Ban On Political Party Activities Lifted

[sriracha john]

i have a certain experience in guessing numbers, which i usually correlate with others who have similiar experience, or use more advanced counting techniques.

Sorry if I misinterpreted the above... but it does sound personal... and conducted in some semblance to scientific research and that you conclude with your results.

[ColPyat]

i have a certain experience in guessing numbers, which i usually correlate with others who have similiar experience, or use more advanced counting techniques.

Sorry if I misinterpreted the above... but it does sound personal... and conducted in some semblance to scientific research and that you conclude with your results.

To make it clear again - i am not a scientist or academic, neither do i claim to be one, and never have done so. My estimates are are purely empirical, but i do confer with academics to balance my results with theirs based on scientific methods.

These demonstrations by pressure groups are numbers games, and open to all sorts of fiddling from all sides. I do not take for granted what anybody says. That is why i would suggest to have a look yourself, and get your own impressions.

[sriracha john]

Fair enough explanation, I was mistaken when I added serious to my post above.

[AGareth2]

Banning a political party surely defranchises the electorate?

[ColPyat]

useless...

Edited June 8, 2007 by ColPyat

[hammered]

PAD has resonated with millions of people judging by the success of their no vote campaign.

The same old mistaken conclusion. People who would have voted for the Democrats or Chart Thai had to use the "No" option as their parties did not compete.

The "No" was a vote for the opposition parties, and not direct support for the PAD.

Hi Colpyat as I am sure you ar actually aware it is a bit more complicated than that. Supporters of the Dems and Chart Thai had a variety of options. One was the no-vote, one was to not vote. The parte is campaigned for a no-vote but did not exactly do this too strenuously or spend much money on it. Chart Thai hardly put in any effort at all. The turnout in traditional opposition areas seemed low although we should bare in mind no official final figures were ever announced and Chiang Noi did quite an interesting take down on the semi-official ones. On the other hand TRT used every means it could to get ahuge turnout including use of local officials and state officials to get people to vote for them. It is probably true to say that TRT would have been hard pressed to get a bigger vote than they did.

Then we have to look at who voted no and why. It is more complicated than just Dem and Chart Thai supporters. A lot of the no voters I have spoken to were not interested in getting the Dems or CT either, they just had had enough with the TRT corruption. While large no votes in the south almost certainly correlate with Dem support that is about where it ends. Certainly the large no votes which often exceeded the TRT vote in the East cannot be attributed to the opposition party supporters as they have little support in this area. And why would the Dems and CT suddenly have the support of at least one third of voters across the northern region including the ability to have the no vote come out higher in every constituency in at least one province.

This whole thing was about what the wrapper said: TRT or no vote. It didnt say much about the relative strength or lack of it for the opposition who didnt put anyting like the usual effort into campaigning. That is something that will be tested at the next election, and we shouldnt ever forget that an election is only a snapshot of public opinion at aparticular time. That popularity can go up an down as events occur.

[jdinasia]

Hammered .. the dems and CT didn't have to put effort into the No vote ... PAD did that for them! <oh wait ... that means PAD actually DID have a following ... probably greater than that of the Dems and CT together!>

[hammered]

PAD has resonated with millions of people judging by the success of their no vote campaign.

The same old mistaken conclusion. People who would have voted for the Democrats or Chart Thai had to use the "No" option as their parties did not compete.

The "No" was a vote for the opposition parties, and not direct support for the PAD.

Re-examining history in action. It was impossible to argue that a year ago but now it seems like you can't miss an opportunity to kick up the dust and cloud the issue.

Those who were there know the score, as SJ said.

A year ago it was impossible to argue against a vile mob of fanatic Thaksin opponents shouting abuse and never supporting their views with either evidence or personal experience. That mob of fence sitters is still failing to show any credible evidence of their views other that knowingly impartial newspaper articles, while at the same time ignoring and rubbishing every peer reviewed analyzes that does not conform to their simplistic opinions. Which are almost all papers.

That does not make history, but just a sad footnote on an internet discussion forum. Fortunately, thank god, history is written by the same people i quote.

Hi Colpyat.

Be careful with the history stuff, and any assumed veracity of its writers.

As voltaire said: "History consists of a series of accumulated imaginative inventions."

Peace

Edited June 8, 2007 by hammered

[ColPyat]

This whole thing was about what the wrapper said: TRT or no vote. It didnt say much about the relative strength or lack of it for the opposition who didnt put anyting like the usual effort into campaigning. That is something that will be tested at the next election, and we shouldnt ever forget that an election is only a snapshot of public opinion at aparticular time. That popularity can go up an down as events occur.

Many factors were indeed involved.

I refuse though the simplification proposed here by some that the no vote is automatic support for the PAD's aims. As i said, if these claims are backed up by a proper study, then i might change my views after having read this study.

[ColPyat]

PAD has resonated with millions of people judging by the success of their no vote campaign.

The same old mistaken conclusion. People who would have voted for the Democrats or Chart Thai had to use the "No" option as their parties did not compete.

The "No" was a vote for the opposition parties, and not direct support for the PAD.

Re-examining history in action. It was impossible to argue that a year ago but now it seems like you can't miss an opportunity to kick up the dust and cloud the issue.

Those who were there know the score, as SJ said.

A year ago it was impossible to argue against a vile mob of fanatic Thaksin opponents shouting abuse and never supporting their views with either evidence or personal experience. That mob of fence sitters is still failing to show any credible evidence of their views other that knowingly impartial newspaper articles, while at the same time ignoring and rubbishing every peer reviewed analyzes that does not conform to their simplistic opinions. Which are almost all papers.

That does not make history, but just a sad footnote on an internet discussion forum. Fortunately, thank god, history is written by the same people i quote.

Hi Colpyat.

Be careful with the history stuff, and any assumed veracity of its writers.

As voltaire said: "History consists of a series of accumulated imaginative inventions."

Peace

Well, i doubt we will ever see a history book that quotes any anonymous poster of Thai Visa internet discussion form.

[hammered]

This whole thing was about what the wrapper said: TRT or no vote. It didnt say much about the relative strength or lack of it for the opposition who didnt put anyting like the usual effort into campaigning. That is something that will be tested at the next election, and we shouldnt ever forget that an election is only a snapshot of public opinion at aparticular time. That popularity can go up an down as events occur.

Many factors were indeed involved.

I refuse though the simplification proposed here by some that the no vote is automatic support for the PAD's aims. As i said, if these claims are backed up by a proper study, then i might change my views after having read this study.

I doubt whether we will ever know for sure why people voted as they did on April 2. It can be argued over forever. Even if someone wanted to do an exhaustive study they would rely on people remembering correctly, not lying etc. That is why the many factors were involved both in the motivation to vote no and the motivation to vote TRT and also the motivation not to vote. The trouble is we all want answers!

[ColPyat]

I doubt whether we will ever know for sure why people voted as they did on April 2. It can be argued over forever. Even if someone wanted to do an exhaustive study they would rely on people remembering correctly, not lying etc. That is why the many factors were involved both in the motivation to vote no and the motivation to vote TRT and also the motivation not to vote. The trouble is we all want answers!

With absolute certainty we will not know, but we can deduct and come to approximations. These are more complex that the simplistic views expressed here that it automatically meant PAD support. That was my point only.

[Gnarpjohan]

Gnarpjohan, thanks for your fuller explanation of your views, and a personal welcome to TV & the debate. It's always good to get new posters contributing.

But since you've demonstrated that you were following events last year, would you still claim, that there were no allegations of election-rigging ?

Thanks for the welcome. I was being unclear. What I had in mind with "rigged election" was one with tampering at the ballot box, not counting the votes correctly. Of that in particular I have not heard allegations. But this is a pretty narrow definition of "rigged election", granted.

[John K]

I doubt whether we will ever know for sure why people voted as they did on April 2. It can be argued over forever. Even if someone wanted to do an exhaustive study they would rely on people remembering correctly, not lying etc. That is why the many factors were involved both in the motivation to vote no and the motivation to vote TRT and also the motivation not to vote. The trouble is we all want answers!

With absolute certainty we will not know, but we can deduct and come to approximations. These are more complex that the simplistic views expressed here that it automatically meant PAD support. That was my point only.

The ‘no’ vote in my take was a bit of direct message to Thaksin. The public saw that no mater who they voted for Thaksin would win one way or another. It was no to his games, no to his corruption, and no we don’t like your attitude (similar to a mod giving a holiday). It was a way of taking Thaksin off line. As a direct result of that no vote Thaksin presented the appearance he quit (thread on that some place here) to let things calm down. That was very readable in the faces of Thais in Bangkok. When he returned he started taking it up a notch at a time almost on a weekly basis. Thaksin saw he had to force things his way and proceeded to really hammer at the wedge that was dividing the country with comments that seemed to be references to Prem, the car bomb that wasn’t and so on. This was all to give reason to declare a state of emergency.

However the 'no' vote was only a snapshot in time and can’t be used in today’s picture. What it comes down to today is do is if you believe what the junta says or not. Just like people not every junta is the same and should not be prejudged. I feel this junta came because of necessity for the country and not for the self serving reasons of one or a few.

[ColPyat]

I doubt whether we will ever know for sure why people voted as they did on April 2. It can be argued over forever. Even if someone wanted to do an exhaustive study they would rely on people remembering correctly, not lying etc. That is why the many factors were involved both in the motivation to vote no and the motivation to vote TRT and also the motivation not to vote. The trouble is we all want answers!

With absolute certainty we will not know, but we can deduct and come to approximations. These are more complex that the simplistic views expressed here that it automatically meant PAD support. That was my point only.

The ‘no’ vote in my take was a bit of direct message to Thaksin. The public saw that no mater who they voted for Thaksin would win one way or another. It was no to his games, no to his corruption, and no we don’t like your attitude (similar to a mod giving a holiday). It was a way of taking Thaksin off line. As a direct result of that no vote Thaksin presented the appearance he quit (thread on that some place here) to let things calm down. That was very readable in the faces of Thais in Bangkok. When he returned he started taking it up a notch at a time almost on a weekly basis. Thaksin saw he had to force things his way and proceeded to really hammer at the wedge that was dividing the country with comments that seemed to be references to Prem, the car bomb that wasn’t and so on. This was all to give reason to declare a state of emergency.

However the 'no' vote was only a snapshot in time and can’t be used in today’s picture. What it comes down to today is do is if you believe what the junta says or not. Just like people not every junta is the same and should not be prejudged. I feel this junta came because of necessity for the country and not for the self serving reasons of one or a few.

No, John, it's not about "believing what the junta says". It is about looking at hard facts, such as the hugely empowered ISOC, and knowing what the ISOC is, how it has been used in the past, and which organizations exist that it can command. One needs to read a few books though, the ones i have many times recommended here.

And regardless of the amount of "No" votes, which were partly a message for Thaksin, and partly simply traditional voters of the opposition parties who had no other choice if the did not want to lose many of their rights with not casting a vote, the pro TRT votes would have still given Thaksin a very strong mandate not much lower than his first election victory. And no, before you start - it was not just "vote buying" and "policy corruption" - it was a genuine mandate given by the voters because they wanted a continuation of Thaksin's policies. And that is their right under a democracy.

[Plus]

If I remember correctly one outcome of Chang Nois calculations was that TRT had lost the party list vote, and no matter what Colpyat says, no vote was inspired by PAD. To be fair it also included a dozen of against Thaksin voters who couldn't join PAD for ideological reasons.

I suspect all this anti-PAD propaganda is simply a knee jerk reaction of a marxist facing pro-royalist movement too popular to fit in his class theory. Two simple strategies:

a) discredit its members

diminish its numbers

[ColPyat]

simply a knee jerk reaction of a marxist

For the ones with certain memory problems, i explain again: I am not a Marxist - i believe in Social Democracy. Different systems.

[hammered]

If I remember correctly one outcome of Chang Nois calculations was that TRT had lost the party list vote, and no matter what Colpyat says, no vote was inspired by PAD. To be fair it also included a dozen of against Thaksin voters who couldn't join PAD for ideological reasons.

I suspect all this anti-PAD propaganda is simply a knee jerk reaction of a marxist facing pro-royalist movement too popular to fit in his class theory. Two simple strategies:

a) discredit its members

diminish its numbers

Chang Noi did a a comparative of party list and constituency MP votes that did not make much sense. However, we should not forget there were never official figures given. In fact the first numbers were announced by Mr. Thaksin before the EC who then agreed with them. This was after the ticker tape thingy was taken off the TV stations as it was revealing very high no votes in unexpected places in early to mid counting. The final unofficial figures showed a move from this trend. We can make of it what we want. It was probably for the best that the farcical election was annulled which makes our little debates academic at best.

Peace.

[Plus]

Oh, ok, I'm a bit terminology challenged. Sorry.

You do belive in marxist class theory, though, right? Giles is known both as Marxist and your personal guru. Is there a big ideological gap between you two?

Are the differences between Marx and your personal hero, Bakunin, big enough in context of Thaivisa?

>>>>>

I like that episode from Bakunin's life when he broke out of ten year exile in Siberia, travelled all around the world and finally reached London, full of revolutionary excitement. His old revolutionary friend, Herzen, was enjoying oysters with his family and when Bakunin jumped in asking all about revolution his old revolutionary friend Herzen thought to himself: "That's it. The dinner is ruined... "

[ColPyat]

Oh, ok, I'm a bit terminology challenged. Sorry.

You do belive in marxist class theory, though, right? Giles is known both as Marxist and your personal guru. Is there a big ideological gap between you two?

Are the differences between Marx and your personal hero, Bakunin, big enough in context of Thaivisa?

>>>>>

I like that episode from Bakunin's life when he broke out of ten year exile in Siberia, travelled all around the world and finally reached London, full of revolutionary excitement. His old revolutionary friend, Herzen, was enjoying oysters with his family and when Bakunin jumped in asking all about revolution his old revolutionary friend Herzen thought to himself: "That's it. The dinner is ruined... "

I am in no need of a "personal guru".

There are huge "ideological" gaps between Giles and me. As you said - he is a Marxist, and i am not. Neither am i in need of any "personal hero". What i do though admire with Bakunin is his rejection of Marx's ideas of the dictatorship of the proletariat as he saw already the evils this idea will produce. But, as nice Bakunin's ideas of Anarchy are on paper, they are a pipe dream.

Do you finally get it, or do you have to continue asking me the same question over and over again?

Anyhow, as we are with personal believe systems: We know already of your preference for authoritarian systems of government, but you have never yet distanced yourself from your very anti semitic comment, even though reminded a few times not only by me.

Now you have a chance to do that...

Curious...

[lukamar]

And regardless of the amount of "No" votes, which were partly a message for Thaksin, and partly simply traditional voters of the opposition parties who had no other choice if the did not want to lose many of their rights with not casting a vote, the pro TRT votes would have still given Thaksin a very strong mandate not much lower than his first election victory.

You would have to crunch the numbers and come up with the probable number of actual "NO" votes as oposed to no vot because of no choice. It would not be an easy task BTW. In the NO vote election the voters had a basic choice of "A" or "B" with "A" comprising the TRT and "B" comprising only a No vote or obscure fringe parties that never get a significant vote count. In elections before the No vote, the "B" sector was comprised of the Democrats, the other major parties and the fringe parties. So you would have to get the numbers for all the pre NO vote elections to know the amount of votes the "B" contingent would likely have gotten in the NO vote election. Then you would have to prorate it up or down from the votes collected by group "A" to find the probable number of votes the "B" group would have collected if the election was a normal one and then take that number off the total NO vote to get the probable number of actual "NO" votes cast.

I would hazard a guess that using a method like the above would come out with a suprisingly small number of NO votes compared to the overall votes case, but I've been wrong before.

The way the No vote has been atributed is akin to using the total number of tourists visiting Thailand because you don't know the exact number visiting from Albania.

It would be a good project for someone that loves to play with numbers and I'm suprised that no one has done it.

[Jai Dee]

Saturday People Against Dictatorship demands explanation from ICT minister concerning closure of website

Key leaders of People’s Council have gathered with Saturday People Against Dictatorship at the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), demanding a face-to-face talk with the ICT Minister concerning the abrupt inaccess to the website www.saturday.com.

The two groups demand the ICT to provide documents explaining the reason behind the closure of www.saturday.com.

According to the ICT Minister, Mr. Sithichai Pokai-udom (สิทธิชัย โภไคยอุดม), said he has already instructed state officials to re-plug in access to the Saturday website; however, some internet service providers have yet done so, therefore leading to inaccess to the Saturday website.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 June 2007

[John K]

Per post #105 on page 7

your opinion differs from mine but I am looking to the future and not the past here.

Per post #111 and in reply to colpyat I think this will cover both.

Looking at the reasons that the anti junta groups would want to stage protests is tied to harvesting the ignorance of some Thais. From what I have seen it seems to follow the level of education. At some level of education in Thailand one is able to more clearly understand the workings of government and the authority vested in each office. I suspect that to be in the last 2 years of high school. Until that time apparently they rely on the wisdom of the people who know or appear to know. A recent article it is expressed that a village head can influence the vote of a village. I suspect that is true because many are below the level of education needed to understand and look to the wisdom of the head. Unless something directly affects a person below that level of education they probably wont be too motivated to learn about the workings of the government. I think you will find the ‘no’ vote demographics follows along that line.

Although the junta has declared a sunset for itself the anti junta groups are trying to imply otherwise. The reasons for this can only be self serving. The blinding speed the TRT moved after the ban was lifted defies the concept of Thai time. It could be described as what you would see after removing your foot from the tail of a rat and watch as it quickly scurries of into a hole to continue to gnaw on things.

The removal of internet blocks in the last 48 hours and the removal of bans on political parties support what the junta says and discredits the anti junta moments. The junta has also stated in so many words that disinformation will not be tolerated. Knowing the TRT and their arrogance it could be just a way of giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

[Ricardo]

Gnarpjohan, thanks for your fuller explanation of your views, and a personal welcome to TV & the debate. It's always good to get new posters contributing.

But since you've demonstrated that you were following events last year, would you still claim, that there were no allegations of election-rigging ?

Thanks for the welcome. I was being unclear. What I had in mind with "rigged election" was one with tampering at the ballot box, not counting the votes correctly. Of that in particular I have not heard allegations. But this is a pretty narrow definition of "rigged election", granted.

Tampering with ballot boxes, I too did not hear of, but family-members who voted said that this was not what we farangs call a 'secret ballot', since the voting-booths were positioned such that other people, such as the village headman, could see where voters placed their mark ! Not the norm in a western free-and-fair election as you or I would expect it to be.

Indeed I believe the media were threatened with prosecution for having filmed/photographed this happening - since they were deemed to have broken the rules.

I would include the following in 'election-rigging' :-

- breaking-up, by throwing chairs & bricks, political meetings of the opposition

- the police sometimes preventing people from attending peaceful (ie legal) political rallies in the capital

- bomb-threats to prevent non-TRT voters from meeting

- actual bomb-attacks on media opposing Thaksin

- shutting-down media who opposed Thaksin or TRT

- the men-in-black-shirts being co-ordinated by senior police to break-up peaceful demonstrations calling on Thaksin to go, including the beating-up of children,women & old-men, then falsely denying their involvement (embarrassing when this was filmed & broadcast)

- bribing minor opposition-parties to stand in the election

- threats to cut-off government-spending in areas which failed to vote for TRT

- bribing people to vote or attend rallies in-favour of TRT

- fake car-bomb plots to generate a sympathy-vote

- the bonb outside the home of the chief privy-cousellor

This isn't an exclusive-list. Some of these things also happened regularly, as part of other election-campaigns, and seem almost part of the regular political-process.

But they explain why I reacted so strongly to your suggestion of there being no allegations at all. Sorry if I over-reacted.

[Tony Clifton]

Gnarpjohan, thanks for your fuller explanation of your views, and a personal welcome to TV & the debate. It's always good to get new posters contributing.

But since you've demonstrated that you were following events last year, would you still claim, that there were no allegations of election-rigging ?

Thanks for the welcome. I was being unclear. What I had in mind with "rigged election" was one with tampering at the ballot box, not counting the votes correctly. Of that in particular I have not heard allegations. But this is a pretty narrow definition of "rigged election", granted.

Tampering with ballot boxes, I too did not hear of, but family-members who voted said that this was not what we farangs call a 'secret ballot', since the voting-booths were positioned such that other people, such as the village headman, could see where voters placed their mark ! Not the norm in a western free-and-fair election as you or I would expect it to be.

Indeed I believe the media were threatened with prosecution for having filmed/photographed this happening - since they were deemed to have broken the rules.

I would include the following in 'election-rigging' :-

- breaking-up, by throwing chairs & bricks, political meetings of the opposition

- the police sometimes preventing people from attending peaceful (ie legal) political rallies in the capital

- bomb-threats to prevent non-TRT voters from meeting

- actual bomb-attacks on media opposing Thaksin

- shutting-down media who opposed Thaksin or TRT

- the men-in-black-shirts being co-ordinated by senior police to break-up peaceful demonstrations calling on Thaksin to go, including the beating-up of children,women & old-men, then falsely denying their involvement (embarrassing when this was filmed & broadcast)

- bribing minor opposition-parties to stand in the election

- threats to cut-off government-spending in areas which failed to vote for TRT

- bribing people to vote or attend rallies in-favour of TRT

- fake car-bomb plots to generate a sympathy-vote

- the bonb outside the home of the chief privy-cousellor

This isn't an exclusive-list. Some of these things also happened regularly, as part of other election-campaigns, and seem almost part of the regular political-process.

But they explain why I reacted so strongly to your suggestion of there being no allegations at all. Sorry if I over-reacted.

Also,

the introduction of a rubber stamp for voting, making all ballots look the same and making it nearly impossible to see tampering. Many booths did not have pens. Some had pens that were out of ink, forcing the voter to use the stamp. Chamlong was actually filmed trying to use one of those pens, he did not use the rubber stamp as he had a spare pen in his pocket.

Paper ballot boxes were introduced. Strange enough that a year before, all polls had sufficient metal ballot boxes.

[lukamar]

Per post #111 and in reply to colpyat I think this will cover both.

John, John, John... Not once did I or Pyat mention the education or ignorance of the Thai voter. I replied that if you were good with numbers you could extrapolate the actual number of NO votes cast as NO votes. How you managed to change election number crunching to a tirade on "harvesting the ignorance of some Thais" by anti junta groups , is beyond comprehension. One would think you are pushing the agenda of the dictatorship like the Village headmen you describe.

[John K]

Per post #111 and in reply to colpyat I think this will cover both.

John, John, John... Not once did I or Pyat mention the education or ignorance of the Thai voter. I replied that if you were good with numbers you could extrapolate the actual number of NO votes cast as NO votes. How you managed to change election number crunching to a tirade on "harvesting the ignorance of some Thais" by anti junta groups , is beyond comprehension. One would think you are pushing the agenda of the dictatorship like the Village headmen you describe.

Yes I do realize that, it was more of a statement that may cover some of the points you brought up about what the demographics of the ‘no’ vote may be. I found it to be an interesting thought that you presented.

Looking to find the underlying logic behind flogging a dead horse was where I was going. The initial outward face value is to cause unrest. Why is the topic of debate and particularly when this now supposedly non political body seems to be acting very political. The mention of the village headman being influential is only in reference to a news article I saw that made a lot of sense to me. Each one has the ability to influence the votes of the less than understanding in their village. They also have the ability to tell them to ignore the anti government rallies and let the government finish it’s job.

[hammered]

Per post #111 and in reply to colpyat I think this will cover both.

John, John, John... Not once did I or Pyat mention the education or ignorance of the Thai voter. I replied that if you were good with numbers you could extrapolate the actual number of NO votes cast as NO votes. How you managed to change election number crunching to a tirade on "harvesting the ignorance of some Thais" by anti junta groups , is beyond comprehension. One would think you are pushing the agenda of the dictatorship like the Village headmen you describe.

Yes I do realize that, it was more of a statement that may cover some of the points you brought up about what the demographics of the ‘no’ vote may be. I found it to be an interesting thought that you presented.

Looking to find the underlying logic behind flogging a dead horse was where I was going. The initial outward face value is to cause unrest. Why is the topic of debate and particularly when this now supposedly non political body seems to be acting very political. The mention of the village headman being influential is only in reference to a news article I saw that made a lot of sense to me. Each one has the ability to influence the votes of the less than understanding in their village. They also have the ability to tell them to ignore the anti government rallies and let the government finish it’s job.

TRT functionaries have told me that this was the critical thing in their big majorities.

[lukamar]

They also have the ability to tell them to ignore the anti government rallies and let the government finish it’s job.

They also have the ability to tell them to protest at the anti government rallies and let the government know they feel. Just depends on which side of the fence they are standing and I think few Village headmen would do as you suggest at the moment and would advise to protest.

[John K]

I agree 100% with both of your reply posts. I am trying to make some sense of the anti junta rallies.

The anti junta protesters are in a bit of a bind particularly if they are part of the 111 banned. If they make any mention of who to replace the junta with it instantly become political and what they are banned from. That was the implication of giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

Interestingly enough under Thaksin he would have had them be silent and Thaksin would have talked and they would have just nodded in the affirmative. What has happened the government has now given them to tool they need to kill themselves, that being their mouths. What happens if they violate the ruling on being banned for 5 years??... I am not sure but it is not too hard to imagine it may involve jail and some healthy fines. A moth and fire come to mind here.

Edited June 9, 2007 by John K