People's Alliance For Democracy To Renew Movement

[younghusband]

And again, the purpose of changing the constitution is to avoid that the PPP get disbanded due to electional fraud. So this is not an elected government, that is a criminal government. You can't blame it on Chamlong that the government in 1992 shoot. Only the 1992 government is to blame. And the government broke in 1992.

To the extent I understand your rather confusing post you are mistaken.Whatever the endemic abuses in Thai elections, the PPP victory was seen by unbiased observers as broadly fair.As to Chamlong in 1992, though I suspect your query is based on lack of English comprehension, I was not blaming Suchinda's crimes on him but pointing out his complete lack of responsibility to his young supporters in his anxiety to achieve political objectives.This is a matter of record.

Your unbiased observers spoke of massive fraud as it seemed that the Democrats win and changed the news in Orwells 1984 style as they saw PPP winning.

Whatever some observer say, it is very well known and no secret that they paid all the Issan. There are videos, in some villages they went the street up and down with a pickup with speaker and told it. I wouldn't say that without the payments noone would have vote for PPP, but for sure less.

As for 1992 it might not been possible to see what Suchinda will do. But after Suchinda did it, it might be worth a discussion if it might be worth the human lifes to remove him. He might had killed more people if he stays in government.

I am sorry but I find your first sentence completely incomprehensible.If however you are suggesting, notwithstanding the vote buying that undoubtedly went on among many parties, that the PPP did not have the right to take the lead in forming a government, and that consequently the current government does not legitimately represent the Thai people - then you are simply wrong and very few people, even those sharing your dislike of the PPP/TRT would agree with you.

Unless you accept the basic facts there's simply nothing to discuss with you (even if I could understand what you are talking about!)

[samran]

Incidentally Hammered as someone closely involved in monitoring international investment in Thailand I can assure you with absolute certainty that the major concern is not the volatile PM(he can be elected out of office) but the ease with which popular democracy can be easily overturned here by rogue generals and vested interest mobs.

Really? I do a similar excercise for some of our billion dollar ++ SET listed clients and their contemporaries and that hasn't been my conclusion.

Although their prime concern has been business fundamentals, as far as political risk goes, their main concern is stability (ie FOREX convertablity, foriegn shareholder/ownership rights). As far as the type of government goes, they haven't really mentioned much regarding their democratic credentials - just so long as they don't interfere with the market or change the playing field.

[h90]

And again, the purpose of changing the constitution is to avoid that the PPP get disbanded due to electional fraud. So this is not an elected government, that is a criminal government. You can't blame it on Chamlong that the government in 1992 shoot. Only the 1992 government is to blame. And the government broke in 1992.

To the extent I understand your rather confusing post you are mistaken.Whatever the endemic abuses in Thai elections, the PPP victory was seen by unbiased observers as broadly fair.As to Chamlong in 1992, though I suspect your query is based on lack of English comprehension, I was not blaming Suchinda's crimes on him but pointing out his complete lack of responsibility to his young supporters in his anxiety to achieve political objectives.This is a matter of record.

Your unbiased observers spoke of massive fraud as it seemed that the Democrats win and changed the news in Orwells 1984 style as they saw PPP winning.

Whatever some observer say, it is very well known and no secret that they paid all the Issan. There are videos, in some villages they went the street up and down with a pickup with speaker and told it. I wouldn't say that without the payments noone would have vote for PPP, but for sure less.

As for 1992 it might not been possible to see what Suchinda will do. But after Suchinda did it, it might be worth a discussion if it might be worth the human lifes to remove him. He might had killed more people if he stays in government.

I am sorry but I find your first sentence completely incomprehensible.If however you are suggesting, notwithstanding the vote buying that undoubtedly went on among many parties, that the PPP did not have the right to take the lead in forming a government, and that consequently the current government does not legitimately represent the Thai people - then you are simply wrong and very few people, even those sharing your dislike of the PPP/TRT would agree with you.

Unless you accept the basic facts there's simply nothing to discuss with you (even if I could understand what you are talking about!)

Yes many parties did vote buying and they are all in this government. I don't see the point why vote buying is now legal as the coalition parties also did it, or because it also happend in the past?? Try to use that logic for any other crime and you'll understand that it is nonsense.

If other share my opinion or not is not an argument at all. But I agree on that: if you accept crime as acceptable way to get into power, we really don't have much to discuss. Just one question for your way: if you let the party who can spend most money form the government, why we don't simply stop the elections. Every 4 years we make an auction and who is willing to pay most get into power?

[Old Man River]

Incidentally, as someone closely involved in monitoring international investment in Thailand I can assure you with absolute certainty that the major concern is not the volatile PM(he can be elected out of office) but the ease with which popular democracy can be easily overturned here by rogue generals and vested interest mobs.

I agree and would add to this that this previous military government, from an investor's standpoint, was the worst. They seized power under the premise of saving the country and then went on to economically attempt to destroy it via xenophobic policies. The only thing I like about the current government is their attempt to bring back foreign investment to Thailand.

I don't see any reason to believe that this government can do better for the economic than the Thaksin government, which brought down the growing rate to the lowest level since the 1997 crises.

What growing rate are you referring to? I was referring to FDI rates vis a vis the junta's planned changes to the FBA.

[younghusband]

Incidentally Hammered as someone closely involved in monitoring international investment in Thailand I can assure you with absolute certainty that the major concern is not the volatile PM(he can be elected out of office) but the ease with which popular democracy can be easily overturned here by rogue generals and vested interest mobs.

Really? I do a similar excercise for some of our billion dollar ++ SET listed clients and their contemporaries and that hasn't been my conclusion.

Although their prime concern has been business fundamentals, as far as political risk goes, their main concern is stability (ie FOREX convertablity, foriegn shareholder/ownership rights). As far as the type of government goes, they haven't really mentioned much regarding their democratic credentials - just so long as they don't interfere with the market or change the playing field.

SET listed clients? Do you mean that?

Actually I don't disagree in terms of political risk that a stable environment is what is looked for.But in Thailand at any rate (to forestall some genius invoking the China precedent where conditions are different) while the faltering progress towards democracy has had its problems, the illegal junta put an unattractive spin on all the specific issues you mention.In Thailand the junta and its allies -including the feudalists/bureaucracy (unlike the Communists in China) are enemies of the open society and globalisation.Their interests are monopolies and a continuing larger share of a national cake that would grow smaller under ther anti-foreigner policies.That's why foreign investors don't like coups in Thailand or Bangkok mobs dictating policy to elected governments.Geddit now?

[h90]

Incidentally, as someone closely involved in monitoring international investment in Thailand I can assure you with absolute certainty that the major concern is not the volatile PM(he can be elected out of office) but the ease with which popular democracy can be easily overturned here by rogue generals and vested interest mobs.

I agree and would add to this that this previous military government, from an investor's standpoint, was the worst. They seized power under the premise of saving the country and then went on to economically attempt to destroy it via xenophobic policies. The only thing I like about the current government is their attempt to bring back foreign investment to Thailand.

I don't see any reason to believe that this government can do better for the economic than the Thaksin government, which brought down the growing rate to the lowest level since the 1997 crises.

What growing rate are you referring to? I was referring to FDI rates vis a vis the junta's planned changes to the FBA.

Look at the economic grow in Thailand it went only down under your loved Thaksin government. He invited a few big companies but damaged the small/medium companies. So growing slowed down. The Junta was a bit over a year and it did almost nothing (neither good nor bad) so not much of an impact.

[h90]

Incidentally Hammered as someone closely involved in monitoring international investment in Thailand I can assure you with absolute certainty that the major concern is not the volatile PM(he can be elected out of office) but the ease with which popular democracy can be easily overturned here by rogue generals and vested interest mobs.

Really? I do a similar excercise for some of our billion dollar ++ SET listed clients and their contemporaries and that hasn't been my conclusion.

Although their prime concern has been business fundamentals, as far as political risk goes, their main concern is stability (ie FOREX convertablity, foriegn shareholder/ownership rights). As far as the type of government goes, they haven't really mentioned much regarding their democratic credentials - just so long as they don't interfere with the market or change the playing field.

SET listed clients? Do you mean that?

Actually I don't disagree in terms of political risk that a stable environment is what is looked for.But in Thailand at any rate (to forestall some genius invoking the China precedent where conditions are different) while the faltering progress towards democracy has had its problems, the illegal junta put an unattractive spin on all the specific issues you mention.In Thailand the junta and its allies -including the feudalists/bureaucracy (unlike the Communists in China) are enemies of the open society and globalisation.Their interests are monopolies and a continuing larger share of a national cake that would grow smaller under ther anti-foreigner policies.That's why foreign investors don't like coups in Thailand or Bangkok mobs dictating policy to elected governments.Geddit now?

Where do you have this from? From the hithaksin webpage? It is a nice posting but it has nothing to do with the reality. I can't see any point where the junta fighted against an open society (while TRT+PPP try to control the media) or tried to make any monopolies. They were a bit over a year in power, gave back their power and acted very carefully, not to say they did almost nothing.

[younghusband]

Just one question for your way: if you let the party who can spend most money form the government, why we don't simply stop the elections. Every 4 years we make an auction and who is willing to pay most get into power?

You make the classical philosophical error of believing "post hoc ergo propter hoc", ie because one thing follows another it is by definition a consequence.Thus, in your bizarro world, since PPP candidates were involved in vote buying and their party then won the election, that victory is a consequence of vote buying.It wasn't because , notwithstanding irregularities, independent observers confirmed they - with their coalition partners - won a popular mandate.

[Prakanong]

Incidentally, as someone closely involved in monitoring international investment in Thailand I can assure you with absolute certainty that the major concern is not the volatile PM(he can be elected out of office) but the ease with which popular democracy can be easily overturned here by rogue generals and vested interest mobs.

I agree and would add to this that this previous military government, from an investor's standpoint, was the worst. They seized power under the premise of saving the country and then went on to economically attempt to destroy it via xenophobic policies. The only thing I like about the current government is their attempt to bring back foreign investment to Thailand.

I don't see any reason to believe that this government can do better for the economic than the Thaksin government, which brought down the growing rate to the lowest level since the 1997 crises.

What growing rate are you referring to? I was referring to FDI rates vis a vis the junta's planned changes to the FBA.

Look at the economic grow in Thailand it went only down under your loved Thaksin government. He invited a few big companies but damaged the small/medium companies. So growing slowed down. The Junta was a bit over a year and it did almost nothing (neither good nor bad) so not much of an impact.

Economic growth only went dow during Thaksin??

Maybe in your limited time in Thailand mate - talk some sense. You really need to show some knowledge as at the moment you make yourself look like a fool

As for advocating and cheering on coups - the overthrow of democratic governements - Would you do that in the UK or USA or is it because you are a white man guest in a banana republic you think its OK - what arrogance from a very little man!

[samran]

Incidentally Hammered as someone closely involved in monitoring international investment in Thailand I can assure you with absolute certainty that the major concern is not the volatile PM(he can be elected out of office) but the ease with which popular democracy can be easily overturned here by rogue generals and vested interest mobs.

Really? I do a similar excercise for some of our billion dollar ++ SET listed clients and their contemporaries and that hasn't been my conclusion.

Although their prime concern has been business fundamentals, as far as political risk goes, their main concern is stability (ie FOREX convertablity, foriegn shareholder/ownership rights). As far as the type of government goes, they haven't really mentioned much regarding their democratic credentials - just so long as they don't interfere with the market or change the playing field.

SET listed clients? Do you mean that?

Actually I don't disagree in terms of political risk that a stable environment is what is looked for.But in Thailand at any rate (to forestall some genius invoking the China precedent where conditions are different) while the faltering progress towards democracy has had its problems, the illegal junta put an unattractive spin on all the specific issues you mention.In Thailand the junta and its allies -including the feudalists/bureaucracy (unlike the Communists in China) are enemies of the open society and globalisation.Their interests are monopolies and a continuing larger share of a national cake that would grow smaller under ther anti-foreigner policies.That's why foreign investors don't like coups in Thailand or Bangkok mobs dictating policy to elected governments.Geddit now?

Definetly mean SET listed clients.... not saying which ones though!

regularly get lists of questions asked from the roadshows, investor visits and analyst reports. Nary a mention of politics, and if it is, it is a side issue. Surveys we have done on US, EU, HK, Sing fund managers and analysts show that political risk is soooooo far down the list of important issues it barely is a blip on the radar screen.

As for your other points - well we are going over old grounds for our disagreements there. My in-house perspective is that the current/former TRT government is all about monoplies. Three years working with the MOF as a client- during the 'glory days' of Thaksin showed me that. Airline deregulation for instance only happened after dear leader had Thai air asia up and running. PTT listing was so badly done that insiders - including me - had snapped up the shares so there were none left over for the general public. PTT was listed - by TRT - with the monopoly infrastructure as part of the sale - which is the last thing you do if you were even vaugly committed to free markets.

The 'other side' - the so called "feudalists/bureaucracy " are the ones who introduce the indpendent regulators etc in line with worlds best practice (energy commissioners, telecoms commissioners) only to have them undermined/stacked by the followers of Dear Leader.

As for foreign investors not liking BKK street protests dictating policy, the SET index and foreign turn over (over say a 6 month period of time) shows that they don't really give a tosh if the business is fundamentally good, has deep liquidity and communicates well to investors. See the internal figures for our clients every quarter. Foreign NDVR's- ie foregn funds - always account for 60%+ of the total ownership for some of the non-state owned SET listed companies.

[hammered]

So Thaksin told Chalerm it was not the time to disperse the protesters, Samak's impotence once more exposed. Still his daughter, (he has twins, one is abroad), gave birth to a son yesterday so he's a happy grandfather today.

A rumour circulated yesterday that someone from the PAD planned to plant a bomb themselves to bring about a coup. I'd like to believe it wasn't true.

It does seem most Thai people I have spoken to think it was Thaksin who told Samak to forget his police assault. It seems the people I have talked to say Thaksin is not stupid while Samak is certainly considered stupid or perhaps childish by some. Interesting to hear local opinions.

On the economic thing, I'll straighten the reocrd on what I meant by mentioning the PMs negative effect on sentiment for investment. Investors like stability. The actions of the PM yesterday do not signify thsoe of a government trying to create stability and imho seeing instability gives investors pause for thought. Demos happen across the world but it is only hwen governments act as if scared of them that they can affect stability. Luckily the police didnt go in and set off the whole rather predictable chain of events leading to even bigger divisions so things are probably minimized for now anyway.

I dunno who is interested in arguing growth and Thailand - certainly not me - but as I have posted many times on here according to the Economist Thailand's growth in the last 3 years was

2005 4.5% under Thaksin

2006 5.0% under Thaksin and Sarayud

2007 4.5% under Sarayud

Not exaclty regional stellar figures under any administration and something that we could do with a bit of stability to sort out.

[h90]

Incidentally, as someone closely involved in monitoring international investment in Thailand I can assure you with absolute certainty that the major concern is not the volatile PM(he can be elected out of office) but the ease with which popular democracy can be easily overturned here by rogue generals and vested interest mobs.

I agree and would add to this that this previous military government, from an investor's standpoint, was the worst. They seized power under the premise of saving the country and then went on to economically attempt to destroy it via xenophobic policies. The only thing I like about the current government is their attempt to bring back foreign investment to Thailand.

I don't see any reason to believe that this government can do better for the economic than the Thaksin government, which brought down the growing rate to the lowest level since the 1997 crises.

What growing rate are you referring to? I was referring to FDI rates vis a vis the junta's planned changes to the FBA.

Look at the economic grow in Thailand it went only down under your loved Thaksin government. He invited a few big companies but damaged the small/medium companies. So growing slowed down. The Junta was a bit over a year and it did almost nothing (neither good nor bad) so not much of an impact.

Economic growth only went dow during Thaksin??

Maybe in your limited time in Thailand mate - talk some sense. You really need to show some knowledge as at the moment you make yourself look like a fool

As for advocating and cheering on coups - the overthrow of democratic governements - Would you do that in the UK or USA or is it because you are a white man guest in a banana republic you think its OK - what arrogance from a very little man!

Look at the figures...The first years the economic grow went up, thanks to the previous government and the it was reduced every year.

If a coup would have done in USA around 1 million people wouldn't have died in Iraq+Afghanistan.

If a coup would have happened in Nazi Germany (and there were thoughts in the Wehrmacht) 6.000.000 Jews and xx.000.000 other people would be alive.

And even some would love to see it, Thailand is still a monarchy not a republic...

[h90]

2002: 5.2%

2003: 7.1% Thaksin

2004: 6.3% Thaksin

2005 4.5% under Thaksin

2006 5.0% under Thaksin and Sarayud

2007 4.5% under Sarayud

couldn't find the earlier figures, but fact is the first thaksin year(s) it went up and than only down. That he so good for the economic is only propaganda.

Clear the peak in 2003.

Reson of edit: adding 2002 and the last sentence

Edited June 1, 2008 by h90

[h90]

Just one question for your way: if you let the party who can spend most money form the government, why we don't simply stop the elections. Every 4 years we make an auction and who is willing to pay most get into power?

You make the classical philosophical error of believing "post hoc ergo propter hoc", ie because one thing follows another it is by definition a consequence.Thus, in your bizarro world, since PPP candidates were involved in vote buying and their party then won the election, that victory is a consequence of vote buying.It wasn't because , notwithstanding irregularities, independent observers confirmed they - with their coalition partners - won a popular mandate.

Yes you are right. vote buying does not mean that they wouldn't have won it without. But as well it does not mean that they would have won it. But it clearly mean that the complete election should be invalid. And no matter what your independent observers say, everyone know that it happened in almost all villages in Nord and Isaan. It was almost everywhere. Just think 5-10 % would move to the Democrats, than we would have a complete different government and half of these PPP guys in jail for their different corruption cases (Samak the fire fighter trucks).

Strange that some people thing vote buying is a complete normal thing in an election.

[A_Traveller]

... It wasn't because , notwithstanding irregularities, independent observers confirmed they - with their coalition partners - won a popular mandate.

The only problem with that is that international observers consisted of 37 people working in pairs (?) {Guess 1 had a mirror} from ANFREL {Asian Network for Free Elections}, whilst domestic monitoring was dramatically curtailed owing to a, shall we say curious, argument between the EC and P-Net. Frankly I view the result as reflecting the will of the people, {in my view the Democrat Party, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by a phenomenally badly managed campaign} but it is specious to suggest that the process was somehow certified by an independent, and implied foreign, presence.

Regards

LINK to ANFREL report in PDF format

[h90]

PAD's Core Leaders Map Out Succession Plan

UPDATE : 1 June 2008

Coordinator for the People's Alliance for Democracy, or PAD, Suriyasai Katasila สุริยะใส กตะศิลา revealed last night that its five core leaders held a meeting to assess the situation and the group's further moves if they are arrested.

The meeting resolved to set up another six core leaders to lead the PAD's rally further in the case that the current key leaders are held by the authorities.

As for the next stage of the PAD rally, Suriyasai stated that the group will assess the current situation and it may decide to relocate to the Government House tomorrow.

Suriyasai insisted that the PAD rally-goers still have strong morale, although there were speculations of a crackdown throughout the night last night.

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

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

Police told yesterday they can move to where ever they want and Samak the clown told they must move away from there. So I think Samak and police will be happy now as they got what they wanted (or not???).

Edited June 1, 2008 by h90

[A_Traveller]

^ Whilst it gave me a laugh, might I suggest you draw a line ====================== between the quote and your added comments, for a moment there I thought a journo was giving vent to their emotions.

Regards

See that you have and I know what you mean

Edited June 1, 2008 by A_Traveller

[h90]

^ Whilst it gave me a laugh, might I sugest you draw a line ====================== between the quote and your added comments, for a moment there I thought a journo was giving vent to their emotions.

Regards

done! You are right! But after re-reading I think without it, it was better

[h90]

Weng vows to gather 200,000 signatures to push for charter amendments

Weng Tojitrakarn, a member of the Public Committee for Constitutional Amendments, vowed Sunday to gather 200,000 signatures of voters to support charter amendments.

He said his committee would like to amend the charter, not to abolish it as alleged by the opponents.

He said the 200,000 signatures would be used to re-submit the amendment bill of his committee to Parliament after the earlier motion endorsed by MPs and senators became void.

The Nation

they don't give up. Most probably they go on the countryside and give 200.000 farmer 100 Baht for signing that.

Another 20.000.000 investment.

[Insight]

Weng vows to gather 200,000 signatures to push for charter amendments

Weng Tojitrakarn, a member of the Public Committee for Constitutional Amendments, vowed Sunday to gather 200,000 signatures of voters to support charter amendments.

He said his committee would like to amend the charter, not to abolish it as alleged by the opponents.

He said the 200,000 signatures would be used to re-submit the amendment bill of his committee to Parliament after the earlier motion endorsed by MPs and senators became void.

The Nation

they don't give up. Most probably they go on the countryside and give 200.000 farmer 100 Baht for signing that.

Another 20.000.000 investment.

Journalists could have a field day with that list of names, if they ever do follow up with it...

/edit - not looking at what I'm typing....

Edited June 1, 2008 by Insight

[h90]

From CNN's Kocha Olarn in Bangkok

Decrease font Decrease font

Enlarge font Enlarge font

BANGKOK, Thailand (CNN) -- Thailand's prime minister has warned he may send in police and soldiers to disperse several hundred people who have been staging an around-the-clock protest in Bangkok for the past six days.

art.thaksin.shinawatra.afp.gi.jpg

Ex-Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra, pictured here this week, has been the subject of protests in Thailand.

The Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD) is protesting proposed changed to Thailand's constitution which would protect former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his followers from corruption charges.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej issued his warning on government television Saturday, saying the protest must stop immediately and calling it a "make or break point."

PAD officials have rejected the warning and vowed to continue their demonstration which has not stopped since it began last Sunday.

It was a series of rallies by PAD in 2006 that led up to a military coup that toppled Prime Minister Thaksin, a wealthy telecommunications tycoon who now lives in exile.

Thaksin's party, the People Power Party (PPP), is the largest member of the current coalition government.

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

several hundred

[h90]

Thai protesters defy warning

About 1,000 riot police were deployed in Bangkok as activists continued their week-long protests [AFP]

Thousands of Thais have continued to protest on the streets of Bangkok in defiance of government threats to use force to end a week of demonstrations.

More than 1,000 riot police were involved in a tense standoff with about 6,500 anti-government protesters on Saturday as the government demanded the crowds disband.

In a nationwide address, Samak Sundaravej, the prime minister, had said that police and soldiers were prepared to end the protests.

"You have broken the law. I have a duty to deal with you," he said.

But the promised crackdown never came despite the passing of two deadlines for the protesters to disperse.

"We will not be using force as long as the protesters remain peaceful and they conduct themselves within the law," Chalerm Yoobamrung, the interior minister, said later in the day.

Asawin Kwanmuang, Bangkok's metropolitan police chief, said police would "use soft means to persuade protesters to get off the street".

Ousted premier

Al Jazeera's Selina Downes, reporting from Bangkok, said that the protesters, led by the opposition People's Alliance Democracy (PAD), accuse the government of being a front for Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted former premier.

Somkiat Pongpaiboon, a protest leader, vowed that the group would continue to demonstrate peacefully until the government is toppled.

"But if they hurt us or violate our rights, we will defend ourselves," he said to a crowd of cheering protesters.

Some of the activists wore helmets and masks, apparently to protect themselves if force was used, while others armed themselves with wooden sticks and makeshift shields.

The protests are similar to demonstrations in October 2006 that led to the overthrow of Thaksin's government in a bloodless military coup.

Coup fears

The head of Thailand's army has sought to allay fears of the military stepping in.

General Boonsrang Niumpradit, who has a largely ceremonial role, said the army would only enforce law and order if the current protests escalate.

Samak, who is widely viewed as a proxy of Thaksin, has accused the PAD - an anti-Thaksin party which has vowed to step up the protests - of damaging the country.

Since the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has seen at least 18 coups or coup attempts.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

6500 sounds better than a few hundreds from CNN.

Wife telling 20.000 (no idea where she got that number! Counted on her fingers? One protester, two protester.......

[Nampeung]

Reuters 3 hours ago:

By Andrew Gray

BANGKOK, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates flew into Thailand on Sunday with a clear message that Washington would take a dim view of any attempt by military leaders to seize power.

A week of anti-government protests in Bangkok have ignited fears that the military may stage another coup, two years after a similar street campaign against then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra led to his ouster in a bloodless putsch.

"Our position is pretty consistent. We want to see democratically elected governments and we will convey that," Gates told reporters in Singapore before heading for Bangkok.

[thaigene2]

Incidentally Hammered as someone closely involved in monitoring international investment in Thailand I can assure you with absolute certainty that the major concern is not the volatile PM(he can be elected out of office) but the ease with which popular democracy can be easily overturned here by rogue generals and vested interest mobs.

Really? I do a similar excercise for some of our billion dollar ++ SET listed clients and their contemporaries and that hasn't been my conclusion.

Although their prime concern has been business fundamentals, as far as political risk goes, their main concern is stability (ie FOREX convertablity, foriegn shareholder/ownership rights). As far as the type of government goes, they haven't really mentioned much regarding their democratic credentials - just so long as they don't interfere with the market or change the playing field.

..as in the guanxi-patronage playing field - cause that's the only game your "billion dollar ++ SET listed clients" know how to play.

[thaigene2]

Weng vows to gather 200,000 signatures to push for charter amendments

Weng Tojitrakarn, a member of the Public Committee for Constitutional Amendments, vowed Sunday to gather 200,000 signatures of voters to support charter amendments.

He said his committee would like to amend the charter, not to abolish it as alleged by the opponents.

He said the 200,000 signatures would be used to re-submit the amendment bill of his committee to Parliament after the earlier motion endorsed by MPs and senators became void.

The Nation

they don't give up. Most probably they go on the countryside and give 200.000 farmer 100 Baht for signing that.Another 20.000.000 investment.

Neither do you - with your insulting remarks about farmers and rural people. Bet you wouldn't have the courage to say that to their faces now would you?

Edited June 1, 2008 by thaigene2

[KireB]

2002: 5.2%

2003: 7.1% Thaksin

2004: 6.3% Thaksin

2005 4.5% under Thaksin

2006 5.0% under Thaksin and Sarayud

2007 4.5% under Sarayud

couldn't find the earlier figures, but fact is the first thaksin year(s) it went up and than only down. That he so good for the economic is only propaganda.

Clear the peak in 2003.

Reson of edit: adding 2002 and the last sentence

Propaganda it is, especially when you compare it with other Asian economies.

[h90]

Weng vows to gather 200,000 signatures to push for charter amendments

Weng Tojitrakarn, a member of the Public Committee for Constitutional Amendments, vowed Sunday to gather 200,000 signatures of voters to support charter amendments.

He said his committee would like to amend the charter, not to abolish it as alleged by the opponents.

He said the 200,000 signatures would be used to re-submit the amendment bill of his committee to Parliament after the earlier motion endorsed by MPs and senators became void.

The Nation

they don't give up. Most probably they go on the countryside and give 200.000 farmer 100 Baht for signing that.Another 20.000.000 investment.

Neither do you - with your insulting remarks about farmers and rural people. Bet you wouldn't have the courage to say that to their faces now would you?

where do you find any insulting remarks?

That they take money for it, is not an insulting remark it is fact, most I asked are proud for getting the money. Of course I would tell that in their face. My wife is doing it as well no one angry so far.

[FreedomDude]

I made a little journey over to the protest site today via canal boat and foot to get a little exercice, kill some boredom and see firsthand what the hel_l is going on down there to get a little perspective on things. My first impression: Good grief are there a crapload of government resources insuring this group's "RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH".!

Sure, everybody should have the right to free speech, but should you be able to camp out in the middle of a major road inconveniencing thousands upon thousands of commuters with no proposed timeline to wrap it up? Should you get a donation of taxpayer-funded labor to protect your ass as you block up the street for an indefinite period of time?

If I'm the PM, I give these people the option to move to one of several prominent public venues NOT in the middle of a public road, and I break up this gathering in the middle of the street ASAP. As I move in with the police to clear it out, my most important items are hundreds of video cameras. If they want to fight back as we remove them, have it all on tape so the people can see why force (if needed) was necessary and obviously I send at least 3 times as many officers in as there are protesters.

Any problem with this plan?

Also, I don't claim to be an expert on the situation but I see one side that wins popular elections and another side that uses coups and bullcrap les majiste charges. Gee, ya know, I'll lean toward the side that wins elections.

[Pierrot]

Problem will soon be over.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates flew into Thailand on Sunday with a clear message that Washington would take a dim view of any attempt by military leaders to seize power.

"Our position is pretty consistent. We want to see democratically elected governments and we will convey that," Gates told reporters in Singapore before heading for Bangkok.

Gates is scheduled to meet with the democratically elected Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to renew acquaintances and to discuss issues here in the region.

[hammered]

Reuters 3 hours ago:

By Andrew Gray

BANGKOK, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates flew into Thailand on Sunday with a clear message that Washington would take a dim view of any attempt by military leaders to seize power.

A week of anti-government protests in Bangkok have ignited fears that the military may stage another coup, two years after a similar street campaign against then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra led to his ouster in a bloodless putsch.

"Our position is pretty consistent. We want to see democratically elected governments and we will convey that," Gates told reporters in Singapore before heading for Bangkok.

One shouldnt mention Saudi Arabia or the electoral system in Lebanon that ensures the Hariri government stays in power. Please dont mention Volusia county or notions of one man one vote Mmmm it is rather sad that when the US talks of democracy these day it just rings of hypocricy. What the US wants is client states of any politcal persuasion that tow the line on wars on democracy, wars on drugs and allows US troops to rape their way unfetterd around the country under state of forces agreements or to have civilian mercenary armies inside their country who answer to no local law and who of course make all of their resources available to US based multinationals at discount rates for a bunch of backhanders that can be spent on vast amounts of military and torture equipment to use to repress their people when they demonstrate against their sometimes elected and sometimes not government from giving away national resources to no benefit for the country. I digres but lets expose hipocrisy where we can.

Edited to add: That well funded PR campaign by T man through an agency linked to the republican party acomplete with criticm of the AIDS drug patent break and attempts by the current government to make sure full prices were paid to big pharma which backs the republicans sure seems to have paid off. What nest Gates off to Saudi Arabia to call for an uprising to install democracy or an invasion of Bahrain or bayonets in Egypt?

Sure we should support Democracy but the US running around demanding it in some cases while arming its oponents to smash their own people in other cases is just too much. If the US wants to take a dim view of a lack of democracy lets start with an invasion of Saudi which is one of the most repressive reguimes on the planet even according to Fox news!

Edited June 1, 2008 by hammered