Democrat Party May Face Dissolution

[jumnien]

TonyC>> Your reply won't get to him. He calls PAD extreme right-wing and forgets that the only real extreme right-wing around currently is Samak...

Free speech activist, Supinya's exact words were ultra-conservative and nationalist when describing the PAD and ASTV. You do have the right to another opinion!

And yet you love Samak.,..

I only love the fact that Samak is in the position to keep throwing mud in the face of the right-wing military junta and the ultra-conservative PAD. Other than that, as far as I'm concerned, Samak can go. It's Thai's country, let them decide who is PM. It's a big country, I'm sure there's far better than Samak out there.

[Plus]

Basically, the majority has elected the wrong government (according to Plus), therefore the majority is wrong. Let's agree we definitively don't have the same ideas of what democracy is.

This government is "wrong" regardless of who elected them. If we seriously start looking into who or what is responsible for this disaster, we'll find plenty of reasons other than voting public qualifications.

I don't think we have different ideas on what a democracy is, but the glaring fact is that somehow or other in working democracies it wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Why the Swiss don't elect obviously delusional characters as their leaders (Samak and his "one man died" claim on international TV stations).

Where in the world you can have a convict on his last appeal running for the highest office in the land?

Whatever the reasons, obviously the system isn't working here, even if they call it "democracy". In fact it is more like anarchy than democracy as the law declared the biggest obstacle to governing, according to Samak.

[catmac]

Spot on, dear Pierrot!

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer contempt posters like Plus have for the ordinary electors of Thailand. Just because they aren't so daft as to vote for the Democratic Party, and let's not forget that the present sorry state of the country is a direct result of that (un)Democratic Party refusing to stand in the pre-coup general election, acting like a spoiled child who wouldn't play just because he knew he couldn't win!

Not quite (by a long shot). Below is a a good analysis of the April 2006 election from Michael Nelson, senior researcher of South East Asian studies at the University of Passau, Germany:

"There were two reasons for nullifying the election. First, the Constitutional court found that ordering a new election to take place only 37 days after the dissolution of the House, though not in itself a violation of the constitution, had nevertheless led to political problems serious enough to violate the democratic core of the election.

Second, the court found that by turning the polling booths around in a way that the open part would point to the polling station committee and the public, while the voter would turn his back to both, the constitutionally guaranteed secrecy of the vote had fundamentally been violated."

Such was the finding of the Constitutional Court after, on 26 April 2006, the King intervened in an unusually direct and strong form. During separate audiences for judges of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court at Klai Kangwol Palace in Prachuap Khiri Khan province, the King asked whether the political situation was perhaps messed up to the point that the election might have to be nullified. He put pressure on the courts to do their part to solve the problems by saying:

Should the election be nullified? You have the right to say what’s appropriate or not. If it’s not appropriate, it is not to say the government is not good. But as far as I’m concerned, a one party election is not normal. The one candidate situation is undemocratic. When an election is not democratic, you should look carefully into the administrative issues. I ask you to do the best you can. If you cannot do it, then it should be you who resign, not the government, for failing to do your duty. Carefully review the vows you have made. … The nation cannot survive if the situation runs contrary to the law. Therefore, I ask you to carefully study whether you can make a point on this issue. If not, you had better resign. You have been tasked with this duty. You are knowledgeable. You must make the country function correctly.

Get the picture now? Hopefully, this doesn't have to be explained further.

We certainly have, Old Man River! His Majesty is making just the point I raised, i.e. by boycotting the election out of juvenile spleen, the Democrats gave us the "one party election" and the "one candidate situation", which, in His wisdom, made for an undemocratic mess. It was into this mess that the Democrats and PAD (financed by that multi-billionaire media tycoon) took to the streets to engineer the military coup.

[chuang]

]]

This government is "wrong" regardless of who elected them. If we seriously start looking into who or what is responsible for this disaster, we'll find plenty of reasons other than voting public qualifications.

.

In that case for the next general election, the farmers from the rural areas can cast only one vote, the Bangkok elites, members of PAD, Democrat Party and the soldiers, the are entitled to 10 votes each. This I am sure PPP or Thaksin or whoever allies they have will never be the government...

[jayjayjayjay]

Anyone want to remind Sunrise for the millionth time that the EC was appointed BEFORE the coup?

Wow, are you insinuating that every commission appointed before the coup is free from corruption and political and financial self-interest?

Does anyone want to remind Plus that Prem was PM for the Democrates for 8 years, go figure!

What has it got to do with EC being appointed while Thaksin was still the PM?

Nothing.

And Prem has never been a Democrat party member.

Have you both got a whiff of that 2 ton marijuana batch that was burned recently or what?

maybe correct, but the boy from Surat Thai, go figure!

[Plus]

Jayjay, what has Prem's birthplace got to do with the EC being the appointed under Thaksin's watch?

Nothing.

What has Prem got to do with "Surat Thai" - nothing, the place doesn't exist, to my knowledge.

Prem is a native of Songkla. You could have googled it in two minutes.

You don't post very often, these are real gems. Rarely you can find someone display as much ignorance as your latest posts.

for the next general election, the farmers from the rural areas can cast only one vote, the Bangkok elites, members of PAD, Democrat Party and the soldiers, the are entitled to 10 votes each

Catmac, I don't know why you can't think of anything else, but the more obvious solution would be minimum requirements for holding ministerial posts. They still would be filled by the ruling party but the country won't get a Finance Minister who goes on the Internet to learn about his job.

I have nothing against PPP's mandate to rule, but what they have decided to do with their mandate is unacceptable, not only to me, but to large numbers of people who carry a lot of responsibility in this country.

I have nothing against PPP's policies per se, not enought to demand their resignation, but what they do instead of implementing them is unacceptable. The system should be designed in such a way that nonsense like this couldn't possibly happen, whoever is in power.

[Old Man River]

Spot on, dear Pierrot!

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer contempt posters like Plus have for the ordinary electors of Thailand. Just because they aren't so daft as to vote for the Democratic Party, and let's not forget that the present sorry state of the country is a direct result of that (un)Democratic Party refusing to stand in the pre-coup general election, acting like a spoiled child who wouldn't play just because he knew he couldn't win!

Not quite (by a long shot). Below is a a good analysis of the April 2006 election from Michael Nelson, senior researcher of South East Asian studies at the University of Passau, Germany:

"There were two reasons for nullifying the election. First, the Constitutional court found that ordering a new election to take place only 37 days after the dissolution of the House, though not in itself a violation of the constitution, had nevertheless led to political problems serious enough to violate the democratic core of the election.

Second, the court found that by turning the polling booths around in a way that the open part would point to the polling station committee and the public, while the voter would turn his back to both, the constitutionally guaranteed secrecy of the vote had fundamentally been violated."

Such was the finding of the Constitutional Court after, on 26 April 2006, the King intervened in an unusually direct and strong form. During separate audiences for judges of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court at Klai Kangwol Palace in Prachuap Khiri Khan province, the King asked whether the political situation was perhaps messed up to the point that the election might have to be nullified. He put pressure on the courts to do their part to solve the problems by saying:

Should the election be nullified? You have the right to say what’s appropriate or not. If it’s not appropriate, it is not to say the government is not good. But as far as I’m concerned, a one party election is not normal. The one candidate situation is undemocratic. When an election is not democratic, you should look carefully into the administrative issues. I ask you to do the best you can. If you cannot do it, then it should be you who resign, not the government, for failing to do your duty. Carefully review the vows you have made. … The nation cannot survive if the situation runs contrary to the law. Therefore, I ask you to carefully study whether you can make a point on this issue. If not, you had better resign. You have been tasked with this duty. You are knowledgeable. You must make the country function correctly.

Get the picture now? Hopefully, this doesn't have to be explained further.

We certainly have, Old Man River! His Majesty is making just the point I raised, i.e. by boycotting the election out of juvenile spleen, the Democrats gave us the "one party election" and the "one candidate situation", which, in His wisdom, made for an undemocratic mess. It was into this mess that the Democrats and PAD (financed by that multi-billionaire media tycoon) took to the streets to engineer the military coup.

Wow. And here I thought that the coup was engineered by the military. Please tell me more about who the military took orders from.

On the April '06 election, even with no opposition, the TRT still thought it necessary to cheat. Imagine it. They were running against no one, a no vote opposition and still had to cheat. This is your democratic election? Any party, regardless of which party, would have been smart to see this coming and not participate in it. In this case it was the Democrats. And you find fault with not participating in this sham?

[Pierrot]

Why the Swiss don't elect obviously delusional characters as their leaders (Samak and his "one man died" claim on international TV stations).

Wrong again, Plus, wrong again !

GENEVA, Oct. 21, 2007 — A Swiss nationalist party rode an anti-immigrant wave Sunday to the best showing of any party in parliamentary elections since World War I

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-raci...swiss-elections

[h90]

Spot on, dear Pierrot!

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer contempt posters like Plus have for the ordinary electors of Thailand. Just because they aren't so daft as to vote for the Democratic Party, and let's not forget that the present sorry state of the country is a direct result of that (un)Democratic Party refusing to stand in the pre-coup general election, acting like a spoiled child who wouldn't play just because he knew he couldn't win!

Not quite (by a long shot). Below is a a good analysis of the April 2006 election from Michael Nelson, senior researcher of South East Asian studies at the University of Passau, Germany:

"There were two reasons for nullifying the election. First, the Constitutional court found that ordering a new election to take place only 37 days after the dissolution of the House, though not in itself a violation of the constitution, had nevertheless led to political problems serious enough to violate the democratic core of the election.

Second, the court found that by turning the polling booths around in a way that the open part would point to the polling station committee and the public, while the voter would turn his back to both, the constitutionally guaranteed secrecy of the vote had fundamentally been violated."

Such was the finding of the Constitutional Court after, on 26 April 2006, the King intervened in an unusually direct and strong form. During separate audiences for judges of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court at Klai Kangwol Palace in Prachuap Khiri Khan province, the King asked whether the political situation was perhaps messed up to the point that the election might have to be nullified. He put pressure on the courts to do their part to solve the problems by saying:

Should the election be nullified? You have the right to say what’s appropriate or not. If it’s not appropriate, it is not to say the government is not good. But as far as I’m concerned, a one party election is not normal. The one candidate situation is undemocratic. When an election is not democratic, you should look carefully into the administrative issues. I ask you to do the best you can. If you cannot do it, then it should be you who resign, not the government, for failing to do your duty. Carefully review the vows you have made. … The nation cannot survive if the situation runs contrary to the law. Therefore, I ask you to carefully study whether you can make a point on this issue. If not, you had better resign. You have been tasked with this duty. You are knowledgeable. You must make the country function correctly.

Get the picture now? Hopefully, this doesn't have to be explained further.

We certainly have, Old Man River! His Majesty is making just the point I raised, i.e. by boycotting the election out of juvenile spleen, the Democrats gave us the "one party election" and the "one candidate situation", which, in His wisdom, made for an undemocratic mess. It was into this mess that the Democrats and PAD (financed by that multi-billionaire media tycoon) took to the streets to engineer the military coup.

which multi-billionaire media tycoon? Sondhi is almost bankrupt. People speak that he need the mob to promote/finance his company. Even I don't think so it makes more sense.

[Tony Clifton]

Samak is coasting along, enjoying the freebies and whatever other backroom deal he agreed to, all this while while he absolutely never was and still is not a fit and proper person for the PM position with his comments on the student massacre and his many ongoing court cases which had begun even before he was elected.

As a puppet head of state, he is a disgusting, lying racist pig. So far, on television, I have seen him pick his nose countless times , belch without apology and tell an Al Jazzeera interviewer and the muslim world that fasting was what really killed the Tak Bai boys with a menacing tone towards her at the end. He's as nuts, if not more, than Thaksin is. In the meantime there is talk of dissolving the Democrats?

Edited July 17, 2008 by Tony Clifton

[Plus]

Why the Swiss don't elect obviously delusional characters as their leaders (Samak and his "one man died" claim on international TV stations).

Wrong again, Plus, wrong again !

GENEVA, Oct. 21, 2007 — A Swiss nationalist party rode an anti-immigrant wave Sunday to the best showing of any party in parliamentary elections since World War I

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-raci...swiss-elections

Have you read the article yourself?

"The party was expected to win 28.8 percent of the vote"

Do you expect members of Swiss Federal Council now to deny to CNN than holocaust has ever happened? One person died accidentally?

And my original objection was to Samak's own sanity, not to his party policies and platforms which are totally legitimate.

To fill the gaps not covered in the article - Swiss People Power representative failed to get a seat on the Federal Council (Swiss government, seven seats)) and SPP is the opposition party now.

By comparison Samak leads six party coalition with 65% majority, and not one of these coalition partners blinked an eye, even die hard leftists accepted his leadership.

>>>

Somehow Swiss prevented right wing nationalists, the biggest victors, from being in the government, forget about some nutter bullying the journalists and spouting absolute nonsense for the whole world to see.

Thailand needs something like that - policies and ideologies are one thing, insanity is another.

[jumnien]

Do I detect a bit of resentment?

[Old Man River]

Spot on, dear Pierrot!

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer contempt posters like Plus have for the ordinary electors of Thailand. Just because they aren't so daft as to vote for the Democratic Party, and let's not forget that the present sorry state of the country is a direct result of that (un)Democratic Party refusing to stand in the pre-coup general election, acting like a spoiled child who wouldn't play just because he knew he couldn't win!

Not quite (by a long shot). Below is a a good analysis of the April 2006 election from Michael Nelson, senior researcher of South East Asian studies at the University of Passau, Germany:

"There were two reasons for nullifying the election. First, the Constitutional court found that ordering a new election to take place only 37 days after the dissolution of the House, though not in itself a violation of the constitution, had nevertheless led to political problems serious enough to violate the democratic core of the election.

Second, the court found that by turning the polling booths around in a way that the open part would point to the polling station committee and the public, while the voter would turn his back to both, the constitutionally guaranteed secrecy of the vote had fundamentally been violated."

Such was the finding of the Constitutional Court after, on 26 April 2006, the King intervened in an unusually direct and strong form. During separate audiences for judges of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court at Klai Kangwol Palace in Prachuap Khiri Khan province, the King asked whether the political situation was perhaps messed up to the point that the election might have to be nullified. He put pressure on the courts to do their part to solve the problems by saying:

Should the election be nullified? You have the right to say what’s appropriate or not. If it’s not appropriate, it is not to say the government is not good. But as far as I’m concerned, a one party election is not normal. The one candidate situation is undemocratic. When an election is not democratic, you should look carefully into the administrative issues. I ask you to do the best you can. If you cannot do it, then it should be you who resign, not the government, for failing to do your duty. Carefully review the vows you have made. … The nation cannot survive if the situation runs contrary to the law. Therefore, I ask you to carefully study whether you can make a point on this issue. If not, you had better resign. You have been tasked with this duty. You are knowledgeable. You must make the country function correctly.

Get the picture now? Hopefully, this doesn't have to be explained further.

We certainly have, Old Man River! His Majesty is making just the point I raised, i.e. by boycotting the election out of juvenile spleen, the Democrats gave us the "one party election" and the "one candidate situation", which, in His wisdom, made for an undemocratic mess. It was into this mess that the Democrats and PAD (financed by that multi-billionaire media tycoon) took to the streets to engineer the military coup.

which multi-billionaire media tycoon? Sondhi is almost bankrupt. People speak that he need the mob to promote/finance his company. Even I don't think so it makes more sense.

No, let's not assume Cat mac meant Sondhi as everyone knows his financial empire has been in shambles for many years. He must mean someone different and only Cat mac knows for sure.

Cat mac, I ask again. Since you know, who were the military taking orders from when they staged the coup?

Edited July 17, 2008 by Old Man River

[Los78]

Samak is coasting along, enjoying the freebies and whatever other backroom deal he agreed to, all this while while he absolutely never was and still is not a fit and proper person for the PM position with his comments on the student massacre and his many ongoing court cases which had begun even before he was elected.

As a puppet head of state, he is a disgusting, lying racist pig. So far, on television, I have seen him pick his nose countless times , belch without apology and tell an Al Jazzeera interviewer and the muslim world that fasting was what really killed the Tak Bai boys with a menacing tone towards her at the end. He's as nuts, if not more, than Thaksin is. In the meantime there is talk of dissolving the Democrats?

Oh poor Tony..... Boo hooo Big bad Samak and Thaksin are so mean to me... Come on cheer up. Im sure Samak and Thaksin couldn't have hurt you that much......

PS. This topic is about the Democrats. Maybe you should put your harsh insults on another anti-government topic or better still go and join your friends. PAD I think is their name....

Edited July 17, 2008 by Los78

[Pierrot]

I ask again. Since you know, who were the military taking orders from when they staged the coup?

To answer your question in a bit devious way, but that how you chose to ask the question, that's why a number of us prefer the PPP, or whatever name it used to be known as before or may be called in the future. We know who is in charge and, if we're not happy, we can name names without having to worry about the consequence.

Btw, that's what democracy is about.

[h90]

I ask again. Since you know, who were the military taking orders from when they staged the coup?

To answer your question in a bit devious way, but that how you chose to ask the question, that's why a number of us prefer the PPP, or whatever name it used to be known as before or may be called in the future. We know who is in charge and, if we're not happy, we can name names without having to worry about the consequence.

Btw, that's what democracy is about.

The number of you who prefer PPP do it because they got 200 Baht (if nto why PPP handed it out).

There is just one person in Thailand you can't name.......

[Los78]

I ask again. Since you know, who were the military taking orders from when they staged the coup?

To answer your question in a bit devious way, but that how you chose to ask the question, that's why a number of us prefer the PPP, or whatever name it used to be known as before or may be called in the future. We know who is in charge and, if we're not happy, we can name names without having to worry about the consequence.

Btw, that's what democracy is about.

The number of you who prefer PPP do it because they got 200 Baht (if nto why PPP handed it out).

There is just one person in Thailand you can't name.......

Again with your 200 Baht... The last election had international observers present and was said to be a fair election. Even in some western democracies you have examples of vote buying such as some guys giving out free beer in the country side for votes. It is rare, but happens so I agree it may have happened in some parts, but by large it was free and fair. I'm not saying vote buying never goes on, but to greatly affect the final result is rubbish and baseless. Did a person from the PPP hold a gun to their head when they voted at the ballot box?? Come on.... They could of voted for anyone even if they were given money. Im sure it would of been condemned by the world if ivote buying was so widespread. The government won the majority because people supported them for different reasons mainly because they believed the military coup was wrong. Just look at the damage the military Junta did while in power. The 2007 Charter is terrible mess written up by generals without any political involvement at all. Any reasonable person who values democracy has the right to request it is changed. It needs to be amended with the involvement of all political parties not a illegal military junta.

People support PPP because they feel the last administration (Thaksin) did a reasonable job in their eyes and that Thailand was progressing until the military coup put a end to it. I cant say that everything that the previous elected government did was right, but by large it did introduce some very good policies such as the Health reforms which benefited everyone. Everyone has the right to vote for a party who they feel will do the best job whether its the Democrats or PPP... Everyone has the right to critize the political parties also. This is all allowed under a democracy. We have a elected representative unlike the military junta which has illegally taken over for their personal gain with the help of PAD.

[baanthale]

I ask again. Since you know, who were the military taking orders from when they staged the coup?

To answer your question in a bit devious way, but that how you chose to ask the question, that's why a number of us prefer the PPP, or whatever name it used to be known as before or may be called in the future. We know who is in charge and, if we're not happy, we can name names without having to worry about the consequence.

Btw, that's what democracy is about.

The number of you who prefer PPP do it because they got 200 Baht (if nto why PPP handed it out).

There is just one person in Thailand you can't name.......

Again with your 200 Baht... The last election had international observers present and was said to be a fair election. Even in some western democracies you have examples of vote buying such as some guys giving out free beer in the country side for votes. It is rare, but happens so I agree it may have happened in some parts, but by large it was free and fair. I'm not saying vote buying never goes on, but to greatly affect the final result is rubbish and baseless. Did a person from the PPP hold a gun to their head when they voted at the ballot box?? Come on.... They could of voted for anyone even if they were given money. Im sure it would of been condemned by the world if ivote buying was so widespread. The government won the majority because people supported them for different reasons mainly because they believed the military coup was wrong. Just look at the damage the military Junta did while in power. The 2007 Charter is terrible mess written up by generals without any political involvement at all. Any reasonable person who values democracy has the right to request it is changed. It needs to be amended with the involvement of all political parties not a illegal military junta.

People support PPP because they feel the last administration (Thaksin) did a reasonable job in their eyes and that Thailand was progressing until the military coup put a end to it. I cant say that everything that the previous elected government did was right, but by large it did introduce some very good policies such as the Health reforms which benefited everyone. Everyone has the right to vote for a party who they feel will do the best job whether its the Democrats or PPP... Everyone has the right to critize the political parties also. This is all allowed under a democracy. We have a elected representative unlike the military junta which has illegally taken over for their personal gain with the help of PAD.

Agreed! And regarding vote buying, sure maybe there was some and I do not think anyone deny that, but does anyone really think that only some partys did any vote buying. Yeh, the Democrates are only made up of saints

I get a feeling that most of you people who are so anti government and seem to belive that only ppp and TRT have done some vote buying, just thinks so, because you came here on or after the Thaksin era. Have to tell you that 10 years BEFORE TRT govern, there was Democrates leadership term after term with alot more vote buying than now! Anyhow, I also know that already back then voters took money from everyone who gave it to them, but votet for what they really wanted!

[h90]

I ask again. Since you know, who were the military taking orders from when they staged the coup?

To answer your question in a bit devious way, but that how you chose to ask the question, that's why a number of us prefer the PPP, or whatever name it used to be known as before or may be called in the future. We know who is in charge and, if we're not happy, we can name names without having to worry about the consequence.

Btw, that's what democracy is about.

The number of you who prefer PPP do it because they got 200 Baht (if nto why PPP handed it out).

There is just one person in Thailand you can't name.......

Again with your 200 Baht... The last election had international observers present and was said to be a fair election. Even in some western democracies you have examples of vote buying such as some guys giving out free beer in the country side for votes. It is rare, but happens so I agree it may have happened in some parts, but by large it was free and fair. I'm not saying vote buying never goes on, but to greatly affect the final result is rubbish and baseless. Did a person from the PPP hold a gun to their head when they voted at the ballot box?? Come on.... They could of voted for anyone even if they were given money. Im sure it would of been condemned by the world if ivote buying was so widespread. The government won the majority because people supported them for different reasons mainly because they believed the military coup was wrong. Just look at the damage the military Junta did while in power. The 2007 Charter is terrible mess written up by generals without any political involvement at all. Any reasonable person who values democracy has the right to request it is changed. It needs to be amended with the involvement of all political parties not a illegal military junta.

People support PPP because they feel the last administration (Thaksin) did a reasonable job in their eyes and that Thailand was progressing until the military coup put a end to it. I cant say that everything that the previous elected government did was right, but by large it did introduce some very good policies such as the Health reforms which benefited everyone. Everyone has the right to vote for a party who they feel will do the best job whether its the Democrats or PPP... Everyone has the right to critize the political parties also. This is all allowed under a democracy. We have a elected representative unlike the military junta which has illegally taken over for their personal gain with the help of PAD.

the non existing international observers which were not present was discussed a 100 times already--> Nonsense

I never saw free beers for votes but it might be possible.

The last election they went from house to house and gave money for the promise to vote for the PPP (but not only PPP, also Chart Thai and sure others), it was in a large scale. I don't say that without it no one would have vote PPP, but for sure a lot less. That might or might not be enough to have a different government but it is definitly not possible to accept vote buying. No matter if the result might be the same without or not.

The Charter was not written by Generals! And currently they ONLY want to change that part which prevents PPP from punishment for vote buying (and there is no doubt that there was vote buying).

So what is wrong with punishment for vote buying?

Explain the personal gain for the military junta! They took over to prevent clashes on the street. I agree that the junta didn't do a great job. As well the constitution is not perfect. People involved in vote buying should be in jail for 5 years.

[Pierrot]

I ask again. Since you know, who were the military taking orders from when they staged the coup?

To answer your question in a bit devious way, but that how you chose to ask the question, that's why a number of us prefer the PPP, or whatever name it used to be known as before or may be called in the future. We know who is in charge and, if we're not happy, we can name names without having to worry about the consequence.

Btw, that's what democracy is about.

The number of you who prefer PPP do it because they got 200 Baht (if nto why PPP handed it out).

There is just one person in Thailand you can't name.......

Don't be ridiculous, 200 Baht, I will already have earned more than that by the time I've finished typing this post (ok, I don't type very fast ...)

What you can't discuss is not only a person but a whole institution.

[Pierrot]

Explain the personal gain for the military junta! They took over to prevent clashes on the street....

I don't like to call people naive ...but I guess you don't know many people in the military

[h90]

I ask again. Since you know, who were the military taking orders from when they staged the coup?

To answer your question in a bit devious way, but that how you chose to ask the question, that's why a number of us prefer the PPP, or whatever name it used to be known as before or may be called in the future. We know who is in charge and, if we're not happy, we can name names without having to worry about the consequence.

Btw, that's what democracy is about.

The number of you who prefer PPP do it because they got 200 Baht (if nto why PPP handed it out).

There is just one person in Thailand you can't name.......

Don't be ridiculous, 200 Baht, I will already have earned more than that by the time I've finished typing this post (ok, I don't type very fast ...)

What you can't discuss is not only a person but a whole institution.

Is election in your area?

[h90]

Explain the personal gain for the military junta! They took over to prevent clashes on the street....

I don't like to call people naive ...but I guess you don't know many people in the military

That means you don't know nothing...just blabla...

[Pierrot]

Explain the personal gain for the military junta! They took over to prevent clashes on the street....

I don't like to call people naive ...but I guess you don't know many people in the military

That means you don't know nothing...just blabla...

Don't really get your answer ...the meaning is ????

[baanthale]

Explain the personal gain for the military junta! They took over to prevent clashes on the street....

I don't like to call people naive ...but I guess you don't know many people in the military

That means you don't know nothing...just blabla...

h90, You really dont know the answer on that question??you know, this starts to look very silly now just look at the increast military budget when the junta took over, how many billions was it?? On top of that, how much did every (non elected) general get in his pocket privatly before exit? Nobody knows and probably will never know! If you do not understand what I mean, you can always consult you southern wife that you refer to here all the time, or maybe you should do a google and make your own opinion Oh, when you are anyway on it, why not make a google on "international observers" on the 2007 election. I am sure you will find some good info from "the nation"(the only newspaper aload to speak free under military dictatorship). Anyhow, if the junta could not win the election for the democrates, maybe they just have to think about their program instead of blaming voters!

[h90]

Explain the personal gain for the military junta! They took over to prevent clashes on the street....

I don't like to call people naive ...but I guess you don't know many people in the military

That means you don't know nothing...just blabla...

h90, You really dont know the answer on that question??you know, this starts to look very silly now just look at the increast military budget when the junta took over, how many billions was it?? On top of that, how much did every (non elected) general get in his pocket privatly before exit? Nobody knows and probably will never know! If you do not understand what I mean, you can always consult you southern wife that you refer to here all the time, or maybe you should do a google and make your own opinion Oh, when you are anyway on it, why not make a google on "international observers" on the 2007 election. I am sure you will find some good info from "the nation"(the only newspaper aload to speak free under military dictatorship). Anyhow, if the junta could not win the election for the democrates, maybe they just have to think about their program instead of blaming voters!

OK, again....

increase of military budget after a strong decrease the years before and still not very high. Can be discussed if it makes sense or not, but I can't see any personal gains on that.

Wouldn't wounder if some generals got something in their pocket, as many politicians get. Unless Thaksin and his cronies there is no evidence that the generals took something. So most probably in a small scale.

At the international observers (correct me if I am wrong in some details), they were 37 which went in 2 people groups (one with mirror??) a short time before the election. The massive vote buying is well known. It is to blame on the military that it allowed it.

I agree that the PPP would have won without vote buying, but that does not make it more acceptable and it would not mean that the same government would have been formed.

[Old Man River]

Explain the personal gain for the military junta! They took over to prevent clashes on the street....

I don't like to call people naive ...but I guess you don't know many people in the military

That means you don't know nothing...just blabla...

h90, You really dont know the answer on that question??you know, this starts to look very silly now just look at the increast military budget when the junta took over, how many billions was it?? On top of that, how much did every (non elected) general get in his pocket privatly before exit? Nobody knows and probably will never know! If you do not understand what I mean, you can always consult you southern wife that you refer to here all the time, or maybe you should do a google and make your own opinion Oh, when you are anyway on it, why not make a google on "international observers" on the 2007 election. I am sure you will find some good info from "the nation"(the only newspaper aload to speak free under military dictatorship). Anyhow, if the junta could not win the election for the democrates, maybe they just have to think about their program instead of blaming voters!

OK, again....

increase of military budget after a strong decrease the years before and still not very high. Can be discussed if it makes sense or not, but I can't see any personal gains on that.

Wouldn't wounder if some generals got something in their pocket, as many politicians get. Unless Thaksin and his cronies there is no evidence that the generals took something. So most probably in a small scale.

At the international observers (correct me if I am wrong in some details), they were 37 which went in 2 people groups (one with mirror??) a short time before the election. The massive vote buying is well known. It is to blame on the military that it allowed it.

I agree that the PPP would have won without vote buying, but that does not make it more acceptable and it would not mean that the same government would have been formed.

For the record, the biggest issue election observers had with the Dec. 2007 election was how the votes were tallied, not about the payments being made. Still, as you correctly state, the people in the northeast were going to vote for the nominee party anyway.

[catmac]

Spot on, dear Pierrot!

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer contempt posters like Plus have for the ordinary electors of Thailand. Just because they aren't so daft as to vote for the Democratic Party, and let's not forget that the present sorry state of the country is a direct result of that (un)Democratic Party refusing to stand in the pre-coup general election, acting like a spoiled child who wouldn't play just because he knew he couldn't win!

Not quite (by a long shot). Below is a a good analysis of the April 2006 election from Michael Nelson, senior researcher of South East Asian studies at the University of Passau, Germany:

"There were two reasons for nullifying the election. First, the Constitutional court found that ordering a new election to take place only 37 days after the dissolution of the House, though not in itself a violation of the constitution, had nevertheless led to political problems serious enough to violate the democratic core of the election.

Second, the court found that by turning the polling booths around in a way that the open part would point to the polling station committee and the public, while the voter would turn his back to both, the constitutionally guaranteed secrecy of the vote had fundamentally been violated."

Such was the finding of the Constitutional Court after, on 26 April 2006, the King intervened in an unusually direct and strong form. During separate audiences for judges of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court at Klai Kangwol Palace in Prachuap Khiri Khan province, the King asked whether the political situation was perhaps messed up to the point that the election might have to be nullified. He put pressure on the courts to do their part to solve the problems by saying:

Should the election be nullified? You have the right to say what’s appropriate or not. If it’s not appropriate, it is not to say the government is not good. But as far as I’m concerned, a one party election is not normal. The one candidate situation is undemocratic. When an election is not democratic, you should look carefully into the administrative issues. I ask you to do the best you can. If you cannot do it, then it should be you who resign, not the government, for failing to do your duty. Carefully review the vows you have made. … The nation cannot survive if the situation runs contrary to the law. Therefore, I ask you to carefully study whether you can make a point on this issue. If not, you had better resign. You have been tasked with this duty. You are knowledgeable. You must make the country function correctly.

Get the picture now? Hopefully, this doesn't have to be explained further.

We certainly have, Old Man River! His Majesty is making just the point I raised, i.e. by boycotting the election out of juvenile spleen, the Democrats gave us the "one party election" and the "one candidate situation", which, in His wisdom, made for an undemocratic mess. It was into this mess that the Democrats and PAD (financed by that multi-billionaire media tycoon) took to the streets to engineer the military coup.

Wow. And here I thought that the coup was engineered by the military. Please tell me more about who the military took orders from.

Now then, Old Man River, you are being a little naive here. The excuse the Military gave for staging their coup was the civil unrest on the steets of Bangkok. That unrest was orchestrated by the Democrats and PAD, without that the Military would have had no excuse to act. I didn't say that they were giving the Military orders, but I firmly believe that there was some kind of collusion between them behind the scenes.

[fft100]

The Democrats were in power for many years. They chose to do very little for the poorer people in the North and East. TRT came along, promised to help the poorer people, and unlike the Democrats, actually did something ! 30 baht health care, investment etc etc. Not surprisingly, when the people in the North come to vote they remember who actually did something....

Are people on this thread saying that 'populist' policies that made poor peoples lives better are wrong ? or that people should not look at the past record of parties when making there decision. Hmmmm.....

[Old Man River]

Spot on, dear Pierrot!

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer contempt posters like Plus have for the ordinary electors of Thailand. Just because they aren't so daft as to vote for the Democratic Party, and let's not forget that the present sorry state of the country is a direct result of that (un)Democratic Party refusing to stand in the pre-coup general election, acting like a spoiled child who wouldn't play just because he knew he couldn't win!

Not quite (by a long shot). Below is a a good analysis of the April 2006 election from Michael Nelson, senior researcher of South East Asian studies at the University of Passau, Germany:

"There were two reasons for nullifying the election. First, the Constitutional court found that ordering a new election to take place only 37 days after the dissolution of the House, though not in itself a violation of the constitution, had nevertheless led to political problems serious enough to violate the democratic core of the election.

Second, the court found that by turning the polling booths around in a way that the open part would point to the polling station committee and the public, while the voter would turn his back to both, the constitutionally guaranteed secrecy of the vote had fundamentally been violated."

Such was the finding of the Constitutional Court after, on 26 April 2006, the King intervened in an unusually direct and strong form. During separate audiences for judges of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court at Klai Kangwol Palace in Prachuap Khiri Khan province, the King asked whether the political situation was perhaps messed up to the point that the election might have to be nullified. He put pressure on the courts to do their part to solve the problems by saying:

Should the election be nullified? You have the right to say what’s appropriate or not. If it’s not appropriate, it is not to say the government is not good. But as far as I’m concerned, a one party election is not normal. The one candidate situation is undemocratic. When an election is not democratic, you should look carefully into the administrative issues. I ask you to do the best you can. If you cannot do it, then it should be you who resign, not the government, for failing to do your duty. Carefully review the vows you have made. … The nation cannot survive if the situation runs contrary to the law. Therefore, I ask you to carefully study whether you can make a point on this issue. If not, you had better resign. You have been tasked with this duty. You are knowledgeable. You must make the country function correctly.

Get the picture now? Hopefully, this doesn't have to be explained further.

We certainly have, Old Man River! His Majesty is making just the point I raised, i.e. by boycotting the election out of juvenile spleen, the Democrats gave us the "one party election" and the "one candidate situation", which, in His wisdom, made for an undemocratic mess. It was into this mess that the Democrats and PAD (financed by that multi-billionaire media tycoon) took to the streets to engineer the military coup.

Wow. And here I thought that the coup was engineered by the military. Please tell me more about who the military took orders from.

Now then, Old Man River, you are being a little naive here. The excuse the Military gave for staging their coup was the civil unrest on the steets of Bangkok. That unrest was orchestrated by the Democrats and PAD, without that the Military would have had no excuse to act. I didn't say that they were giving the Military orders, but I firmly believe that there was some kind of collusion between them behind the scenes.

I guess I was naive to expect a straight answer from you when I asked who you meant when you said that a multi-billionaire media tycoon is financing the PAD. There have been rumors that the money is coming from another source, but nobody is saying a multi-billionaire media tycoon, other than you.

I have not seen any proof by anyone that the Democrats and PAD colluded with the military to stage the coup. The fact is that the issue of civil unrest that you mention was only one of several reasons given by the junta for the coup. The very first reason they mentioned had to do with the monarchy and has been discussed in length outside of TV.

The only reason you mention the Democrats seems to be that they boycotted the April sham 2006 election. Are you aware that the Chart Thai (headed by Banharn) and Mahachon parties also boycotted it? Do you know that the Constitutional Court over turned the election results because of reasons that had nothing to do with the boycott?

Believe in your conspiracy theories if you like, but for me, I need some facts and there are none here.