanted to use the issue to prolong its stay in office.

"We don't trust the Democrat Party and will do everything we can to bring back the 1997 constitution," he said.

Puea Thai's about-face came after ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra telephoned to address party members on Tuesday. He also opposed calls to hold a referendum to decide on the charter change proposals.

Mr Chalerm admitted Thaksin's suggestions influenced the party's position. We are not hiding this," he said.

I'm not as huge of a fan of ASSK as many, but I do agree with much of her statement. That begs the question, why did Thaksin/PTP put an end to constitutional reform?

Puea Thai MP Chalerm Yubamrung yesterday said the party had changed its mind and would not join the coalition government and the Senate in supporting the six amendments proposed by a special committee on national reconciliation and charter amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the party also disagreed with any plan to hold a public referendum on the charter changes. It also would do all it could to have the 1997 constitution reinstated.

The abrupt about-face could upset a meeting today of government, opposition and senate whips called to decide whether to proceed with the amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the Democrat Party had a hidden agenda and wanted to use the issue to prolong its stay in office.

"We don't trust the Democrat Party and will do everything we can to bring back the 1997 constitution," he said.

Puea Thai's about-face came after ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra telephoned to address party members on Tuesday. He also opposed calls to hold a referendum to decide on the charter change proposals.

Mr Chalerm admitted Thaksin's suggestions influenced the party's position. We are not hiding this," he said.

Agree that you have to get Abhisit out of Thailand before you can address the constitution under an elected govt.

I never said that and neither did Chalerm. You're adding liar now to your apologist label? You could be working up on the Red stage.

Chalerm, Aung Sang Suu Kyi and I all agree that the Abhisit regime needs to go first before the military constitution can be replaced by a People's Constitution.

Well they never said that. Did they call you or something? Like a conference call? Are you the only one they've told so far? On the record Chalerm says they backed out of constitutional reform because Thaksin told them to. Oh, wait a sec, you're not Thaksin are you? That would explain how you're privy to information no one else is.

I'm not as huge of a fan of ASSK as many, but I do agree with much of her statement. That begs the question, why did Thaksin/PTP put an end to constitutional reform?

Puea Thai MP Chalerm Yubamrung yesterday said the party had changed its mind and would not join the coalition government and the Senate in supporting the six amendments proposed by a special committee on national reconciliation and charter amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the party also disagreed with any plan to hold a public referendum on the charter changes. It also would do all it could to have the 1997 constitution reinstated.

The abrupt about-face could upset a meeting today of government, opposition and senate whips called to decide whether to proceed with the amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the Democrat Party had a hidden agenda and wanted to use the issue to prolong its stay in office.

"We don't trust the Democrat Party and will do everything we can to bring back the 1997 constitution," he said.

Puea Thai's about-face came after ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra telephoned to address party members on Tuesday. He also opposed calls to hold a referendum to decide on the charter change proposals.

Mr Chalerm admitted Thaksin's suggestions influenced the party's position. We are not hiding this," he said.

Agree that you have to get Abhisit out of Thailand before you can address the constitution under an elected govt.

I never said that. You're adding liar now to your apologist label? You could be working up on the Red stage.

I wasn't referring to you, Mr. Sensitive. Am I an apologist for the democracy movements in Burma and Thailand? hel_l yes!

So who were you referring to? Only two comments made in my post, mine and Chalerm's. Neither said what you claim to "agree" with.

I'm not as huge of a fan of ASSK as many, but I do agree with much of her statement. That begs the question, why did Thaksin/PTP put an end to constitutional reform?

Puea Thai MP Chalerm Yubamrung yesterday said the party had changed its mind and would not join the coalition government and the Senate in supporting the six amendments proposed by a special committee on national reconciliation and charter amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the party also disagreed with any plan to hold a public referendum on the charter changes. It also would do all it could to have the 1997 constitution reinstated.

The abrupt about-face could upset a meeting today of government, opposition and senate whips called to decide whether to proceed with the amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the Democrat Party had a hidden agenda and wanted to use the issue to prolong its stay in office.

"We don't trust the Democrat Party and will do everything we can to bring back the 1997 constitution," he said.

Puea Thai's about-face came after ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra telephoned to address party members on Tuesday. He also opposed calls to hold a referendum to decide on the charter change proposals.

Mr Chalerm admitted Thaksin's suggestions influenced the party's position. We are not hiding this," he said.

Agree that you have to get Abhisit out of Thailand before you can address the constitution under an elected govt.

I never said that and neither did Chalerm. You're adding liar now to your apologist label? You could be working up on the Red stage.

THE NATION: Jatuporn picked up the idea of Rwanda and said the crackdown of UDD means Thailand would become Rwanda.

Non-violent. Right.

Violent indeed, but to be honest I doubt very much that Jatuporn would even know where Rwanda is.

Cheers, Rick

Yeah, thats the hopeful way to look at it- that he has no idea of what he is saying. Because if he does know what he's talking about he's calling for killing squads to attack innocent men, women and children with machetes. Either way, this is a leader of the Reds and an MP!

Red apologists, speak up in his defense.

You'd almost think Jatuporn was working for the "good guys". That will lose a few more foreign media apologists and peace loving Thais, of which there are many, including in the Red camp, will be disgusted.

I'm not as huge of a fan of ASSK as many, but I do agree with much of her statement. That begs the question, why did Thaksin/PTP put an end to constitutional reform?

Puea Thai MP Chalerm Yubamrung yesterday said the party had changed its mind and would not join the coalition government and the Senate in supporting the six amendments proposed by a special committee on national reconciliation and charter amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the party also disagreed with any plan to hold a public referendum on the charter changes. It also would do all it could to have the 1997 constitution reinstated.

The abrupt about-face could upset a meeting today of government, opposition and senate whips called to decide whether to proceed with the amendments.

Mr Chalerm said the Democrat Party had a hidden agenda and wanted to use the issue to prolong its stay in office.

"We don't trust the Democrat Party and will do everything we can to bring back the 1997 constitution," he said.

Puea Thai's about-face came after ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra telephoned to address party members on Tuesday. He also opposed calls to hold a referendum to decide on the charter change proposals.

Mr Chalerm admitted Thaksin's suggestions influenced the party's position. We are not hiding this," he said.

What I fail to understand, how is the government allowing this protest site to continue. Cut off all power, water, jam all communications. Make it dry up...

Now some might say....what about the residents.....well if you have ever been in a war zone, do not expect to continue with a normal life.

These kinds of measures would quickly disperse all but the rotten core group.

Some will argue...but they will just bring in generators.....gee, a single 50 cal bullet from a sniper ends that generator, (non violently again).

As small groups try to move to other parts of the city, arrest them...

As for the compromise.....I have posted before this question "What is the urgent need for elections NOW, and not waiting until when the constitution mandates elections??"

In the USA the current president and the former president had large groups that really despised them. Yet there was never a call in that seasoned democracy for elections NOW, instead of when the Constitution mandated them.

I am more than a little disappointed the current Thai government is letting this grow.

I disagree for several reasons.

1) As long as this demonstration continues and the focus remains on Rajprasong, there is less liklihood that 50 similar demonstrations don't pop up elsewhere. 2) I believe the government probably has intelligence gatherers in tis organization, probably has communications lines open, and probably is negotiating a more realistic schedule for dissolution, despite press reports3) And lastly, I don't think they could break it up if they wanted to and even if they could there would be a lot of casualties, collateral damage, unintended consequences and they'd probaly have to turn the govt. over to the military soon after (or just before). Waiting doesn't seem so bad in light of all that.

The last news release said the Army was ordered to disperse the protesters????

I was just about to post this. This just posted at TV.

BPbreakingnews: UDD: Army chief ordered to disperse reds

Yawn.

Real story: UDD says Watermelon tells UDD Abhisit this morning ordered Anupong to remove reds using force. Anupong said OK, we will wait for a good time.

Real story: Nothing has changed. Abhisit does not order dispersal and later the non dispersal will be spun as Army's refusal to follow Abhisit's orders. The crowd then cheers their leader's ability to manipulate their ignorance. A few Red Shirts will see it for what it is and the crowd thins a little more

PM's Secretary-General Korbsak Sabhavasu posted a message on his Twitter page that he is no longer the chief negotiator with the red-shirt leaders.

"The prime minister has assigned another person to take over the job," Korbsak said.

So anyone know who the governments new negotiator is? That could be a very telling appointment for some insight into what's going on. I've been maintaining that Abhisit is running the show, despite the limitations and constraints of incompetent and in some cases deceitful allies. So far it looks like Anupong is following Abhisit's stated course, rather than the reverse being the case. That the government negotiators are talking to the Reds, rather than the Army woulld seem to support that view. Who the negotiator is would be telling IMO.

'Abhisit, who has been holed up in a military barracks for weeks because of the protests, added: "I have a duty to solve the problem. If I can't I should not be here."'

The above is a direct quote from the article at the head of this thrtead.

It seems that Abhisit has already commited himself to resign as he has not solved the problem and it appears that he is no nearer to solving it than he was when it started .. Time for him to go for the sake of Thailand, the Thai peoples' lives and the Thai economy. With the correct wording of a statement from him the present government could step down without any further lose of face.

Exactly - let's hope this happens swiftly and elections are organised with an outside agency ensuring fairness - and everyone must accept the result - surely Abhisit must declare an election agreement today.

These posts just show a misunderstanding of what "the problem" is. Abhisit stepping down solves nothing.

Not just the reds - they are all at it.

Yes they are all at it (exploitation), but currently it is the reds who are out there on the streets creating mayhem under the completely false pretense of fighting against it.

And when exactly are they doing to ditch Thaksin?

They won't. They can't. When will you realise this?

I'm a believer (not the Monkey's song) in cultural shift and, in time, they will. He is the figurehead and paymaster 'today' but everything is impermanent and it will change - try to see the larger, wholistic picture. What we don't need is the current 'rich, selfish elite' to stay in charge - what we need is a change to another selfish bunch who might move us slowly ahead - change will come.

I too think the change will come and will be slow, very slow. What has now started will not be stopped in the long term.

The Thaksin link is overemphasised. His powerful friend(s) may not, probably will not, always be in silent support.

The world community is saddened by these events and America is advocating jaw jaw not war war. And America is not without real influence in Thailand.

Interesting too how many expats and thais are now becoming fence sitters and not so partisan. No one wants to be on the wrong side.

caf

The "shift" you people are talking about has been going on for decades already. Every year the life of the average Thai person continues to improve.

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

he's under voluntary house arrest. what else?

Do you think he's not conducting the country's business? You think the only planning/negotiations going on are what we read about in the newspapers? You think he's quaking in a bunker? You think he should be on TV getting everyone worked up?

You think he should not be on TV reassuring people about the Government intent, it's principles, and defending it's actions? No, maybe not. Why bother, people aren't important. The very strong message that he's sent across is that communication with the people isn't important. That is why he's failed miserably in his role as national leader. Almost like a military 'need to know' philosophy. You just can't do that with a nation, even one as starved of objective media coverage as Thailand. However, I still believe that it's not the path that he himself would have chosen, he's just being told what to do and when to do it.

I think he has done that and continues to do that. He makes televised statements. Has statements in the written press most days. Continues to press his legislative agenda. Is photographed taking high level meetings which are duly reported about in the press. It's true he's not handholding and he's not making inflammatory comments, but he is consistently repeating that he is working within legal frameworks to bring this crisis to an end. Today he commented if he thought he couldn't accomplish that he would step down. I think that sounds a bit reassuring, but you may disagree.

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

he's under voluntary house arrest. what else?

Do you think he's not conducting the country's business? You think the only planning/negotiations going on are what we read about in the newspapers? You think he's quaking in a bunker? You think he should be on TV getting everyone worked up?

c'mon we all know that most Thais and even foreigners try to continue even within the troubles given by by Thaksin. 99.5%. It runs on auto pilot at the moment.

next??? Do we need psycho-pats like Thaksin to change that?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll tell you what I think. I think the Army being "magnanimous" about not attacking is a smart move, because the fact of the matter is they can't do it anyway without massive casualties, which most agree is unaccetable. So time passes, the Reds continue to do stupid things which make them look questionable in the eyes Thai populace. Maybe there's some attrition, maybe there's some infighting, maybe it rains. Looking at it in a pragmatic way, there's more to gain by waiting it out, at least that's the way it looks today