Exit Poll Results Show PPP Wins

[chownah]

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

You are wrong....that's all there is to it. Toxin is the most popular politician in Thai history...he has won every election he has been in. He used the same tactics that other politician used to get elected plus he actually delivered to the promises he made to the rural poor. He was starting a discussion of amending the constitution to eliminate some of the things which the opposition said were allowing him too much leeway in determining policy at the very time that the military dictatorship kicked him out of office. We will never know what might have happened...we might have an airtight constitution by now...we will never know regardless of whatever sarcasm is used to reply to this post. Toxin was elected by the people three times and if you count the PPP's success then that makes four times. Toxin or at least his policies seems to be what the people want...that is the gov't that the people want....it is the military dictatorship which won't let the people have the gov't that they want....they are doing everything to try to make military intervention in Thai politcs into an accepted practice by having it sanctified in the constitution..............You are wrong....that's all there is to it.

Chownah

[John K]

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

You are wrong....that's all there is to it. Toxin is the most popular politician in Thai history...he has won every election he has been in. He used the same tactics that other politician used to get elected plus he actually delivered to the promises he made to the rural poor. He was starting a discussion of amending the constitution to eliminate some of the things which the opposition said were allowing him too much leeway in determining policy at the very time that the military dictatorship kicked him out of office. We will never know what might have happened...we might have an airtight constitution by now...we will never know regardless of whatever sarcasm is used to reply to this post. Toxin was elected by the people three times and if you count the PPP's success then that makes four times. Toxin or at least his policies seems to be what the people want...that is the gov't that the people want....it is the military dictatorship which won't let the people have the gov't that they want....they are doing everything to try to make military intervention in Thai politcs into an accepted practice by having it sanctified in the constitution..............You are wrong....that's all there is to it.

Chownah

Well lets start with

Urgent: Thaksin announces House dissolution

The iTV station announced that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has announced a House dissolution.

The prime minister will make a formal announcement on TV pool at 8 pm.

--The Nation 2006-02-24 18:35

House dissolution expected to be announced soon

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had an audience with His Majesty the King here Friday afternoon amid speculations that there would soon be a House dissolution as a way out to ease the current political tension.

The prime minister was granted an audience with His Majesty the King at the Chitralada Villa of the Dusit Palace here.

This causes speculations that the prime minister might soon announce a new minor cabinet reshuffle and would later dissolve the House of Representatives as his last resort to end the ongoing political turmoil.

Responding to a journalists' question, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-Ngam, a legal expert, conceded that it could be possible for a House dissolution after a cabinet reshuffle.

He declined to give any further comments.

Earlier this month, Culture Minister Uraiwan Thienthong tendered her resignation saying she wanted to uphold political ethnics.

Her move was followed suit in about 24 hours later by Information and Communication Technology Minister Sora-at Klinpratoom.

Both are members of the Wang Nam Yen faction of the ruling Thai Rak Thai (TRT) Party, led by Ms. Uraiwan's husband--Sanoh Thienthong who has lately had a political difference with the prime minister himself.

However, the prime minister told journalists after the audience that there would be no cabinet reshuffle as speculated.

He said that he could opt to dissolve the House and would hold a press conference at 08:30 p.m. Friday to inform the public of his decision.

--TNA 2006-02-24

That February 24, 2006 thread can be found here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61370

Followed seven months later by

BANGKOK: (CNN) -- Tanks rolled through the streets of Bangkok, Thailand, on Tuesday amid reports of an attempted coup, witnesses tell CNN.

Members of the Thai military are attempting to seize power but Thailand's leadership expects everything to return to normal soon, Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai told CNN.

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra -- currently at the U.N. headquarters in New York -- went on a government-owned TV station and declared a state of emergency, The Associated Press reported.

The government has maintained control of the capital and the surrounding areas, according a statement on Thailand's state-controled Army television. The statement asked for residents to remain calm and await further announcements.

According to officials at the Thai mission at the United Nations, Thaksin has moved up his speech to the General Assembly to Tuesday night and will return to Bangkok after his address.

He had been scheduled to address the assembly on Wednesday.

Thailand operates as a constitutional monarchy, with the king as head of state and the prime minister leading the government. The country is an ally of the U.S. and contributed troops to the U.S.-led military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thaksin has been under considerable pressure to step down.

Elections in Thailand are scheduled for November after the country's constitutional court ruled April's vote was unconstitutional.

Thaksin had called for the elections in April, three years early, after opponents accused the billionaire leader of abusing the country's system of checks and balances and bending government policy to benefit his family's business.

--CNN 2006-09-19 23:27

The September 19, 2006 coup thread can be found here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=84097

Edited January 19, 2008 by John K

[sriracha john]

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.

Not eager. Just a realist who's been through hundreds of political threads. I can appreciate your newness, so you understandably can't sense the beginning of the end of a thread, but finishing whatever the thread title mentions is a good indicator.... having over 2,000 posts is another signal.... and as Ricardo succinctly pointed out a few posts back, the overall discussions falls and the flaming begins. I'll lend you the depth of my experience and inform you that continuing a thread beyond its useful shelf-life is almost always counter-productive.

As a further example that it's perhaps nearing the time to stick a fork in a thread is when the clearly obvious is over-looked over the past 2 pages.

The original question...

Doesn't really matter what the journalists print....journalists don't define the laws nor do they define reality. The term "proxy" as it relates to illegal political action in Thailand is not what PPP is......

Speaking of the law, what precisely does it say is its definition in this particular situation?

Further clarification of the original question...

Speaking of the law, what precisely does it say is its definition in this particular situation?

Why dont you look it up yourself John?

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typ...mp;submit1.y=15

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.

And finally, the third time around for the orignal question...

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?

One might suppose Monday can't come soon enough...

Edited January 19, 2008 by sriracha john

[blaze]

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.

...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.

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

Do you not comprehend that it is not only the right, but the duty, of a sitting government to continue to govern after an election is called - they can not legislate- but they MUST, constitutionally, ensure a cabinet remains in place after parliament has been dissolved. And that parliament MUST (by LAW) be dissolved after an election is called?

Thaksin did NOT send the elected government packing- he dissolved parliament. This is what is done in parliamentary democracies after an election has been called.

There is no need for parliament in this system (I'm referring to Canada, NZ, Australia, Thailand, and many more) since legislation can't be undertaken in the period after which the election has been called.

Edited January 19, 2008 by blaze

[pete_r]

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

You are wrong....that's all there is to it.

Chownah

Well lets start with

Urgent: Thaksin announces House dissolution

--TNA 2006-02-24

Followed seven months later by

BANGKOK: (CNN) -- Tanks rolled through the streets of Bangkok, Thailand, on Tuesday amid reports of an attempted coup, witnesses tell CNN.

--CNN 2006-09-19 23:27

Ok, ok. How about this: It was not Thaksin who prevented a new government from being elected, it was (1) the Democrats when they boycotted the elections on 2 april 2006 and (2) the junta when they did the coup on 19 September 2006, thereby throwing out the window the elections planned for November.

Edited January 19, 2008 by pete_r

[John K]

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

You are wrong....that's all there is to it.

Chownah

Well lets start with

Urgent: Thaksin announces House dissolution

--TNA 2006-02-24

Followed seven months later by

BANGKOK: (CNN) -- Tanks rolled through the streets of Bangkok, Thailand, on Tuesday amid reports of an attempted coup, witnesses tell CNN.

--CNN 2006-09-19 23:27

Ok, ok. How about this: It was not Thaksin who prevented a new government from being elected, it was (1) the Democrats when they boycotted the elections on 2 april 2006 and (2) the junta when they did the coup on 19 September 2006, thereby throwing out the window the elections planned for November.

Oh there are a few threads on that too, one of the eventually lead to the TRT being dissolved for electoral fraud buying small parties to contest the election. All traceable back to guess who.

I do recall a check box that said no vote so on the ballet and a court ruling or few that said nothing was wrong in checking the no vote box. Boycott meant stay home and watch tv. There is a thread on that too if you care to check.

You obviously don’t remember several news clippings every week as Thaksin systematically dismantled everything in his way.

Unfortunately this has to be looked at in the big picture as no single post can sat it all.

The amazing thing about Thaivisa is anyone can go back and copy and paste a segment of an old thread into another thread to keep the discussion grounded in fact and not get off on some tangent.

[baanthale]

Personally I think it is more important with posts that tells the true, than someone with 2000 posts telling a junta bought newspapers view of things(Nation) Good to see that justice is finally done in Thailand. Hard for some people to accept, but hey, the Thai people decides whats best for them, and it is nothing you can do about it. You don't like it? Maybe time for you to move on

[blaze]

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

You are wrong....that's all there is to it.

Chownah

Well lets start with

Urgent: Thaksin announces House dissolution

--TNA 2006-02-24

Followed seven months later by

BANGKOK: (CNN) -- Tanks rolled through the streets of Bangkok, Thailand, on Tuesday amid reports of an attempted coup, witnesses tell CNN.

--CNN 2006-09-19 23:27

Ok, ok. How about this: It was not Thaksin who prevented a new government from being elected, it was (1) the Democrats when they boycotted the elections on 2 april 2006 and (2) the junta when they did the coup on 19 September 2006, thereby throwing out the window the elections planned for November.

Oh there are a few threads on that too, one of the eventually lead to the TRT being dissolved for electoral fraud buying small parties to contest the election. All traceable back to guess who.

I do recall a check box that said no vote so on the ballet and a court ruling or few that said nothing was wrong in checking the no vote box. Boycott meant stay home and watch tv. There is a thread on that too if you care to check.

You obviously don’t remember several news clippings every week as Thaksin systematically dismantled everything in his way.

Unfortunately this has to be looked at in the big picture as no single post can sat it all.

The amazing thing about Thaivisa is anyone can go back and copy and paste a segment of an old thread into another thread to keep the discussion grounded in fact and not get off on some tangent.

Parliament was dissolved in February, as was constitutionally mandated, because the sitting government wanted to call an election. Parliamentary procedure reaquires that the house be dissolved prior to the calling of an election.

The election, which was held in April, was declared unconstitutional since the major opposition party refused to run. A new election was scheduled. During all this time Thaksin correctly- legally- and NESCESSSARILY headed a caretaker government.

That has nothing to do with the threads in thaivisa. It has to do with the constitution of the country.

The fact that after the coup, the TRT was dissolved, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the dissolution of parliament.

Similarly, when he appointed the deputy PM to head the government, this was also fully in accordance with parliamentary procedure and the constituion.

The Democrat party DID boycott the election. A NO vote was NOT a vote for the Democrats since they weren't running. No Thai citizen could vote Democrat int the April election- because the Democrats were Boycotting the election.

Edited January 19, 2008 by blaze

[A_Traveller]

For those who are puzzled here, let us recall that Thailand is a constitutional monarchy. Under the constitution {'97} the Prime Minister, was chosen by the party which has the largest number of seats in the House. The Prime Minister had to be a Member of the House, so either elected directly to represent a constituency, or a member of the party list. In Thaksin's case he was #1 of the TRT list, and was selected by the membership {I can't recall if the requirement was for House Members only or members of the party}. It is worth noting that a Member of the House must be a natural born Thai Citizen.

As Prime Minister he assumed, after 'kissing hands', the HG position {Head of Government}, whilst HM remained HoS {Head of State}. This split in powers is managed and proscribed by both the constitution and the organic laws. One key HG 'power' is the ability to call a general election, often described in such democracies as 'going to the country'. In Thaksin's case he decided to call such an election on the basis that he wanted, in effect, a referendum on his position and the sale of Shin Corp. The opposition view was that this was, whilst legal within a black and white reading of the constitution, a political gambit, not a true elective issue.

Upon calling for the dissolution of the House, and informing HM of his intent so to do, Thaksin ceased to be Prime Minister and became, critically, Caretaker Prime Minter, a position which he would hold, then apparently resign from and then seemingly resume. This set of circumstances involved much invocation of the monarchy, i.e. Thaksin stating publicly that if a 'certain person whispered in his ear, he would stand down'. Some may recall the helicopter flight the day after a pugnacious Thaksin addressed the nation saying he was staying in power, and then after the flight how he was retiring, only to return ostensibly owing to concerns about the then upcoming celebrations of the 60th Anniversary of HM's reign. A set of circumstances which to this day, some view as being disrespectful to both the personage and the constitutional monarchical institutions.

However, the Government remained in effect, though its powers were proscribed, so, for example orders in council could be made, but no acts or laws could be passed. This led to increasing drift, inability to react to external issues {or for that matter some internal ones} and concerns that public order might become affected by this position. As to how real these concerns were, or if they were manufactured {by many 'actors' within the platforms} is still difficult to determine. It would be naive in the extreme to think they were the only driving forces that led to the coup, but it would be equally foolish to discount them entirely.

Ultimately, the military moved, and in doing so the extant, though moribund, civilian government fell, at that time, not before.

By the by if some correspondents herein care to, the Organic Laws, and associated Constitutional laws are available, in English from the ECT Website.

Regards

/edit typos//

Edited January 19, 2008 by A_Traveller

[blaze]

For those who are puzzled here, let us recall that Thailand is a constitutional monarchy. Under the constitution {'97} the Prime Minister, was chosen by the party which has the largest number of seats in the House. The Prime Minister had to be a Member of the House, so either elected directly to represent a constituency, or a member of the party list. In Thaksin's case he was #1 of the TRT list, and was selected by the membership {I can't recall if the requirement was for House Members only or members of the party}. It is worth noting that a Member of the House must be a natural born Thai Citizen.

As Prime Minister he assumed, after 'kissing hands', the HG position {Head of Government}, whilst HM remained HoS {Head of State}. This split in powers is managed and proscribed by both the constitution and the organic laws. One key HG 'power' is the ability to call a general election, often described in such democracies as 'going to the country'. In Thaksin's case he decided to call such an election on the basis that he wanted, in effect, a referendum on his position and the sale of Shin Corp. The opposition view was that this was, whilst legal within a black and white reading of the constitution, a political gambit, not a true elective issue.

Upon calling for the dissolution of the House, and informing HM of his intent so to do, Thaksin ceased to be Prime Minister and became, critically, Caretaker Prime Minter, a position which he would hold, then apparently resign from and then seemingly resume. This set of circumstances involved much invocation of the monarchy, i.e. Thaksin stating publicly that if a 'certain person whispered in his ear, he would stand down'. Some may recall the helicopter flight the day after a pugnacious Thaksin addressed the nation saying he was staying in power, and then after the flight how he was retiring, only to return ostensibly owing to concerns about the then upcoming celebrations of the 60th Anniversary of HM's reign. A set of circumstances which to this day, some view as being disrespectful to both the personage and the constitutional monarchical institutions.

However, the Government remained in effect, though its powers were proscribed, so, for example orders in council could be made, but no acts or laws could be passed. This led to increasing drift, inability to react to external issues {or for that matter some internal ones} and concerns that public order might become affected by this position. As to how real these concerns were, or if they were manufactured {by many 'actors' within the platforms} is still difficult to determine. It would be naive in the extreme to think they were the only driving forces that led to the coup, but it would be equally foolish to discount them entirely.

Ultimately, the military moved, and in doing so the extant, though moribund, civilian government fell, at that time, not before.

By the by if some correspondents herein care to, the Organic Laws, and associated Constitutional laws are available, in English from the ECT Website.

Regards

/edit typos//

Yes- that's pretty much the size of it- though I don't know what his motivations were in calling a snap election- but coming from a country with a history of snap elections (and yes, we too must get approval of the crown- the British crown no less - for reasons that completely confound me- both to call the election and to form a government), I have never heard of the PM , during the interim between dissolution of the house and the formation of a new government, referred to as a caretaker PM. Though of course, techinically that's what he is. (Or for a brief period some years ago, she).

Edited January 19, 2008 by blaze

[Ricardo]

Personally I think it is more important with posts that tells the true, than someone with 2000 posts telling a junta bought newspapers view of things(Nation) Good to see that justice is finally done in Thailand. Hard for some people to accept, but hey, the Thai people decides whats best for them, and it is nothing you can do about it. You don't like it? Maybe time for you to move on

Another traditional sign on TV, that a debate is reaching the end of its useful life, the invitation to go forth and multiply.

and my own forcast, for the title of the next 'mega-thread', is 'Samak-government withdraws all charges against former-PM Thaksin'.

[sriracha john]

By the by if some correspondents herein care to, the Organic Laws, and associated Constitutional laws are available, in English from the ECT Website.

Thank you very much for the straight-forward response and helpful link. To confound the matter from earlier even further on my question, I was unable to find the word proxy anywhere, much less defined, in both the Constitution and the Organic Laws. Even without that specific nomenclature, whatever law was being contended in the case that begin this bedraggling long discussion could not be located either.

Edited January 19, 2008 by sriracha john

[Ricardo]

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.

Perhaps its (welcome) totally peaceful/bloodless nature, or the fact that there had been a 15-year gap ?

And I'd agree with you that Thailand needs to move away from this traditional mechanism for changing governments.

[sriracha john]

This guy is going to produce a lot of fodder for a comedian's routine... While Ricardo's entry in the thread title sweepstakes looks in pretty good shape...

Samak showcases coalition

But gets testy and evasive when asked if he will be premier

Samak Sundaravej, leader of the People Power Party, yesterday pledged to unveil the PPP-led Cabinet in 15 days after he introduced his six-party coalition backed by a solid majority of 315 MPs.

However, the euphoria at the press conference called at Bangkok's Sukhothai Hotel to showcase the coalition was ruined by coalition leader Samak when he became testy after he was asked about becoming the prime minister.

"Why raise an inappropriate question? If I don't answer, I'll be picked on non-stop, though I think the question is quite annoying," he said, while managing to evade saying how confident he was in securing the top job.

Sources close to Samak suggested the new government's priority was amending the 2007 Constitution. Then it would likely dissolve the House and call a snap election, which meant it might be in office just one year, the sources said.

In his opening remarks, Samak praised the Election Commission for its success in supervising the voting process and ensuring a fair outcome.

"Although each party received its share of red and yellow cards, this was inevitable and can be settled later. But the crucial thing is the filling of 95 per cent of the House seats, allowing for the opening of Parliament," he said.

The Chart Thai and Puea Pandin parties were thanked for joining the alliance and making it possible to achieve the comfortable majority and a stable coalition.

He then turned the mike over to the other parties to explain their decisions to support the coalition.

Pracharaj leader Snoh Thienthong said he wanted the country to move ahead following a turbulent period. "I'm not worrying about how long the government will last, which will depend on each coalition partner, but I am concerned about the well-being of the country," he said. People Power won the December 23 election, so it had the legitimacy to form the coalition, he said.

Chart Thai chief adviser Sanan Kachornprasart said that party leader Banharn Silapa-archa had outlined the reasons for joining the coalition on Thursday and that he represented Banharn at the press conference as a confirmation for the alliance.

Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana leader Chettha Thanajaro said he viewed the balloting outcome as a mandate for the PPP to spearhead the coalition. The press conference was just a formality, as his party had already jumped on the coalition bandwagon on December 31, he said.

Puea Pandin leader Suwit Khunkitti said he appreciated the goodwill gesture of the PPP in inviting his party along and hoped the team would put politics back on course. "My party's utmost concern is forging national reconciliation in order to restore normalcy as soon as possible," he said.

Matchima Thipataya secretary-general Anongwan Thepsuthin said that with its victory, People Power had the right to form the new government.

The excitement over the coalition announcement dissipated when Samak returned to the podium to answer questions. His mood turned sour after reporters asked him about his plans in lining up his Cabinet and about his chances of getting elected by the House to lead the government.

He abruptly ended the press conference after saying he would be in a position to comment on his leadership after the six coalition members met to nominate him as premier.

The House is scheduled to convene tomorrow and will elect the House Speaker and two deputies on Tuesday. The coalition parties are expected to meet before Friday when the House will vote on the prime minister.

The unveiling of the coalition leaves the Democrats as the sole opposition party with 165 votes. Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said he wished the best for the new government and hoped it could quickly restore confidence. "Many problems are waiting to be resolved. I hope the new government will come up with personnel and policies to face the challenges and meet the people's high expectations," he said. The coalition should avoid bringing up issues that might aggravate social divisions and should heed the lesson of not abusing its majority to dilute the system of checks and balances, he added.

Abhisit said the Democrats were ready to work as the opposition. He also played down concerns about lingering turmoil, saying the political system would function properly if all parties played by the rules.

Defence Minister Boonrawd Somtas expressed relief that the coalition had come together. "It's a good thing for the coalition to emerge, as Thailand has been in a transition period for quite some time," he said. But he could not pass judgement on the new government, which has yet to name its ministers. Boonrawd dismissed speculation that Samak might also head the Defence Ministry while governing as prime minister. "I don't think Samak would want the post," he said.

The rumours are designed to deter jockeying for the job, he said, adding that he still believes the new government will name a respected military figure for the defence portfolio.

- The Nation

[blaze]

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.

Perhaps its (welcome) totally peaceful/bloodless nature, or the fact that there had been a 15-year gap ?

And I'd agree with you that Thailand needs to move away from this traditional mechanism for changing governments.

To bowlderdize a phrase that is frequently tossed around when topics on tv address the risks of marrying bar girls- "... But MY coup is different"

[ThaiAdventure]

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.

Perhaps its (welcome) totally peaceful/bloodless nature, or the fact that there had been a 15-year gap ?

And I'd agree with you that Thailand needs to move away from this traditional mechanism for changing governments.

To bowlderdize a phrase that is frequently tossed around when topics on tv address the risks of marrying bar girls- "... But MY coup is different"

........But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.......

(Declaration of Independence)

Coups are only bad if they fail

Edited January 20, 2008 by ThaiAdventure

[ando]

My personal gut feeling is that this is only round 6 or 7 in a 15 round fight.

The general consensus among the so called political experts seems to be that a minority led coalition will get into trouble sooner or later and bog down at an impasse. If Samak is smart (which I think he is) he will go to the people again when that happens. If he digs his heels in and tries to tough it out he risks another coup. The PPP did exceptionally well in this most recent election considering the short lead up time to form a party and the media restrictions. In the next election the PPP will have a lot more going for it without a hostile military dictatorship in power to obstruct them. I expect the PPP would win a stand alone majority in the next election unless some major domestic issues arises to swing the tide. I doubt very much that Thaksin would return to front line politics at any time in the future, but as most would expect he will remain a behind the scenes adviser and political strategist for the PPP. The only thing that could prompt a re-run of the last coup is big demonstrations by the likes of PAD and another boycott of the elections by the Democrats. And I doubt that is going to happen next time around. I think the Thai people in general are sick and tired of this instability and will vote for strong leadership giving PPP a decisive victory. This party ain't over yet by a long way.

[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.

Perhaps its (welcome) totally peaceful/bloodless nature, or the fact that there had been a 15-year gap ?

And I'd agree with you that Thailand needs to move away from this traditional mechanism for changing governments.

To bowlderdize a phrase that is frequently tossed around when topics on tv address the risks of marrying bar girls- "... But MY coup is different"

........But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.......

(Declaration of Independence)

Coups are only bad if they fail

And I think this last one failed to meet its objectives.

[Rinrada]

Jesu ..wot a right bunch of nabods to go tae bed wiff......sno...and old crusty Bar Nam........even KW is Pzzed off .

....thinks she now understands the principals of her countries way leafs....grrrrrrr

[marshbags]

Perhaps it would be appropriate to ignore the thread before it sinks into " bedlam " terrritory and the major contributors ( who need no introduction ) and incidently work day in and day out to update us on all news items, hot of the various news media, are slagged off by suspicious newbies and recent contributors who have just come out of the woodwork and stepped into the various debates of the last year or so.

Don,t feed the Flamers / No Brainers out to bait us, silence is the best way forward.

My guess of a new thread title would be something in the context of

" Thaksin is Declared Innocent ??? "

Followed by

" Thailand in Turmoil...Again "

It,s gotta happen soon after the clone party establish themselves as the official goverment in power, scheduled for next month

marshbags

Edited January 20, 2008 by marshbags

[younghusband]

For those who are puzzled here, let us recall that Thailand is a constitutional monarchy. Under the constitution {'97} the Prime Minister, was chosen by the party which has the largest number of seats in the House. The Prime Minister had to be a Member of the House, so either elected directly to represent a constituency, or a member of the party list. In Thaksin's case he was #1 of the TRT list, and was selected by the membership {I can't recall if the requirement was for House Members only or members of the party}. It is worth noting that a Member of the House must be a natural born Thai Citizen.

As Prime Minister he assumed, after 'kissing hands', the HG position {Head of Government}, whilst HM remained HoS {Head of State}. This split in powers is managed and proscribed by both the constitution and the organic laws. One key HG 'power' is the ability to call a general election, often described in such democracies as 'going to the country'. In Thaksin's case he decided to call such an election on the basis that he wanted, in effect, a referendum on his position and the sale of Shin Corp. The opposition view was that this was, whilst legal within a black and white reading of the constitution, a political gambit, not a true elective issue.

Upon calling for the dissolution of the House, and informing HM of his intent so to do, Thaksin ceased to be Prime Minister and became, critically, Caretaker Prime Minter, a position which he would hold, then apparently resign from and then seemingly resume. This set of circumstances involved much invocation of the monarchy, i.e. Thaksin stating publicly that if a 'certain person whispered in his ear, he would stand down'. Some may recall the helicopter flight the day after a pugnacious Thaksin addressed the nation saying he was staying in power, and then after the flight how he was retiring, only to return ostensibly owing to concerns about the then upcoming celebrations of the 60th Anniversary of HM's reign. A set of circumstances which to this day, some view as being disrespectful to both the personage and the constitutional monarchical institutions.

However, the Government remained in effect, though its powers were proscribed, so, for example orders in council could be made, but no acts or laws could be passed. This led to increasing drift, inability to react to external issues {or for that matter some internal ones} and concerns that public order might become affected by this position. As to how real these concerns were, or if they were manufactured {by many 'actors' within the platforms} is still difficult to determine. It would be naive in the extreme to think they were the only driving forces that led to the coup, but it would be equally foolish to discount them entirely.

Ultimately, the military moved, and in doing so the extant, though moribund, civilian government fell, at that time, not before.

By the by if some correspondents herein care to, the Organic Laws, and associated Constitutional laws are available, in English from the ECT Website.

Regards

/edit typos//

Quite a sensible contribution apart from the last sentence of the third paragraph which is patently absurd.I appreciate the sentiment may well not be yours in which case probably best to make it clear it is a view held by a small collection of political opportunists and reactionary nutcases.

[younghusband]

Perhaps it would be appropriate to ignore the thread before it sinks into " bedlam " terrritory and the major contributors ( who need no introduction ) and incidently work day in and day out to update us on all news items, hot of the various news media, are slagged off by suspicious newbies and recent contributors who have just come out of the woodwork and stepped into the various debates of the last year or so.

Don,t feed the Flamers / No Brainers out to bait us, silence is the best way forward.

My guess of a new thread title would be something in the context of

" Thaksin is Declared Innocent ??? "

Followed by

" Thailand in Turmoil...Again "

It,s gotta happen soon after the clone party establish themselves as the official goverment in power, scheduled for next month

marshbags

I agree this thread has served its purpose.

Can I just comment briefly on the suggestion that recent contributors "who have just come out of the woodwork" or for that matter newbies generally have less to contribute than old timers.It's a fallacy in my view because some so called newbies, I know for a fact,are immersed in the culture. politics and language of Thailand to a very impressive extent.I know also of knowledgeable contributors who have not become regular participants because they felt uncomfortable with the obsessive tone of some multiple posters, not so much because they disagreed but because of the relative lack of intellectual substance.There are also one or two missing members (I don't know for what reason) who contributed with real distinction and I hope will return in due course.

What's really needed is a healthy mix of old and new, the humility to accept that the truth is a complex concept, that sometimes one can be completely wrong and a generous spirited attitude towards those with whom one disagrees (Ok I know I have some work to do on that latter point!).

As the political history of Thailand moves into a new phase Samak will occupy centre stage.I wholly agree he is not a lovable figure and most of us western liberals shrink from such a person with such a record.Nevertheless he deserves a chance from the country (he has a mandate after all) and although obviously much less importantly he deserves a chance from this forum.Let's see how he does.What I fear that the debate will be dominated again by one note obsessiveness, "comical" pictures of his admittedly not very handsome face.....well, you get the picture.

[John K]

Let us not forget there is one more (red?) card to be played and I am very sure the EC is under a fill barrage of heavy artillery from the PPP to drop the issue. I am sure you can imagine the types of phone calls the EC is getting with suggestions of wonderful and exciting alternative activities they may experience.

[Abrak]

I dont really like the line up of the new government anymore than the majority of other posters on TV. But at least it is a Democratically elected Government. Unlike others I cannot really blame Chart Thai and PPP for joining the coalition - there was no viable option of forming a coalition with the Democrats, so it was joining the PPP or stalemate. I guess I will wish this government well.

What I feel is most important is that the Democrats form an effective opposition and make it clear to the electorate that are the viable alternative to this government rather than the military. And I hope that opposition to this government remains within the democratic process rather than outside it. I am not especially hopeful.

[ando]

Kinda looks like they just cleared the way for another coup. Well give it another day to get the news straight.

This going back a couple of pages and a couple of days in time also, but I feel some discussion of the possibility of a coup in the near future is worthy of discussion here and now.

The coup makers are basically political opportunists waiting on the sidelines for some deadlocked crisis to arrive so they can move in and steer the political direction of the day towards something they and their elite class masters can benefit from. A bit like vultures circling an animal in distress.

However, as Thailand's political situation becomes more mature and sophisticated, there will be less and less opportunities for the generals to step in and seize power. Unlike less developed third world countries where democracy is in the embryonic stage, Thailand has a history of decades of democratic development.

The people are far less supportive of military intervention in politics in Thailand now that they can see there is a viable alternative. So the generals and their elite class backers have to be very careful and precise about exactly when they step in to steal political power if they want to maintain public support for their actions. And those opportunities for staging a coup are becoming less frequent in Thailand as democracy matures and the politicians develop strategies to negate military interference in politics. Unlike less developed third world countries (eg: Burma) where the military desires to take over complete and permanent political control, Thailand's coups are merely a way of steering the direction of democracy towards the benefit of the coup makers.

The threat of creating an environment supportive of another coup will always be the big stick wielded by those who oppose the government of the day in Thailand. PAD managed to do it with only 0.03% of the countries voters massing in Bangkok and the Democrats assisted the process by boycotting what should have been genuine elections. But I doubt the Democrats would go down that path again now that they have seen the outcome and witnessed the distress and instability it has caused to the nation. Still, you will always have the minority spoilers who threaten to open a channel for another coup if they don't get their own way.

The poor performance of this most recent coup, in the economic management of the country, their ambition to neutralize Thaksin, and their desire to push the Democrats into government I think would have severely diminished the generals desire to launch another coup in the near future. Its fairly obvious that this latest coup was only marginally successful and didn't really achieve the objectives it set out to.

But where the coup was successful was in getting their own new constitution. They now have the legal right to launch another coup whenever they see fit and have immunity from prosecution for treason. That is something that flies in the face of democracy and needs to be addressed by all political parties concerned with democracy.

The state of play in Thai politics now comes down to elections verses coups and I think the vast majority of voters and the vast majority of politicians would now rather trust democracy than the military to determine the countries future.

However, having said all of the above, I still think the military and their elite class backers will give it one more shot if they are given the opportunity. They have nothing to lose except their credibility (which is already badly damaged) and everything to gain. They just need the opportunity to have one last shot at turning the votes towards their favoured party.

I really think the military has but one last coup left in it. The political landscape and the will of the people has moved on from the bad old days when the generals could install whatever government they chose. The people now have the power through the democratic process as they have shown the military junta this time round.

Perhaps this has been the last coup. Or perhaps one more try. In any case I believe the long history of Thailand's military coups is virtually at an end. Forever!

[gjones]

They have nothing to lose except their credibility (which is already badly damaged) and everything to gain

[ando]

They have nothing to lose except their credibility (which is already badly damaged) and everything to gain

Hey, I have Thai family in Issarn and Bangkok. Mostly unskilled workers , but some middle ranking in the military. NONE of them supported the coup.

If the generals ran for election they would finish sixteenth out of a field of ten! I am not too woried about the natives.

[gjones]

They have nothing to lose except their credibility (which is already badly damaged) and everything to gain

Hey, I have Thai family in Issarn and Bangkok. Mostly unskilled workers , but some middle ranking in the military. NONE of them supported the coup.

If the generals ran for election they would finish sixteenth out of a field of ten! I am not too woried about the natives.

Don’t worry; my point is the whole thing is laughable.

We as foreigners living here, we cannot do anything about Thai politics, except enjoy the fun of it, be polite and try not laugh out of respect to the way Thailand is moving forwards or is it backwards.

[hammered]

Kinda looks like they just cleared the way for another coup. Well give it another day to get the news straight.

This going back a couple of pages and a couple of days in time also, but I feel some discussion of the possibility of a coup in the near future is worthy of discussion here and now.

The coup makers are basically political opportunists waiting on the sidelines for some deadlocked crisis to arrive so they can move in and steer the political direction of the day towards something they and their elite class masters can benefit from. A bit like vultures circling an animal in distress.

However, as Thailand's political situation becomes more mature and sophisticated, there will be less and less opportunities for the generals to step in and seize power. Unlike less developed third world countries where democracy is in the embryonic stage, Thailand has a history of decades of democratic development.

The people are far less supportive of military intervention in politics in Thailand now that they can see there is a viable alternative. So the generals and their elite class backers have to be very careful and precise about exactly when they step in to steal political power if they want to maintain public support for their actions. And those opportunities for staging a coup are becoming less frequent in Thailand as democracy matures and the politicians develop strategies to negate military interference in politics. Unlike less developed third world countries (eg: Burma) where the military desires to take over complete and permanent political control, Thailand's coups are merely a way of steering the direction of democracy towards the benefit of the coup makers.

The threat of creating an environment supportive of another coup will always be the big stick wielded by those who oppose the government of the day in Thailand. PAD managed to do it with only 0.03% of the countries voters massing in Bangkok and the Democrats assisted the process by boycotting what should have been genuine elections. But I doubt the Democrats would go down that path again now that they have seen the outcome and witnessed the distress and instability it has caused to the nation. Still, you will always have the minority spoilers who threaten to open a channel for another coup if they don't get their own way.

The poor performance of this most recent coup, in the economic management of the country, their ambition to neutralize Thaksin, and their desire to push the Democrats into government I think would have severely diminished the generals desire to launch another coup in the near future. Its fairly obvious that this latest coup was only marginally successful and didn't really achieve the objectives it set out to.

But where the coup was successful was in getting their own new constitution. They now have the legal right to launch another coup whenever they see fit and have immunity from prosecution for treason. That is something that flies in the face of democracy and needs to be addressed by all political parties concerned with democracy.

The state of play in Thai politics now comes down to elections verses coups and I think the vast majority of voters and the vast majority of politicians would now rather trust democracy than the military to determine the countries future.

However, having said all of the above, I still think the military and their elite class backers will give it one more shot if they are given the opportunity. They have nothing to lose except their credibility (which is already badly damaged) and everything to gain. They just need the opportunity to have one last shot at turning the votes towards their favoured party.

I really think the military has but one last coup left in it. The political landscape and the will of the people has moved on from the bad old days when the generals could install whatever government they chose. The people now have the power through the democratic process as they have shown the military junta this time round.

Perhaps this has been the last coup. Or perhaps one more try. In any case I believe the long history of Thailand's military coups is virtually at an end. Forever!

I broadly agree with this. A few comments.

To analyse things correctly imho we need to accept that right now there are three power groups: The PPP and Thaksin allies and their electoral supporters, with large support from N and NE, some from lower urban working classes, and minority middle class support, which remain the strongest, the parliamentary opposition and their electoral supporters from the S, urban middle classes and some tax paying working class with minority support in other areas, and what is described as the elite which is made up of powrful military, burearacracy and certain business interests with support fronm other powerful groups but very little to no electoral backing.

When a few years back the demos started there was imho an alliance between the elite group and what later became the electoral backers of the now opposition. The elite were worried about the encroaching power of TRT and their pown loss of influence andsome stuff better not talked about. However, they did not have and still dont any real numbers so they needed to get these. The Shin case and the tax dodge was the catalyst. The taxpaying classes - both middle and upper working were not so happy at this and were gotten on board for the demos. The next bit of history we know resulting in the demise of the TRT government. Then it got interesting. Pretty soon it became clear that the coup installed government wasnt really interested in pushing corruption charges too hard or that they had been overstated, or more likely both. The elite installed government wanted and to some degree was succesful in reinstalling their own power over things - ISOC bill, lessening politcos power and half unelected senate. Suddenly we see the disdain for the coup installed government even among the taxpayers group as they see they have been had on several fronts - no real push of court cases, court cases not as strong as stated before, massive tax expenditure on the military, economy mishandled, and apart from the 111 ban even the Thaksin allies able to regroup and with time. Then we go to election etc

Now we have the situation where the elite group will find themselves even more isolated than before. PPP are in government and a few deals no doubt done to leave elite group alone in general for now. However, can the elite manipulate all those who voted against Thaksin again if they need cover for another coup? Certainly it would seem harder now. At some point it is likely there will be further demos but whether these will result in the savious being able to come in or will develop as part of the democracy of Thailand remains to be seen. In the three groups analysis I agree that there may possibly be one or even two more coups in the waiting but the effectivenss of each will only be less and less and the damage caused to those who launch then will become greater and greatwer as Thailand moves into a more democratic future where there will probably in the short term be a two party system (unless PPP fractures) although only one party in the short term will be able to win elections without a PPP fissure. The power of groups outside parliament behind the scenes to manipualte things will diminish rapidly although be replaced by powerful groups inj the parliamentary system influencing outcomes for a more corporate advantage (we kind of saw the real dawn of this with Thaksin and it will become more the norm. It is in many democracies already).

Another intereting thing to do is to take a step back and anmalyse where all the groups are right now if we look backa few years.

Thaksin and PPP are back in power after losing it. However, they lack the huge parliamentary majority and mandate they enjoyed back then. Maybe in retrospect Mr. Thaksin may think it would have been easier (and cheaper) to just have stood down and left his guys with that huge majority and submitted to the courts back then. Still PPP and Thaksin are established as the current dominant democratic force and after seeing their party disbanded.

The elite have seen their nemesis return in proxy form with a fresh mandate but they dont have to face a huge parliamentary majority that they did before. They have also pushed through their own constitution and ISOC laws. Then again they have also probably lost support amongst those who voted for the opposition leaving them in a really bad position in respect to having their constitution and laws undone with little opposition.

The parliamentary opposition supporters dont seem to have much right now, but if they can forget their hatreds of Mr. T for a minute and think back to their (not the elite) initial demands before all kinds of manipualtion and demonisation set in, they were asking for Mr. T to stand down and submit to the courts. That is where we are now, and if the cases are continued and heard fairly is also where it should end when the verdicts are in.

There has been a hard two year lesson for all in this. It is one that Thailand could probably do without repeating. Even though divided like not before it may be better that Thailand is at least now seemingly sorting this out in the formal politcal arena. While the PPP has a responsibilty to run the country properly for all Thai people as we hear endlessly, the Dems have possibly an even bigger responsibilty in assuming the role of a parliamentary opposition (and representing the view of a very large minority) that will both hold the governments feet to the fire when needed but also when appropriate give succour and advice to the government on issues of the day. Thailand as it develops democratically needs to establish the idea of a strong opposition being needed and good. This is particulalry true at the moment with the country divided but few seeming to want to see any more byzantine machinations from outside the formal networks of power.

[John K]

Ando I agree that the time to talk about the next coup is here, but there is one more issue on a possible red card that could dissolve the PPP. Depending on how that goes it will set the stage for the next event in Thai history. So it is still a few days before being able to make a call. However in general talking about the next coup is a valid topic.

Just a short note, I see Thaksin is holding out on cash for his team. I guess the honeymoon is about over and Manchester is starting to get a taste of the Real Thaksin.

Edited January 20, 2008 by John K