lannarebirth

well they have not done to bad so far, he has had to move house and they have got him around the negotiating table, they also got the troops to move away. not bad for a bunch of non violent plough pushers. jaw jaw always beats war war. im betting he backs down on his time scale for elections. as the plough pushers asked if you think you are the legitatement prime minister lets have an election now, if you win we will go away. sounds fair to me. but of course he knows he would probably loose.

He also offered to hold a national referendum on whether or not he should complete the 1 year and 9 month remainder of his term. The Red negotiators had no response to that which I believe is telling.

So you are saying this only applies to Thai banks with US affiliates? That sounds hard to fathom. Couldn't US based based banks simply refuse to do SWIFT transfers to Thai banks that are not complying? Or worse, as the text implies, the Thai banks could simply refuse to do business with Americans. If this is what it sounds like, I guess that means we have to keep SWIFT transfers under 10K USD. What about people buying 10 million baht condos?

To be clear, I don't understand this news. As I read it, it sounds very bad for many Americans in Thailand. Hopefully, an informed poster can clarify exactly what it means.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm not aware of this legislation till just now and know no more about it than you do. What I'm saying is that the rapacious revenue collectors in the US government used the fact that US chartered banks would be subject to compliance with regard to divulging information about US citizens holding accounts in foreign branches thay may have.

Yes, foreign banks. What are you on about? Where does it say foreign banks ONLY located in the US. My reading says that foreign banks means foreign banks, that the US is mandating foreign banks globally to do this work for them. Where does it say that isn't the case?

Jingthing, do you really believe that the US government can pass legislation requiring every bank on the planet to follow its instructions, come on now!

Yes, I think they can do that. I am surprised you think otherwise. Americans are very arrogant. The foreign banks can choose to comply or not, and if not, they will close the accounts. You are talking from hope and assumption. I want facts!

If you truly believe that then arrogant is just the tip of the iceberg, closely followed by wishful thinking!

What was clear when the major Swiss banks pushed into American finance sector is that foreign banks that also have US chartered banks WILL be made to comply with US regulations. The handwriting has been on the wall for a long time. It will be interesting to see how far they can push for compliance amongst banks which do not have US chartered branches or affiliates.

A lot of playing to the cameras now. To the faithful by the Red Shirts and to the fence sitters by Abhisit. The gloves have come off a bit and it is hard to imagine talks like these could continue much longer without some kind of moderator or limits on speaking and rebuttal times.

hey Alex!

i am missing your hints such as "watch out for the 17-21-96-29 because something will happen! you have been warned!"

Hi Naam,

No worries, once my new baby is finished I will be ready when the great financial smokescreen dissapears somewhere in the midlle of September this year. It was actually Barak Abrak that gave me the idea of building a ship, I mean once all hel_l breaks loose I can sail away to wherever I want. Therefore my ship will be called "Free at last"

Look at her, she is almost finished!

Well Alex, if you were looking for a hole to throw all your money in, you found one.

I remember the good old days when the word budget sort of meant something. There were budget holidays and budget meals and even budget rent a car. There was an element of prudence and responsibility behind the word. It seems that has all been thrown out of the window.

Here are the latest budget deficit projections from the CBO

Not even in a single year does the Government ever generate enough revenues to a pay cents interest on an ever increasing load of debt. In fact Government debt increases more in nominal terms than GDP.

The deficit starts from unbelievably impressive levels. How could the US - 'growing' so rapidly - be forecasting a greater budget deficit as a percent of GDP than an absolutely disastrous 2009.

What is scary is how ludicrously optimistic the assumptions are underlying these estimates. In 2011 Government revenues were forecast to grow 22% in an economy growing at 2%. 2012 to 2014 real annual GDP growth is forecast to average 4.4% p.a.. Yeah right...

And after 2020 when worsening demographics and Medicare really starts to kick in the deficit will really go ballistic.

I stopped watching TV about 10 years ago but I remember one of the specific things that used to irk me was cheery representations of "trimming the budget deficit", when it went from some astronomically huge negative number to merely colossally huge negative number. Man, that use to P me O.

It appears that the Thai's in the North are finally tired of the corruption in Bangkok and are doing something about it.

By bombing the Customs Dept. ? Maybe it was farang trying to import a car.

^ Do you really believe anything could stop these protests as long as Thaksin has a personal axe to grind?

Hong Kong's Phoenix Television said the red-shirt demonstration shows Thailand's divide between the rural people and the middle class, which is more important than the House dissolution.

The red-shirt's weakness lies in the the fact that they are fighting for Thaksin's personal gain, without policies and ambitions to move the country forward, especially after Thaksin obtained Montenegrin citizenship, closing many doors for his return to Thai politics.

Phoenix Television believes that Thaksin is a hindrance in the progress of the red-shirts, because if Thaksin wins a general election, the demonstrations were merely a publicity stunt.

Therefore, if the red-shirts are really fighting for class equality, they must change their leadership, which will defeat the policies of the original red-shirts.

Snipped from above (post 126)

That pretty succinctly sums things up!

I think it's much more complex than that, though they're on the right track. Fact is, I don't know too many middle class people that don't have family, sometimes most of their family who are amongst the rural poor. They are not at all unsympathetic to this class of people but they certainly do have different ideas how, and through which political parties, they can best achieve their goals.

As I said if very limited number of MPs bi election fine not a whole party banned

If this happen in any democratic system let me tell you what happen , the voters

punish the party , in this case the PPP/PTP . They loose the elections .

The result is the same but its democratic .

Like it was done its not

Not all the MPs of the party were banned.

And even IF they were, the people who voted for them would still get to vote for a new MP in by-elections.

There is no need for an election to vote for new MPs in electorates where the existing MP was not banned.

If there was a general election, maybe ex-PPP MPs that did not get banned would get dumped because of their association with the PPP, even though they personally did nothing wrong. Would that be fair?

Is it fair to disolve an entire party just because a few of them are crooks ?

I dont know .

But if it is yes ex PPP MPs that are not banned are still member of a party

that got banned and they should face the electorate . I think they would

win again anyway .

I believe the thinking is, that if it is executives of the party who are in breach of the law, they are breaching the law for the benefit of the entire party and therefore the corruption is "systemic" and the entire organization should be disbanded. Reasonable people could disagree about that I suppose, but it does make a certain amount of sense.

You may like ThaiVisa member "goatfarmer"s site:

http://www.asiachart.com/thai.html

Thaksin sees that Abhisit yesterday seriously outmaneuvered both he and his Redshirts, wants an end to the nationally televised show "The Redshirts Aren't As Smart As A Fifth Grader" and is now issuing summary and arbitrary demands.

The specifics of the Redshirts' charter changes amount to the equivalent to a Bill of Attainer whose purpose is to benefit a particular individual (unconstitutional in the US). Abhisit scored a big win yesterday by deciding to allow the Redshirt leaders to expose themselves on national tv, live as Thaksin's waterboys. Thaksin's lost all inititive and now is scrambling more than ever to try to regain lost footing, but he's not likely to recover from this fatal clever blow by Abhisit.

If the Red shirts don't give Abhisit an ultimatum and walk out in the first 10 minutes they're going to take another drubbing. Heads he wins, tails they lose.

Red Shirts Announce Today as Last Day for Talks

BANGKOK: -- Red shirts announce that today is the last time they will sit down for negotiations with the government and it must end with a House dissolution.

They say if the prime minister thinks that is too soon, he has to consider that he still has 60 days before elections take place.

So to read this correctly ---

Reds say "This is not actually a negotiation, this is a demand." and they mean by this "We can't afford to let Abhisit look so smart and reasonable to the red mob that is watching this on TV"

By not negotiating, they will still have the support of the red die hards, but they will lose support from the moderate reds, and certainly lose support from anyone that was on the fence.

They are not interested in free and fair elections. They want elections now while they still have money to buy votes (whether this is directly buying votes, or paying people to bully votes). The further away the elections, the less chance they have of corrupting it. And they can't win if they can't do that.

They can't answer basic questions like "How will a house dissolution help the whole country?".

They can't commit to not interfering with the judiciary.

A majority of the people will see that they are just there to get Thaksin his money back.

Let's face facts. This Red side cannot hold transparent negotiations. Did you see last night when they were hammering for elections so that the next administration could change the constitution? Abhisit countered with the fact that his administration, together with coalition partners TOGETHER WITH the opposition party had negotiated charter amendments already. Including amendments that he Abhisit didn't agree with, but at the last minute the PT gets a phone call and the whole thing is off. Abhisit made the point that if the opposition had followed through we'd have had a national referendum on charter change already. Man, that sure blew up in their face.

1) On one hand Abhisit while legally elected , lacks legitimacy as he was elected by a parliament itself lacking legitimacy which composition was influenced by a court rather then decided by the thai people .

IN a proper democracy a court can change the composition of a congress or parliament,

because they are separate entities,

BUT

the organizations and individuals that make up the congress or parliament membership,

are STILL subject to the laws and the courts of the land.

A major point you are missing dude.

They are ONLY legitimate MP's if they get there legitimately.

So if your PPP cheated, but get to stay in office via pressure groups

then ALL LAWS and all decisions by said cheating groups MPs

or PM would also be illegitimate...

Once there was a vote by the nation to ratify a constitution and

then an election of MP's that election cycle is complete.

If the courts rule on individuals and entities involved afterwards,

that is THE COURTS jurisdiction under law.

And Political whining doesn't change that LEGAL power.

Samak and Somchai were not necessarily elected legally

because their party broke the law to take power.

They did hold the seats, but under threat of dissolution which was ruled valid.

And since dissaolution was ruled valid, it is a debatable point of law that PPP's

legal decisions might also not be valid as a consequence.

Abhisit was legally elected, and those that voted him in as PM were legally elected,

and those that switched sides were also legally elected. There was a legal quorum.

The court decision didn't change that legal quorum, since only a few leaders were disqualified.

And so the parliament didn't fall only the PPP leadership and Somchai as PM of that moment.

The government was legally elected and is by that very fact legitimate...

Well "dude" if you say that the judiciary can decide who run the country without

elections then we are definitely in disagreement .

Stop talking about one particular case , its a matter of principle , alright

Its for the people to decide , after all the judiciary could make mistaken or be biased

as you are obviously , and its too opend ended

The people decides who runs the country thru elections , they can make mistakes , and definitely

will be biased but thats democracy

You make the mistaken assumption that it is the people that are the highest power. That is incorrect, it is the constitution, the law that is the highest power. Judges interpret and apply that law. Everyone is subject to it (ideally). Yes, the system could be flawed in a myriad of ways, but what I have described is the way it is intended to work.

Do you wonder how much or how little the discussion on this forum overlaps with the discussion in the Thai media? Any good translated sites? Any good Thai to English online translators for newspapers and TV media?

Long live the internet, The Nation, George and his forum, and everybody participating here. Let's hope that people in The Nation and elsewhere, as well as potential alternative Thai leaders, read this forum.

I don't usually post on threads like this, but I want to say that this discussion is far more civil and informative than much of what I see on Thai Visa. I really appreciate those of you who are offering careful alternative analyses of the situation.

Thais are overwhelmingly gushing over Abhisit today on Thai websites. The ones that can read that is.

This may be the most important thing that happened today:

Thousands Gather at BTS Siam to Oppose Red-shirts

BANGKOK: -- Thousands of Bangkok residents gather at the Siam BTS station to oppose the red-shirt group and a House dissolution.

So, where'd they come from? Was it spontaneous, when Jatuporn announced to "get your weapons ready"? If organized, by whom?

Moved post to other thread.

To sum up Thaksin's phone-in. It's ambiguous at best. Attacking Abhisit fiercely, asking reds to "trust" rally leaders.

4 minutes ago via TweetDeck "Please trust the rally leaders. Don't worry about me," Thaksin said.

24 minutes ago via TweetDeck "I don't want to return to Thailand if it remains an ammat society. They will just take me away and kill me," Thaksin said.

25 minutes ago via TweetDeck RT @GlobalMouthful: the reds would come out on top if they told Thaksin to keep out of negotiations and that it is not about him anymore

27 minutes ago via TweetDeck "Brothers, keep fighting. Don't give up. Don't be swayed," Thaksin said.

37 minutes ago via TweetDeck Thaksin said Abhisit went into the talks never intending to dissolve House.

39 minutes ago via TweetDeck Thaksin looks upbeat.

40 minutes ago via TweetDeck "Good thing is the red shirts had the opportunity to tell the whole country what they think," Thaksin said.

41 minutes ago via TweetDeck Thaksin said he watched the negotiation on his computer.

42 minutes ago via TweetDeck Thaksin phoning in, saying he's "overseas". Didn't say where.

44 minutes ago via TweetDeck

I would be curious to know whether the negotiations were broadcast and viewed live by the Red Shirt mob down at the bridge.

It can't be posted on Thai Visa for some reason, but if you go to the Bangkok Post's webpage there is a story titled "Red Shirts listen to talk".

IT IS A POKER GAME. Neither side can lose face to their followers and certainly the current leader of Thailand should NEVER be put in a place like this to show weakness. Any weakness in terms of his showing he is willing to fold on certain issues IF the other side agree to something in return needs to be done behind closed doors.

He's not losing face, and while I don't cotton to the idea of "face" at all, in the eyes of Thai people he is gaining it daily. He's not going to be folding on anything he doesn't plan on doing anyway. He's going to use the platform to expose the motivations of the opposing side and tell everyone who may not have known already just how much he's been doing on their behalf. The Reds have offered him a free campaigning platform into the heart of Red country, which he never would have had otherwise. Doh!

This is not like two different political sides discussing things it is much more like two different nations discussing things such as a truce. When is this ever televised?

A good lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to. He does this by getting the answers before hand or outside earshot of the jury. NOTHING can come of televised talks on this matter ... at least in a way of any deal. As in Washington and everywhere else in the world, deals are made behind closed doors and then after made public and both sides give their take. Yes, people get to hear the arguments first but how long have the Thai people heard the current argument already?????????

Make a deal and get Thailand back on track. That is what is good for the thai people. For us Farang, lets hope they keep airing this crap and the protests continue to weaken the bhat.

The Reds are not so stupid to believe they will really hold votes now or dissolve the government in anyway now. Yet, this is all they want to talk about. So, their only goal can be to prevent Thailand from moving in any good direction under this government before the elections. What they don't get it is becoming very clear to the Thai people they are causing the problems now and this perception will only continue the louder they get and the closer to elections we get. The current PM is a charmer and well spoken and sorry but the other side looked like a motley crew and there is no possible way they are going to win the hearts of the people with televised shows like this if they continue to demand what everyone knows ain't going to happen now.

Right.

And how the heck is anything going to get agreed upon if they televise these discussions??????????????

This isn't a poker game where deceit is a virtue and one keeps their cards well hidden. It is a NATIONAL dialogue where many Thais are hearing the other side's case for the very first time. It's important for then to judge the transparency of the proceedings together with the intentions and good faith of the participants. All IMHO of course.

Agreed ---- backroom deals is the OLD way of doing things. This is right out in the open. Sadly Dr Weng still thought he could get away with lies.

Also, if these public debates/discussion/negotiations continue, that still doesn't preclude discussions going on elsewhere.

And how the heck is anything going to get agreed upon if they televise these discussions??????????????

This isn't a poker game where deceit is a virtue and one keeps their cards well hidden. It is a NATIONAL dialogue where many Thais are hearing the other side's case for the very first time. It's important for then to judge the transparency of the proceedings together with the intentions and good faith of the participants. All IMHO of course.

QUESTION(s) ...

It is my understanding that there is a commitment to have elections in 2011.

Is this correct?

And if yes, are these the regularly scheduled elections?

Yes and yes.

Is anyone following The Nation's updates on the talks? Horrible spelling, completely one-sided journalism.

You obviously do not speak Thai .... the conversation is one sided .... they keep on repeating the same points and Abhisit theirs their points apart. With calm and deducted reasoning .... so it is one sided!

W

I do understand what they're saying, but I was talking about The Nation's comments. Of course the conversation is one-sided, Abhisit doesn't have anything to say. The conversation is one-sided because Abhisit isn't interested in dissolving parliament and calling new elections. He's obviously scared that he will lose the next election, otherwise he would have called for new elections a long time ago and we wouldn't need to go through all of this.

Let's say, due to coercive threats and demands from demonstrators he dissolved Parliament. Let's suppose he won the next election. Based on that precedent, why would anyone think that we wouldn't be right back at this point a few months later?

Is anyone following The Nation's updates on the talks? Horrible spelling, completely one-sided journalism.

Why not watch it yourself and make your own judgements:

http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/tan/