jayboy

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

Actually there's not much to disagree with in your first paragraphs though I'm unaware there are any serious people disputing there was an armed redshirt element.The questions I hope the trial clarifies are why it's taken so long to arrest them,who paid for them,who are they and what were they aiming to achieve.All this presupposes these are right people - very far from being proven.

You have got yourself in a muddle in your last paragraph.You might want to reread the relevant posts so you don't repeat the error.

If they show up at trial dressed as they are in this photo, I'm going to have to vote 'guilty'. I mean, really, don't they look like genuine 'men in black'? /sarcasm

Seriously, this is a good way to taint a jury pool.

There is no jury system here.

No there's not but the general point remains valid given the implicit assumption of guilt the ludicrous circus suggested.Still the details to be revealed at the trial will be fascinating.I retain an open mind.

If the trial or any parts of it are "closed" uncertainties will remain.

No the general point doesn't remain. There's no jury system to taint.

Don't be silly.There's no jury system but the absurd dressing up of the accused was prejudicial to their case, and was widely condemned at the time.The general point stands that this was bad practice.

If they show up at trial dressed as they are in this photo, I'm going to have to vote 'guilty'. I mean, really, don't they look like genuine 'men in black'? /sarcasm

Seriously, this is a good way to taint a jury pool.

There is no jury system here.

No there's not but the general point remains valid given the implicit assumption of guilt the ludicrous circus suggested.Still the details to be revealed at the trial will be fascinating.I retain an open mind.

If the trial or any parts of it are "closed" uncertainties will remain.

I doubt whether Stephen Hawking would visit Thailand given his strong ethical views.He has joined in the boycott of Israel following that country's activities in Gaza, mistakenly in the view of many.But the point is he draws the line even to visit functioning democracies where human rights have been undermined.He does not give moral support to pariah states.

You can't help yourself, now can you?

The most likely reason for Prof. Hawkins to decline an invitation will be his health and the suggestion his appearance would change "attitudes towards education for people with disabilities and underprivileged children" even though he has been active in raising awareness and rights of disabled people.

As for political aspects, well

"Cambridge issued a statement indicating that Dr. Hawking had told the Israelis that he would not be attending “based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott,” according to The Associated Press."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/world/middleeast/stephen-hawking-joins-boycott-against-israel.html

"Hawking is in very poor health, but last week he wrote a brief letter to the Israeli president to say he had changed his mind. He has not announced his decision publicly, but a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine with Hawking's approval described it as "his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there"."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-israel-academic-boycott

Of course Hawking would consult independent academics about any visit to a country where democracy had been trashed.You are in fact making my point for me if you had the wit to understand.If you don't know the views of the independent Thai academic community that is your own problem, but I can assure you it is not friendly to this illegitimate government.

Naturally Hawking's age and physical condition are key issues.But based on political aspects it seems almost inconceivable he would visit Thailand given his membership of the Cambridge liberal intelligentsia and Thailand's international shame.

BS, my dear jayboy. you're still on the political track.

It would seem some organisation informed Prof Hawkins that it would be better he would decline the invitation and he agreed. As it is I might even wonder if the response to a possible invitation to Thailand would be answered favorable as Science here seems in dire need of improvements.

It's amusing you dismiss my case because I am on the "political track". Politics is in fact at the heart of set of reasons Hawking will never come to Thailand (though I grant his health probably prevents it anyway).Are you blind or are you not aware that Bangkok is "off the intinerary" for most distinguished foreign leaders?

I doubt whether Stephen Hawking would visit Thailand given his strong ethical views.He has joined in the boycott of Israel following that country's activities in Gaza, mistakenly in the view of many.But the point is he draws the line even to visit functioning democracies where human rights have been undermined.He does not give moral support to pariah states.

You can't help yourself, now can you?

The most likely reason for Prof. Hawkins to decline an invitation will be his health and the suggestion his appearance would change "attitudes towards education for people with disabilities and underprivileged children" even though he has been active in raising awareness and rights of disabled people.

As for political aspects, well

"Cambridge issued a statement indicating that Dr. Hawking had told the Israelis that he would not be attending “based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott,” according to The Associated Press."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/world/middleeast/stephen-hawking-joins-boycott-against-israel.html

"Hawking is in very poor health, but last week he wrote a brief letter to the Israeli president to say he had changed his mind. He has not announced his decision publicly, but a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine with Hawking's approval described it as "his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there"."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-israel-academic-boycott

Of course Hawking would consult independent academics about any visit to a country where democracy had been trashed.You are in fact making my point for me if you had the wit to understand.If you don't know the views of the independent Thai academic community that is your own problem, but I can assure you it is not friendly to this illegitimate government.

Naturally Hawking's age and physical condition are key issues.But based on political aspects it seems almost inconceivable he would visit Thailand given his membership of the Cambridge liberal intelligentsia and Thailand's international shame.

I doubt whether Stephen Hawking would visit Thailand given his strong ethical views.He has joined in the boycott of Israel following that country's activities in Gaza, mistakenly in the view of many.But the point is he draws the line even to visit functioning democracies where human rights have been undermined.He does not give moral support to pariah states.

Yesterday a poster posted a link to a Washington Times article "Thai Government freezes assets of suspected backers of the Red Shirts", apparently to prove the Red Shirts were not bankrolled by Thaksin Shinawatra.

I had a good read of the article last night and wondered why anyone would use this article as proof that other "parties" were the financial backers, and not Thaksin.

There is a blacklist of names and companies who are suspected backers.

Part of the article included -

"Featured on the blacklist is the former wife of Thaksin Shinawatra, the exiled former prime minister who was toppled in a bloodless coup in 2006 and subsequently convicted in absentia of corruption.

According to the blacklist:

• Pojaman Damapong, Thaksin’s former wife, withdrew 54 million baht ($1.6 million) between September and May.

• Thaksin’s and Mrs. Pojaman’s son, Panthongtae Shinawatra, and their unmarried daughter Pinthongta Shinawatra withdrew a combined total of nearly 11 billion baht ($330 million).

The blacklist notes withdrawals by more than a dozen politicians who are perceived as having supported Thaksin. Among them, the largest appear to have been made by Sudarat Keyuraphan, a former executive of Thaksin’s political party."

"The blacklist also identifies seven Red Shirt leaders who deposited large sums of money into their own accounts between September and May, but it says the information about the deposits is “not available.” Three of those Red Shirt leaders were very outspoken during the protests: Veera Musikhapong, Kwanchai Praipana and Weng Tojirakarn."

I Googled some of the 13 companies listed and guess what, they are part of the Shin Group.

So thanks to that poster, as I am even more convinced now who backed the terrorism in 2010.

Wow Mikey you are really something special! The finest lawyers, accountants and investigators Abhisit & Suthep could buy couldn't pin anything on any of those people you quoted, but you Mikey the super sleuth have cracked it. Quick ring up your buddy General Dufus & tell him that you've uncovered the backers.

Ignore him.He doesn't really understand any of this and his childish posts indicates his forensic skills are rudimentary.By his own admission he gets his information from his wife's friends.Not to be taken seriously- though his simple minded posts will no doubt continue.

But it is frustrating because there is a genuine debate to be had on the MIB.I take the view that There was an armed redshirt element and the reputable reports such as that of HRW confirm this.Other details are obscure and the forthcoming trial will be fascinating.

I wish there was a way to block the nonsense from all sides but sadly that seems impossible.

I seem to recall that the father, who is described as a real estate businessman, was actually given a sinecure job at SC Assets, the family property development firm where Yingluck 'worked' after Shin Corp was sold to Trmasek. I think his wife worked there too. It must be hard for the professionals to run the business, if the family members actually show up for work.

Before it was taken over in the police chief's multi billion baht corporate raid Yingluck's unregistered husband was given the CEO job at MLINK by Yingluck's sister. Their unregistered marriage seems to be on the rocks, so he hasn't been offered a replacement sinecure job by the Shins. Perhaps he is now at the labour exchange. Funny how the buyers of Shin companies never try to persuade any of the family management to stay on.

You are clearly completely ignorant about the way family businesses work in the Sino Thai community.This has nothing to do with politics and the same patterns are demonstrated in all such businesses.

There is certainly a tendency for family members with aptitude to work for the business for the simple reasons they are motivated and can be trusted.But there are few if any sinecures these days.The feckless son type is rarely given responsibility though he may be in the payroll.

Obviously if companies are sold the buyer puts in new management.

Probably best you don't pontificate on subjects you don't understand.

Thailand

A slow motion train wreck in action now.

The regime used the Urban dislike and mistrust of the rural Thais and of the North to split the people and thus open the door for the coup.

The people of Bangkok thought there would be some return to democracy. They were played the fools. There was never any intention of holding anything that even resembled real elections. Now the people of Bangkok are slowly but surely becoming hostile toward the regime and all of its parts.

The rich seem United against the people for now but that can quickly change should anything close to a revolution start to raise its head.

Different rich will split to different sides of the fight based upon beliefs and self interest.

That tick tock you hear is the ticking time bomb that will go off sooner or later here.

Farangs will split and run out of the nation in mass for their own safety.

The economy, which is already in decline will collapse.

The city might even burn.

It could all be avoided if only the rich elite who rule the nation would use their own common sense and education to make changes. Do you really think this system can continue here when it has collapsed all over the world in other places? You think you are somehow smarter or more charming than the other elites in Europe were? You are better than the Russian leaders of old Russia were? If I were you I would not wait until the people are hungry and then say--"let them eat Rice".

I am glad I got out. it is a terrible place to raise children now and the danger for Farangs is on a steady increase.

The only thing the two sides in a Thai civil war would agree upon is that the farang need to go.

Jeeez Where to start with this one? The country had already been divided by big T and red shirt brain washing of the rural folk, Do you and all other red types really believe that PTP, Jat, Nat, Chalerm, YL give a toss about the people in Isarn and the north? (Surely PTP;s incompetent policies which hurt the poor badly must give you some clue) What the hell has Russia's past or present ( Your post isn't very clear) history got to do with Thailand? I am sick and tired of reading wet dream adolescent fantasies about violence in Thailand by westerners posting on TVF because that's really all they are and all they will ever be.

I think you are tilting at windmills because I have seen no posts advocating violence from any side.In any event I doubt such posts would be tolerated by mods.

As to the position of the poor in the North and North East you are deluded.Thaksin's policies undoubtedly benefited the rural poor and all serious studies confirm this.This is not to say they were well constructed or always properly directed, but the impact was undoubted - which is why many of them were adopted by the Democrat opposition.As to which group of politicians "care" most about the rural Thais who can say? But in the minds of the rural majority there is very little doubt - which is why Thaksin and Yingluck are the most popular politicians by a considerable margin.

Russia is relevant to Thailand in the sense it stands in contrast to Britain,France and the US in the way it dealt with a rising better educated, politically aware and more literate working class.The elites of these countries astutely learnt the art of compromise, and thus kept most of what they had in terms of wealth and political power.In Russia of course they lost it all by being stupidly pigheaded believing feudal and military controls could keep the powerful social changes at bay.I leave it to you to decide in which camp Thailand seems likely to fall.

With the military in control now.......who coincidently, are part of the elite of Thailand..(well..the generals at least)....who are not now, or ever in the past, been friends of the so called iliterate, uneducated rural poor who are the majority in Thailand.......how is any form of reconciliation ever going to truthfully take place?......

If and when elections are held....do we think that it will be one man, one vote?...........

"do we think that it will be one man, one vote?"

Yes.

Well let's hope so but all the evidence is against it - by which I mean an electoral system that is not distorted to give a particular result or to frustrate a particular result.A main point of Suthep's street protest and the military takeover it called for was to block the voting power of the rural majority.It would be therefore surprising if the next election was held on a basis that one man's vote was as powerful as another's.

Did they copy this from posts on Thai Visa? There is certainly nothing new there.

So you are saying that the civilised world is expressing views similar to those you disagree with on this forum? And your response is this is "nothing new"?

Do you ever consider that it might be time to revise your opinion (or parts of it) or or are you completely hooked to a party line like a Soviet era apparatchik?

I may have missed it but I do not recall one tiny note of dissent or concern at the present situation.

You missed it. You miss a lot of things.

I'll keep an eye open but so far all the evidence is you have no willingness to even mildly criticise the status quo let alone stand up for democracy.

Unlike the repulsive quisling cheerleaders, I do at least give you some credit for intelligence and moral integrity.Otherwise I wouldn't bother commenting - more in sorrow than anger anyway.

Do you want me to run across the road to the cinema, stand in front of a Hunger Games poster and do a three finger salute to show some dissent?

No, but if I may say so it's ill advised to allow a strong distaste for Thaksin ( entirely understandable) overwhelm one's thinking until one is slowly but inexorably aligned with forces that are far worse.Let's call it the frying pan and fire dilemma.

Did they copy this from posts on Thai Visa? There is certainly nothing new there.

So you are saying that the civilised world is expressing views similar to those you disagree with on this forum? And your response is this is "nothing new"?

Do you ever consider that it might be time to revise your opinion (or parts of it) or or are you completely hooked to a party line like a Soviet era apparatchik?

I may have missed it but I do not recall one tiny note of dissent or concern at the present situation.

You missed it. You miss a lot of things.

I'll keep an eye open but so far all the evidence is you have no willingness to even mildly criticise the status quo let alone stand up for democracy.

Unlike the repulsive quisling cheerleaders, I do at least give you some credit for intelligence and moral integrity.Otherwise I wouldn't bother commenting - more in sorrow than anger anyway.

Did they copy this from posts on Thai Visa? There is certainly nothing new there.

So you are saying that the civilised world is expressing views similar to those you disagree with on this forum? And your response is this is "nothing new"?

Do you ever consider that it might be time to revise your opinion (or parts of it) or or are you completely hooked to a party line like a Soviet era apparatchik?

I may have missed it but I do not recall one tiny note of dissent or concern at the present situation.

Take your Tin Soldiers, your megalomania, your authoritarian reactionary ideas, your archaic superstitions,

your undisclosed suspicious wealth and pack it all in a bag along with your glaring insecurities and .

And take Somyat along with his suspicious wealth with you, as well.

Bravo.It reminds me of Oliver Cromwell's famous words later echoed by Leo Amery when their country was governed by inadequates.

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Pornthip permanently lost her reputation and credibility by making statements that could not possibly be true about "bomb detectors" that a criminal case in the UK proved to be completely fraudulent, because the technology they were meant to be based on doesn't exist and never did exist.

To save face, she compounded her crime by making anti-scientific statements based on mysticism to try to justify her fraudulent claims.

At a stroke she has eliminated the one belief that made her valuable: that truth is based only on experimental evidence. She has shown she will ignore scientific principles if paid enough. No-one can trust any statement she makes now.

In the west she would not have a job anywhere and would also be in jail.

So you are telling us that all the others from the police and military in the other countries that bought the things have been sacked and are in jail .

No I think he's just telling you she is an incompetent and a fraud.

There should also be laws which:

- Strongly prevent individuals or families 'owning' political parties.

- Strongly prevent political parties paying a salary to party members / elected members, etc etc.

- Require that every party have a registered specific manifesto which must provide benefits for all members of society and cannot provide benefits only to specific groups (e.g. taxi drivers) unless there is a need in terms of national security etc etc.

- Require that in the run up to elections each party must conduct public meetings to explain, debate, and answer questions on their manifesto and such meeting must be moderated by a person respected by the public and not a member of the party.

- Require that every party in their registered manifesto have clear policies aimed directly at gaining a much better spread of wealth and opportunity for all citizens.

- Plus there should be a public body which is required by law to report direct to the public perhaps six monthly whether parties are sticking to their manifesto.

- Fast deregistration with punishments for parties not confirming to all of the above.

Commenting on each point

1.Needs clarification.Impossible to ensure a party is not dominated by its leader

2.OK though party HQ would presumably have salaried employees.

3.Nonsense.It is not for officials to determine what is in party manifestos.It is entirely a matter for the political parties concerned.In any case it is in the nature of party manifestos in every democracy to give emphasis to supporters views.If the policies have no appeal they don't get elected.

4.It's up to the parties not some external organisation.Certainly there's room to encourage responsible media coverage, debates between candidates etc.

5.Don't be ridiculous.Once again if the political parties can't produce policies with broad national appeal they don't get elected.

6.Don't have an issue in principle with this but surely you mean an elected Government (not political parties) producing reports on progress.

7.Don't be stupid.The penalty for political parties/governments failing to perform lies with the Thai electorate - ie by removing the bums from office.

Overall a fatuous and impractical set of proposals.

isn't issara somchai wearing a political t-shirt?

in CM that kind of activity by a fish-monger brought a visit from the military and they stripped him half naked.

as for the current proposals mentioned here, the direction the CDC is going to rig the system and disenfranchise voters is developing as expected.

The fishmonger story seems fabricated and is frequently mentioned by you and a few others. Better stop mentioning it or provide irrefutable proof.

.

fabricated?

Read the news Rubl. CM, fishmonger stripped once, they came back and took PTP stickers off his coolers.

But in the south, I never saw any change in wardrobes. Shutdown BKK and PDRC t-shirts worn in june just like it was march

btw, with you, I have learned that there is no such thing as proof. you just swerve, 'n duck, und skip over the evidence and pretend it was never presented.

welcome back, were you on vacation?

Fabricated, rumour mongering, etc., and no clear answer of course. Just insinuation.

As for vacation, more like a voluntary 'retraite'. Always the same here with most vocal posters not caring the least for Thailand and it's people. Nonsense about how democracies should work, And of course the 'clear' statements what the CRC will do, 'rigging' as well.

Written from my home in Bangkok where I can see and hear normal people making ready to get their children to school and going to work themselves.

I am not sure why you think you have the right to speak for the people of Thailand, and insinuate that those who are not cheerleaders for dictatorship don't have the interests of the Thai people at heart.

On the basis of your posting record it's clear it is you that needs to learn how democracy works.A free and fair election in which all votes count equally is a prerquisite wirhout which democracy cannot exist.

As for your comments on normal people getting ready for work and children ready for school, it reminds me of accounts of Vichy France where an appearence of normalcy prevailed and ordinary people supported Petain's quisling government.

If they really implemented this on all levels, there would be no politicians left!!

They are all corrupt, all the way from the top, down to the officeclerk in charge of the copy-machine!!

I do agree with you JOC, 100%.

So the army better stay where they are now so we don't have to worry about corrupt politicians.

And u reckon that the army is clean?

Not all of them, but the clean ones started getting the dirty ones out already.

Ain't you happy about that?

There is absolutely no evidence to support what you say, namely that the generals now in charge are "clean" or that any effort is being made to identify and remove/punish the "unclean" ones.We do know that there is massive corruption in the RTA over many decades.We do know that the RTA is never accountable for its crimes.We do know that a misplaced sense of solidarity, particularly the graduating class system prevents decent officers identifying rotten apples in their midst.We do know trhat the RTA has a huge business network, including absurdly inappropriate media interests which benefits senior officers.We do know the RTA interferes in politics to an extent which in democratic countries would be regarded as high treason.We know the RTA has an appalling human rights record and lies about its crimes.We know the RTA is militarily incompetent - though military proficiency has never been a priority in this money making machine.

I am sure Mr Prayuth will be turning his attention to military reform very soon

I think these guys may be on to something with their call for democracy at the grass roots.

If I understand the proposal correctly it entails ordinary people taking control by selecting their representatives.

This would mean public participation in the broadest possible way.It would also enable the public to remove their representatives if they failed to perform.

That would mean free and fair elections at regular intervals.......oh, wait

I'll get my coat.

.............................."That would mean free and fair elections at regular intervals.......oh, wait"...............................

Good point jayboy, glad you brought it up. I stumbled across a Thai government website (The Government Public Relations Department) which contained an article dating back to November 2007.

It contained this quote -

"All provinces nationwide have been instructed to raise public awareness against vote buying to ensure a free and fair election."

So does that mean elections are not "free and fair" if people are being paid to vote for a particular party ? If so you can stop harping on about it because I know for a fact that the Shin parties pay people for their votes. They cannot get voted in without them, otherwise they would not be doing it, would they ?

Any party that pays for votes should be given life bans, affecting that party and every member of it, regardless what colored banner they wave.

Now get your coat.....................................

Read the literature on the subject of vote buying.It is authoritative and irrefutable confirming its presence among all parties but lack of effect.People like you invoke anecdotes from "wives" but lack the wit or energy to do basic research.Actually this subject isn't really up for debate.

"but lack of effect"................That is rubbish ! If it had no effect they would not be doing it. I may not have been in Thailand as long as you but I do know one thing for sure, Thai people don't part with money if they don't have to.

This subject is not really up for debate because you are out of ammo and you know you are wrong.

And if the people at the grass roots are taught about Democracy let's hope they mention the other principles as well, or do they only have to know about elections ?

Since you have clearly done no research at all and are profoundly ignorant on this subject , there seems little point in opening a discussion.Do some homework, be sceptical about all anecdotal evidence (whatever it seems to suggest) and apply some intelligence.Of course people like you never will.

I was probably wrong in saying the subject is not up for debate.It's quite a common belief among the urban Sino Thai middle class and the less sophisticated "expatriate" population, the latter often fairly ignorant of context/nuance.

For those who are interested, I think a good summary was by Chris Baker who speculated that money was the price to pay for being in the game but it didn't dictate defeat or victory.Khun Korn, one of the best intellects in the Democrat Party, pointed out that if a Democrat candidate ran in parts of the NE victory would never been achieved even if three times more cash was spent than Thaksin's candidate.This actually happened in the 2007 election when some TRT MPs in the NE defected to Puea Paendin.They spent three times the cash but still lost.

The much missed Changnoi wrote

" In truth the problem is not that upcountry voters don't know how to use their vote and that the result is distorted by patronage and votebuying.The problem is that they have learnt to use the vote only too well.Over several national polls they have chosen very consistently and very rationally.And of course that may be the real problem.Back when many upcountry electors sold their votes, and as a result their weight in national politics was zero, nobody cared so much about vote buying.But now the electors have got smart they have to be stopped.The bleating about vote buying and patronage politics is simply an attempt to undermine electoral democracy because it seems to be working".

In these strange days we have to be careful what we say on the forum.I empathise with moderators' role and have tried to be compliant.But we do not have to put up with ignorance and lies on the subject of vote buying.As the great Clement Attlee observed to a dismal Cabinet colleague ,"A period of silence on your part would be very welcome".

I think these guys may be on to something with their call for democracy at the grass roots.

If I understand the proposal correctly it entails ordinary people taking control by selecting their representatives.

This would mean public participation in the broadest possible way.It would also enable the public to remove their representatives if they failed to perform.

That would mean free and fair elections at regular intervals.......oh, wait

I'll get my coat.

.............................."That would mean free and fair elections at regular intervals.......oh, wait"...............................

Good point jayboy, glad you brought it up. I stumbled across a Thai government website (The Government Public Relations Department) which contained an article dating back to November 2007.

It contained this quote -

"All provinces nationwide have been instructed to raise public awareness against vote buying to ensure a free and fair election."

So does that mean elections are not "free and fair" if people are being paid to vote for a particular party ? If so you can stop harping on about it because I know for a fact that the Shin parties pay people for their votes. They cannot get voted in without them, otherwise they would not be doing it, would they ?

Any party that pays for votes should be given life bans, affecting that party and every member of it, regardless what colored banner they wave.

Now get your coat.....................................

Read the literature on the subject of vote buying.It is authoritative and irrefutable confirming its presence among all parties but lack of effect.People like you invoke anecdotes from "wives" but lack the wit or energy to do basic research.Actually this subject isn't really up for debate.

These people need to be reminded of Tony Benn's excellent test for democracy.To be asked of all those who hold political power:

“What power have you got?”

“Where did you get it from?”

“In whose interests do you use it?”

“To whom are you accountable?”

“How do we get rid of you?”

I think these guys may be on to something with their call for democracy at the grass roots.

If I understand the proposal correctly it entails ordinary people taking control by selecting their representatives.

This would mean public participation in the broadest possible way.It would also enable the public to remove their representatives if they failed to perform.

That would mean free and fair elections at regular intervals.......oh, wait

I'll get my coat.

The mental derangement of those who loathe Yingluk Shinawat never take a moment to realize that maybe all the brains in the Shinawat family did not go only to the son. Maybe daughters can be just as capable. It's an extraordinary insult to women to assume the boy got all the brains. but, that, natch, escaped the loathers.

One of the most uninformed observations of the haters is that Yingluck had no tested executive capability.They argue she only worked in a Shin company as a sinecure.There are a couple of ponts to be made.Firstly it is entire natural in line with Sino Thai business habits for a person to work in a family company.Secondly (and this observation is based on many years of experience) the less capable and energetic of the family members are sidelined or marginalised.The fact that Yingluck held a position of some responsibility says volumes.The reality is that in terms of executive experience and capability she had rather more than her political rivals.This is not to say Abhisit was not her superior in many other ways, and that her emergence as PM wasn't something of a fluke.Still capability and charm aren't to be despised in a politician.

Wasn't it Thaksin himself that said something like "I could get a lamp post elected PM "

And previously. "she(Yingluck) is my clone"

He did say something clumsily to that effect but I don't see how that impinges on the points I made.Yingluck would not have course been elected if she had not been Thaksin's sister.Thais voted for her because they perceived in doing so that the policies of her brother would be implemented.Is this so surprising?