Exit Poll Results Show PPP Wins

[John K]

This is looking more and more like the hot potato. But giving just a quick summary without getting too deep into the specifics here are some things that could trigger the coup.

Politicians dictating the structure of the military. (Placing people in key positions who are more loyal to Thaksin than to who they should be loyal to.) No army will willingly hand it’s weapons to the enemy.

Starting to remove the teeth from the new constitution. (Laws that keep politicians honest.)

Overturning the Constitutional tribunal ruling on the Banned TRT. (General disrespect for the law and self serving actions.)

I see those as flash points that could trigger a coup sooner than later. From what I see that is all planned in the first weeks work for the PPP.

This is all a bit early to comment on, so lets see what happens over the next few days.

"Elected" politicians determining the structure of the military is the way it works in all modern democracies. But yes I do see it as a potential cause of conflict in Thailand. I think the generals are already getting a little worried. http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/19Jan2008_news13.php

The military certainly needs to have their wings clipped and be kept out of politics if democracy is to have a go in Thailand.

Removing the teeth from the new constitution? Well why not scrap it altogether and put it to a referendum for the people to decide under a freely elected government this time round. Not a PPP only style constitution, but one with endorsement from all parties including the Democrats. I honestly believe that even the Democrats don't want to see a constitution where the military have the right to step in and seize power any time they don't like the way things are going.

Overturning the Constitutional Court ruling on banned TRT politicians? Well, any challenge would have to be done through due legal process there and so it wouldn't just be up to the government of the day. Although I somehow suspect that the courts tend to lean towards the political power of the day and are not above the odd bit of political interference themselves. So long as it looks all legal and above board I cant see a problem there. Surely the courts wouldn't pass such a thing if it wasn't legal?

Personally, I think the generals are in a bit of a bind at the moment. If they move in too quickly and stage another coup, they will be exposed for what they really are;-- just a bunch of thugs with guns taking over a democratically elected government. And if they wait too long they risk being neutered. Personally, I think Samak will go for an election when things grind to a halt in order to head of the generals eye on power.

I did not see the military as wanting to get involved prior to the coup, there are enough factors to show their hand was forced. The fact that all they did was work at undoing the damage Thaksin did does not reflect a desire to rule. They set a goal and that is what they did. blood was already running.

The constitution was voted and accepted widely by the Thai people. The only areas where it was voted down was where people it lower educational attainments were listening to pro Thaksin people. I am very sure the people who voted it down had no Idea what they were doing as it would take someone with at least a high school diploma to begin to grasp the context of that lengthy document.

I think overturning the court may be the wrong term, but Pardon may be correct. I am not sure on that. The only problem is essentially Thaksin would be pardoning himself through his proxy Samak. That is why I see that as a hot spot and total disrespect.

The last part I agree, they need a reason to move, however I don’t see them as waiting very long. I would say before Thaksin’s intend return date. Thaksin wont come back unless the ball in in his court. By then the PPP will have already started to dismantle things.

Even by the standards of this poster this is a catalogue of confusion, error and wilful wrongheadedness.I counted at least eight errors in the first two paragraphs before I gave up.Can anyone improve on that tally?

And they would be? Your words are meaningless unless you can back them up.

With all due respect I can't really be bothered to argue with someone like you.However if there is any serious interest from other quarters (PM me if you like) I'll list out the errors.However I'm sure most people on whatever side of the political divide can decipher what is misleading nonsense and what is not.

Just as I though, no reason at all for your above post except to flame.

[younghusband]

This is looking more and more like the hot potato. But giving just a quick summary without getting too deep into the specifics here are some things that could trigger the coup.

Politicians dictating the structure of the military. (Placing people in key positions who are more loyal to Thaksin than to who they should be loyal to.) No army will willingly hand it’s weapons to the enemy.

Starting to remove the teeth from the new constitution. (Laws that keep politicians honest.)

Overturning the Constitutional tribunal ruling on the Banned TRT. (General disrespect for the law and self serving actions.)

I see those as flash points that could trigger a coup sooner than later. From what I see that is all planned in the first weeks work for the PPP.

This is all a bit early to comment on, so lets see what happens over the next few days.

"Elected" politicians determining the structure of the military is the way it works in all modern democracies. But yes I do see it as a potential cause of conflict in Thailand. I think the generals are already getting a little worried. http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/19Jan2008_news13.php

The military certainly needs to have their wings clipped and be kept out of politics if democracy is to have a go in Thailand.

Removing the teeth from the new constitution? Well why not scrap it altogether and put it to a referendum for the people to decide under a freely elected government this time round. Not a PPP only style constitution, but one with endorsement from all parties including the Democrats. I honestly believe that even the Democrats don't want to see a constitution where the military have the right to step in and seize power any time they don't like the way things are going.

Overturning the Constitutional Court ruling on banned TRT politicians? Well, any challenge would have to be done through due legal process there and so it wouldn't just be up to the government of the day. Although I somehow suspect that the courts tend to lean towards the political power of the day and are not above the odd bit of political interference themselves. So long as it looks all legal and above board I cant see a problem there. Surely the courts wouldn't pass such a thing if it wasn't legal?

Personally, I think the generals are in a bit of a bind at the moment. If they move in too quickly and stage another coup, they will be exposed for what they really are;-- just a bunch of thugs with guns taking over a democratically elected government. And if they wait too long they risk being neutered. Personally, I think Samak will go for an election when things grind to a halt in order to head of the generals eye on power.

I did not see the military as wanting to get involved prior to the coup, there are enough factors to show their hand was forced. The fact that all they did was work at undoing the damage Thaksin did does not reflect a desire to rule. They set a goal and that is what they did. blood was already running.

The constitution was voted and accepted widely by the Thai people. The only areas where it was voted down was where people it lower educational attainments were listening to pro Thaksin people. I am very sure the people who voted it down had no Idea what they were doing as it would take someone with at least a high school diploma to begin to grasp the context of that lengthy document.

I think overturning the court may be the wrong term, but Pardon may be correct. I am not sure on that. The only problem is essentially Thaksin would be pardoning himself through his proxy Samak. That is why I see that as a hot spot and total disrespect.

The last part I agree, they need a reason to move, however I don’t see them as waiting very long. I would say before Thaksin’s intend return date. Thaksin wont come back unless the ball in in his court. By then the PPP will have already started to dismantle things.

Even by the standards of this poster this is a catalogue of confusion, error and wilful wrongheadedness.I counted at least eight errors in the first two paragraphs before I gave up.Can anyone improve on that tally?

And they would be? Your words are meaningless unless you can back them up.

With all due respect I can't really be bothered to argue with someone like you.However if there is any serious interest from other quarters (PM me if you like) I'll list out the errors.However I'm sure most people on whatever side of the political divide can decipher what is misleading nonsense and what is not.

Just as I though, no reason at all for your above post except to flame.

If there's interest from a serious quarter I'll list out the errors -but I guess they are self evident to most.

[ando]

I did not see the military as wanting to get involved prior to the coup, there are enough factors to show their hand was forced. The fact that all they did was work at undoing the damage Thaksin did does not reflect a desire to rule. They set a goal and that is what they did. blood was already running.

For an quasi-political organization that is said to be reluctant to get involved in political coups the military seem to "have had their hand forced" terribly often over recent decades. What is it? Something like 18 coups in the last 60 years? The Thai military certainly needs its wings clipped if democracy is to have a chance to succeed. And a new constitution fully supported by all parties and the people is the way to do that.

[John K]

I did not see the military as wanting to get involved prior to the coup, there are enough factors to show their hand was forced. The fact that all they did was work at undoing the damage Thaksin did does not reflect a desire to rule. They set a goal and that is what they did. blood was already running.

For an quasi-political organization that is said to be reluctant to get involved in political coups the military seem to "have had their hand forced" terribly often over recent decades. What is it? Something like 18 coups in the last 60 years? The Thai military certainly needs its wings clipped if democracy is to have a chance to succeed. And a new constitution fully supported by all parties and the people is the way to do that.

I am only talking about the most recent coup. The other coups had different players with different motives. I don’t think you would want to be held accountable for the crimes of your parents, so I would not presume the same here.

[John K]

This is looking more and more like the hot potato. But giving just a quick summary without getting too deep into the specifics here are some things that could trigger the coup.

Politicians dictating the structure of the military. (Placing people in key positions who are more loyal to Thaksin than to who they should be loyal to.) No army will willingly hand it’s weapons to the enemy.

Starting to remove the teeth from the new constitution. (Laws that keep politicians honest.)

Overturning the Constitutional tribunal ruling on the Banned TRT. (General disrespect for the law and self serving actions.)

I see those as flash points that could trigger a coup sooner than later. From what I see that is all planned in the first weeks work for the PPP.

This is all a bit early to comment on, so lets see what happens over the next few days.

"Elected" politicians determining the structure of the military is the way it works in all modern democracies. But yes I do see it as a potential cause of conflict in Thailand. I think the generals are already getting a little worried. http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/19Jan2008_news13.php

The military certainly needs to have their wings clipped and be kept out of politics if democracy is to have a go in Thailand.

Removing the teeth from the new constitution? Well why not scrap it altogether and put it to a referendum for the people to decide under a freely elected government this time round. Not a PPP only style constitution, but one with endorsement from all parties including the Democrats. I honestly believe that even the Democrats don't want to see a constitution where the military have the right to step in and seize power any time they don't like the way things are going.

Overturning the Constitutional Court ruling on banned TRT politicians? Well, any challenge would have to be done through due legal process there and so it wouldn't just be up to the government of the day. Although I somehow suspect that the courts tend to lean towards the political power of the day and are not above the odd bit of political interference themselves. So long as it looks all legal and above board I cant see a problem there. Surely the courts wouldn't pass such a thing if it wasn't legal?

Personally, I think the generals are in a bit of a bind at the moment. If they move in too quickly and stage another coup, they will be exposed for what they really are;-- just a bunch of thugs with guns taking over a democratically elected government. And if they wait too long they risk being neutered. Personally, I think Samak will go for an election when things grind to a halt in order to head of the generals eye on power.

I did not see the military as wanting to get involved prior to the coup, there are enough factors to show their hand was forced. The fact that all they did was work at undoing the damage Thaksin did does not reflect a desire to rule. They set a goal and that is what they did. blood was already running.

The constitution was voted and accepted widely by the Thai people. The only areas where it was voted down was where people it lower educational attainments were listening to pro Thaksin people. I am very sure the people who voted it down had no Idea what they were doing as it would take someone with at least a high school diploma to begin to grasp the context of that lengthy document.

I think overturning the court may be the wrong term, but Pardon may be correct. I am not sure on that. The only problem is essentially Thaksin would be pardoning himself through his proxy Samak. That is why I see that as a hot spot and total disrespect.

The last part I agree, they need a reason to move, however I don’t see them as waiting very long. I would say before Thaksin’s intend return date. Thaksin wont come back unless the ball in in his court. By then the PPP will have already started to dismantle things.

Even by the standards of this poster this is a catalogue of confusion, error and wilful wrongheadedness.I counted at least eight errors in the first two paragraphs before I gave up.Can anyone improve on that tally?

And they would be? Your words are meaningless unless you can back them up.

With all due respect I can't really be bothered to argue with someone like you.However if there is any serious interest from other quarters (PM me if you like) I'll list out the errors.However I'm sure most people on whatever side of the political divide can decipher what is misleading nonsense and what is not.

Just as I though, no reason at all for your above post except to flame.

If there's interest from a serious quarter I'll list out the errors -but I guess they are self evident to most.

Nice try.

[ando]

I mean the constitutional law that applies to this case. Assuming they didn't use dictionary.com's English definition when writing this law in Thai.

BTW thats dictionary.law.com

And if you find the Thai definition of "proxy" is different from the English one, please be sure and let us all know?

[ando]

I am only talking about the most recent coup. The other coups had different players with different motives. I don’t think you would want to be held accountable for the crimes of your parents, so I would not presume the same here.

So, correct me if I am wrong, --- you are saying the latest military coup was a one off under exceptional circumstances, but on the other hand you are predicting another coup in a very short time frame now that PPP seems certain to attain government?

After 18 military coups in 60 years there seems to be a pattern emerging here don't you think?

And I do believe that your ominous predictions of another imminent coup has a lot to do with Thai lands long history of military intervention in politics.

Predicting a coup in Thailand has a 50/50 chance of getting it right in the first couple of years based on historical events. So no kudos for for that bit of political genius.

[John K]

I am only talking about the most recent coup. The other coups had different players with different motives. I don’t think you would want to be held accountable for the crimes of your parents, so I would not presume the same here.

So, correct me if I am wrong, --- you are saying the latest military coup was a one off under exceptional circumstances, but on the other hand you are predicting another coup in a very short time frame now that PPP seems certain to attain government?

After 18 military coups in 60 years there seems to be a pattern emerging here don't you think?

And I do believe that your ominous predictions of another imminent coup has a lot to do with Thai lands long history of military intervention in politics.

Predicting a coup in Thailand has a 50/50 chance of getting it right in the first couple of years based on historical events. So no kudos for for that bit of political genius.

I would say that each event in history coup or other must be examined on it’s own merits. Just like your favorite sports team changes every season however the name remains the same.

My prediction is short term, and that comes from examining several things. Most of them evolve around Thaksin. Too much to go into now as I am pressed for time today, but give it a few days, the picture will become clearer.

[Abrak]

I am only talking about the most recent coup. The other coups had different players with different motives. I don’t think you would want to be held accountable for the crimes of your parents, so I would not presume the same here.

So, correct me if I am wrong, --- you are saying the latest military coup was a one off under exceptional circumstances, but on the other hand you are predicting another coup in a very short time frame now that PPP seems certain to attain government?

After 18 military coups in 60 years there seems to be a pattern emerging here don't you think?

And I do believe that your ominous predictions of another imminent coup has a lot to do with Thai lands long history of military intervention in politics.

Predicting a coup in Thailand has a 50/50 chance of getting it right in the first couple of years based on historical events. So no kudos for for that bit of political genius.

I would say that each event in history coup or other must be examined on it’s own merits. Just like your favorite sports team changes every season however the name remains the same.

My prediction is short term, and that comes from examining several things. Most of them evolve around Thaksin. Too much to go into now as I am pressed for time today, but give it a few days, the picture will become clearer.

There have not been many coups recently - one in the last 15 years. And they have to be viewed in their own context.

Coups cannot happen without a degree of public support and much of that lies with the man who cannot be named. His passing will forever undermine the military's position in the publics eyes. Coups until the last one have been a great success in Thailand. Unelected governments have generally been much better than elected ones - witness Anand 1 and 2 regimes. The last coup and its miserable government was an exception. Thailand had one coup too many something Prem must take responsibility for.

Counting the historic coups and projecting forward is a silly exercise. Politics might be going backwards but coups will soon be in the past.

[sriracha john]

I mean the constitutional law that applies to this case. Assuming they didn't use dictionary.com's English definition when writing this law in Thai.

BTW thats dictionary.law.com

And if you find the Thai definition of "proxy" is different from the English one, please be sure and let us all know?

Actually, I was just inquiring as to what specifically the Thai law says.

Does it translate to "proxy" and does it's context in the law specifically relate to the narrow, precise, English-law definition of the English word that it seems you say it does?

Edited January 19, 2008 by sriracha john

[ando]

I mean the constitutional law that applies to this case. Assuming they didn't use dictionary.com's English definition when writing this law in Thai.

BTW thats dictionary.law.com

And if you find the Thai definition of "proxy" is different from the English one, please be sure and let us all know?

Actually, I was just inquiring as to what specifically the Thai law says.

Does it translate to "proxy" and does it's context in the law specifically relate to the narrow, precise, English-law definition of the English word that it seems you say it does?

Well why don't you do the work yourself and tell us if "proxy" doesn't mean "proxy " in Thai? If it means something else when translated to Thai legal language then I am sure the readership here would be eager to know. You have sowed the seed of doubt, now lets see you can go ahead and prove it.

I think the burden of proof is on you since you are making the assertion (all be it in a dumbed down round about way).

I am sure we will all be waiting with baited breath to hear your findings.

BTW, "proxy" means "proxy" in anyone's language , so good luck in finding your loophole!

[sriracha john]

so, in other words, you don't know what the law says.... but yet you pontificate upon it precisely.

Edited January 19, 2008 by sriracha john

[marshbags]

I mean the constitutional law that applies to this case. Assuming they didn't use dictionary.com's English definition when writing this law in Thai.

BTW thats dictionary.law.com

And if you find the Thai definition of "proxy" is different from the English one, please be sure and let us all know?

Actually, I was just inquiring as to what specifically the Thai law says.

Does it translate to "proxy" and does it's context in the law specifically relate to the narrow, precise, English-law definition of the English word that it seems you say it does?

As S.J. along with myself who use the word proxy as in the English meaning, indeed i reckon so do many others, from a terminology / reference point of view in their previous posts, it is a correct use and interpretation of the word.

A proxy as i understand it is an authorised agent who acts on someones behalf ( a third party ) or a substitute for another person ect.

He may also act as a representative for someone else,s objectives / agenda,s

If someone knows the Thai translation in relation to this context then how about posting it for us all.

Sounds about right for me and is exactly how the agent ( in this case Samak ) has publicly based the PPP / TRT pre election platform on while publicly going out of his way to let everyone know, especially in the North / North East of Thailand.

He got many of his votes based on this assumption, in particular my Moo Ban as one example of it,s meaning along with the expectations that Thaksin will be taking control either legally later on should he succeed in manipulating relevant changes in law or if not by proxy ( a representative / agent of the unethical one. )

They were under no illusions on this, that is for sure, it was a vote for Thaksin

In this case by the way it can be written or verbal instructions before any further hair splitting starts and they do not have to be as in legal terms in this particular case to activate and control relevant, common objectives.

marshbags

Apologies if i am mis quoting in relation to S.J.,s use of the word.

Edited January 19, 2008 by marshbags

[ando]

I am only talking about the most recent coup. The other coups had different players with different motives. I don’t think you would want to be held accountable for the crimes of your parents, so I would not presume the same here.

So, correct me if I am wrong, --- you are saying the latest military coup was a one off under exceptional circumstances, but on the other hand you are predicting another coup in a very short time frame now that PPP seems certain to attain government?

After 18 military coups in 60 years there seems to be a pattern emerging here don't you think?

And I do believe that your ominous predictions of another imminent coup has a lot to do with Thai lands long history of military intervention in politics.

Predicting a coup in Thailand has a 50/50 chance of getting it right in the first couple of years based on historical events. So no kudos for for that bit of political genius.

I would say that each event in history coup or other must be examined on it’s own merits. Just like your favorite sports team changes every season however the name remains the same.

My prediction is short term, and that comes from examining several things. Most of them evolve around Thaksin. Too much to go into now as I am pressed for time today, but give it a few days, the picture will become clearer.

There have not been many coups recently - one in the last 15 years. And they have to be viewed in their own context.

Coups cannot happen without a degree of public support and much of that lies with the man who cannot be named. His passing will forever undermine the military's position in the publics eyes. Coups until the last one have been a great success in Thailand. Unelected governments have generally been much better than elected ones - witness Anand 1 and 2 regimes. The last coup and its miserable government was an exception. Thailand had one coup too many something Prem must take responsibility for.

Counting the historic coups and projecting forward is a silly exercise. Politics might be going backwards but coups will soon be in the past.

Actually, I agree with you in general terms and to a lesser extent with John K.

Thailand HAS had "one too many coups".

Democracy is evolving and the military has no part in that evolution, although they are yet to realize this.

However, I do believe the military and their elite power broker backers could not resist the temptation to try and wrestle political control with one more coup. Sort of a last ditch effort to maintain the old status quo.

The coup makers lost a lot of face this time around and any further attempts to seize power and manipulate democracy would surely be seen for what it is and result in a marked decline in public support. Still, with everything to gain and nothing to lose, I think the military (backers) will have another go if given the opportunity.

The key to bringing the military under control and furthering the progress of democracy is a new constitution which does NOT excuse the generals from treasonable acts and does NOT give the right for the military to take over government under force of arms any time they don't like the way things are going.

A new constitution approved by all democratically elected political parties and the people themselves has got to be the first step towards a true democracy in Thailand.

I, like most observers I have seen, expect this future PPP led government to get into a coalition crisis before too long. That will be the signal for the military to intervene if they haven't been neutralized as a quasi-political force by then.

My guess is that Samak will be smart enough to call a general election when he sees a coup coming. But it remains to be seen who is the most desperate and who jumps first.

And yes, I agree that there are things we cant talk about here which stifles and confuses discussion. Those things could change any day and could influence a whole different outcome, especially for the military power base.

[ando]

I mean the constitutional law that applies to this case. Assuming they didn't use dictionary.com's English definition when writing this law in Thai.

BTW thats dictionary.law.com

And if you find the Thai definition of "proxy" is different from the English one, please be sure and let us all know?

Actually, I was just inquiring as to what specifically the Thai law says.

Does it translate to "proxy" and does it's context in the law specifically relate to the narrow, precise, English-law definition of the English word that it seems you say it does?

As S.J. along with myself who use the word proxy as in the English meaning, indeed i reckon so do many others, from a terminology / reference point of view in their previous posts, it is a correct use and interpretation of the word.

A proxy as i understand it is an authorised agent who acts on someones behalf ( a third party ) or a substitute for another person ect.

He may also act as a representative for someone else,s objectives / agenda,s

If someone knows the Thai translation in relation to this context then how about posting it for us all.

Sounds about right for me and is exactly how the agent ( in this case Samak ) has publicly based the PPP / TRT pre election platform on while publicly going out of his way to let everyone know, especially in the North / North East of Thailand.

He got many of his votes based on this assumption, in particular my Moo Ban as one example of it,s meaning along with the expectations that Thaksin will be taking control either legally later on should he succeed in manipulating relevant changes in law or if not by proxy ( a representative / agent of the unethical one. )

They were under no illusions on this, that is for sure, it was a vote for Thaksin

In this case by the way it can be written or verbal instructions before any further hair splitting starts and they do not have to be as in legal terms in this particular case to activate and control relevant, common objectives.

marshbags

Apologies if i am mis quoting in relation to S.J.,s use of the word.

I think you miss the point there.

You can NOT be a proxy for someone else unless they (or the court) legally appoints you as a proxy. Just saying or inferring you are a proxy is not enough to make you a true proxy. Eg; if I said I was a proxy for you, would you accept that I have access to your bank accounts? No! Of course not. To be a proxy for someone else means a person or the court giving over legal control for the proxy to act on that persons behalf.

Whatever Samak might have said to gain votes wont stand up in court to prove he is an actual proxy of Thaksins. You are clutching onto straws here if you think this case has any merit. It will be dismissed by the EC as it has by the Supreme Court. The whole thing is a joke and should never have gone this far. Even the Democrats have turned their back on the issue. Get over it. Its a dead horse. No point flogging it.

[sriracha john]

fresh off the international presses... a less-than-flowery review of the current situation and pending future...

New Thai government will bring country 'out of crisis'

Bangkok - The head of Thailand's biggest political party announced the formation of a coalition government Saturday that would lead the country "out of crisis."

Samak Sundaravej, a controversial politician, said his six-party coalition would hold at least 315 out 480 seats in Parliament.

"We can move ahead. This will be a strong, capable government," he told a packed press conference.

Parliament formally opens Monday, but the makeup of the new government will not be known until several days of tough negotiations over cabinet posts have been completed. Samak refused to confirm that he would be prime minister -although he hinted that this was likely.

Samak's People Power Party, which won 233 seats in the December 23rd election, is widely regarded as a proxy for the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was deposed in a September 2006 coup. * I'm sorry, but hahahaha... it just seems that everyone likes using that term* The PPP will lose a handful of seats because some winners are being banned for cheating by an election commission.

Thaksin, speaking from exile last week, said Samak had his support as prime minister.

Analysts reckon there may be an uneasy time ahead for Thailand if an uninspired cabinet of political hacks stumbles and if the division in Thai society continues to fester.

The five parties joining PPP in the first post-coup civilian administration are Chart Thai, Puea Pandin, Matchima Thipataya, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, and Pracharaj. The sole opposition will be the Democrat party that won 165 seats in the election and appears to be gearing up to exploit any failings by the new government.

Thaksin himself is still prowling the international stage preparing for the time when he thinks it is safe to return. The junta sponsored a series of investigations and legal actions in his allegedly corrupt activities and conflicts of interest.

The leaders of the junior parties in the coalition, including battered political veterans Sanan Kajornprasart and Sanoh Thienthong stressed the PPP's "right" to form a coalition since it had scooped the most seats in the election.

The Puea Paendin leader Suwit Khunkitti said "Somebody has to govern and the electoral system has chosen the PPP. We are happy to join with them in doing our duty."

- DPA (Deutsche Presse-Agentur)

[Ricardo]

I am only talking about the most recent coup. The other coups had different players with different motives. I don’t think you would want to be held accountable for the crimes of your parents, so I would not presume the same here.

So, correct me if I am wrong, --- you are saying the latest military coup was a one off under exceptional circumstances, but on the other hand you are predicting another coup in a very short time frame now that PPP seems certain to attain government?

After 18 military coups in 60 years there seems to be a pattern emerging here don't you think?

And I do believe that your ominous predictions of another imminent coup has a lot to do with Thai lands long history of military intervention in politics.

Predicting a coup in Thailand has a 50/50 chance of getting it right in the first couple of years based on historical events. So no kudos for for that bit of political genius.

Personally I would say that the first coup for 15 years might have been different in its motivation, from the old days ?

And how sorry I am, to see the return of flaming posters, replacing different opinions which help educate others or presnt a balanced view of the situation ...

[ando]

so, in other words, you don't know what the law says.... but yet you pontificate upon it precisely.

So what were your findings John?

Proxy means proxy in any language. I will stand by that.

Do you have anything of value to add here? Or are you just getting all bitter and twisted?

[sriracha john]

Perhaps it's time to put this mammoth thread to bed soon. Parliament will open on Monday.... and within a few days the thread title will have been officially completed, same as it's predecessor colossal thread on all the political parties formations died when the elections were held.

What will be the the thread title of the next gargantuan thread?

Submit your opinions/predictions over the final days of this one.

[sriracha john]

so, in other words, you don't know what the law says.... but yet you pontificate upon it precisely.

So what were your findings John?

Proxy means proxy in any language. I will stand by that.

Do you have anything of value to add here? Or are you just getting all bitter and twisted?

Not at all, but as you've failed to get my point after asking 3 times, perhaps it's best if you just took your own advice.

Get over it. Its a dead horse. No point flogging it.

[younghusband]

I did not see the military as wanting to get involved prior to the coup, there are enough factors to show their hand was forced. The fact that all they did was work at undoing the damage Thaksin did does not reflect a desire to rule. They set a goal and that is what they did. blood was already running.

For an quasi-political organization that is said to be reluctant to get involved in political coups the military seem to "have had their hand forced" terribly often over recent decades. What is it? Something like 18 coups in the last 60 years? The Thai military certainly needs its wings clipped if democracy is to have a chance to succeed. And a new constitution fully supported by all parties and the people is the way to do that.

I am only talking about the most recent coup. The other coups had different players with different motives. I don’t think you would want to be held accountable for the crimes of your parents, so I would not presume the same here.

I am sorry to be appear to be picking on you, but you come up with the most tendentious nonsense that simply cries out for correction.Let's take it step by step.Obviously each coup in Thailand needs to be analysed in its own historical context, but at the same time many of the contributory factors are rooted in the past. There is a broad framework in which for more than fifty years this country has alternated between military dictatorship and weak civilian rule.This, among other things, says something about the way the armed forces see themselves in Thai society and points to the relatively immature state of Thai political institutions.

The last coup would not have taken place if there were not a culture and tradtion, albeit quiescent for a few years, that is deeply undemocratic and reactionary.I concede the junta's puppet government was relatively benign, partly it must be said because of its torpor and incompetence;nevertheless it followed in the footsteps of far more disagreable predecessors.To say that other coups had different players with different motives is of course correct, but unless the common social, political and historical factors are appreciated, an intelligent comprehension of the genuine significance will be entirely lacking.

[ando]

Personally I would say that the first coup for 15 years might have been different in its motivation, from the old days ?

Care to explain how this most recent coup was different from others?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[ando]

so, in other words, you don't know what the law says.... but yet you pontificate upon it precisely.

So what were your findings John?

Proxy means proxy in any language. I will stand by that.

Do you have anything of value to add here? Or are you just getting all bitter and twisted?

Not at all, but as you've failed to get my point after asking 3 times, perhaps it's best if you just took your own advice.

Get over it. Its a dead horse. No point flogging it.

So I take it you dont want to play anymore?

OK by me if you dont have anything to say.

[John K]

so, in other words, you don't know what the law says.... but yet you pontificate upon it precisely.

So what were your findings John?

Proxy means proxy in any language. I will stand by that.

Do you have anything of value to add here? Or are you just getting all bitter and twisted?

Proxy or not, any contact Thaksin has with any member of the government who is not the MP who represents him in inappropriate.

[ando]

Perhaps it's time to put this mammoth thread to bed soon. Parliament will open on Monday.... and within a few days the thread title will have been officially completed, same as it's predecessor colossal thread on all the political parties formations died when the elections were held.

What will be the the thread title of the next gargantuan thread?

Submit your opinions/predictions over the final days of this one.

Very diplomatic.

Reminds me of the Thai legal system in a lot of ways. :-)

[ando]

so, in other words, you don't know what the law says.... but yet you pontificate upon it precisely.

So what were your findings John?

Proxy means proxy in any language. I will stand by that.

Do you have anything of value to add here? Or are you just getting all bitter and twisted?

Proxy or not, any contact Thaksin has with any member of the government who is not the MP who represents him in inappropriate.

Whoa there!

Thugs armed with tanks and guns take over a democratic government and declare the peoples choice an outlaw. Then you say its "inappropriate" for the people to continue supporting him? I would think the people of Thailand generally disagree with you.

[sriracha john]

so, in other words, you don't know what the law says.... but yet you pontificate upon it precisely.

So what were your findings John?

Proxy means proxy in any language. I will stand by that.

Do you have anything of value to add here? Or are you just getting all bitter and twisted?

Not at all, but as you've failed to get my point after asking 3 times, perhaps it's best if you just took your own advice.

Get over it. Its a dead horse. No point flogging it.

So I take it you dont want to play anymore?

OK by me if you dont have anything to say.

An hour later and still...

All I asked was a general question to all, if you don't know the answer... just say so or even better, don't bother responding.

Edited January 19, 2008 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

Perhaps it's time to put this mammoth thread to bed soon. Parliament will open on Monday.... and within a few days the thread title will have been officially completed, same as it's predecessor colossal thread on all the political parties formations died when the elections were held.

What will be the the thread title of the next gargantuan thread?

Submit your opinions/predictions over the final days of this one.

Very diplomatic.

Reminds me of the Thai legal system in a lot of ways. :-)

Just stating the obvious... this thread is justifiably cooked in a couple days.... now I'll go off and let you resume your drinking in peace.

Edited January 19, 2008 by sriracha john

[Lilawadee]

Funny how you're suddenly very eager to 'put a topic to bed'.

But anyway, you speak of a question. What question was that? I checked 2 pages back but didn't see any loose ends waiting for an answer.. Or was it about this 'proxy' thing? Of course PPP is the replacement of TRT, you will find absolutely nobody disputing that. And of course Thailand would look even more ridiculous both domestically as in the international community if they used this as a basis of banning the victorious party.. Quite clearly people want to vote for this entity or it's replacement that you and the generals don't like..

Plus it would prolong the stalemate, and very likely please nobody other than perhaps a couple prolific forum posters.

[John K]

so, in other words, you don't know what the law says.... but yet you pontificate upon it precisely.

So what were your findings John?

Proxy means proxy in any language. I will stand by that.

Do you have anything of value to add here? Or are you just getting all bitter and twisted?

Proxy or not, any contact Thaksin has with any member of the government who is not the MP who represents him in inappropriate.

Whoa there!

Thugs armed with tanks and guns take over a democratic government and declare the peoples choice an outlaw. Then you say its "inappropriate" for the people to continue supporting him? I would think the people of Thailand generally disagree with you.

I think you are looking at this in the wrong contact from what I am trying to say. Thaksin is banned from politics for a while, and he has no business dealing with anyone except the MP who represents him meaning district and so on. He has been stripped of some of his rights so you must keep that in mind.

The basic structure is the MPs work for the people in their constituency and they vote on what is best for them. If Thaksin has a company or business in another constituency then he can talk to the MP there too so I will give him that.

As an American that is the same access I have to my congressman or senator. I don’t call up the Secretaries or president and ask for their help, my congressman or senator will do that for me if needed. Thaksin has no business going any higher than talking to his MP. It looks very wrong as well as being very wrong.

As for you comment on elected government, once again Thaksin had sent the elected government packing 7 months before the coup and all that was left was his hand picked caretaker government that had nothing at all to do with being elected.

I have made that point several times in this thread but somehow that 7 months without an elected government keeps getting misplaced by the people who want to change the facts of history.

It was not the junta who took out the government, it was Thaksin.

Edited January 19, 2008 by John K