Sonthi warns crisis likely in May

[SiamSquare123]

you are quite arrogant and misinformed. you really need to educate yourself to continue discussing this stuff,

[John K]

I think I can summerize the two posts above with this paragraph;

Thaksin does not think like the typical Thai and because of that he was able to move Thailand up and out of the place it was in for many years. The methods he used were both acceptable and unacceptable. Now that Thaksin is gone the remaining Thais appear that they can’t quite figure out how to keep it working and Thailand is slipping back to where it was. As far as tacking the word democracy to what Thaksin did is wrong. If you were to rename Thailand to Thailand co. Ltd. you would see it better. With that thought, how many companies do you know are run in a democratic way? If you are able to name one or more, did Thailand match that sample over the last several years?

[Bagwan]

you are quite arrogant and misinformed. you really need to educate yourself to continue discussing this stuff,

I suggest that you look into a mirror and read your post out loud - for an hour or two.

Most sentient, informed Thai people oppose Thaksin and his coterie. His power base is under privileged, ignorant and destitute farmers and other rural folk who rely on slanted newspapers and radio broadcasts and propaganda disseminated by village heads. Collecting a few hundred baht for their vote or an all expenses paid trip to BKK to 'protest' buys a measure of support.

73 billion invested would produce 7.3 billion or 20,000,000 every day of the year. He could well afford to hand out a thousand here, and thousand there - and make sure that every newspaper printed the fact. A sprat to catch a mackerel.

[endure]

And I suggest that you all stop the personal bickering and return to the topic.

[younghusband]

Younghusband, if you are right and generals are simply paranoid, why would this thread exist in the first place?

I don't know how credible PTV threats were but better safe than sorry. Could they have organised hired demonstrations with tens of thousands of people (and elephants) on the streets if not for the military/police presense? Very possible indeed.

Are people with genuine grievances allowed to show their disapproval of the court verdict? Yes. Latest report puts the number of protesters at 400 but must be more by now.

Another thing - generals and Abhisit have far more in common than you think, IMO. They both put the country and the justice above all else, including pretence of having democracy. They will always work things out.

Also the generals have no interest in actually running the country, they know by now that it's an extremely difficult and ungrateul job.

It's not that the generals are paranoid but they used the old fahioned ruse of conjuring up large violent mobs as a means to justify "law and order" policies.I just don't think there's a confrontational mood in the country at present.

As to your comment about Abhisit, I tend to agree with you.As you know, elites in Thailand tend to come to back door understandings.I also recognise most generals are decent human beings working for the good of the country as they see it, but there are one or two semi psychotic exceptions that chill my blood.

[Jai Dee]

Demonstrators surround Manager Group's head office, injuring guard

About 200 demonstrators surrounded the head office of the Manager Group early Friday morning and pelted the compounds, injuring a security officer.

The protesters moved from the rally side of PTV station at the Miksakawan Intersection and gathered in front of the Manger head office at 1 am.

They hurled abuses at Manger Group owner Sonthi Limthonkul for supporting the coup.

They threw rocks, bamboo sticks and water bottles into the car park of the Manager head office.

Sakrapee Banyong, 20, a guard, was hit by a rock at his head and suffered a big cut.

Police rushed to the scene to guard the office until the demonstrators dispersed half an hour later.

Source: The Nation - 1 June 2007

[sriracha john]

The above post is very appropriate considering the one it followed.

Indeed, it was a case of better safe than sorry... as various groups with varying ties to Thaksin had threatened violence following the decision...

The Sudchai group even going as far as saying "there would definitely be trouble."

[Plus]

It's not that the generals are paranoid but they used the old fahioned ruse of conjuring up large violent mobs as a means to justify "law and order" policies.I just don't think there's a confrontational mood in the country at present.

They were not alone in this thinking. Even Colpyat warned us yesterday about large number of very angry people descending on Royal plaza.

There's no confrontational mood, true, and I believe generals know that, too. Yet it wouldn't have stopped PTV organising thousands of people to stage loud and possibly violent protests trying to show that the country is on the brink of civil war, regardless of the overall mood of apathy and indifference.

>>>>

Telecom concession law alone increased Shin stock value by 200+ billion baht, enough to run 30 baht scheme for four years and PTT privatisation was probably the highest pay off for Thaksin and his financiers.

[younghusband]

The above post is very appropriate considering the one it followed.

Indeed, it was a case of better safe than sorry... as various groups with varying ties to Thaksin had threatened violence following the decision...

The Sudchai group even going as far as saying "there would definitely be trouble."

This poster invariably defends the junta on they basis they removed Thaksin.It's all a bit more complicated than that in real life but that makes no difference to this guy who seems to operate in an entirely one dimensional world.Anyway a report of a security guard with "a big cut" is not really evidence of mobs with violence in mind.

[Plus]

There's violence and there's violence. French just had their elections and they customarily burned hundreds of cars. No one said a word, it's normal there.

In Thailand, security guard hit with a rock classifies as violence alright. If not for police, it could have easily been one of the judges.

The potential for violence is undeniably there.

[Abrak]

Mass demonstrations and violence is the last thing that anyone wants or needs - as it is exactly what would derail the return to democracy. While many people are deeply resentful of the Tribunal findings, I am sure they would consider an elected democrat government (even in something of a sham election) better than a continuation of a military junta.

I am sure people would like to protest but they are simply too afraid of the consequences...

[Plus]

Acc. to Colpyat 5000 people publicly protested yesterday and nothing happened.

I think not many people really want to protest at all. No one believes TRT was innocent though many people might think that the punishment was too harsh.

[ColPyat]

Acc. to Colpyat 5000 people publicly protested yesterday and nothing happened.

I think not many people really want to protest at all. No one believes TRT was innocent though many people might think that the punishment was too harsh.

Generally people do have families to provide for, and don't have the time and wealth to go on protests. Additionally, people are intimidated, and upcountry people who wanted to join were turned back by road blocks all over the country. And that is anyhow rain season now - the time of the year that people upcountry are working almost around the clock.

Just because only a few thousand people turned up at the protests does not mean that the verdict is accepted.

[sriracha john]

The above post is very appropriate considering the one it followed.

Indeed, it was a case of better safe than sorry... as various groups with varying ties to Thaksin had threatened violence following the decision...

The Sudchai group even going as far as saying "there would definitely be trouble."

This poster invariably defends the junta on they basis they removed Thaksin.It's all a bit more complicated than that in real life but that makes no difference to this guy who seems to operate in an entirely one dimensional world.Anyway a report of a security guard with "a big cut" is not really evidence of mobs with violence in mind.

hahahaha.... sour grapes from an inaccurate prognosticator...

seriously though... your efforts to marginalize everyone else who doesn't agree with you and to

over-personalize your posts with inflammatory comments is really becoming your signature.

Clearly the threat of violence was there. Several groups flat out said there would be. 200 people showing up the next day throwing rocks and whatnot just re-enforces that threat.

Edited June 1, 2007 by sriracha john

[Jai Dee]

Gentlemen...

[younghusband]

The above post is very appropriate considering the one it followed.

Indeed, it was a case of better safe than sorry... as various groups with varying ties to Thaksin had threatened violence following the decision...

The Sudchai group even going as far as saying "there would definitely be trouble."

This poster invariably defends the junta on they basis they removed Thaksin.It's all a bit more complicated than that in real life but that makes no difference to this guy who seems to operate in an entirely one dimensional world.Anyway a report of a security guard with "a big cut" is not really evidence of mobs with violence in mind.

hahahaha.... sour grapes from an inaccurate prognosticator...

seriously though... your efforts to marginalize everyone else who doesn't agree with you and to

over-personalize your posts with inflammatory comments is really becoming your signature.

Clearly the threat of violence was there. Several groups flat out said there would be. 200 people showing up the next day throwing rocks and whatnot just re-enforces that threat.

Ignoring your attempt to flame, I would correct you on one point which is that I welcome intelligent debate even with those whose views differ starkly from my own.One or two sparring partners have been kind enough to say so.It is true I have little respect for your contributions as a rule because they tend to be facile and one dimensional in what is a multifaceted situation.

Incidentally I'm not sure what my "sour grapes" comments about violence have to do with my earlier thoughts on the Constitutional Court verdict.Do try and organise your thought processes a little more clearly, though I appreciate you have to work with the rather limited resources available to you.I see that today's Economist also shared my surprise at the Court verdict, but perhaps we were naive not to realise the generals desparation to retain political influence, though as pointed out in another post they are likely to be thwarted.

[sriracha john]

I defer to the moderators

[John K]

Demonstrators surround Manager Group's head office, injuring guard

About 200 demonstrators surrounded the head office of the Manager Group early Friday morning and pelted the compounds, injuring a security officer.

The protesters moved from the rally side of PTV station at the Miksakawan Intersection and gathered in front of the Manger head office at 1 am.

They hurled abuses at Manger Group owner Sonthi Limthonkul for supporting the coup.

They threw rocks, bamboo sticks and water bottles into the car park of the Manager head office.

Sakrapee Banyong, 20, a guard, was hit by a rock at his head and suffered a big cut.

Police rushed to the scene to guard the office until the demonstrators dispersed half an hour later.

Source: The Nation - 1 June 2007

I have a question, was this a planned demonstration or spontaneous?

[Plus]

Totally spontaneous, John. People were passing by and then someone said:"Let's trow rocks at Manager's office", and everyone thought: "Why not, we don't need to go very far, it's right here."

Younghusband, The Economist has been running pro-Thaksin pieces for over a year now, there's no surprise here.

Maybe not pro-Thaksin per se but against those who were against Thaksin, first PAD, then the junta.

[ColPyat]

Maybe not pro-Thaksin per se but against those who were against Thaksin, first PAD, then the junta.

And maybe they have a point there with their criticism. Maybe that is because they are not blinded by ideology and look at facts.

[younghusband]

Younghusband, The Economist has been running pro-Thaksin pieces for over a year now, there's no surprise here.

Maybe not pro-Thaksin per se but against those who were against Thaksin, first PAD, then the junta.

That's more or less my line!

An interesting comment was made by Chris Baker, no supporter of Thaksin as you know, that in no country in the world would a major political party be dissolved for an electoral misdemeanour of this kind.

In international comment generally, across the political spectrum, there is a consensus that the court judgement was political in nature, and determined in advance by the junta.I agree the last part is debatable.Anyway the Asian Wall Street Journal for example -not known for its interest in the rural poor- noted that if the tribunal had stuck to the narrow confines of the case, its findings might have been broadly tolerated.As we know it wandered off into the political realm with ridiculous comments such as Thaksin called for snap elections for personal gain.The universal condemnation of this charade is of course explained away by the junta apologists (I'm not referring to you by the way) with the mantra, "Ah but they don't understand Thailand".

[Plus]

Maybe they are blinded by prejudice.

[Plus]

Younghusband, The Economist has been running pro-Thaksin pieces for over a year now, there's no surprise here.

Maybe not pro-Thaksin per se but against those who were against Thaksin, first PAD, then the junta.

That's more or less my line!

An interesting comment was made by Chris Baker, no supporter of Thaksin as you know, that in no country in the world would a major political party be dissolved for an electoral misdemeanour of this kind.

In international comment generally, across the political spectrum, there is a consensus that the court judgement was political in nature, and determined in advance by the junta.I agree the last part is debatable.Anyway the Asian Wall Street Journal for example -not known for its interest in the rural poor- noted that if the tribunal had stuck to the narrow confines of the case, its findings might have been broadly tolerated.As we know it wandered off into the political realm with ridiculous comments such as Thaksin called for snap elections for personal gain.The universal condemnation of this charade is of course explained away by the junta apologists (I'm not referring to you by the way) with the mantra, "Ah but they don't understand Thailand".

I'm not sure about validity of internationa comment myself. Here we have a guy who established and bankrolled his own political party that then went onto a rampage of worst electoral violations imaginable, and international comments focus on comparing Thaksin to Nixon.

If Nixon founded the Republican party himself and headquartered it on his wife's property, maybe then you can compare them.

Parlament dissolution was all about his personal problems, not his party's. HE wanted the renewed madate for HIMSELF, he didn't care about fate of his 377 MPs at all. There was no constitutional crisis of any kind - just one man's inappropriate business transaction that should have been dealt by the courts.

[Siripon]

Younghusband, The Economist has been running pro-Thaksin pieces for over a year now, there's no surprise here.

Maybe not pro-Thaksin per se but against those who were against Thaksin, first PAD, then the junta.

That's more or less my line!

An interesting comment was made by Chris Baker, no supporter of Thaksin as you know, that in no country in the world would a major political party be dissolved for an electoral misdemeanour of this kind.

In international comment generally, across the political spectrum, there is a consensus that the court judgement was political in nature, and determined in advance by the junta.I agree the last part is debatable.Anyway the Asian Wall Street Journal for example -not known for its interest in the rural poor- noted that if the tribunal had stuck to the narrow confines of the case, its findings might have been broadly tolerated.As we know it wandered off into the political realm with ridiculous comments such as Thaksin called for snap elections for personal gain.The universal condemnation of this charade is of course explained away by the junta apologists (I'm not referring to you by the way) with the mantra, "Ah but they don't understand Thailand".

So why did Thaksin call a snap election after just one year into a second term with a majority of 374 MPs out of 500?

Especially as he had repeatedly promised he wouldn't dissolve Parliament.

As the colonel said there were some angry people protesting at the Royal Plaza last night, no doubt former TRT MPs should be among them.

There they were last year, elected for a second time but after just one year the beloved leader pulls the rug out from under their feet and cancels their remaining 3 years of the gravy train, leaving them unemployed and in some cases banned.

They should be feeling mighty fed-up.

The PTV boasted a couple of weeks ago that if they couldn't fill Sanam Luang with protestors on May 31 they would give up rallying.

Time to honour your words boys.

[ColPyat]

So why did Thaksin call a snap election after just one year into a second term with a majority of 374 MPs out of 500?

Especially as he had repeatedly promised he wouldn't dissolve Parliament.

As the colonel said there were some angry people protesting at the Royal Plaza last night, no doubt former TRT MPs should be among them.

There they were last year, elected for a second time but after just one year the beloved leader pulls the rug out from under their feet and cancels their remaining 3 years of the gravy train, leaving them unemployed and in some cases banned.

They should be feeling mighty fed-up.

The PTV boasted a couple of weeks ago that if they couldn't fill Sanam Luang with protestors on May 31 they would give up rallying.

Time to honour your words boys.

I speculate that PTV might be able to fill Sanam Luang if upcountry folks would be allowed to join their protests.

Anyhow, Thaksin dissolved parliament after Chamlong has openly declared his support for the PAD. Naturally Thaksin feared that many PMs will defect. So what's the problem, Thaksin played a dirty game, not exactly unknown in politics anywhere, and called in snap elections. It was not exactly nice, but not illegal either.

The response though by the opposition parties, not standing for elections, is unheard of anywhere i have been. Especially because they would have, by all accounts, been after elections such a force that Thaksin would have had severe difficulties in escaping a censorship motion. They have brought up the mess we are in now - they would have had all the democratic means at their hand to beat Thaksin.

And we could have saved us all that messy period including a military coup, which has brought the military right back into politics, and with it cold war remnants which will prove to be far more problematic to get rid off than Thaksin.

Instead of crying foul, our great opposition parties should have taken an example at a real political party - formulate policies, strategies, campaign, and contest an election to beat TRT at their own game. But no, Thailand is so special that political parties are free to play kindergarden. Look like a politician, talk like one, but just don't act like one.

[hammered]

Younghusband, The Economist has been running pro-Thaksin pieces for over a year now, there's no surprise here.

Maybe not pro-Thaksin per se but against those who were against Thaksin, first PAD, then the junta.

That's more or less my line!

An interesting comment was made by Chris Baker, no supporter of Thaksin as you know, that in no country in the world would a major political party be dissolved for an electoral misdemeanour of this kind.

In international comment generally, across the political spectrum, there is a consensus that the court judgement was political in nature, and determined in advance by the junta.I agree the last part is debatable.Anyway the Asian Wall Street Journal for example -not known for its interest in the rural poor- noted that if the tribunal had stuck to the narrow confines of the case, its findings might have been broadly tolerated.As we know it wandered off into the political realm with ridiculous comments such as Thaksin called for snap elections for personal gain.The universal condemnation of this charade is of course explained away by the junta apologists (I'm not referring to you by the way) with the mantra, "Ah but they don't understand Thailand".

So why did Thaksin call a snap election after just one year into a second term with a majority of 374 MPs out of 500?

Especially as he had repeatedly promised he wouldn't dissolve Parliament.

As the colonel said there were some angry people protesting at the Royal Plaza last night, no doubt former TRT MPs should be among them.

There they were last year, elected for a second time but after just one year the beloved leader pulls the rug out from under their feet and cancels their remaining 3 years of the gravy train, leaving them unemployed and in some cases banned.

They should be feeling mighty fed-up.

The PTV boasted a couple of weeks ago that if they couldn't fill Sanam Luang with protestors on May 31 they would give up rallying.

Time to honour your words boys.

Were they really niaive enough to say that? I missed it. That is quite a claim considering how little support they get. I think it takes 200,000 or so to fill Sanam Luang.

That would be hard especially now the Matchima Group have confirmed they are staying out of TRT.

[Plus]

No MPs were going to defect from TRT, not in significant numbers anyway.

Snoh was the only biggish name to defect, and his faction was reduced from 80 MPs he brought in initially to less than a dozen when he was leaving.

And that part about Chamlong - what a load of tripe! He didn't control any MPs and no MPs followed him out of TRT. You are welcome to give names and numbers to show any support for your statement.

TRT had one party government with 80% of the House, and they all paid for Thaksin's own indiscretion.

[SiamSquare123]

sriracha john is consistently the most informed on the politics of thailand and i agree with his sentiments. i would REALLY like to see jdinasia study his history some more and read more articles to educate himself. Others too.

[ColPyat]

No MPs were going to defect from TRT, not in significant numbers anyway.

Snoh was the only biggish name to defect, and his faction was reduced from 80 MPs he brought in initially to less than a dozen when he was leaving.

And that part about Chamlong - what a load of tripe! He didn't control any MPs and no MPs followed him out of TRT. You are welcome to give names and numbers to show any support for your statement.

TRT had one party government with 80% of the House, and they all paid for Thaksin's own indiscretion.

Have i said anything about "control"? Nops. So watch your language, please.

Chamlong had huge influence though, and his final defection has sent shock waves, as he has been the person that has brought Thaksin into politics.

At the time there were many speculations going on about mass defection, and might have also happened if Thaksin had not called in snap elections, circumventing the 3 months rule. This was dirty, but not illegal.

And i have still difficulties how the decision not to contest was not declared illegal. This is unheard of, and undermines everything that a democracy stands for, and at least as detrimental as all that Thaksin is accused of. This decision was the deciding factor for the mess we are in now.

But to repeat, i have serious doubts over your commitment to democracy anyhow.

[ColPyat]

sriracha john is consistently the most informed on the politics of thailand and i agree with his sentiments. i would REALLY like to see jdinasia study his history some more and read more articles to educate himself. Others too.

And if you want to be given more attention than is given a stale beer fart i would suggest that you start contributing something substantial here to this discussion.

Edited June 1, 2007 by ColPyat