10,000 Anti-coup Demonstrators Expected At Sanam Luang Rally

[larvidchr]

It depends on how they choose to exercise their preference.

If they prefer to use premeditated, violent measures, then the answer to all these questions IMO would be an unhesitating YES.

Tanks and troops, armed with M16s, in the streets wasn't a violent measure.? It sure was.

To advocate, that a people who have been illigaly subdued by armed forces, and have had their basic human rights stripped away, is not allowed to use force to regain their democratic rights, is pure nonsens and displays alarming little understanding of the concept off basic human rights and the workings off democracy.

That said I hope the transition back to democracy can happen without anybody getting hurt, but the responsebility is alone the Junta's, they have to yield without unleashing Thai on Thais, any blood will be on their hands only.

Kind regards

[jdinasia]

Seems to me a piece of paper being signed in HuaHin made it legal.... and the previous constitution became a piece of paper

Retroactive application of the law does not make the action of the coup legal. At the time of the coup it was an illegal action. Anyhow, this is a topic matter that we should keep out of the discussion. There is much that could be said, but whatever it is, it is against board rules.

ok, can we can restrict the topic matter to this simple question: Was the retroactive application of the law legal ? Y or N ?

It is legal now .... whining about it being illegal is both silly and fruitless.

retroactive? hmmmmmmmm I think the timeframe may be wrong to call it retroactive

[ColPyat]

Seems to me a piece of paper being signed in HuaHin made it legal.... and the previous constitution became a piece of paper

Retroactive application of the law does not make the action of the coup legal. At the time of the coup it was an illegal action. Anyhow, this is a topic matter that we should keep out of the discussion. There is much that could be said, but whatever it is, it is against board rules.

ok, can we can restrict the topic matter to this simple question: Was the retroactive application of the law legal ? Y or N ?

It is legal now .... whining about it being illegal is both silly and fruitless.

retroactive? hmmmmmmmm I think the timeframe may be wrong to call it retroactive

Yeah, impartial and objective application of the law is fruitless and silly...

And sorry, the visit in Hua Hin to present the interim constitution for signature was after the tanks rolled in the streets, if i can recall. I hope you are not suggesting that this happened before.

[blaze]

It depends on how they choose to exercise their preference.

If they prefer to use premeditated, violent measures, then the answer to all these questions IMO would be an unhesitating YES.

Tanks and troops, armed with M16s, in the streets wasn't a violent measure.? It sure was.

I suppose you think police are being violent when they stroll the streets with guns in their holsters.

Well, police is legally permitted to carry guns. Show me any law under the then valid constitution that allowed a military coup?

Police are an institution that the society has set up to enforce, with violence if nescessary, the laws that the society has democratically agreed upon. See the difference?

[Plus]

For most people the law exists regardless of what is written on the paper. They know what is right and what is wrong, and right is always right, whether it was legally sanctioned by consitution or not. That's what they mean by the "rule of law".

Scrapped constitution, the interim charter, coup issued laws - the legalities - this is what they call "rule by law". When some academic called the recent TRT verdict rule by law, he was exactly right, though forgetting to mention that it was in accord with the rule of law, too.

Under normal conditions this "rule by law" should be in complete accord with the "rule of law", and when it isn't, people talk about failing justice system etc. etc.

People protesting for Thaksin have nor respect for either of those, people protesting agaisnt junta demand respect for the rule by law, but not for the law itself.

[sriracha john]

It depends on how they choose to exercise their preference.

If they prefer to use premeditated, violent measures, then the answer to all these questions IMO would be an unhesitating YES.

Tanks and troops, armed with M16s, in the streets wasn't a violent measure.? It sure was.

To advocate, that a people who have been illigaly subdued by armed forces, and have had their basic human rights stripped away, is not allowed to use force to regain their democratic rights, is pure nonsens and displays alarming little understanding of the concept off basic human rights and the workings off democracy.

That said I hope the transition back to democracy can happen without anybody getting hurt, but the responsebility is alone the Junta's, they have to yield without unleashing Thai on Thais, any blood will be on their hands only.

Kind regards

That responsibility is a shared responsibility with all Thais. Provoking violence helps no one or their cause, be they the Junta or the PTV'ers.

In an effort to curb the potential for disaster, the government, for their part, have restricted their actions and its soldiers are unarmed. They have pled for peaceful resolution. The leadership of the PTV'ers have not. If the PTV'ers escalate things further, the ball is in their court... along with the responsibility for what comes with it.

Edited June 12, 2007 by sriracha john

[Jai Dee]

Cabinet and CNS to discuss rally at Sanam Luang

The Cabinet and the Council for National Security (CNS) will discuss the demonstration at Sanam Luang after the Assets Security Examination (AEC) has ordered for the accounts and assets of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family to be frozen.

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont is presiding over the Cabinet meeting today (Jun 12). Meanwhile, the Deputy Prime Minister and Industry Ministry, Mr. Kosit Panpiemras, will make a proposal to the Cabinet, asking the meeting to consider the educational funds and the transfers of personnel to the local administrations. The Ministry of Transport will report the study on Don Muang Airport and low-cost airlines to the meeting.

The Secretariat of the Prime Minister will submit the Election Commission's (EC) proposal under public hearing rules and practices. The Cabinet will also consider the Public Hearing Act. The Ministry of Culture will request the approval of 2008 budget for establishing the Buddhist Fund.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 12 June 2007

[SiamSquare123]

Seems to me a piece of paper being signed in HuaHin made it legal.... and the previous constitution became a piece of paper

it seems certain that at some point a TV users will be arrested for les majeste.

[ColPyat]

That responsibility is a shared responsibility with all Thais. Provoking violence helps no one or their cause, be they the Junta or the PTV'ers.

In an effort to curb the potential for disaster, the government, for their part, have restricted their actions and its soldiers are unarmed. They have pled for peaceful resolution. The leadership of the PTV'ers have not. If the PTV'ers escalate things further, the ball is in their court... along with the responsibility for what comes with it.

This is plain wrong.

During the Saturday rally, before the march, they have urged the participants not to use violence, and let them repeat that chorus of not using violence for several minutes.

It did not work that well with the minority of protesters, admitted, but you cannot accuse the organizers of adhering to violence.

[sriracha john]

That responsibility is a shared responsibility with all Thais. Provoking violence helps no one or their cause, be they the Junta or the PTV'ers.

In an effort to curb the potential for disaster, the government, for their part, have restricted their actions and its soldiers are unarmed. They have pled for peaceful resolution. The leadership of the PTV'ers have not. If the PTV'ers escalate things further, the ball is in their court... along with the responsibility for what comes with it.

This is plain wrong.

During the Saturday rally, before the march, they have urged the participants not to use violence, and let them repeat that chorus of not using violence for several minutes.

It did not work that well with the minority of protesters, admitted, but you cannot accuse the organizers of adhering to violence.

Then, if they are serious in their peaceful intentions, they need to triple their efforts and come out with public statements in the press and emphasize their feelings even stronger during the protests and immediately expel any trouble-makers.

[sriracha john]

And the TRT leadership/Thaksin need to come out in the strongest possible language and condemn the fringe nutcakes that are lining up with the other organizations....

Shaved heads protest military rule

About 30 members of Rakyah Rak Thaksin (Grassroots Love Thaksin) group shaved their heads on Tuesday in front of the army headquarters to demand the ouster of the Council for National Security. Mongkol Samerpark, group leader, and members threatened to commit suicide if CNS chairman Sonthi Boonyaratkalin does not come to meet with them.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=119392

[hammered]

That responsibility is a shared responsibility with all Thais. Provoking violence helps no one or their cause, be they the Junta or the PTV'ers.

In an effort to curb the potential for disaster, the government, for their part, have restricted their actions and its soldiers are unarmed. They have pled for peaceful resolution. The leadership of the PTV'ers have not. If the PTV'ers escalate things further, the ball is in their court... along with the responsibility for what comes with it.

This is plain wrong.

During the Saturday rally, before the march, they have urged the participants not to use violence, and let them repeat that chorus of not using violence for several minutes.

It did not work that well with the minority of protesters, admitted, but you cannot accuse the organizers of adhering to violence.

Its all about perceptions. If part of a demo kicks off the organisers inevitably get the blame. PAD used to use lots of stewards who would intervene quickly. PTV dont seem to have this side of things so well organized. At the moment the pictures of the demonstrators in the Thai newspapers make them look an unruly mob attacking police. How can the organisers change this image in the war of perceptions?

[sriracha john]

Will the kamikaze PTV go for broke?

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/11Jun2007_news18.php

====================

suicide-obsessed TRT'ers....

In light of the above breaking news, an unwanted prophecy...

[cmsally]

Somehow I don't think any protesters have much power over what appears in the papers or on TV.

Don't forget just how manipulative the press can be under a democratic system , let alone an undemocratic one.

Does anyone seriously think there is a free press here.

Personally I would like to set up a talk show such as Hard Talk, but I think I would have to make sure my outward ticket was booked and have transport lined up to the airport!

[larvidchr]

It depends on how they choose to exercise their preference.

If they prefer to use premeditated, violent measures, then the answer to all these questions IMO would be an unhesitating YES.

Tanks and troops, armed with M16s, in the streets wasn't a violent measure.? It sure was.

To advocate, that a people who have been illigaly subdued by armed forces, and have had their basic human rights stripped away, is not allowed to use force to regain their democratic rights, is pure nonsens and displays alarming little understanding of the concept off basic human rights and the workings off democracy.

That said I hope the transition back to democracy can happen without anybody getting hurt, but the responsebility is alone the Junta's, they have to yield without unleashing Thai on Thais, any blood will be on their hands only.

Kind regards

That responsibility is a shared responsibility with all Thais. Provoking violence helps no one or their cause, be they the Junta or the PTV'ers.

In an effort to curb the potential for disaster, the government, for their part, have restricted their actions and its soldiers are unarmed. They have pled for peaceful resolution. The leadership of the PTV'ers have not. If the PTV'ers escalate things further, the ball is in their court... along with the responsibility for what comes with it.

With all respect sriracha John, first i sock you one, then I display restraint and expect you to do the same

I am afraid that the above is asking a lot

Kind regards

[sriracha john]

It depends on how they choose to exercise their preference.

If they prefer to use premeditated, violent measures, then the answer to all these questions IMO would be an unhesitating YES.

Tanks and troops, armed with M16s, in the streets wasn't a violent measure.? It sure was.

To advocate, that a people who have been illigaly subdued by armed forces, and have had their basic human rights stripped away, is not allowed to use force to regain their democratic rights, is pure nonsens and displays alarming little understanding of the concept off basic human rights and the workings off democracy.

That said I hope the transition back to democracy can happen without anybody getting hurt, but the responsebility is alone the Junta's, they have to yield without unleashing Thai on Thais, any blood will be on their hands only.

Kind regards

That responsibility is a shared responsibility with all Thais. Provoking violence helps no one or their cause, be they the Junta or the PTV'ers.

In an effort to curb the potential for disaster, the government, for their part, have restricted their actions and its soldiers are unarmed. They have pled for peaceful resolution. The leadership of the PTV'ers have not. If the PTV'ers escalate things further, the ball is in their court... along with the responsibility for what comes with it.

With all respect sriracha John, first i sock you one, then I display restraint and expect you to do the same

I am afraid that the above is asking a lot

Kind regards

I don't have a problem with the ability of protesters to protest verbally...

In regards to the physicality of the violence, the government has not resorted to such... if PTV does so, then can expect repercussions...

if it comes to that... PTV will most assuredly, lose....

Far better to sit down and discuss things... and peacefully resolve issues...

[thedude]

From my understanding when Thaksin entered office the laws prohibited that to give a separation of power and provide checks and balance. To remove those laws is the signature of a person seeking to be a dictator. The coup although it may have been illegal, it was justified and supported by the top down and by the Thai people with enough education to see what was going on. The people who did not like the coup were on the take one way or another.

Let's see. If Thaksin really wanted to pull off a Gleichschaltung, as you seem to suggest, he could have easily done so. But to his credit, he never did so (that's not to say that he didn't exhibit authoritarian tendencies in other ways though).

The formula for amending the constitution under the 1997 Charter was pretty simple. A majority in a joint sitting of the House and Senate was needed to pass any constitutional amendment. The House had 500 members and the Senate had 200, so that's a total of 700 members - Thaksin would've needed 351 to pass an amendment to do whatever he wanted. During his second term, TRT contrlled 377 MPs in the House alone, which made it easy for him to pass whatever he wanted. Even during the first term, his coalition was supported by over 320 MPs, and he also allegedly had over 100 senators on his payroll - he could've easily passed amendments then to strengthen his power. Or make Buddhism the state religion. Or restrict civil liberties, reign in the press, you name it. But he didn't.

Thaksin may have been a "soft authoritarian," a la Mahathir, Lee Kuan Yew, etc., but he certainly was no dictator, and definitely not a Franco/Mussolini/Hitler/"fill in the blank." Anyone who deigns to compare Thaksin with the latter lacks any sense of perspective, history, or basic common sense.

thank you tettyan. you've hit the nail right on the head. its taken a couple of years but someone finally tells it like it is on this forum.

for all the accusations being engineered by the press (and those behind the media) during thaksin's time, he never really did shut them down, in fact he preferred to just shut up at one stage, only to suffer further accusations of being arrogant. i still laugh when i recall the incident where he carried a placard to indicate if he was willing to answer a question from the press. in fact, if he had more dictatorial tendencies, we wouldn't have seen week after week of street protests and Sonthi running amok with his grandstanding minstrel show. thaksin did sue for defamation in the courts, which is really just working within the legal system.

what we really have here is the establishment fighting back because thaksin represented such a divergence in the way he ran the country. if the establishment were just expecting him to serve a few years, have his fill in the spoils of power and then leave like the other politicians before him, they were soon to discover that they were mistaken. this guy had a real policy platform, he actually got things moving, the airport got built after 60 years of talking, the IMF debt was repaid in record time, the kingdom was undergoing a consumer driven economic revival flush with the cash and credit he pumped into the system, the SET skyrocketed, real estate turned the corner, the economy was recovering quick and there was optimism in the air. this guy was actually popular, and it started to look as if he was going to hang around for a long time. this was not going according to plan for the elites! if they didnt stop him, by gosh, we'd have real growth and progress in our hands, and one that would leave the elites out of the cookie jar permanently.

if you look back in history there was curiously another ethnic chinese ruler of a similar name a couple of hundred years ago, who set up camp across the river and whose power threatened the establishment. he didnt last too long either, the elites spread vile rumours and plotted against him, he was finally cornered and executed. those who fail to learn from history will suffer its consequences. however, i must say that the world has changed, i am just a guest in this country that i love, but it is really up to the establishment to answer to their own conscience if what they are trying to re-install is at all the best way forward for the country.

[larvidchr]

I don't have a problem with the ability of protesters to protest verbally...

In regards to the physicality of the violence, the government has not resorted to such... if PTV does so, then can expect repercussions...

if it comes to that... PTV will most assuredly, lose....

Far better to sit down and discuss things... and peacefully resolve issues...

I still think that the use of Tanks and guns constitutes violence.

But your smileys gave me a good laugh, thanks for that and I do agree peacefully resolveing issues is the best way if at all possible.

Have a nice day.

Kind regards

Edited June 12, 2007 by larvidchr

[hammered]

From my understanding when Thaksin entered office the laws prohibited that to give a separation of power and provide checks and balance. To remove those laws is the signature of a person seeking to be a dictator. The coup although it may have been illegal, it was justified and supported by the top down and by the Thai people with enough education to see what was going on. The people who did not like the coup were on the take one way or another.

Let's see. If Thaksin really wanted to pull off a Gleichschaltung, as you seem to suggest, he could have easily done so. But to his credit, he never did so (that's not to say that he didn't exhibit authoritarian tendencies in other ways though).

The formula for amending the constitution under the 1997 Charter was pretty simple. A majority in a joint sitting of the House and Senate was needed to pass any constitutional amendment. The House had 500 members and the Senate had 200, so that's a total of 700 members - Thaksin would've needed 351 to pass an amendment to do whatever he wanted. During his second term, TRT contrlled 377 MPs in the House alone, which made it easy for him to pass whatever he wanted. Even during the first term, his coalition was supported by over 320 MPs, and he also allegedly had over 100 senators on his payroll - he could've easily passed amendments then to strengthen his power. Or make Buddhism the state religion. Or restrict civil liberties, reign in the press, you name it. But he didn't.

Thaksin may have been a "soft authoritarian," a la Mahathir, Lee Kuan Yew, etc., but he certainly was no dictator, and definitely not a Franco/Mussolini/Hitler/"fill in the blank." Anyone who deigns to compare Thaksin with the latter lacks any sense of perspective, history, or basic common sense.

While in terms of much of Mr. Thaksin's conventional policies it is correct to compare him to an authoriatrian like Mahathir or an elected dictator like Lee Kuan Yew, and he certainly is not a Hitler etc, in one area he quite unlike either of the aforemetnioned ex-leaders of SE Asian states. As far as reports go there are none linking either Mr. Mahathir or even the harsher Lee Kuan Yew to thousands of extra-judicial murders. In this respect Mr. Thaksin overstepped a line neither of these "soft" authortiarians ever did. This is not to out him in a league with Hitler et al but it should be pointed out that it certainly puts him in the same ball park as people like Pinochet rather that conventional soft authoritarians.

[sriracha john]

and also puts him in the same league with the earlier comparison to Marcos...

[Plus]

The problem is that there aren't many dictatorship around with recongisable names, so Hitler comes to mind first. No one intends to put him in the same league on the scale of violence (wiping out whole ethnicity and taking over the world), but refusing to look into similarities is not a sign of a great intellegence.

It's far more deceiving to compare Thaksin with Mahathir or Lee Kwan Yew - there's one huge, fundamental difference - they worked for the benefit of their nations.

It's impossible even to imagine that Mahathir would sell his private business empire owned through nominees set up in BVI to Singaporean government's investment arm, or that Lee Kwan Yew would siphon milllions of dollars from Changi into his pockets.

Thedude, 2005 economic figures were nothing to write home about. Thaksin magic wore off and corruption come to the front, it was impossible to hide it or gloss over with repaid IMF loans.

For all my defence of middle classes, they have their price, too - a good, booming economy would greatly reduce their desire to demonstrate against corruption, it's human nature. In the end the balance of "economy-corruption" tipped against Thaksin - they couldn't take it anymore.

[thedude]

While in terms of much of Mr. Thaksin's conventional policies it is correct to compare him to an authoriatrian like Mahathir or an elected dictator like Lee Kuan Yew, and he certainly is not a Hitler etc, in one area he quite unlike either of the aforemetnioned ex-leaders of SE Asian states. As far as reports go there are none linking either Mr. Mahathir or even the harsher Lee Kuan Yew to thousands of extra-judicial murders. In this respect Mr. Thaksin overstepped a line neither of these "soft" authortiarians ever did. This is not to out him in a league with Hitler et al but it should be pointed out that it certainly puts him in the same ball park as people like Pinochet rather that conventional soft authoritarians.

you see Mr Hammered, the winners get to write the history. let me assure you no leader rises to power and stays that way without bumping a few heads together, Dr M and Mr Lee included. and furthermore, we can argue forever on the so-called extra-judicial murders, how many there were, if thaksin in deed ordered them personally, or simply set policy which was poorly executed (pardon the pun), or if other powers exploited the situation to re-arrange the playing field etc.. the eternal dilema in densly populated and desperately poor asia is always how to get the majority to progress and prosper. equality and social justice are distant ideals at this stage of development. at the end of the day, these mishaps only become the legacy in cases where nothing much was finally achieved, or used as ammunition to overthrow the incumbant.

[jayjayjayjay]

Somehow I don't think any protesters have much power over what appears in the papers or on TV.

Don't forget just how manipulative the press can be under a democratic system , let alone an undemocratic one.

Does anyone seriously think there is a free press here.

Personally I would like to set up a talk show such as Hard Talk, but I think I would have to make sure my outward ticket was booked and have transport lined up to the airport!

CMSALLY, you'd be on a plane faster than drivers flee the scene of accidents in the Kingdom......

[hammered]

While in terms of much of Mr. Thaksin's conventional policies it is correct to compare him to an authoriatrian like Mahathir or an elected dictator like Lee Kuan Yew, and he certainly is not a Hitler etc, in one area he quite unlike either of the aforemetnioned ex-leaders of SE Asian states. As far as reports go there are none linking either Mr. Mahathir or even the harsher Lee Kuan Yew to thousands of extra-judicial murders. In this respect Mr. Thaksin overstepped a line neither of these "soft" authortiarians ever did. This is not to out him in a league with Hitler et al but it should be pointed out that it certainly puts him in the same ball park as people like Pinochet rather that conventional soft authoritarians.

you see Mr Hammered, the winners get to write the history. let me assure you no leader rises to power and stays that way without bumping a few heads together, Dr M and Mr Lee included. and furthermore, we can argue forever on the so-called extra-judicial murders, how many there were, if thaksin in deed ordered them personally, or simply set policy which was poorly executed (pardon the pun), or if other powers exploited the situation to re-arrange the playing field etc.. the eternal dilema in densly populated and desperately poor asia is always how to get the majority to progress and prosper. equality and social justice are distant ideals at this stage of development. at the end of the day, these mishaps only become the legacy in cases where nothing much was finally achieved, or used as ammunition to overthrow the incumbant.

Actually I was judging my comments on reports by Human Rights watch etc who did not list either Mahathir or Lee Kuan Yew as having implemented policies of mass extra judicial executuion where they certainly do state that Mr. Thaksin did. This is not about the winners writing history it is about finding what could be seen as a neutral report by which to judge. It is not about banging a few heads togethjer it is about thousands of dead people. HRW also are very critical of some of the improisonment tactics of Lee Kuan Yew and to a lesser extent Mahathir but that is not the same as offing people. Mr. Ts policies on the extra judicil killings have also been pretty widely reported around the world and indeed were when he was still in control of wriitng his own history.

To debate social polices is another thing which neither adds or detracts from extreme human rights abuses.

[jayjayjayjay]

The problem is that there aren't many dictatorship around with recongisable names, so Hitler comes to mind first. No one intends to put him in the same league on the scale of violence (wiping out whole ethnicity and taking over the world), but refusing to look into similarities is not a sign of a great intellegence.

It's far more deceiving to compare Thaksin with Mahathir or Lee Kwan Yew - there's one huge, fundamental difference - they worked for the benefit of their nations.

It's impossible even to imagine that Mahathir would sell his private business empire owned through nominees set up in BVI to Singaporean government's investment arm, or that Lee Kwan Yew would siphon milllions of dollars from Changi into his pockets.

Thedude, 2005 economic figures were nothing to write home about. Thaksin magic wore off and corruption come to the front, it was impossible to hide it or gloss over with repaid IMF loans.

For all my defence of middle classes, they have their price, too - a good, booming economy would greatly reduce their desire to demonstrate against corruption, it's human nature. In the end the balance of "economy-corruption" tipped against Thaksin - they couldn't take it anymore.

Plus....... I think you need a trip into the country. There is no question the average Thai person benefited significantly when Taksin was in power. Just 3 hours ago I went to me house for lunch, visiting my girlf were 4 cousins, 3 out of 4 have lost employment over the last 4 months, all of them have been employed comfortably prior to this in for the last 6 years!

[younghusband]

The problem is that there aren't many dictatorship around with recongisable names, so Hitler comes to mind first. No one intends to put him in the same league on the scale of violence (wiping out whole ethnicity and taking over the world), but refusing to look into similarities is not a sign of a great intellegence.

It's far more deceiving to compare Thaksin with Mahathir or Lee Kwan Yew - there's one huge, fundamental difference - they worked for the benefit of their nations.

It's impossible even to imagine that Mahathir would sell his private business empire owned through nominees set up in BVI to Singaporean government's investment arm, or that Lee Kwan Yew would siphon milllions of dollars from Changi into his pockets.

Thedude, 2005 economic figures were nothing to write home about. Thaksin magic wore off and corruption come to the front, it was impossible to hide it or gloss over with repaid IMF loans.

For all my defence of middle classes, they have their price, too - a good, booming economy would greatly reduce their desire to demonstrate against corruption, it's human nature. In the end the balance of "economy-corruption" tipped against Thaksin - they couldn't take it anymore.

The anti-Thaksinistas seem to be taking leave of reality and the poster , despite the weak caveat, apparently does think the comparison to Hitler is worth making.It's historical illiteracy of course but the post also betrays a desparate naivety about the record of Mahathir and Lee Kwan Yew.If one was looking for evidence to dam Thaksin it would of course have to be the extra judicial killings in the drug war:trouble is this had the support of the people Plus is apparently in hock to, from you know where downwards.Surprise, surprise...it wasn't mentioned by Surayud in his recent speech listing Thaksin's crimes.

Oh and forgive me if I don't regard the Bangkok middle classes as guardians of any kind of ethics or morality.As Khun Paiboon recently pointed out goodness and virtue tends to be found elsewhere.

[jdinasia]

The problem is that there aren't many dictatorship around with recongisable names, so Hitler comes to mind first. No one intends to put him in the same league on the scale of violence (wiping out whole ethnicity and taking over the world), but refusing to look into similarities is not a sign of a great intellegence.

It's far more deceiving to compare Thaksin with Mahathir or Lee Kwan Yew - there's one huge, fundamental difference - they worked for the benefit of their nations.

It's impossible even to imagine that Mahathir would sell his private business empire owned through nominees set up in BVI to Singaporean government's investment arm, or that Lee Kwan Yew would siphon milllions of dollars from Changi into his pockets.

Thedude, 2005 economic figures were nothing to write home about. Thaksin magic wore off and corruption come to the front, it was impossible to hide it or gloss over with repaid IMF loans.

For all my defence of middle classes, they have their price, too - a good, booming economy would greatly reduce their desire to demonstrate against corruption, it's human nature. In the end the balance of "economy-corruption" tipped against Thaksin - they couldn't take it anymore.

Plus....... I think you need a trip into the country. There is no question the average Thai person benefited significantly when Taksin was in power. Just 3 hours ago I went to me house for lunch, visiting my girlf were 4 cousins, 3 out of 4 have lost employment over the last 4 months, all of them have been employed comfortably prior to this in for the last 6 years!

lol ... and this relates to Thaksin how?

unless they worked for TRT .....

Oh wait .. it could relate to Thaksin since some of his dirty deals helped hasten the downturn in the local economy!

But mostly all one has to do is look at the economy everywhere for the answer to this overgeneralisation

[blaze]

From my understanding when Thaksin entered office the laws prohibited that to give a separation of power and provide checks and balance. To remove those laws is the signature of a person seeking to be a dictator. The coup although it may have been illegal, it was justified and supported by the top down and by the Thai people with enough education to see what was going on. The people who did not like the coup were on the take one way or another.

Let's see. If Thaksin really wanted to pull off a Gleichschaltung, as you seem to suggest, he could have easily done so. But to his credit, he never did so (that's not to say that he didn't exhibit authoritarian tendencies in other ways though).

The formula for amending the constitution under the 1997 Charter was pretty simple. A majority in a joint sitting of the House and Senate was needed to pass any constitutional amendment. The House had 500 members and the Senate had 200, so that's a total of 700 members - Thaksin would've needed 351 to pass an amendment to do whatever he wanted. During his second term, TRT contrlled 377 MPs in the House alone, which made it easy for him to pass whatever he wanted. Even during the first term, his coalition was supported by over 320 MPs, and he also allegedly had over 100 senators on his payroll - he could've easily passed amendments then to strengthen his power. Or make Buddhism the state religion. Or restrict civil liberties, reign in the press, you name it. But he didn't.

Thaksin may have been a "soft authoritarian," a la Mahathir, Lee Kuan Yew, etc., but he certainly was no dictator, and definitely not a Franco/Mussolini/Hitler/"fill in the blank." Anyone who deigns to compare Thaksin with the latter lacks any sense of perspective, history, or basic common sense.

While in terms of much of Mr. Thaksin's conventional policies it is correct to compare him to an authoriatrian like Mahathir or an elected dictator like Lee Kuan Yew, and he certainly is not a Hitler etc, in one area he quite unlike either of the aforemetnioned ex-leaders of SE Asian states. As far as reports go there are none linking either Mr. Mahathir or even the harsher Lee Kuan Yew to thousands of extra-judicial murders. In this respect Mr. Thaksin overstepped a line neither of these "soft" authortiarians ever did. This is not to out him in a league with Hitler et al but it should be pointed out that it certainly puts him in the same ball park as people like Pinochet rather that conventional soft authoritarians.

No it does not put him in the same league as Pinochet. In addition to the deaths and disappearances of 3197 people DOCUMENTED by the 1992 Truth Commission (not rumored by an antagonistic press), there were 28000 people tortured and over a million that went into exile. This, in a population less than one fifth of that of Thailand.

Moreover the 'crime' of these victims was not suspected drug dealing, not suspected mafia involvement - but rather suspected opposition to the dictatorship which had illegally seized power from an elected government.

But the case with Pinochet is interesting. If Anand was correct prior to the coup when he referred to Thailand as on the verge of becoming a failed state (and if this justified the coup) then how could anyone say the coup in Chile was not justified. Which most of the world now agrees- it wasn't. Chile was in a much much worse situation than Thailand- I'd be interested to know how many of these same supporters of this coup, would have supported that one. Not the bloodshed- just the coup.

Edited June 12, 2007 by blaze

[hammered]

From my understanding when Thaksin entered office the laws prohibited that to give a separation of power and provide checks and balance. To remove those laws is the signature of a person seeking to be a dictator. The coup although it may have been illegal, it was justified and supported by the top down and by the Thai people with enough education to see what was going on. The people who did not like the coup were on the take one way or another.

Let's see. If Thaksin really wanted to pull off a Gleichschaltung, as you seem to suggest, he could have easily done so. But to his credit, he never did so (that's not to say that he didn't exhibit authoritarian tendencies in other ways though).

The formula for amending the constitution under the 1997 Charter was pretty simple. A majority in a joint sitting of the House and Senate was needed to pass any constitutional amendment. The House had 500 members and the Senate had 200, so that's a total of 700 members - Thaksin would've needed 351 to pass an amendment to do whatever he wanted. During his second term, TRT contrlled 377 MPs in the House alone, which made it easy for him to pass whatever he wanted. Even during the first term, his coalition was supported by over 320 MPs, and he also allegedly had over 100 senators on his payroll - he could've easily passed amendments then to strengthen his power. Or make Buddhism the state religion. Or restrict civil liberties, reign in the press, you name it. But he didn't.

Thaksin may have been a "soft authoritarian," a la Mahathir, Lee Kuan Yew, etc., but he certainly was no dictator, and definitely not a Franco/Mussolini/Hitler/"fill in the blank." Anyone who deigns to compare Thaksin with the latter lacks any sense of perspective, history, or basic common sense.

While in terms of much of Mr. Thaksin's conventional policies it is correct to compare him to an authoriatrian like Mahathir or an elected dictator like Lee Kuan Yew, and he certainly is not a Hitler etc, in one area he quite unlike either of the aforemetnioned ex-leaders of SE Asian states. As far as reports go there are none linking either Mr. Mahathir or even the harsher Lee Kuan Yew to thousands of extra-judicial murders. In this respect Mr. Thaksin overstepped a line neither of these "soft" authortiarians ever did. This is not to out him in a league with Hitler et al but it should be pointed out that it certainly puts him in the same ball park as people like Pinochet rather that conventional soft authoritarians.

No it does not put him in the same league as Pinochet. In addition to the deaths and disappearances of 3197 people DOCUMENTED by the 1992 Truth Commission (not rumored by an antagonistic press), there were 28000 people tortured and over a million that went into exile. Moreover the 'crime' of these victims was not suspected drug dealing, not suspected mafia involvement - but rather suspected opposition to the dictatorship which had illegally seized power from an elected government.

But the case with Pinochet is interesting. If Anand was correct prior to the coup when he referred to Thailand as on the verge of becoming a failed state (and if this justified the coup) then how could anyone say the coup in Chile was not justified. Which most of the world now agrees- it wasn't. Chile was in a much much worse situation than Thailand- I'd be interested to know how many of these same supporters of this coup, would have supported that one. Not the bloodshed- just the coup.

Thank you for confirming the death count of Pinochet and Thaksin were in the same league. That was my only point. By the way those innocents killed under Thaksin are not a ficititious creation of the local press but well reported world wide although numbers vary between 2500 and 7500 depending on exactly who you include in the death count. If people wish to argue Pinochet was worse for other reasons fine, but by that exact arguement Mr. T is also exposed as being not just a soft authoritarian like Mahathir or Lee Kuan Yuan but is exposed as being as being a degree or two worse with his worldwide reported and critiicsed record of killings if we want to do stricter comparatives of these guys.

[asd]

If some people actually would prefer Toxin as PM should they refrain from all political activity?

If some people actually would prefer Toxin as PM should they be banned from attending rallies?

If some people actually would prefer Toxin as PM should they be banned from ALL political activity?

If some people actually would prefer Toxin as PM should they be put under house arrest and not be allowed to leave their homes?

It depends on how they choose to exercise their preference.

If they prefer to use premeditated, violent measures, then the answer to all these questions IMO would be an unhesitating YES.

Kraisak alleged protesters provocative with ulterior motives

Former senator Kraisak Chonhavan said Sunday that anti-coup protesters were apparently inciting violence with ulterior motives.

Kraisak was speaking to a press conference during which he recounted a physical attack against him by some protesters Saturday night.

Kraisak said he went to observe the demonstration by the so-called pro-democracy front against dictatorship in front of the Army headquarters Saturday night because he noticed a lot people joined the rally.

Kraisak said he was speaking to foreign reporters at the rally site when someone on a mobile public addressing unit shouted that he should go home and leave the rally.

He said he walked to the person, telling him that he would like to listen to the speakers of the rally but while he was explaining his stand, a group of young men attacked him by kicking and punching him and throwing objects to him.

He said a few policemen rescued him from the scene. He added that he would not file a complaint with police against his attackers.

Source : http://www.nationmultimedia.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------

With vast assets amassed through business ventures and what not, Thaksin's only financial troubles would be whether he could ever measure the extent of his wealth or deplete even a small portion of it through living a normal lifestyle for the rest of his days.

Obviously, his billions do not give him the happiness and enjoyment he craves from satisfying his gigantic ego and grand ambition. To him, money without power, recognition and dread from other people does not mean much, especially when nobody is awed by his power.

Thaksin's lack of happiness is due mainly to his perceived helplessness and failure to protect his family members in the face of serious criminal charges.