way2muchcoffee

But if Chavalit is on the point to succeed, the probability of a coup increases, is not it?

Expound please. I have no idea what you are driving at.

OK fine . Here one possible scenario

1) Chavalit or whichever smaller party (maybe paid by Thaksin) defects to the PTP soon .

2) PTP comes in power right ?

3) If PTP do then a early general election AND PTP win then they dont need Thaksin , if they loose

, same Thaksin out .

Same same and good .

But you say no need for general election right , so no election ok fine

4) PTP coalition shaky , realise that they cant win at the next general election without Thaksin

4) PTP calls back Thaksin

Good ?

Of course probably a coup at any of those points

Good ?

I think you misunderstand.

Chavalit is the head of the PTP. I'll grant you that mistake.

To your next point. If all of the coalition partners switched alliances it would not be the end the government immediately. First there would have to be a motion for a no confidence vote. Once accepted, there would be debate in parliament and the opposition would make their case. Then the Dems would have the opportunity to defend themselves. After some back and forth and not until all who wish to speak on the matter have had the opportunity to do so the speaker (Chai) would call the vote. If the majority of parliament (it could be 2/3, but I think a simple majority may be enough in Thailand) vote that the Dems have lost the mandate to govern then the Dems would have to step down. A caretaker government would be established and new elections would be held as soon as possible.

Ooops , i missed that point LOL . Chavalit has been around for quite long , got confused with his latest political party

Oh ok ... well sounds bit more safe

I could be mistaken, but that is my understanding. There may be an opportunity to form a government before an election would be called. I would welcome anyone to come along and correct any mistakes I have made.

OK fine . Here one possible scenario

1) Chavalit or whichever smaller party (maybe paid by Thaksin) defects to the PTP soon .

2) PTP comes in power right ?

3) If PTP do then a early general election AND PTP win then they dont need Thaksin , if they loose

, same Thaksin out .

Same same and good .

But you say no need for general election right , so no election ok fine

4) PTP coalition shaky , realise that they cant win at the next general election without Thaksin

4) PTP calls back Thaksin

Good ?

Of course probably a coup at any of those points

Good ?

I think you misunderstand.

Chavalit is the head of the PTP. I'll grant you that mistake.

To your next point. If all of the coalition partners switched alliances it would not be the end the government immediately. First there would have to be a motion for a no confidence vote. Once accepted, there would be debate in parliament and the opposition would make their case. Then the Dems would have the opportunity to defend themselves. After some back and forth and not until all who wish to speak on the matter have had the opportunity to do so, within reason, the speaker (Chai) would call the vote. If the majority of parliament (it could be 2/3, but I think a simple majority may be enough in Thailand) vote that the Dems have lost the mandate to govern then the Dems would have to step down. A caretaker government would be established and new elections would be held as soon as possible.

"MPs unaware of developments and prevented from goin' about their business." (Unannouced occupation of Parliament House earlier. )

Do you have a legitimate source for this? Is there any confirmation to what you are saying?

PPP had 223 MPs , PTP has 189 MPs . that is not a few less . Anyway ...

Thats my point if coalition partners switch side to another party that was before in the opposition

in a democratic system an election should be held to decide if the majority of the people agree with the new

setup .

Else you could have governements fall and reborn every ten days with totally different

programs and agenda without any control from the people . That does not stand the logic

of what is democratic .

What if a smaller party switches sides after the election despite campaign promises to the contrary? Should new elections be called? How is this different? Does an MP not continue to represent his constituency even when he switches political alliances? What if he believes that his constituents are better off in making a switch, should he be prevented from doing so? I don't think it is so clear cut. I understand what you are saying and your arguments are not without merit. I really don't know if there is a right answer. I guess nations set up the rules that they think are best, and then follow them.

Remember in a representative system the voters vote for the person they think will represent them the best. That person then makes decisions on behalf of his constituents. This is not really democratic either, but that is the system used in all democratic governments.

Thailand is just going through some democratic teething problems as most western countries also have.

The difficult bit always seems to be the shifting of power from the wealthy to the poor.

Accepting the results from a General Election would be a step in the right direction.

Making sure military coupes cannot happen in the future will save hel_l of a lot of time.

The most important issue is of course having a solid and fair legal system which I am not sure is possible.

Until then I guess we gotta make do with what we got.

Finally. I agree completely with one of your posts Monkfish. There is some common ground after all.

Ok i can search for the articles in the foreign press if you dont believe me ...

Courts can disbande a governement , but elections have to be held after that else

its the judiciary that decide the governement .

Anyway i dont think we can agree , please forget it

How is it that the judiciary decided the government? The PTP had a few less MPs, but still led in the plurality. They had every opportunity to form the new government. They needed coalition partners to do so. The coalition partners opted to go with the 2nd largest plurality party. If new elections were held it is very likely that no party would hold an absolute majority. A coalition government will almost certainly be necessary. So why is it okay for a coalition government to be formed immediately after an election, but not later?

Wait, wait, wait,....Before jumping to Conclusions, cool down...

firecrackers as usual by the same sensationalist journalist(s) or real?

Waiting for details.....

Do you believe firecrackers, the type used for new years and other celebrations, are the same thing as grenades, the type the military uses in war?

You have Grenades and Grenades... from the training grenades with plaster, the 'defensive grenades with very limited effect and the Offensives grenades for really killing (with fragmentation)....

When I was doing my national service, some were playing tricks with the first category,(in the loom when opening the door) the second category was considered as a bluff and not really dangerous at few meters, only the third one was very serious and the type used for war attack.

Nowadays they may have categorised in more types. I have no more play with those things since 40 years, I need an update. sure a lot of people may give us more informations

So cool down, some people want to make noise....

I reckon if your child was standing there and was killed by this tiny little firecracker you would not be so calm. Some people believe that launching grenades is rather a serious thing. And for the record, I don't think these grenades are coming at the behest of the UDD leadership. Neither do I think they were ordered by Abhisit. I think it much more likely that they are coming from one of the many splinter groups from the reds, blues, yellows, or greens.

Wait, wait, wait,....Before jumping to Conclusions, cool down...

firecrackers as usual by the same sensationalist journalist(s) or real?

Waiting for details.....

Do you believe firecrackers, the type used for new years and other celebrations, are the same thing as grenades, the type the military uses in war?

Well anyway. It is one great big show for now. It ranges from tedious to titillating on a daily basis. We are all just observers, but following events makes an interesting diversion. Thais will sort it out in the Thai way. Hopefully it doesn't get too violent.

In case of a shake up as to disband an entire party , say late 2008 in this case , there has to be fresh election in a democratic system .

In UK there would be , same in France . I could find a few posters in other forums that says the same as i do so dont say nobody says that .

Whatever the red shirts are protesting for is not really relevant to my opinion . Yes the root cause of their protest is that they have been neglected and feel that Thaksin did changed that , right or wrong and they feel cheated by the coup and subsequent events as the courts ruling . They are really pissed .

I agree they are pissed. But their anger is misdirected. If I voted for my favorite candidate and my favorite party and they were later found to have been guilty of massive electoral fraud I would not be angry at the courts or the opposition. I would be angry at my own party whose leaders subverted the democratic process and engaged in criminal actions. But you don't see any of that kind of reaction from any redshirt. There have been no calls by redshirts to clean up their own act and engage in honest campaigning or governance.

An another point, you mention how new elections should have been held. But again there was no constitutional requirement for this. You are calling for new elections but your arguments revolve around amending the constitution. These are not the same thing. I would argue that disbanding the current legal government at this point, due to mobs on the streets, would subvert the cause of democracy just as surely as the coup did.

One last point. The rhetoric from the protest leaders is for class war. They have deliberately downplayed the Thaksin situation. But at the same time he is making nightly phone ins and funding the demonstrations. Don't you find it interesting that after having been fairly quiet for several months with regards to house dissolution that immediately after the Thaksin assets verdict came in they decided to throw all their efforts into a final push? What do they represent? Why are they really here? Do the footsoldiers even know? Do the leaders even know? The leaders have changed tactics in just the last week when they saw that they weren't having the kind of impact they hoped for.

Mexico was under the rule of the PRI party for over 70 years. Widely known as the perfect dictatorship. There were regular elections, fraud, corruption, etc. Dr. Thaksin's doctoral dissertation was on government fraud.

Nah, he was just doing some policy research. Wanted to make sure he got it right. LOL

100,0000+ gathering is pretty impressive considering the circumstance these people had to travel many hundreds of kilometers considering their socioeconomic bakground. You name me a protest in USA that gathered more than 1:600 ratio in recent times.

The circumstances? They were paid for their gas. They are given free food. They are given 3 times their daily salary to not work. It is also not the farming season so there isn't much work around upcountry so those who are farmers are just getting free money. So what about those circumstances?

Maybe your noticing a disturbing trend about me, but I was a Makro the other day buying supplies to stock my family's restaurant business.

We needed about 50kg of potato which is usually never stocked to that level in the produce section. However there are boxes of potatoes packaged into 10kg boxes stacked up 6 high in 8 sets off to the side.

We usually like to hand pick our potatoes as we are looking for a specific size.

Thai wife asked for a pair of scissors to cut the band around the boxes so we can sift through our pickings.

The lady at the produce said there is no need to open any boxes as there are more than enough at the produce section.

We explained we needed 50kg of it and not enough to hand pick the specific size we needed.

This is when it got a bit ugly.

She said just to take the box as a whole as they are not rotten and should all be uniform in sizes.

Wife said, we would like to pick and choose which is what we have been doing the past couple of times and none of the employees had said or had any problem with that.

Makro lady said, "since you got to do that last time you want to do it again this time" all the while she had a disgusted looked and tone.

Obviously she was annoyed that we might make a mess which would mean we created extra work for her by having to re-box or reorganize the mess,

That is when my wife said, yes we will do it this time, tomorrow and whenever we come back here. (normal tone of voice)

Nothing further was said and the lady handed the scissor as she knew there was no convincing us to not to sift through the boxes.

Still annoyed with comment, after our purchases we headed straight to customer service desk to complain to the manager the words that were exchanged by his employee.

The manager decided to go to the back of the store to have a few words with the lady and ultimately brought her to customer service desk to confront us.

Not surprisingly, as it has happened to us twice before the lady had massive amount of tears down her cheeks.

I'm sure there are some of you that might think that we took an incident to an unnecessary level,

but I cannot let these type of inapproriate behaviour and treatment go on.

No, I'm not an excessive complainer but when there something is to be said as a buying customer it should be said at a cost of losing ones face.

You did bring this to an inappropriate level. You did cause the workers inconvenience. You and your wife were being petty and abusive. You somehow think this is about customer service? You were customers I'm sure Makro could do without. I wouldn't want you in my store if you pulled crap like this. Perhaps you should have just taken the box. Good god man, picking through boxes of potatoes? You sound like a poverty stricken grandmother clipping coupons.

The army had no legal mandate, except for the fact the the Thaksin caretaker government had exceeded the constitutional time allowed for it's existence. They most certainly had a moral mandate.

Unfortunately the Thai army has proven on so many occasions that it doesn't need a mandate, legal, moral or otherwise to act in whatever way it sees fit.

Yes. Very very true. To some they are the great stabilizer of Thai politics. To others they are the great destabilizer. Either way, by law they are not beholden to the government of the day, but they are beholden to one man, at least nominally. In the end they will do as they please. They will do what they think is best for the country, or themselves, or the neighbor's dog....

I think a land tax would be wrong at this time, but a progressive income/wealth tax, hmmm nice dough to make.

Remember in Sweden, Abba once made huge profits and through the law they were threatened to pay 110% tax which then forced them to invest their profit and so keep the money rotating and not carried/stored away for the big coup of total control.

The income tax system is already progressive, but it could be much more so.

Would not a compromise solution be for the existing government to introduce a raft of pro-poor reforms? That should satisfy both sides.

They have. Unfortunately the populations in the North and NE are being indoctrinated through daily red media, red eduction schools, red announcements on village loudspeakers, and pro-red village kamnans to reject the value of any of the many measures enacte dby the Abhisit government.

"Abhisit said that in addition to implementing policies aimed at reducing economic gaps between people in society, his government is pushing for the introduction of the country's first land and property tax."This can help reduce the gap between people who have large amounts of land and those who have no land at all," he added."

Who is he trying to bamboozle here? This is absolutely dreadful. A property tax will ruin this country. Thailand was one of the last few countries in the world were a man or woman could still really own property without having to worry "too much" about the government taking it away. With all the corruption here just imagine how much easier it will be with a property tax. If the government wants your property or the local "pui ya bahn" tax collector who has it out for you, wants your property he just has to claim you owe back taxes on it. This is going to be an unmigitated disaster." The "little man" and ma and pa farmers are going to lose their property to the corrupt wealthy Bangkok ruling class. The result of a property tax in Thailand will accomplish just the opposite of what Mr. Abhisit claims. Abhisit is to Thailand what Obama has become to America, its ruin.

I have no idea what the policy would be, but 200 hundred baht per rai is not going to break anyone and would put some 65 billion baht into government coffers annually.

-acceleration of the Education reform

A new curriculum has come out this year that is to be implemented at all schools nationwide. Teacher standards are being increased through the enforcement of laws regarding teacher certification nationwide. Abhisit has already enacted legislation that awards 15 years free eduction including uniforms, books, milk, and lunches. He also enacted legislation providing free education through university for disabled people. Reform of the university entrance procedures is ongoing. He has already done a great deal in just one year. These reforms are unprecedented in the speed in which they have been addressed.

-fight against corruption including in its own side - No double standards

Government ministers have already been sacked for the appearance of corruption. Please understand that in previous administrations the ministers held on by their teeth until a court ruling. The Abhisit administration has changed that. When accusations are made, with a bit of legitimate evidence, then the minister is replaced forthwith. The Dems are setting the highest anti-corruption standard ever witnessed in Thai political history.

Abhisit will create his own majority overpassing the current division

No he won't. The old guard up North and in the NE want power for themselves. They control the village leaders. They control what gets played in the village loudspeakers. They do not allow dissenting voices to be heard. They spin every positive effort the Abhisit government has made as somehow harmful to the people. The people, through bombardment of propaganda, won't side with Abhisit, no matter what he does.

And why Abhisit is not defining his own policy and making proposals directly to Thai people?

He has. Unfortunately the propaganda machine up North and NE drowns out any positive efforts he has made. So much so that people don't even know what he does. When he has tried to bring the show on the road he receives death threats and his representatives are mobbed by people throwing fermented fish.

- agriculture reform, subsidising rice price until it can be self sustainable, irrigation development, injection of a significant part of the budget to support creation of cooperative and investments

He already has enacted agricultural subsidies that are more viable and bring better benefits to farmers than schemes enacted by previous administrations. Again, the propaganda machine spins this negatively. Cooperatives should be created by the farmers themselves, perhaps with the help of the regional MPs. Why have the local MPs not begun this process?

- delocalisation of industries bringing the jobs close to population and avoiding to concentrating everything around Bangkok which is more and more costly and difficult to manage in term of infrastructure. creation of free-tax areas in northern Thailand, allocation of land for doing this

Private industry buys land and builds factories where it is economical to do so. There are many many factories outside of BKK. Should the government interfere in the business decisions of private industry? Perhaps the answer is yes. Inducements could be made to companies building more factories in areas with the greatest poverty. Good idea really, the more I think about it.

Why does The Nation uses the word 'mob' to describe the redshirts? The definition of mob is as follows:

1 A dissorderly crowd of people 2 A loose affiliation of gangsters in charge of organized criminal activities 3 An association of criminals.

Compare this with 'demonstration': A public display of group feelings (usually of a political nature) esp. an organized march protesting about something.

I think the Nation writers are in urgent need of some English lessons but then I guess that would also apply to most of the Thai population!

You forgot a few of the other definitions. See definition numbers 2 and 4.

n.

1. A large disorderly crowd or throng. See synonyms at crowd1.

2. The mass of common people; the populace.

3. Informal.

a. An organized gang of criminals; a crime syndicate.

b. often Mob Organized crime. Often used with the: a murder suspect with links to the Mob.

4. An indiscriminate or loosely associated group of persons or things: a mob of boats in the harbor.

5. Australian. A flock or herd of animals.

Just make fresh elections, we'll see.

Fresh elections would require a few things.

1) Agreements to cease all vote-buying efforts by all parties - punishments are already proscribed by law

2) All candidates must be able to campaign freely in every area without fear of harassment or violence. It will be up to the redshirts to guarantee this in their regions. Previous groups entering their strongholds have been victims of death threats, pelting with fermented fish, and machete attacks. This is a huge condition that must be met before any election can be scheduled.

3) Then there is the Thaksin question. There must be iron-clad agreements to cease all political attempts to exonerate Thaksin. The courts have authority in this and political meddling is unacceptable. This is probably the deal breaker for both sides. The reds won't do it. The Dems, military, and most educated society won't tolerate a Thaksin whitewash. Stalemate.

4) Not necessary or likely, but it would be good to have international observers at the next election to guarantee against electoral fraud.

If these conditions could be met elections would likely go forward in a matter of months.

This a forum for debate . If all agree then there is no debate

Anyway ok thanks

Didn't mean to discourage you moresomeki. Apologies. By all means, keep on posting. All views are welcome. Agreement is neither expected nor desired.

Why coup ? Simple . because otherwise he wins the election , not that i wish he did .

Reasons for the coup are far from simple. Were you here at the time leading up to it?

Still the main reason for the coup was that if no coup Mr T would be elected

you know that .

If want to remove someone ,even someone not good , legal means must be used .

I posed these same questions on another thread. Nobody responded and they seem appropriate here so again, consider the scenario:

A very corrupt man is PM. He has enormous support amongst large segments of the population. He breaks the law with impunity. He engages in vote buying and party buying on an unprecedented scale. He steals billions of tax payer money to line his and his friends pockets. He commits massive human rights violations. He engages in widespread policy corruption and kickbacks. He plants corrupt judges into the judiciary. He plants staunch loyalists into positions of power in the police and military. He denies freedom of speech by refusing to answer questions that would cast him in a critical light and by silencing critics in the media through frivolous lawsuits. In short he is building a dictatorship where he is immune from any of the traditional ways of removing a PM from power.

How should a country remove such a leader?

Which is worse for a democracy, a coup to remove a corrupt and criminal leader, or to allow the leader to continue to rape the country for personal profit while trampling on all democratic checks and balances?

Why does this woman continue to have rights of appeal when she hasn't served any sentence for tax evasion?

Separate cases. Why shouldn't she have the right to appeal? It is her right by law, regardless of any other cases in the courts.