Thai anti-establishment activists plan rally on Tuesday to pressure Senate

[onthedarkside]

Off topic post on the US and UK removed.

[NoshowJones]

7 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

Not a good thing to do I think... Thai army doesn't like pressure from outside

Never mind the army, carry on with the protest. The majority of soldiers are decent people from decent families. But I appreciate that when you mention the Thai army and pressure, that would be the generals and the decent soldiers may not be able to do much about that.

[madmitch]

4 hours ago, Purdey said:

Timing couldn't be worse. MF hasn't been rejected as a government. Senators are concerned an MF government will lead to street protests. Now they will be proven correct.

Waiting to allow the MF party to get support from the Senate before these rash provocations. Demonstrations are hardly likely to convince that MF can lead. 

If MF aren't allowed to govern then that's when the street protests will begin in earnest!

[candide]

3 hours ago, h90 said:

2010: Was that the red shirt protests....
Where the military lost several people due to gunfire from your civilians...had to fall back and get weapons.
The last 2 coups were without blood....but yes 30 or 50 years earlier it was a different world......But 1976 even Prayuth was young boy

Exactly, that was the red shirts protest. 

So when the red shirts protest to get elections, the army fights them (and eventually kills them).

And when the yellow shirts (or assimilated, PCRD) protest in order to overthrow a legally elected  government and block elections, the army sides with them, and eventually make a coup.

[bamnutsak]

1 minute ago, candide said:

Exactly, that was the red shirts protest. 

So when the red shirts protest to get elections, the army fights them (and eventually kills them).

And when the yellow shirts (or assimilated, PCRD) protest in order to overthrow a legally elected  government and block elections, the army sides with them, and eventually make a coup.

Heads the Army wins, Tails the Army wins.

 

Only difference? How many fellow citizens the Army chooses to murder.

 

 

 

[MrMojoRisin]

3 hours ago, h90 said:

2010: Was that the red shirt protests....
Where the military lost several people due to gunfire from your civilians...had to fall back and get weapons.
The last 2 coups were without blood....but yes 30 or 50 years earlier it was a different world......But 1976 even Prayuth was young boy

Military lost 6 people.

Civilians lost 80+ people with over 2100 wounded

 

The 2008 coup led directly to the 2010 bloodshed.

 

There has only been 1 “bloodless” coup after 2010 (how surprising you once again get a simple fact wrong).

[h90]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Exactly, that was the red shirts protest. 

So when the red shirts protest to get elections, the army fights them (and eventually kills them).

And when the yellow shirts (or assimilated, PCRD) protest in order to overthrow a legally elected  government and block elections, the army sides with them, and eventually make a coup.

The red shirts wanted earlier elections....not the normal scheduled one. So it was not about democracy.
The army fights them and get killed first...so they were armed protesters.
Abhisit did regular elections and Yingluck won. So the red shirt violence was for nothing.

We recall at the end of the yellow shirts the army coup an illegal government away. It was a caretaker government that had expired.

Both should not happen. The red shirts promised to dissolve on themself if Abhisit makes earlier elections...he refused that. Earlier elections would have avoided all violence and would have made look reasonable....
So he is just another failure....

[sammieuk1]

The 2017 Constitution, however, involves the 250 unelected senators in the selection process for the prime minister.

 

Democracy at work ????

[candide]

3 hours ago, Purdey said:

Yes, the people have enough tanks and airplanes of course to rise against the military. Not.

The military has never backed down from a fight against unarmed young people. Thammasart 1976 for instance. 

Thai troops crushed a demonstration against the country's new military-backed prime minister in 1992 after opening fire on crowds protesting the arrest of a key opposition leader.

At least 24 people died in Bangkok as government troops shot civilians in 2010.

Yes, nonsense indeed.

Different times...

- In 2010 and 2014, the army was cheered by the good people of Bangkok. However, the "good people" in Bangkok voted MF this time. Even members of the Hi-So or their children voted MF. There will be absolutely no support from the Bangkok population to a coup. It's very different from 2010 and 2014. They cannot fire at them like they did with the Issan 'buffaloes' in 2014.

- remember who now commands the army forces stationed in Bangkok. It's an unpredictable.situation.

[h90]

1 minute ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Military lost 6 people.

Civilians lost 80+ people with over 2100 wounded

 

The 2008 coup led directly to the 2010 bloodshed.

 

There has only been 1 “bloodless” coup after 2010 (how surprising you once again get a simple fact wrong).

I don't know the numbers....but how did 6 if that is true (and how many wounded) died from peaceful protesters?
 

2006 coup was bloodless 2014 was bloodless. I missed the 2008 coup  there was none.
Abhisits incompetence caused the bloodshed....There have been so many ways to avoid it. Easiest early elections, as he wasn't very clean elected anyway.

[h90]

1 minute ago, sammieuk1 said:

The 2017 Constitution, however, involves the 250 unelected senators in the selection process for the prime minister.

 

Democracy at work ????

yes but they can't elect one who has no majority in the parliament. (as the parliament can bring a government without majority to fall immediately). So it is a check of balance. Both can't without the other. Just appointed Senators that way is a bad solution.....If only other countries would have had constitutions we could have copied

[candide]

46 minutes ago, h90 said:

The red shirts wanted earlier elections....not the normal scheduled one. So it was not about democracy.
The army fights them and get killed first...so they were armed protesters.
Abhisit did regular elections and Yingluck won. So the red shirt violence was for nothing.

We recall at the end of the yellow shirts the army coup an illegal government away. It was a caretaker government that had expired.

Both should not happen. The red shirts promised to dissolve on themself if Abhisit makes earlier elections...he refused that. Earlier elections would have avoided all violence and would have made look reasonable....
So he is just another failure....

The red shirts wanted elections because the government was not representing the will of the people (since part of the House was banned by the yellow courts). Abhisit was not chosen by voters. So it was democratic to ask for elections. When the legitimacy of a government is strongly contested for good reasons, the democratic behaviour is to organise early elections, as Yingluck did, and let the democratic vote decide.

There was a particular reason for the red shirt to want early elections, and for Abhisit to reject it: the nomination of a new army chief in September. You know who was appointed, I guess (BTW, the same guy who was commanding the regiments who fired at protesters).

 

As to the caretaker government being allegedly illegal:

- you may remember that the yellow protesters blocked the first attempt at elections under the benevolent eyes of the army. So this situation has been caused by the yellow-green network itself,

- if it was really illegal, the yellow courts would have removed them. The courts were looking at any ground to oust them, and they have not been able to do it.

 

The protest coup failed (Suthep's mobs were spreading thin), the judicial coup failed (they were not able to oust the whole government), so the only way to block elections planned for July was a military coup.

Edited May 22, 2023 by candide

[candide]

29 minutes ago, h90 said:

I don't know the numbers....but how did 6 if that is true (and how many wounded) died from peaceful protesters?
 

2006 coup was bloodless 2014 was bloodless. I missed the 2008 coup  there was none.
Abhisits incompetence caused the bloodshed....There have been so many ways to avoid it. Easiest early elections, as he wasn't very clean elected anyway.

2006 and 2014 were bloodless because protesters were on the same side as the army. The army was not going to oppose them as they did with the red shirts.

 

I agree with your last sentence. However, it was not Abhisit's incompetence. He was told to do it, in order to wait for the appointment of the new army chief in September.

 

There was one red-shirt big protest in May in 2014 but they remained at the periphery and did not march into the city center.

[ikke1959]

Senators to defend something that isn't most of the time in Thailand...They should give Pita the job. Nothing can go wrong

[h90]

48 minutes ago, candide said:

2006 and 2014 were bloodless because protesters were on the same side as the army. The army was not going to oppose them as they did with the red shirts.

 

I agree with your last sentence. However, it was not Abhisit's incompetence. He was told to do it, in order to wait for the appointment of the new army chief in September.

 

There was one red-shirt big protest in May in 2014 but they remained at the periphery and did not march into the city center.

yes than basically we agree on everything here....
Hard to tell if Abhisit did what he got told or if it was natural incompetence....Don't forget friend of Boris Johnson and young leader of World Economic forum.

Red Shirts would have been the opportunity to shake up the police force. If ugly he could have made a small coup himself of it. So many people had hopes in him...young modern etc....

[h90]

1 hour ago, candide said:

The red shirts wanted elections because the government was not representing the will of the people (since part of the House was banned by the yellow courts). Abhisit was not chosen by voters. So it was democratic to ask for elections. When the legitimacy of a government is strongly contested for good reasons, the democratic behaviour is to organise early elections, as Yingluck did, and let the democratic vote decide.

There was a particular reason for the red shirt to want early elections, and for Abhisit to reject it: the nomination of a new army chief in September. You know who was appointed, I guess (BTW, the same guy who was commanding the regiments who fired at protesters).

 

As to the caretaker government being allegedly illegal:

- you may remember that the yellow protesters blocked the first attempt at elections under the benevolent eyes of the army. So this situation has been caused by the yellow-green network itself,

- if it was really illegal, the yellow courts would have removed them. The courts were looking at any ground to oust them, and they have not been able to do it.

 

The protest coup failed (Suthep's mobs were spreading thin), the judicial coup failed (they were not able to oust the whole government), so the only way to block elections planned for July was a military coup.

Yes Abhisit was technically correct PM. But not in the real sense and the theater with the MPs locked into the hotel room......He should have made new elections by himself...might have won it. I am not sure if I remember right it was not only army chief it was also some big budget.

caretaker government has a time limit. Yes it was Sutheps network. They had the idea if there are no elections the government must tell that they can't govern. Than a government will be appointed and fix things for a while......A few years ago in Austria was such an appointed government, it is not something too crazy.
But they didn't do it, and their term was expired so they were technically not government anymore.

Same case as Abhisit, they should have left when it was time.

[candide]

38 minutes ago, h90 said:

Yes Abhisit was technically correct PM. But not in the real sense and the theater with the MPs locked into the hotel room......He should have made new elections by himself...might have won it. I am not sure if I remember right it was not only army chief it was also some big budget.

caretaker government has a time limit. Yes it was Sutheps network. They had the idea if there are no elections the government must tell that they can't govern. Than a government will be appointed and fix things for a while......A few years ago in Austria was such an appointed government, it is not something too crazy.
But they didn't do it, and their term was expired so they were technically not government anymore.

Same case as Abhisit, they should have left when it was time.

Well, certainly not same case as Abhisit. They did dissolve the House and organise elections. The fact that elections have been partly blocked by protesters and ultimately nullified was not their intent. They did not delay early elections, and after the first elections were nullified, they planned new elections with the EC as early as possible (July).

 

Do you have a source about the fact the government situation was illegal in May. I don't remember this argument having been evoked for the coup.

One thing is sure, Suthep's idea of a government was illegal according to the Constitution. There was nothing in the Constitution allowing it. 

 

About the nomination of a new army chief in 2010

https://www.dw.com/en/thailands-new-army-chief-takes-office/a-6066746

Edited May 22, 2023 by candide

[BangkokReady]

10 hours ago, h90 said:

How is the party from an oligarch in an coalition with another oligarchs party not establishment as well?

It is just different groups of elites who struggle for influence.

They'll be anti-establishment while they think it will help them get what they want, then fully pro-establishment once they have succeeded.  Basically they are "pro-what-they-want".

 

This is why most political/ideological movements should be treated with a huge amount of scepticism.  Especially those that talk about "the greater good" or "the will of the people". 

[Srikcir]

14 hours ago, mania said:

This could be as black flag as it gets. It could instead give the BS250 the excuse to say..."See this is what is expected of anti establishment"

Police-military persons have been known to join anti- military protests in civilian clothes with intent to break laws so as to discredit the protest.