jayboy

Great idea because the Shin dynasty have more money than the opposition with which to buy votes. Without any reform, the election is simply a financial transaction as it is sold to the highest bidder. The number of posts I have seen banging on about a democratically elected government is heartbreaking. How is buying an election democratic?

paying people doesn't guarantee they will vote for you. The dems paid my wife's family last time and they voted for Yingluk. Took the money and thought suckers.

People will still vote for whoever they want

Doesn't guarantee it but it does help. If it didn't, politicians wouldn't waste their money on it, would they.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You raise a fair point, ie if vote buying doesn't affect the results why do polticians do it? Chris Baker and Acharn Pasuk in their BP recent article on the "dangerous nonsense" about vote buying (google it for the usual reasons) said that some candidates at elections still do this for fear of being called small hearted or ungenerous.But it doesn't affect the results.

As I have pointed out elsewhere the suggestion that Thailand's elections are other than fair (ie not distorted by vote buying) isn't now a credible one.Of course it's part of the opposition mantra but you won't hear educated and serious politicians (like Korn or Abhisit) making that claim.

There are plenty o otherf valid reasons to criticise the "tyranny" of the electoral majority and lack of properly effective checks and balances.

I am not trying to wade into your disagreement with someone else, but, as you are probably aware, Transparency International bases it's Corruption Index on perceptions of people in international organizations outside of Thailand.

In addition, even if you wanted to argue that it is the best unbiased international view we have, you should know that even Transparency International views that corruption in Thailand is worse in 2013 compared to 2012.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Thanks for the background.You will appreciate however that I am not arguing about the level of corruption.Indeed my contention is that the current standoff is not really about corruption at all.

Bad news for Suthep if the reds actually do that and avoid confrontation he won't have the violence he needs.

You've posted a lot of dumbass stuff but I think this counts as one of the dumbest. No one wants any violence and everyone on both sides of this conflict is breathing a sigh of relief that there probably won't be a confrontation.

You are seriously naive if you believe Suthep (and equally importantly his backers) would not like to see the government/security forces crack down violently, not least because it would allow the army/directed judges to step in and remove the Yingluck government.Unfortunately for them the government has been very patient and has won international approval for its approach.

Naive. Hmmm. Do you think the government is behaving like this because they deeply care for the safety and well being of the Thai people? That they really respect the right of protest, democracy and will listen to the people and implement reforms that will benefit the country as a whole?

Or might it just be the usual often confusing machinations associated with their manipulative grand strategist?

Trying to dress up the international approvals as support for PTP is wearing a bit thin now. Not one single government has come out and actually supported the Yingluck government or PTP.

Yes.Obviously the government has concern for the safety and well being of the Thai people.No government (of any political persuasion) wants to harm or damage its own people and only those with a a cartoon "Mr Evil" outlook would believe otherwise.But as the recent protests have shown the current government is much more responsible than its predecessor about public safety.

The current government obviously respects the right to demonstrate and in terms of respecting democracy generally is way in advance of the "Democrats" and Suthep.

In terms of the implementation of reforms you have veered off issue.What reforms are you referring to? Suthep's proposals are often vague and sometimes unacceptable.

As to foreign governments you evidently have some difficulty in grasping the point.None of them support one side or the other.However many have commented Thailand should respect democracy and follow the rule of law.And many have praised Khun Yingluck for her approach to civil disturbances in the current crisis.

The real story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQVjUsKSKUE#t=614

A propaganda piece which fails at the first hurdle by repeating lies about the numbers involved in the protests "maybe the biggest in the modern world" - 6 million on December 22 apparently.The reality is the numbers never exceeded 200,000.It gets worse with the usual mantra of uneducated rural people perverting the democratic process.I get the same message from the nice but silly old Chinese Thai grannies who are my neighbours.The underlying reasons for the current hysteria are never mentioned.

Any intelligent person would simply shrug at this nonsense.So the question remains.What exactly is the intended audience or is it just preaching to the converted?

As an aside, I consider the OP "news" cutting to be somewhat politically biased.

Is there such a thing as a politically independent English language national newspaper or news service in Thailand that anyone can point me to, please?

Thanks in advance.

No there is not.In the English language press there is a clear editorial tendency to extreme reaction and the old order and against the government though to be fair there are occasional guest contributions which provide an alternative viewpoint.Some of the Nation key staff contributors (Thanong,Kavi etc) seem blind to reality.

There is for little or no coverage of developments which don't fit in with the Suthep narrative, eg the latest New York Times report

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/world/asia/thailand.html?_r=1&

Bad news for Suthep if the reds actually do that and avoid confrontation he won't have the violence he needs.

You've posted a lot of dumbass stuff but I think this counts as one of the dumbest. No one wants any violence and everyone on both sides of this conflict is breathing a sigh of relief that there probably won't be a confrontation.

You are seriously naive if you believe Suthep (and equally importantly his backers) would not like to see the government/security forces crack down violently, not least because it would allow the army/directed judges to step in and remove the Yingluck government.Unfortunately for them the government has been very patient and has won international approval for its approach.

The government is being 'patient' because they have no choice, the army won't back them. They have already said they 'would stand on the side of the people' if the police cracked down on the protestors.

I don't think the army chiefs have quite said that though I agree their sympathies are with the protests.But even accepting your hypothesis that the government has no choice but to be conciliatory, that surely represents progress of sorts in the way political disputes are handled in Thailand.Equally I'm not sure the army has much choice but to be restrained given the disastrous experience during the last major Bangkok political protest under Abhisit.This is far from being a criticism of the army or the current government; they may have little choice but they are also (so far) being smart.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

If there is a coup I'm sure the army will not make the same mistake they made in 2006 when Sonthi handed power over to Surayud who then appointed a very disappointing Cabinet.

If it is to happen again no doubt able figures such as Khun Anand will have been approached first regarding Cabinet posts.

Yeah, we need a collection of men in their late 80's early 90's to bring some new blood and ideas into the equation.

Thank you farang000999..thats says it perfectly. These people dont want anything to change.

More ignorance on display above- Khun Anand was the chairman of the National Reform Committee in 2011, below are their proposals, ignored by the Phea Thai government

Eight proposals formulated in the 1st National Reform Assembly were submitted to Prof. Dr. Prawase Wasi, chairperson of the National Reform Assembly Committee and Mr. Anand Panyarachun, chairperson of the National Reform Committee on 26th March, 2011. The 8 proposals include:

1. Fair and sustainable land allocation with ownership limited to 20 rais or 8 acres.

2. Management of sea and coastal resources

3. Return of justice on land and resources, reform of judiciary system on cases about land and resources ownership.

4. Reform of social security system in which the independent mechanism is in place and benefiters can directly elect their representatives.

5. Security and promotion of wellbeing for senior citizens

6. Mechanism for happy society and potential development fund for the vulnerable groups

7. Decentralization of power according to the 3rd National Health Assembly’s resolution on development of self-management area.

8. Formulation and implementation of the culture development plan as a way to build creativity and heal society

Nothing implemented by the amart of the Shinawat family who want nothing to change.

What exactly have these proposals got to do with electoral reform? Some of them are also gibberish particularly 6,7,8.

The ANFREL proposals linked by Old Man River are relevant seem sensible enough though the devil's in the detail.Have any political parties signed up to these yet? Has there been much civil society debate?

So is this game, set and match to Suthep? All of his demands have been met, after a short but desperate struggle by the government to resist, yet they capitulated every time. Yingluck will cease to be the acting PM imminently, possibly even before the day is out. The situation is very fluid and has been given a shot in the arm by the police sending 50 of the protesters to hospital with gunshot wounds.

No, the EC has an opinion. The government could say they don't agree and tell the EC to proceed with 2nd Feb.

At the same time big brother makes a few payments. And the Shin world is rosy again....

Just it might be too obvious.....

There was never much doubt the February 2nd election would be cancelled.What was less certain which coup created set of judges would be instructed to take the decision.

All the judges must be in the pocket of the elite, anti-Thaksin dictatorship side? You have some evidence of this?

Or is it another example of "the well known" facts you regularly trot out without any evidence?

I never said all judges - even politicised decisions often have split votes.

But the deployment of the courts by the old establishment (especially after the failure of the military coup, general election routes) is not in doubt.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-judiciary-politicized/

What a oversight from Mr T...

Tried to own parliament but forgot he had to own EC as well

Could have organized elections by himself, only allow little Sis registration and... et voila...

The EC is owned by others.

So is this game, set and match to Suthep? All of his demands have been met, after a short but desperate struggle by the government to resist, yet they capitulated every time. Yingluck will cease to be the acting PM imminently, possibly even before the day is out. The situation is very fluid and has been given a shot in the arm by the police sending 50 of the protesters to hospital with gunshot wounds.

No, the EC has an opinion. The government could say they don't agree and tell the EC to proceed with 2nd Feb.

At the same time big brother makes a few payments. And the Shin world is rosy again....

Just it might be too obvious.....

There was never much doubt the February 2nd election would be cancelled.What was less certain which coup created set of judges would be instructed to take the decision.

For the benefit of one or two who remain confused the easiest way to obtain clarity is to read the statements issued by foreign governments.These do not support Abhisit's interpretation since they support the current Thai government's approach to the problem.

There is no evidence other than statements issued by foreign governments which are a matter of public record.Obviously the language is muted because nobody wishes to be seen to interfere.The preference for a general election,not obviously on a precise day, is very clear.Equally there is a clear wish for all sides to cooperate in a reform process.There is no support for the Suthep proposal.Abhisit pretends that there is no such foreign consensus -essentially backing the government's approach - but this is not the case.

Spin, as always.

You just said there is no absolute specific proof that other countries mean the 2 Feb date, then you just go crazy with other things trying to prove surapong's claim of support.

Which is it?

My post is very clear and I have nothing to add to it.Certainly it addresses your rather incoherent question.

No, you haven't answered the question, You state that the international community has a clear preference for elections on February 2nd. Then when challenged to prove that you can't.

Forgetting the feeble waffle attempt to divert, can you prove your statement? Or would you accept you made a mistake? Or did you intentionally make it up?

Once again read my post.If you are trying to suggest the international community has not given backing to the government's approach, you would be unable to demonstrate it for the simple reason it isn't true.Flail around all you like, you can't alter the facts - because the statements are on record.

If you are trying to make the basis of your case the February 2nd date, grow up.

He's lying.It's quite clear the international community has a clear preference for elections on February 2nd.At the same time it doesn't want to interfere in Thailand's internal affairs

You have references that support that the international community has a clear preference for elections on February 2nd?

Please could you supply them?

Not the usual - support democracy, free and fair elections and resolve peacefully as is the norm. But specifically supporting the elections to be held on 2nd February.

You have called Abhisit a liar - can you substantiate that with fact?

Come on jayboy, provide some proof that the international community has a clear preference for elections on February 2nd.

To be honest, I don't think you can provide such evidence.

There is no evidence other than statements issued by foreign governments which are a matter of public record.Obviously the language is muted because nobody wishes to be seen to interfere.The preference for a general election,not obviously on a precise day, is very clear.Equally there is a clear wish for all sides to cooperate in a reform process.There is no support for the Suthep proposal.Abhisit pretends that there is no such foreign consensus -essentially backing the government's approach - but this is not the case.

Spin, as always.

You just said there is no absolute specific proof that other countries mean the 2 Feb date, then you just go crazy with other things trying to prove surapong's claim of support.

Which is it?

My post is very clear and I have nothing to add to it.Certainly it addresses your rather incoherent question.

He's lying.It's quite clear the international community has a clear preference for elections on February 2nd.At the same time it doesn't want to interfere in Thailand's internal affairs

You have references that support that the international community has a clear preference for elections on February 2nd?

Please could you supply them?

Not the usual - support democracy, free and fair elections and resolve peacefully as is the norm. But specifically supporting the elections to be held on 2nd February.

You have called Abhisit a liar - can you substantiate that with fact?

Come on jayboy, provide some proof that the international community has a clear preference for elections on February 2nd.

To be honest, I don't think you can provide such evidence.

There is no evidence other than statements issued by foreign governments which are a matter of public record.Obviously the language is muted because nobody wishes to be seen to interfere.The preference for a general election,not obviously on a precise day, is very clear.Equally there is a clear wish for all sides to cooperate in a reform process.There is no support for the Suthep proposal.Abhisit pretends that there is no such foreign consensus -essentially backing the government's approach - but this is not the case.

@ jayboy Comparing George Orwell with Nick Nostitz is like comparing chalk with cheese. And I still maintain Journalists/Photographers, are there to observe and report news events,and not get involved in becoming the news.

NB George Orwell often submerged himself in the subject in order to gain material for his books. Such as "Down and out in London and Paris" in which he spent a year living with Tramps and taking on first hand their lifestyle!

I'm not comparing Nick with George Orwell.I'm making the point that a journalist can be committed or sympathetic to one side as long as he retains integrity and reports honestly.Another example would be the great American journalist Ed Morrow who reported from London during the Blitz.By some people on this forum's criteria he should have been even handed between the Nazis and the British.

Nick didn't want to be part of the story.He was attacked by Suthep's thugs.

Nostitz claimed he was assaulted for no reason while on the other side, he was said to have provoked the protestors into attacking him. You call the protestors 'thugs' but Nostitz may well be the provocateur here. He gets the attention and he gets the protestors to look bad. Not a bad trade for a few love taps on his face.

Grow up.

He's lying.It's quite clear the international community has a clear preference for elections on February 2nd.At the same time it doesn't want to interfere in Thailand's internal affairs

@ jayboy Comparing George Orwell with Nick Nostitz is like comparing chalk with cheese. And I still maintain Journalists/Photographers, are there to observe and report news events,and not get involved in becoming the news.

NB George Orwell often submerged himself in the subject in order to gain material for his books. Such as "Down and out in London and Paris" in which he spent a year living with Tramps and taking on first hand their lifestyle!

I'm not comparing Nick with George Orwell.I'm making the point that a journalist can be committed or sympathetic to one side as long as he retains integrity and reports honestly.Another example would be the great American journalist Ed Morrow who reported from London during the Blitz.By some people on this forum's criteria he should have been even handed between the Nazis and the British.

Nick didn't want to be part of the story.He was attacked by Suthep's thugs.

I think 'Nikolaus Freiherr von Nostitz', (Nicks birth name) "a German photographer" was aware that his bias reporting was not appreciated by those who he opposed and that an incident like this was more likely than not. It is an incident of his own making and as a public personality he should solely shoulder the blame for exposing himself to this danger. He should be thankfull that he was slapped by relatedly civilised people, if he was reporting from Syria or Egypt I am sure he would never have got away with it so lightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Nostitz This page was last modified on 25 November 2013 at 12:35.

Being a Journalist is very much a job that calls for complete impartiality.In this case,I believe his talents would have been better served on: another completely low key assignment!

Nonsense.Many great journalists have reported from various political viewpoints - whether from the left or the right.George Orwell reporting from Spain during the civil war is a classic example where his sympathies were very much with one side.The key issue is whether the approach is honest or not, and in the case of Nick Nostitz his integrity and courage is not in doubt.Of course what really irks the haters is that he casts light on areas that they would prefer to see hidden.

What is particularly repellent is the snide endorsement or near endorsement of violence against a fine reporter.

lol, Your brave courageous photographer was bitch slapped for arguing with a guard, hardly in the same league as the brave reporters that were locked in their TV station which was then set alight by a baying mob of peaceful redshirt protestors. An incident that I cant recall Herr Nostitz reporting.

I have no idea what incident you are referring to nor do I know whether Nick was present.

In any event it is irrelevant and your ugly and crude language endorsing violence simply proves my point.Nick has been widely praised - to my certain knowledge both by Chris Baker and Jonathan Head.

Nick may be on the hate list now but the enemies of democracy in Thailand loathe all foreign media scrutiny.What happened to Nick could easily happen to others in the current climate.

I think 'Nikolaus Freiherr von Nostitz', (Nicks birth name) "a German photographer" was aware that his bias reporting was not appreciated by those who he opposed and that an incident like this was more likely than not. It is an incident of his own making and as a public personality he should solely shoulder the blame for exposing himself to this danger. He should be thankfull that he was slapped by relatedly civilised people, if he was reporting from Syria or Egypt I am sure he would never have got away with it so lightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Nostitz This page was last modified on 25 November 2013 at 12:35.

Being a Journalist is very much a job that calls for complete impartiality.In this case,I believe his talents would have been better served on: another completely low key assignment!

Nonsense.Many great journalists have reported from various political viewpoints - whether from the left or the right.George Orwell reporting from Spain during the civil war is a classic example where his sympathies were very much with one side.The key issue is whether the approach is honest or not, and in the case of Nick Nostitz his integrity and courage is not in doubt.Of course what really irks the haters is that he casts light on areas that they would prefer to see hidden.

What is particularly repellent is the snide endorsement or near endorsement of violence against a fine reporter.

These are the leaders of industry and business in this country who are the only ones that have been keeping the country running and in any sort of economic shape during the last 2 years.

They have not only seen first hand the corruption but have been paying for it.

They can clearly see the flaws in the education system for they are the ones who have to recruit young people into their organisations and know the poor standard that education is producing.

They can see the abject mess the rice scheme is for the exporters are among their membership.

They know what state the economy is in and can see where things are heading.

Any reforms can only be to their advantage and that they are now taking a lead in proposing reforms can only be good for the country.

They now need to get Suthep to sit down with them and get him to join with them in sorting out just who and what a reform group will consist of.

Suthep's general aims are the same, reform starting now.

That he is now going on about getting rid of the Shin clan is really secondary for the Shins are on the way out.

When the courts get through with banning the 383 (312 PT) there will be very few if any left.

The Dems will also go along with an immediate start to reforms but PT will be dead against it.

Unfortunately it could end up with the reds coming back out, particularly when the courts ban the 383, the cops would stand back and do nothing and the army would be forced to defend the court and the judges, back to 2010.

I sincerely hope not

Tendentious nonsense from a predictable source with stale arguments long since demolished, and a few lies as well.As a refreshing contrast to this junk the Asia Wall Street Journal has a good opinion piece which among other things touches on this thread's topic.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304020704579275631180950354.html?dsk=y