hammered

An elected senate is more democratic, pure and simple. We shouldn't forget that at early stages in development many of our countries went through problems of corrupt representatives, bias or corrupt judges, military assaults on people etc. With time things work out. But they do not start perfectly. In time those acts become intolerable to the people across the country as a whole and not just to certain classes or segments. Thailand has yet to reach that balance but it has only really had democracy for a couple of decades. What do people expect?

Hmm doesnt anyone know that you just give your book plus a rubbing of the engine number to the local mechanic with a few baht and he will make sure you get the next years tax without even looking at the car.

*Deleted posts edited out*

Suthep has just united the reds and PT after they showed signs of a rupture. I think they will have no problem winning the next election (if there is one and if they are allowed to run it) again. Having Abhisit as the alternative alone will ensure that. Right now there is an attempt to show a few small demos in the south and some relatively small by PAD and red standards in BKK and a few push polls show the whole country has turned on the government. That is not the case. Then again let's wait and see when the next election comes along hoping one does within the next two years and that both parties get to run in it

"Let us come up with a million or more than a million (people) to fight with our bare hands until we win,” he said."

Read: you may fight, while I head off to some safe place, protected by my bodyguards!

I am not sure about that. Suthep has shown some strength in not running away from charges laid against him PPP/PTP/the reds)

If we were talking about Chamlong I would say 100% that you are wrong. With Suthep I would say there is an 80% chance you are incorrect.

JD I think you should look into his history: 1995 and more recently 2009 (that was a classic dodge)

It will be interesting to see if they use the wikileak that has been doing the rounds recently re Suthep, 2006 coup, 2007 constitution, army and democrat party. I guess as Suthep has gone off the deep end we can expect the Reds to respond with vigour. There is always the chance though of a fudge to take the tension down and avoid things being made public.

Suthep's boycott plan apparently has not gone down well with business after the reds have said they will release a list of all democrat, yellow etc owned, affiliated and supporting businesses with a call to boycott. This one seems to be going the way of tax withholding and striking

The red rally will be interesting to see if they publicly name the companies thought to be funding the Dems rally. The word on the street has several big ones circulating and the total amount and the percentage of it spent so far.

I hope all businesses support the reform movement at Democracy monument.

Some big names that won't be supporting it include Mr Tan, the Oishi man who tried to belittle the rally until his business links with Thaksin's son were exposed and of course Sorrayuth of Channel 3 fame who has property interests with Oak too.

Business is well divided as you know with some that have changed sides, backed both, remained neutral. We could all name the groups that support the Dems. The funny thing is though that some of these Dem financial backers also support the two trillion plan, and have even been quite open about how the Thai economy will struggle without the debt financed infrastructure projects.

I think you will find they support the infrastructure project as the Democrats do. BUT they regard that it should mainly be an on budget scheme for better transparency. Not an off budget massive loan over a ridiculous term.

Do you honestly believe PTP when they say that all the projects will be finished within 7 years?

Do you honestly agree that a 50 year term is acceptable?

Yeeeze many of the projects paid for by this 50 year loan will have been replaced/upgraded before it's paid off.

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

No some of the Dems financial backers support the plan including the loans, and actually disagree with the Democrat party or at least its stated policy. There is a lot of feeling that the rail links with China are very important and will cover the loans. Some of Thailand's excessive reserves could be channeled to reduce loans.

Another video came out on You Tube today of guards stomping and kicking some man. Not sure who he is, but not police.

What I would like to do is know how Suthep proposes on achieving his end. Does he intend to kill the millions who adore Thaksin or purely remove their votes. Does he think the Democrat party can actually win an election or does he plan to do away with elections?

Doesn't he realise that he and Abhisit are despised by more people than Thaksin? Admittedly a lot of them are the farmers and urban workers that he and his party serially ridicule, but they are also the voters he will need to vote Dem if they are to achieve a majority. What are the Democrat plans to achieve this end or have they thrown in their lot with the fascists who want to abolish one person one vote?

I don't know of anyone who want to abolish one person one vote.

The PAD ideas that people partially vote their MPs instead based on areas based on professions, was just a brainstorm idea, that never got any real support within any group.

It is neither undemocratic nor has it any advantages.

That "the PAD don't want that the poor vote" is pure red propaganda

H90 I am honestly interested in how he proposes to achieve it. If he doesnt have a plan, what is he doing.

I would also like to see the Democrats reform and change leadership so that there is actually a viable alternative via electoral democracy, but they really do not seem like they want to do it. Alongkorn has been sidelined into Abhisit (unelectable) controlled committees and party elders

I as well have a problem seeing a way to achieve it. By blowing the whistles, they can annoy them, but nothing more.

They could try to trigger a coup, but I can't see how. Big strikes would be a way, but I can't see that happen.

At new elections I even believe that Abhisit would have a chance, just because he isn't PTP. But even if that would happen, what than?

PTP would be still strong and can form a coalition.

Even if the Democrats make a coalition, they would be with a couple of parties which don't have a good reputation and surely don't want to improve something.

As well they could always switch sides and let the Democrats feel it.

So I don't see any working peaceful solution. Not even one with a low probability.

I dont understand the rushing of the amnesty. I don't understand what the Dems are playing at. My feeling is that there is something else going on that we don't know about that is making players rush things.

I honestly think you underestimate the baggage that Abhisit carries after 2010. PT will win an election of that I am fairly sure. I am also sure that a Democrat government led by Abhisit would result in truly huge demos. While there is a lot of talk about corruption and Thaksin in BKK, little time if any is devorted to all those killed in 2010 and that creates a lot of anger north of BKK.

If the Dems had ended the rally when the amnesty went down, PT and Reds would have been still fighting. Now they are back together again. That also seems like silliness considering the electoral realities.

That leaves Suthep aiming for some kind of coup either military or judicial but that is like insanity.

Or maybe everyone just got overexcited.

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Or you could look at it that 63 people who are experts in the law know a crime when they see one.

In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided on. In a parliamentary democracy if there is a clash of estates or if something needs overuling either from a court or government the legislature is where it is done as that body directly represents the will of the people unlike government and judiciary and hence is the highest of the 3 estates.To enact an amnesty is not a breach of law. It may or may not be a political mistake. That though is another question. The judiciary is where laws are enforced/interpreted if need be after they have been brought into effect by a legislature. The worry here is that the judiciary have crossed into the area of responsibility of the legislature and have demonstrated a lack of neutrality. Neutrality is central to a judiciary and without it, judgments may not be considered fair.

Interesting post.

"In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided upon"

Agreed. But in this case, the opposition was apparently denied sufficient floor time for true debate and the bill was rushed through at the hour of 4.25 a.m., hardly reasonable surely?

Is the speaker of the house neutral, as he should be? Neutrality is a dream here.

I agree that procedurally the amnesty was a mess albeit carried out legally. Exactly why it was rushed through is a good question, that nobody has answered well. The difference between speaker and a judge is that a judge is appointed for life whereas a speaker usually has a limited term and the people can vote him/her out. Legislatures by their nature can/often are be adversarial too because the people can change them. A court is meant to be a place of strict neutrality. That is supposed to be part of the "contract" under which the people grant power to a judiciary that is allowed to judge them in a democracy. Another part would be formal equality of all in the eyes of the law. If that breaks down, it would be the role of the legislature to reform the judiciary through passage of law.

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Or you could look at it that 63 people who are experts in the law know a crime when they see one.

In a parliamentary democracy the legislature is the place where amnesty is decided on. In a parliamentary democracy if there is a clash of estates or if something needs overuling either from a court or government the legislature is where it is done as that body directly represents the will of the people unlike government and judiciary and hence is the highest of the 3 estates.To enact an amnesty is not a breach of law. It may or may not be a political mistake. That though is another question. The judiciary is where laws are enforced/interpreted if need be after they have been brought into effect by a legislature. The worry here is that the judiciary have crossed into the area of responsibility of the legislature and have demonstrated a lack of neutrality. Neutrality is central to a judiciary and without it, judgments may not be considered fair.

The red rally will be interesting to see if they publicly name the companies thought to be funding the Dems rally. The word on the street has several big ones circulating and the total amount and the percentage of it spent so far.

I hope all businesses support the reform movement at Democracy monument.

Some big names that won't be supporting it include Mr Tan, the Oishi man who tried to belittle the rally until his business links with Thaksin's son were exposed and of course Sorrayuth of Channel 3 fame who has property interests with Oak too.

Business is well divided as you know with some that have changed sides, backed both, remained neutral. We could all name the groups that support the Dems. The funny thing is though that some of these Dem financial backers also support the two trillion plan, and have even been quite open about how the Thai economy will struggle without the debt financed infrastructure projects.

Suthep has the support of the South oitside of the deep south, central Bangkok, a few provinces south of BKK and the majority of the elite. He is reviled in most Bangkok suburbs and anywhere north, north east or east of Bangkok excluding possibly Rayong and Mae Hong Song and a couple of other town centers.

In the other provinces he also has support, not that much, but when you read postings there were a few about wives who went with friends from Isaan to Bangkok to support anti-government demonstrations. Also Santi-Asoke are in Nord and Nordeast.

Sure a minority, but way enough if you read history.

Yes I am talking about where a majority support Suthep or don't support him. Remember too it is Suthep even some Dems and most neutrals don't like him because of things in 1995, 2009 etc

The first assault was shown on ASTV Manager of a man being stomped on the ground by a crowd. The courts have refused to allow the police arrest warrants based on not getting involved in politics. Since then there have been a number of other similar assaults video's and pictures have been doing the rounds. I am sure if anyone wants to, they can find them. The evidence is pretty clear cut in each of these cases.

This has been doing the rounds on Thai social media and generating a fair deal of anger and also shock at the court decisions among those who do not support the anti-government protests including a lot of political neutrals. Unfortunately the information supplied on TV comes mostly from one part of the English language media that is doing its best to urge the Suthepista's on, and gives no to little coverage of events that do not fit their propaganda line. They did not even report on the largest rallies on Sunday and Tuesday to Thursday this week, which were not in Bangkok. It is hard I understand for anyone on TV to form an opinion based on the supply of limited propaganda.

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Following social media Thai comments it seems some/many are worried that following these things by the judiciary that if the constitution court dissolves the government parties because a fully elected senate is unconstitutional that things could get very heated. The double standards accusations have a lot of traction in Thailand. One of the English language print papers this morning had comments on how a "third judicial coup" (their words not mine) would go down.

I doubt the judges will find against Pheua Thai on the Senate issue but if you have a fully elected Senate why bother having it, it simply duplicates Parliament?

It is a question you could ask many countries. I do tend to agree myself however. I guess the argument is that if the upper house is fully elected it can have more powers, so you can have a kind of check by each house on the other. You could also say why bother having a half elected half appointed house (by 7 people i have heard) as it should have no role in a democracy. If PT and allies tried to abolish the senate I would think they would face a firestorm so just making it more democratic will improve it especially after seeing that bunch of old losers refusing to attend a meeting to try and resolve the problems of the country on Friday

I hope your prediction is correct. It would be quite a difficult thing to explain, and I can just imagine the international headlines. Personally I think the government have more worries over the use of cards case, which will likely see a revote being needed imho.

This is going to be huge. Far bigger than the Dems show. Already on Sunday and Tuesday to Thursday the reds have been holding larger rallies than Suthep and in provincial areas. I think a lot on TV fail to realise quite how well supported and determined the red shirts are.

It's not easy for the red shirts now.

1. They have to bus in and provide daily expenses for their supporters who will only stay a day or two.Unlike the anti government supporters who work near their protest sites.

2. What are they protesting about? If they say they are defending democracy, ie the right to run the country due to winning the election- well they've just had a quick lesson in how democracy is not only about only winning elections but also behaving ethically whilst in power.

If they say they are 'interested' in the Constitution Court's verdict they had better be very careful they are not accused of intimidation- very anti democratic behaviour.

The anti government supporters are talking about reform of Thai politics- backing them are academics, universities, segments of industry, students, doctors and civil servants.

What ideas do the red shirts have for the future of Thai society apart from pardoning criminals?

You forget that 40% of BKK votes PTP and that BKK is filled with non-resident workers from the North and North East. Then there are the industrial provinces around BKK that return PTP MPs regularly.

The Dems are placing as much pressure on the court as the reds, probably more in fact as they have been out longer.

The anti-government supporters can be backed by who they like but they need to win an election unless they are going to abolish democracy.

If you want to know the red shirts ideas, why not go along and listen or talk to them? They seem friendly enough and willing to discuss politics.

Hammered, I listen at times to Nattawut and Jatuporn- I never hear them say anything about corruption or decentralisation or reforming education- all key issues.

Issan and northern workers in Bangkok can't assemble downtown at lunchtime, their factories are too far away.

Reforming education? You'll have to dump those university rectors and the democracy doesn't work academics first if you want to get anything changed.

Those workers will be there in the evening. Plus if you have ever been to red rally you will realise they have their fair share of middle class and business support. Don't forget they get that 40% in BKK vote. I wouldnt worry about the size of the red rally. Muang Thong was larger than any Suthep one and that was organized in two days.

Ooh you shouldn't forget how many industrial workers do shifts and are around at midday

That's true. Where was the Muang Thong rally held?

Nonthaburi close to north Bangkok.

This is going to be huge. Far bigger than the Dems show. Already on Sunday and Tuesday to Thursday the reds have been holding larger rallies than Suthep and in provincial areas. I think a lot on TV fail to realise quite how well supported and determined the red shirts are.

It's not easy for the red shirts now.

1. They have to bus in and provide daily expenses for their supporters who will only stay a day or two.Unlike the anti government supporters who work near their protest sites.

2. What are they protesting about? If they say they are defending democracy, ie the right to run the country due to winning the election- well they've just had a quick lesson in how democracy is not only about only winning elections but also behaving ethically whilst in power.

If they say they are 'interested' in the Constitution Court's verdict they had better be very careful they are not accused of intimidation- very anti democratic behaviour.

The anti government supporters are talking about reform of Thai politics- backing them are academics, universities, segments of industry, students, doctors and civil servants.

What ideas do the red shirts have for the future of Thai society apart from pardoning criminals?

You forget that 40% of BKK votes PTP and that BKK is filled with non-resident workers from the North and North East. Then there are the industrial provinces around BKK that return PTP MPs regularly.

The Dems are placing as much pressure on the court as the reds, probably more in fact as they have been out longer.

The anti-government supporters can be backed by who they like but they need to win an election unless they are going to abolish democracy.

If you want to know the red shirts ideas, why not go along and listen or talk to them? They seem friendly enough and willing to discuss politics.

Hammered, I listen at times to Nattawut and Jatuporn- I never hear them say anything about corruption or decentralisation or reforming education- all key issues.

Issan and northern workers in Bangkok can't assemble downtown at lunchtime, their factories are too far away.

Reforming education? You'll have to dump those university rectors and the democracy doesn't work academics first if you want to get anything changed.

Those workers will be there in the evening. Plus if you have ever been to red rally you will realise they have their fair share of middle class and business support. Don't forget they get that 40% in BKK vote. I wouldnt worry about the size of the red rally. Muang Thong was larger than any Suthep one and that was organized in two days.

Ooh you shouldn't forget how many industrial workers do shifts and are around at midday

This is going to be huge. Far bigger than the Dems show. Already on Sunday and Tuesday to Thursday the reds have been holding larger rallies than Suthep and in provincial areas. I think a lot on TV fail to realise quite how well supported and determined the red shirts are.

Just to clarify, are these reds rallying to get the amnesty bill re-enacted? They are giving their valuable time to sit around in the hot sun to get the 2 people they think are responsible for murdering almost 100 of their mob pardoned? Really?

No they are not for that. They are basically rallies to say we want to elect overall legislatures in and out and not have entire legislatures turfed out by armies, courts or non-electoral means. The majority of the reds do not want an amnesty except for the lower down yellow and reds, ie excluding leaders and state officials. They want Abhisit and Suthep tried in a fair court along with their own leaders.

Nobody expects a coup now.

As for turfing out the entire legislature- they can form a new party and continue in power as before if banned, it's only the executives who are banned for 5 years.

And it will only serve them right if they do get banned- trying to pass an amnesty law to pardon all corruption cases as well as violent actions. Whatever next!

The Dems in the extreme case have asked for the banning of all the MPs for breach of constitution in trying to overthrow the constitutional democracy of Thailand by trying to change the constitution so that the upper house will be totally elected rather than half appointed. There is also a lesser case involving some MPs using others cards to vote, which will likely be upheld but is unlikely to result in any dissolution, but may result in one of the reading having to be voted on again. The again if and can mean or, anything could happen. This case is not about the amnesty. It would depend what you mean by coup. Only today one of the English language papers was pontificating on the effect a "third judicial coup" would have (their words not mine)

This is going to be huge. Far bigger than the Dems show. Already on Sunday and Tuesday to Thursday the reds have been holding larger rallies than Suthep and in provincial areas. I think a lot on TV fail to realise quite how well supported and determined the red shirts are.

Just to clarify, are these reds rallying to get the amnesty bill re-enacted? They are giving their valuable time to sit around in the hot sun to get the 2 people they think are responsible for murdering almost 100 of their mob pardoned? Really?

No they are not for that. They are basically rallies to say we want to elect overall legislatures in and out and not have entire legislatures turfed out by armies, courts or non-electoral means. The majority of the reds do not want an amnesty except for the lower down yellow and reds, ie excluding leaders and state officials. They want Abhisit and Suthep tried in a fair court along with their own leaders.

The red rally will be interesting to see if they publicly name the companies thought to be funding the Dems rally. The word on the street has several big ones circulating and the total amount and the percentage of it spent so far.

This is going to be huge. Far bigger than the Dems show. Already on Sunday and Tuesday to Thursday the reds have been holding larger rallies than Suthep and in provincial areas. I think a lot on TV fail to realise quite how well supported and determined the red shirts are.

The first assault was shown on ASTV Manager of a man being stomped on the ground by a crowd. The courts have refused to allow the police arrest warrants based on not getting involved in politics. Since then there have been a number of other similar assaults video's and pictures have been doing the rounds. I am sure if anyone wants to, they can find them. The evidence is pretty clear cut in each of these cases.

This has been doing the rounds on Thai social media and generating a fair deal of anger and also shock at the court decisions among those who do not support the anti-government protests including a lot of political neutrals. Unfortunately the information supplied on TV comes mostly from one part of the English language media that is doing its best to urge the Suthepista's on, and gives no to little coverage of events that do not fit their propaganda line. They did not even report on the largest rallies on Sunday and Tuesday to Thursday this week, which were not in Bangkok. It is hard I understand for anyone on TV to form an opinion based on the supply of limited propaganda.

Yes, this is an image of the first attack you mention. Not sure how badly he was injured, he went to hospital but that could mean anything from a cut lip to being beaten unconscious. Regards the court decision: the fact that 63 judges apparently signed anti-amnesty petition surely calls partiality of judiciary into question - at least in some cases.

Following social media Thai comments it seems some/many are worried that following these things by the judiciary that if the constitution court dissolves the government parties because a fully elected senate is unconstitutional that things could get very heated. The double standards accusations have a lot of traction in Thailand. One of the English language print papers this morning had comments on how a "third judicial coup" (their words not mine) would go down.