Ex-premier Concerned With Deep Divisions Among Thais

[Gary A]

In a democracy, leaders are elected and when we make a mistake and elect the wrong person, they STILL serve out their term. You can't allow a minority who have their own interests declare the elected persons corrupt and remove them from elected office. If the person is that corrupt it is up to the courts to judge them guilty or not guilty.

I'm not too happy about George Bush but I would NEVER advocate a minority removing him from office.

It appears to me that some farangs living here have forgotten what a democracy is. Maybe the wrong people are in the majority. That's tough, that's the way it goes. The haves will just have to convince the have nots that they are wrong. If they are not willing or able to convince those people, they are out of luck.

My wife VERY seldom mentions politics but she was actually upset that the PPP won the election. She didn't have pleasant things to say about her upcountry neighbors. She was even more upset that Samak was named PM. She had no use for Thaksin but she thinks Samak is worse. Her attitude now is that this too will pass and maybe the voters will be wiser the next election.

[jfchandler]

I'd point out that the authority and legitimacy of a government in a democracy (or democratically elected republic) depends on the legitimacy and integrity of its electoral process.

People generally would have an obligation to accept the results of a democratically elected government, for better or worse, assuming they came to power though a reasonably legitimate popular vote.

But isn't it the legitimacy of the recent electoral processes (allegations and filed charges of significant vote buying/fraud) that is a large part of the political dispute between the Democrats and the TRT/PPP???

If a government comes to power thru widespread, systematic vote-buying and corruption, it's a bit difficult to shield it from attack or criticism on the basis of upholding the tenets of a democracy.

[h90]

In a democracy, leaders are elected and when we make a mistake and elect the wrong person, they STILL serve out their term. You can't allow a minority who have their own interests declare the elected persons corrupt and remove them from elected office. If the person is that corrupt it is up to the courts to judge them guilty or not guilty.

I'm not too happy about George Bush but I would NEVER advocate a minority removing him from office.

It appears to me that some farangs living here have forgotten what a democracy is. Maybe the wrong people are in the majority. That's tough, that's the way it goes. The haves will just have to convince the have nots that they are wrong. If they are not willing or able to convince those people, they are out of luck.

My wife VERY seldom mentions politics but she was actually upset that the PPP won the election. She didn't have pleasant things to say about her upcountry neighbors. She was even more upset that Samak was named PM. She had no use for Thaksin but she thinks Samak is worse. Her attitude now is that this too will pass and maybe the voters will be wiser the next election.

So in your opinion it was good that in Germany wasn't a coup against Hitler as he was elected?

If a party can change the constitution with their partners and they change it to have elections just every 20 years from now on, it is democratic but is it right?

Or if a minister kills someone and take control over the courts to be not punished, is it OK?

Democracy need some basic things to work like everything is the same in the eyes of law/courts. If that basic things don't work anymore the democracy is not working anymore.

Or for example if a majority in a country want to kill a minority it is complete democratic but not acceptable.

About Bush: He caused approx. 1.000.000 dead people so for me it would be complete acceptable if someone would have killed him and saved the life of 999.999 other people.

[younghusband]

I'd point out that the authority and legitimacy of a government in a democracy (or democratically elected republic) depends on the legitimacy and integrity of its electoral process.

People generally would have an obligation to accept the results of a democratically elected government, for better or worse, assuming they came to power though a reasonably legitimate popular vote.

But isn't it the legitimacy of the recent electoral processes (allegations and filed charges of significant vote buying/fraud) that is a large part of the political dispute between the Democrats and the TRT/PPP???

Taking each of your paragraphs in turn

1.Agreed

2.Agreed

3.No, completely wrong.The Democrat leader Khun Abhisit accepts the legitimacy of the PPP's election victory.

Comment: All the resources of the State were harnessed by the junta to thwart a fair electoral process but they failed.As always in Thailand the elections were characterised by abuses including buying votes by all parties, though the PPP was the worst offender.But overall the election was seen by observers as representing the will of the people and an astonishing rebuff to the criminals who launched the illegal coup.The intelligent critics of Thaksin and his baleful influence accept this, and seek to change the government partly by a lively opposition but ultimately through the electoral process.

[thaigene2]

Oh I see. So it's a "situation" turning "Ugly" because the Caravan of the Poor finally decide to confront the F+cking "Caravan of the Rich" who can't get over the fact they lost the election??

Give us a break George..OK?

[Moonrakers]

It appears to me that some farangs living here have forgotten what a democracy is. Maybe the wrong people are in the majority. That's tough, that's the way it goes. The haves will just have to convince the have nots that they are wrong. If they are not willing or able to convince those people, they are out of luck.

The sad truth is that the above statement is spot on.

It was Sir. Winston Churchill who said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

He pretty much summed it up really in my opinion.

The sad thing is for a country like Thailand is that the majority of the population are un-educated and so can be influenced by at worse vote buying, or at best populist policies. It is not the fault of the rural Thai's that their lack of education means that they cannot see that the Buffalo or motorbike that somebody has bought them is not an act of kindness or sound policy, but instead an ulterior motive. Regardless, the fact remains that (Voting scandals aside) the current government was voted in by way of a democratic election and, until PROVEN otherwise, they are a legitimate government and the votes that saw them elected should be respected.

That may make me sound pro-Samak, whereas I am not at all. There are few people in the world who know for sure what his motives are and I doubt that there is one on this forum who does, myself included. However his decision to ammend such specific chapters of the constitution was in the least very poor judgement. He also appears to be losing control day by day and many of his statements smack of fustration or even desperation. In short Samak appears weak and I think that even most PPP supporters would agree with me on this.

If made to choose between the PPP and the PAD then I would be inclined to favour the PAD, if only because of the PPP's weaknesses. Although for me the PAD have lost credibility after continuing their protests after (His name?) resigned because of the Lesse Majeste acussations and Samak backing down from altering the constitution. I may stand to be corrected but did the PAD not say that they would stop protests after these two factors where dealt with? I can't help but to feel that the PAD are out for trouble, and whilst claiming to be protesting peacufully that are actually enticing, even teasing opposition groups to attack, I hope that I am wrong.

Anyway, unlike many on this forum I will not confess to know for sure what is happening, however my gut feeling is that Samak and the PPP are bascically a proxy for Thaksin and the TRT and that their policies are not intended for the good of the nation. Also that the PAD have personal objectives at mind. I was pro-coup last time around as in my naivety I thought that it might be a step forward for the country, well I was wrong there. I hope that there is not another coup though as it is clear that the problems are too deeply embedded in Thai culture/society for a coup to help, that and the fact that things may turn nasty if one was to happen again.

[jfchandler]

Comment: All the resources of the State were harnessed by the junta to thwart a fair electoral process but they failed....

As always in Thailand the elections were characterised by abuses including buying votes by all parties, though the PPP was the worst offender.

The above two thoughts seem a bit contradictory...

The "junta" you're referring to was the coup government, obviously anti-Taksin.... And you're saying they "harnessed all the resources of the State."

But at the same time, you're conceding the TRT/PPP was the "worst offender" in election fraud....

Not sure how to reconcile those two thoughts....

Leaving the formal position of the Democrats aside for the moment, and I stand corrected on their view, the principle remains the same....

If the current TRT/PPP government gained power through substantial manner of election fraud, that undermines their ability to shield themselves in the protections/legitimacy of a democratic election.

The thought, in the back of my mind when making that observation, was the current election fraud case pending against, I believe, two senior party leaders. And, from what I've read, if they were to be found guilty, it would be deemed their activities were done at the behest of their party, potentially subjecting it to disbanding by the Election Commission.... as has happened before with TRT....

I've been away on vacation for the past few days...and out of the news flow... So forgive me if something has happened with the status of that case, to change the circumstances.....

[younghusband]

The "junta" you're referring to was the coup government, obviously anti-Taksin.... And you're saying they "harnessed all the resources of the State."

But at the same time, you're conceding the TRT/PPP was the "worst offender" in election fraud....

Not sure how to reconcile those two thoughts....

Leaving the formal position of the Democrats aside for the moment, and I stand corrected on their view, the principle remains the same....

It's not that hard to reconcile.The junta and its puppet government had a sustained propaganda campaign - illegally marshalling state resources to achieve their desired result, probably a Democrat government.They failed partly because of their incompetence and partly because Thaksin remained so popular.(There is a school of thought that the old guard, realising another coup will be problematic continue to exert their authority through a controlled bureaucracy and legal system.)The PPP along with other parties committed irregularities but they were not of an order to have a material effect on the overall result.As I earlier pointed out this is not really controversial even among those who detest Thaksin and all he stands for.

[animatic]

As I have observed it for the last three years,

and listened to first person historical anecdotes.

PAD has always been anti-Thaksin for a mix of personel

and anti-corruption reasons. Some have tried to play ball

with him and gotten burned, a good indication of where

many people would lie in his future path.

The man made many startling meglomaniacly statements,

and was losing rationality during the 2-4 months after the

badly botched election. The coup was no doubt brought on

but his lack of rationality and paranoia. The army did it,

but no one complained much, since Thaksin looked quite out there...

The PAD jumped on board then, because they hoped his BS would go away.

Ok, now we have one grossly incompetant government with veritas,

that managed, somehow, to get a functional charter done.

It was ok'd by the people, a period of grace ensued and an election,

Thaksin uses old good will, and normal chicanery on a massive scale,

to install his puppet during an election .Thaksin comes home.

PAD bides it's time and watches.

They ONLY moved when the Thaksin trial end games started

getting serious, and the PPP started making inept attempts to

alter the NEW charter the people voted on to stop the trils ensuing.

It wasn't a perfect charter, but the people said good use it.

They didn't say start a whole sale re-write without them.

The kid with his hand in the cookie jar can't just re-write mom

and dad's house roles to suit himself....

Well PPP started to do re-writes and then some leaked that had no

other purpose than to protect Thaksin and his wealth and power.

This is what has pushed PAD to rally again.

They see the anti-corruption gains about to be erased by a even

greater corruption and said no more of this.

Samak is currently desparate, he shoot off many teeth and a foot with

stupid threats last week many are distancing from him. it was inevitable

He NEVER had the finesse for this, but always the ego.

That's in relative tatters, but the problems are beyond his grasp.

PAD is just making him embarass himself or worse,

and directing people to look at the anti Thaksin investigations.

They are in effect, pulling the curtain back from the wizards control cubical,

and the big green face stops blowing smoke and wind...

because no body still believes he is The Wizard anymore.

PPP under Thaksin's direction over stepped and did it too soon.

But that is Thaksin under preasure. He is calculating but too emotional,

and lusting for the POWER; the money is the symbel and the tool.

Lose that and the game is lost,

but HE is lost in the game...

Balme the old school blame the dems blame who you like,

It comes down to Thaksin and his minions,

and minions is the PERFECT word,

trying to claw back into power.

I saw this coming as inevitably as I saw

Bush causing nothing but troube if elected the 1st time.

And also Bush inevitably invading iraq.

I hate having accurate foresight in somethings, it gives me angina...

Just one persons observations... your millage may vary.

[jfchandler]

Well put...I'd say... A layman's version of recent Thai political history....

[november222]

East Asia for the most part, needed a couple of years after 97 to clean up the mess, before it could begin to improve. Most of the countries did very well from 2001 to 2005, so Thaksin does not deserve credit for this. It happened most everywhere.

Much of Thailand's growth was in credit. Borrow and spend.

His own company's stock boomed during his tenure. Surprising?

And by the way, he had 2,000 people killed extra-judicially.

eye for an eye

please toxin didn't buy my football club !

[AC_Eddie]

I am married to a Thai national and we live in California now. My plan to retire to Yasothon and help there in the schools may be in jeopardy. As an outsider looking in, I can only add my perspective of some 62 years living under a "democracy" in the USA. I believe the problems always come down to one thing and that is the inadequate distribution of wealth. The problems are complex and require complex and often difficult solutions. As an economist of moderate knowledge, it is the poor who are most greatly affected by what I see as a worldwide inflationary period ahead. The cost of oil has skyrocketed and has impacted food supplies and basic services. Greed and fear are our greatest enemies. We must remain calm but loyal to our beliefs. Violence will not resolve the conflicts that are inherent in our world today. I pray for Thailand and the poor in this country. My advice is get back to your roots and "Grow your own". Be self-dependent and interdependent with those you love and trust. Stay local and stay strong. May Buddha or whatever G-d you believe bless you and keep you safe.

[Martin]

"The cost of oil has skyrocketed and has impacted food supplies and basic services. Greed and fear are our greatest enemies."

Very true.

I have a friend who is quite contrarian. He reckons it is often best to 'look what the others are doing and do the opposite'.

A few years ago, he saw 'the others' accumulating debt in the form of mortgages and credit cards in order to fund conspicuous over-consumption.

So he went for inconspicuous under-consumption and saving.

I recently congratulated him on not having any problem with the recent developments, but he told me that he does have a problem---in avoiding looking smug!!

Basically, he restrained his greed, and so has avoided a lot of fear.

Someone pointed out that Taksin did a good, necessary job in his first period in office, and I agree. Mostly it was a bit of credit-easing to get things circulating again.

In hindsight, it was a mistake to elect him again, and especially to give him a landslide.

But that is how things go. We 'stick with a winning team', not recognising that the game is changing.

It happened in the UK. Margaret Thatcher did a good, necessary job in her first administration, but after her landslide re-election she did disastrous things.

To me, Thai politics seem to consist of three groups. There is the old, unelected power elite who can 'do a coup', there is PPP/TRT-as-was, and there are the Democrats/PAD (whose initials seem to stand for People Against Democracy). Any one of the three can make no progress when it has power, because the other two won't compromise with it and it won't compromise with either of them. Sad.

[Scott]

In principle I agree with a lot that's being said, but I don't think it's being poor, per se, that causes a lot of the social problems facing the gov't. It's the fact that folks are poor with not a lot of hope for being less poor. At the same time, people with money don't relish the idea of having less of it than they did before, even if it is enough to live well on.

We live in a time of vastly increased population and decreasing resources worldwide. This is a recipe for some real social problems and conflicts. Presently, Thailand is very much dependent on the Generals next door who sell their resources, should the people there get some power, Thailand will be in worse shape.

In general you saw it with Thaksin and with Samak as well as others (including my boss), the higher up they get, the less they listen to others. I won't mention the system that is behind this since it recently got someone in the gov't in serious trouble.

There needs to be a lot of exchange of ideas and information, both up and down the social ladder and then a rational decision making process. That is what will save the country. Not one gov't or another or one individual or another, nor getting rid of one, two or a few people.

[Insight]

In a democracy, leaders are elected and when we make a mistake and elect the wrong person, they STILL serve out their term. You can't allow a minority who have their own interests declare the elected persons corrupt and remove them from elected office. If the person is that corrupt it is up to the courts to judge them guilty or not guilty.

I'm not too happy about George Bush but I would NEVER advocate a minority removing him from office.

It appears to me that some farangs living here have forgotten what a democracy is. Maybe the wrong people are in the majority. That's tough, that's the way it goes. The haves will just have to convince the have nots that they are wrong. If they are not willing or able to convince those people, they are out of luck.

My wife VERY seldom mentions politics but she was actually upset that the PPP won the election. She didn't have pleasant things to say about her upcountry neighbors. She was even more upset that Samak was named PM. She had no use for Thaksin but she thinks Samak is worse. Her attitude now is that this too will pass and maybe the voters will be wiser the next election.

Lets say George Bush stepped in to help everybody in the Enron scandal walk away "scott free" - Would you opinion about attempts to remove him still stand?

The fact that the PPP can even consider changing the constitution only to help Thaksin and Co shows that something is still very wrong with Democracy here. Letting this happen will simply allow the PPP/TRT to build strength for the next election.

[hammered]

In a democracy, leaders are elected and when we make a mistake and elect the wrong person, they STILL serve out their term. You can't allow a minority who have their own interests declare the elected persons corrupt and remove them from elected office. If the person is that corrupt it is up to the courts to judge them guilty or not guilty.

I'm not too happy about George Bush but I would NEVER advocate a minority removing him from office.

It appears to me that some farangs living here have forgotten what a democracy is. Maybe the wrong people are in the majority. That's tough, that's the way it goes. The haves will just have to convince the have nots that they are wrong. If they are not willing or able to convince those people, they are out of luck.

My wife VERY seldom mentions politics but she was actually upset that the PPP won the election. She didn't have pleasant things to say about her upcountry neighbors. She was even more upset that Samak was named PM. She had no use for Thaksin but she thinks Samak is worse. Her attitude now is that this too will pass and maybe the voters will be wiser the next election.

In certain cases that would be true in a democracy with weak to no checks and balances and would probably also be more true of a presidential sytem (leader is elected by the people) than a parliamentary one (leader is chosen by a party and the party wins ansd so can change leader whenever they fancy it). We shoudlnt forget that more than a few government leaders have been replaced outside the electoral system because of anything from failure to govern effectively to corruption or other crimes. A few examples that spring to mind are Margaret Thatcher, Richard Nixon and locally Khun Chavalit Yongchaiyuth.

Democracy is about more than just elections. In fact imho a reasonable debate in Thailand right now would be one on where the equilibrium between power of elected government and checks and balances should be positioned. Sadly that wont happen in the current polarised situation which is more about one side winning or losing than anything else.

[thaigene2]

To me, Thai politics seem to consist of three groups. There is the old, unelected power elite who can 'do a coup', there is PPP/TRT-as-was, and there are the Democrats/PAD (whose initials seem to stand for People Against Democracy). Any one of the three can make no progress when it has power, because the other two won't compromise with it and it won't compromise with either of them. Sad.

That's pretty much the way I see it too.

I really beleive the only way forward is for a real reconiliation between the three - but given the face thing - embedded corruption, patronage and nepotism - and the relationships between those, I simply don't see it happening. Groups one and three from your list will probably conspire to ensure the removal of any populist elected government - Thaksin or no Thaksin - in order to return the status quo and return Thailand to the state they believe is the norm - namely, the one that suits them and their well-connected families.

[thaigene2]

In a democracy, leaders are elected and when we make a mistake and elect the wrong person, they STILL serve out their term. You can't allow a minority who have their own interests declare the elected persons corrupt and remove them from elected office. If the person is that corrupt it is up to the courts to judge them guilty or not guilty.

I'm not too happy about George Bush but I would NEVER advocate a minority removing him from office.

It appears to me that some farangs living here have forgotten what a democracy is. Maybe the wrong people are in the majority. That's tough, that's the way it goes. The haves will just have to convince the have nots that they are wrong. If they are not willing or able to convince those people, they are out of luck.

My wife VERY seldom mentions politics but she was actually upset that the PPP won the election. She didn't have pleasant things to say about her upcountry neighbors. She was even more upset that Samak was named PM. She had no use for Thaksin but she thinks Samak is worse. Her attitude now is that this too will pass and maybe the voters will be wiser the next election.

Lets say George Bush stepped in to help everybody in the Enron scandal walk away "scott free" - Would you opinion about attempts to remove him still stand?

The fact that the PPP can even consider changing the constitution only to help Thaksin and Co shows that something is still very wrong with Democracy here. Letting this happen will simply allow the PPP/TRT to build strength for the next election.

Are you kiding? If ever there was a US leader that should have been removed from office it is certainly George W Bush. And the MAJORITY agree with that - that still doesn't warrant force of arms to remove him. Americans made their bed - not once but twice - now they're lying in it - but they will follow the law. Because it is a land of law and order - not of patronage and nepotism.

[hammered]

To me, Thai politics seem to consist of three groups. There is the old, unelected power elite who can 'do a coup', there is PPP/TRT-as-was, and there are the Democrats/PAD (whose initials seem to stand for People Against Democracy). Any one of the three can make no progress when it has power, because the other two won't compromise with it and it won't compromise with either of them. Sad.

That's pretty much the way I see it too.

I really beleive the only way forward is for a real reconiliation between the three - but given the face thing - embedded corruption, patronage and nepotism - and the relationships between those, I simply don't see it happening. Groups one and three from your list will probably conspire to ensure the removal of any populist elected government - Thaksin or no Thaksin - in order to return the status quo and return Thailand to the state they believe is the norm - namely, the one that suits them and their well-connected families.

I would also tend to broadly see the three groups although I would add I think with the pressure cranking up we can now see internal splits in all of them, and I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

[Gary A]

During the last coup they scrapped the constitution. Why did they do that? If they had not, they would all have gone to jail, that's why. You DON'T simply scrap a country's constitution and throw elected officials out of office. There are methods to ammend it and that's they way it should have been done. If the constitution is ammended in a lawful way that's the way a democracy should work.

Buying votes? What a bunch of BS! The voting booth is private and people vote the way they want. Even the up country locals are amused that a politician would attempt to buy their vote. They simply can't believe that politicians could be stupid enough to TRY to buy votes. Vote buying is a crutch for people who can't accept the fact that their candidate or party didn't get elected.

[regfrancis]

The present government was voted in without doubt by the country. Whats the problem? Minority groups can deminstrate untill there blue inn the face but it shouldn't change anything!!! Why so much worry about protesters?? If they were properly represented they would have won the elections ....no excuses!!!

[hammered]

The present government was voted in without doubt by the country. Whats the problem? Minority groups can deminstrate untill there blue inn the face but it shouldn't change anything!!! Why so much worry about protesters?? If they were properly represented they would have won the elections ....no excuses!!!

Only the PPP can answer your question. We could speculate from anything from as to them worrying about their coalitioon allies deserting to needing to divert attention from economic hardship, but only they can answer why they worry so much about the protests

[jfchandler]

Are you kiding? If ever there was a US leader that should have been removed from office it is certainly George W Bush. And the MAJORITY agree with that - that still doesn't warrant force of arms to remove him. Americans made their bed - not once but twice - now they're lying in it - but they will follow the law. Because it is a land of law and order - not of patronage and nepotism.

Well...regarding the last thought above, that's basically true, although some would argue the current U.S. administration did a fair number of things to subvert the "law and order" of the land to enhance its own power -- not that others haven't done or tried similar things before...

Regarding the U.S. Presidency and Bush, America was formed with a healthy distrust of absolute power and monarchs (with due deference to our British brethren). So the founders created a system originally that limited and distributed government power, with inherent checks and balances on the executive, legislative and court segments. That's why it has survived and thrived all this time, with relative stability. If only Thailand.....

One of those checks was to limit U.S. presidents to two four-year terms, hence Bush's inability to seek re-election. But even if that restriction were not in place, he clearly wouldn't/couldn't win another election now, given his administration's past and track record. Americans made their bed and layed in it twice.... but it wasn't going to happen a third time....

America likewise is divided, in our case between the right and the left (social conservatives vs. liberals) ... So we swing back and forth between the two sides taking control of the presidency in successive elections...with other factors like the war, economy, etc. pushing the moderates/middle folks to one side or the other...

[h90]

The present government was (voted) bought in without doubt by the country. Whats the problem? Minority groups can deminstrate untill there blue inn the face but it shouldn't change anything!!! Why so much worry about protesters?? If they were properly represented they would have won the elections ....no excuses!!!

[george]

Over 100 farm trucks from Northeast protest in Bangkok

BANGKOK: -- Over 100 farm trucks from northeastern province drove through Bangkok roads to join protesting farmers at the head office of the Bank of Thailand Tuesday, worsening traffic congestion in the capital.

They drove on the Vibhavadi Rangsit Road at noon, passing the Victory Monument heading to the central bank's head office at the Rama VIII Bridge.

-- The Nation 2008-06-10

[Los78]

[During the last coup they scrapped the constitution. Why did they do that? If they had not, they would all have gone to jail, that's why. You DON'T simply scrap a country's constitution and throw elected officials out of office. There are methods to ammend it and that's they way it should have been done. If the constitution is ammended in a lawful way that's the way a democracy should work.

Buying votes? What a bunch of BS! The voting booth is private and people vote the way they want. Even the up country locals are amused that a politician would attempt to buy their vote. They simply can't believe that politicians could be stupid enough to TRY to buy votes. Vote buying is a crutch for people who can't accept the fact that their candidate or party didn't get elected.]

You are right Gary. A constitution should be amended lawfully in any case and elections called. A illegal Military Junta should not just scrap everything because of a difference in opinion. People should change government at the ballot box and not by Military force.

I also agree with you that people voted freely here by large and all those people saying the governement only got in because they bought their way in is all rubbish. Its going too far. They just can't accept how the democratic system works and can't accept that people voted for a party because they want them to govern the country. I just hope everyone learnt their lesson from the last coup as this time it would really cause serious problems for Thailand.

[Arkady]

The problem seems to be largely that the entire political system has been subverted by one man and his money. The PAD is making a lot of demands to justify staying in position but their only real issue is that the constitution and the AEC should be left alone long enough for Thaksin to stand trial on the serious corruption charges that are levelled against him. They hope that at least one of these cases will go badly enough for him that he flees the country and has to stay away for 10-20 years - anyway long enough for him to be no longer a political force. Then the process of national reconciliation could begin. Dissolution of government parties is probably a side issue that they may be indifferent about. The politicians would re-emerge in different parties anyway like PPP. Toppling the Samak government is probably not a real goal either, since he/ it were never intended to last long by their sponsor anyway.

If Thaksin gets what he wants and gets rid of all charges against him, he will be back again as PM within a few months and will ensure that he can never lose power again. Some may like his decisive style and his way of reaching out to the ordinary people and believe that this would be perfect for Thailand. Others may think that, in order to develop from this point Thailand needs to educate the ordinary people, not pander to their superficial wants, eliminate corruption and implement rule of law for the first time in its history. It's for you to decide.

[hammered]

Banharn: Chart Thai considering about withdrawal from govt

From the Post: http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=128111

and

Senators' meeting to end conflict over charter rewrite collapses

From the Nation: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/06/10...cs_30075184.php

It seems divisons and conflict are worsening. Will a bunch of flowers ameliorate Mr. Banharn this time?

[hammered]

From TOC:

The Supreme Commander reveals he has ordered the Strategic Research Institute to draw out a road map on the resolution of the country's social conflicts. He also insists military officers have the right to join the People's Alliance for Democracy rally.

[Moonrakers]

From TOC:

The Supreme Commander reveals he has ordered the Strategic Research Institute to draw out a road map on the resolution of the country's social conflicts. He also insists military officers have the right to join the People's Alliance for Democracy rally.

I wonder if he was drawn on that question, or if he offered that statement voluntarilly.