State Of Emergency Announced In Bangkok

[ubonjoe]

It's time Thai society spoke frankly: Thoughts on Kasian

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=791

worth a read

I have a problem with the term "mistakes", in the article. Vote buying and aiding a criminal on the run (Thaskin, by refusing to cancel his diplomatic passport) are crimes, not just mistakes, in my opinion and as far as I know also in the opinion of Thai law.

If I was Thaksin I would put it an envelope and send it back.

From what I have read it is of little value to have.

Edited September 7, 2008 by ubonjoe

[paulfromphuket]

It's time Thai society spoke frankly: Thoughts on Kasian

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=791

[/size]

worth a read

I have a problem with the term "mistakes", in the article. Vote buying and aiding a criminal on the run (Thaskin, by refusing to cancel his diplomatic passport) are crimes, not just mistakes, in my opinion and as far as I know also in the opinion of Thai law.

If I was Thaksin I would put it an envelope and send it back.

From what I have read it is of little value to have.

i put in there so people can comment in an intelegent manner to the issues raised about thailands ability to run a demcratic government with " thai uniqueness".

to just dimiss an article is not the way to keep the forum varied interesting and just surgests you might not like to address those issues perhaps

[ando]

Can You mr Gruen tell me any democratic country in the world where a smal group from the loosers have the right to order the government to step down after six month.

Since you are on the subject, can you tell me any country in the world that has the same political make up (power groups) as Thailand?

Don't spend too much time on this because there are none.

Hence, don't expect Thailand to have the same type of democracy as other countries.

It is the (minority) "power groups" who are threatened by democracy in Thailand. Hence their opposition to it.

And it is the majority poor, who are currently virtually powerless, who stand to gain a fair go through democratic system of government. Hence their support for it.

[ubonjoe]

It's time Thai society spoke frankly: Thoughts on Kasian

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=791

[/size]

worth a read

I have a problem with the term "mistakes", in the article. Vote buying and aiding a criminal on the run (Thaskin, by refusing to cancel his diplomatic passport) are crimes, not just mistakes, in my opinion and as far as I know also in the opinion of Thai law.

If I was Thaksin I would put it an envelope and send it back.

From what I have read it is of little value to have.

i put in there so people can comment in an intelegent manner to the issues raised about thailands ability to run a demcratic government with " thai uniqueness".

to just dimiss an article is not the way to keep the forum varied interesting and just surgests you might not like to address those issues perhaps

Sorry

I read the article and found it made some very good points.

I was only responding to another subject that was brought up.

[paulfromphuket]

It's time Thai society spoke frankly: Thoughts on Kasian

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=791

[/size]

worth a read

I have a problem with the term "mistakes", in the article. Vote buying and aiding a criminal on the run (Thaskin, by refusing to cancel his diplomatic passport) are crimes, not just mistakes, in my opinion and as far as I know also in the opinion of Thai law.

If I was Thaksin I would put it an envelope and send it back.

From what I have read it is of little value to have.

i put in there so people can comment in an intelegent manner to the issues raised about thailands ability to run a demcratic government with " thai uniqueness".

to just dimiss an article is not the way to keep the forum varied interesting and just surgests you might not like to address those issues perhaps

Sorry

I read the article and found it made some very good points.

I was only responding to another subject that was brought up.

sorry you mean the passport very funny ic that now .

[ubonjoe]

Can You mr Gruen tell me any democratic country in the world where a smal group from the loosers have the right to order the government to step down after six month.

Since you are on the subject, can you tell me any country in the world that has the same political make up (power groups) as Thailand?

Don't spend too much time on this because there are none.

Hence, don't expect Thailand to have the same type of democracy as other countries.

It is the (minority) "power groups" who are threatened by democracy in Thailand. Hence their opposition to it.

And it is the majority poor, who are currently virtually powerless, who stand to gain a fair go through democratic system of government. Hence their support for it.

Agreed

I think that is exactly what going on at the moment. I also feel that if their rights are taken away again they are not going to stand back and watch it happen. Thats why they voted against the constitution and voted for PPP.

Edited September 7, 2008 by ubonjoe

[paulfromphuket]

to avoid any mistakes i am pasting this one in full.I think this guy talks a lot of sence

and if you have doubt as to the sourse google him

Thongchai Winichakul: A simple and straightforward solution

<H5 class=detailsubmit>Thongchai Winichakul

07 September 2008

Article</H5> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } During Sept 1-2, 2008, there were 17 press releases from groups of various kinds of individuals trying to put forth solutions to the current situation. I received two more drafts circulated via email loops, totalling 19.

Of these, 11 want the Prime Minister to resign, 3 call for a House dissolution, 2 for either dissolution or resignation, and 3 have no proposals. These ideas come with different reasonings, of which political enthusiasts could reckon the pros and cons of each solution, according to their own prejudices.

Fortunately, no one has put forward what has probably been on some people’s mind, but cannot be said: that is, a coup. There is still some shame, at least.

Fortunately, no one has come up with another option which many may have in mind, but dare not bring it forward. There is some inhibition, at least.

Yet, it is alarming that just a few people have proposed yet another solution which is probably the easiest and the most legitimate way out (Kasian Techapira has proposed it in his article, but has been attacked by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD)’s intellectuals. A handful of academics also recently proposed it at a meeting at Chulalongkorn University before the clash occurred.): i.e.

The PAD leaders should turn themselves in to the police to enter the justice process, while the anti-government rally can still continue in appropriate places.

This solution requires the courage and responsibility of the PAD leaders. They are brave to take action, to resist, so they should be brave to face civil law. Only by doing so is the PAD’s protest considered civil disobedience.

If not, what the PAD has done would only amount to outrageous acts of political bullies who, no matter how forceful they are, are just disgusting.

In Thai society where even the king is under the law, who do the PAD leaders think they are, so they can be above the law?

They hate Thaksin, but they cannot do the same as what they have condemned Thaksin to have done.

I would like to see the Army Commander-in-Chief or someone of a similar stature go to the protest site barehanded to ask the protesters to allow their leaders to give themselves up, and let justice take its course.

The PAD leaders should be brave enough to take responsibility for their faults—or who thinks they have no faults?—and should not risk their supporters’ lives for themselves.

This kind of courage may turn the PAD leaders into instant heroes.

Some might argue that this is unlikely, because the PAD leaders would not cave in. But, the other options are not likely, either, as the others would not yield. Who do the PAD leaders think they are, to be always pleased by others?

Some might argue that this solution does not radically get rid of the current conflict. But, the other solutions—House dissolution or the PM’s resignation—also do not fundamentally solve the problem. We are just trying to avoid confrontation and cool down the political heat. All solutions are meant for immediate results.

Some might argue that the PAD supporters would not yield. But it is up to the PAD leaders to have the courage to explain to their crowd, who are mature and educated.

The other solutions would also be unacceptable for people who are against the PAD. I do not see any intellectuals and academics having any qualms about that.

This solution is also a way to uphold democracy, and not damage the credibility of the judiciary. On the contrary, the PAD’s defiance of the law harms the judicial power which it has promoted.

If the PAD desires the ‘new politics’, it would have to be patient and wait until the people give their consent, not push it by force, coercing people into it.

This simple, straightforward and legitimate solution is overlooked due to the partiality that is so awfully prevalent. No one listens anymore.

It is alarming that intellectuals, academics, media, lawyers, and human rights activists have abandoned the principles, and become militants who want victory at all costs and no matter what. They pander to unlawful disobedience. They hate Thaksin to the point of being partial, inconsiderate, discriminatory, mindless, and destructive to anyone standing in the way.

Threats made by people on their side are patriotic acts, aggression is freedom of expression according to the constitution, and carrying weapons is non-violence, all combining to constitute ‘some flaws’, quite acceptable. But when people on the other side do wrong, that would be utterly intolerable.

Many dare not say or make comments because they do not want to risk being cursed or vilified.

For tens of millions of people watching the PAD and the intellectuals, what does democracy mean to them? They would think that the country is not theirs, but belongs to those Bangkok people who are selfish, self-willed, and childishly irresponsible in the pursuit of their own ends.

They would feel utterly repressed, and would someday burst out, asking if they are only peasants, inferior citizens to the PAD and Bangkok people.

This dismissed solution is a common practice in civilized countries where the rule of law reigns, to prevent protests from escalating to bloodshed. It is among the first options anybody would think of as a common sense.

How is Thailand so uncommon that this simple and forthright solution can be overlooked? Or is Thailand so uniquely civilized that it holds the rule of law as disposable at will?

Or how are the intelligence, integrity and consistency if Thai intellectuals so uncommon that they could not think of a simple solution, using common sense.

I have found that there are many people who admit that they are partial, and see the necessity of their discrimination and arbitrary rule of law, because their cause is too critical.

They thus deliberately overlook this simple solution, because they hope to achieve the victory that is greater than the rule of law.

The political conflict of the past 2-3 years has taken us to the brink of disaster, because of such short-sightedness.

In conclusion, House dissolution or resignation? Or turning themselves in to the authorities, and continuing the rally in other appropriate places?

Please consider it with sobriety. Refrain from the urge to win at the expense of others, and do not let hatred take hold.

Now it is too late for a thorough solution, leaving only a choice between more or less destructive solutions for immediate results.

I am so tired of these press releases. But if anyone comes up with this proposal, I will be very grateful, and give my name in advance.

[Bagwan]

No bail for NBT suspects

Sixty-one witnesses have so far been spoken to.

82 people detained after the raid on the offices of the NBT

Police asked the court to deny them bail,

http://www.bangkokpost.com/060908_News/06Sep2008_news07.php

What a pity that the police didn't take a similar stance with Potjaman.

[Bagwan]

Good morning everyone,

Quote from today's Bangkok Post article...

(BangkokPost.com) - Core leader of People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) Sondhi Limthongkul announced Saturday that he would ordain until he dies if peace and order are maintained in the country and that the group could remove the Samak Sundaravej administration.

My English isn't perfect. Does that mean that he would become a monk for the rest of his life, if the PAD manages to remove the Samak administration? Is that what is meant by ordain? Seems strange, I couldn't see someone as outspoken as Sondhi going into monkhood for the rest of his life. I must be reading this wrong?

I better have my morning coffee first and read it again ;-)

Does this mean that we can expect to see him shopping for the latest cellphone or dongle for his PC at Pantip Plaza?

[cmsally]

Interesting to listen to news about the Hong Kong legislature elections.

Their legislature is 50% elected and 50% chosen from business & industrial interests (seem to have heard that somewhere before).

Since the 1997 Chinese takeover, there have been no problems electing the most democratic candidates who would balance out the business people. In this present election it seems they are very worried that the Olympics have created a blanket of nationalist fervour over the country and the more democratic candidates could lose out to the more elitist sided ones. This for them is greatly worrying as it could erode their power to veto any legislation which goes against democracy or the people's interests.

This seems to very similar to what is being proposed by Sondhi.

[Loaded]

don't matter who you vote for as the government always gets into power - call that democracy???

[kurtgruen]

House dissolution or resignation? Or turning themselves in to the authorities, and continuing the rally in other appropriate places?

This does not have to be an either or situation, as I adressed a few hundred posts back already. I suggested quite a while back, that... the PPP and Samak step down, with the agreement that the PAD move their demonstration to a more neutral ground and vacate the government house grounds. This could be expanded, to the PAD leaders agreeing to deal with the charges against them in the legal system.

However, I think that the PAD is sitting with the "Power Hand" right now and should only agree to vacate Government grounds, if the Government steps down first,and agree to be dealt with in the legal system, after all the cases against Thaksin and the present corrupt government are done and dealt with ;-)

They have come so far, why would they want to quit now, when every day, more people are hearing about the ongoing government corruption and more and more people are supporting the PAD.

I think the article is only wishful thinking, because it basically asks the PAD to give up, at least that is what it would amount to. Later Samak, after putting the PAD leaders in jail, could run around, call them criminals and go on with his own corruption.

Give me a break

[ubonjoe]

House dissolution or resignation? Or turning themselves in to the authorities, and continuing the rally in other appropriate places?

This does not have to be an either or situation, as I adressed a few hundred posts back already. I suggested quite a while back, that... the PPP and Samak step down, with the agreement that the PAD move their demonstration to a more neutral ground and vacate the government house grounds. This could be expanded, to the PAD leaders agreeing to deal with the charges against them in the legal system.

However, I think that the PAD is sitting with the "Power Hand" right now and should only agree to vacate Government grounds, if the Government steps down first,and agree to be dealt with in the legal system, after all the cases against Thaksin and the present corrupt government are done and dealt with ;-)

They have come so far, why would they want to quit now, when every day, more people are hearing about the ongoing government corruption and more and more people are supporting the PAD.

I think the article is only wishful thinking, because it basically asks the PAD to give up, at least that is what it would amount to. Later Samak, after putting the PAD leaders in jail, could run around, call them criminals and go on with his own corruption.

Give me a break

I think you need to go back a few posts and find his original post. The bold text is not his opinion it is from the article he posted. He originally only posted the link.

[Plus]

It is the (minority) "power groups" who are threatened by democracy in Thailand. Hence their opposition to it.

And it is the majority poor, who are currently virtually powerless, who stand to gain a fair go through democratic system of government. Hence their support for it.

Exactly, the current bunch of businessmen in charge cannot tolerate PAD because they'd lose their grip on the country. The poor majority must not be allowed representation in parliament as per PAD's new politics proposal. Only candidates appointed and financed by big business are allowed to participate in electoral process.

>>>

Thanks for telling us about Hong Kong, CMsally. Half of their legislature is indeed selected, exactly like PAD proposes, but since their are "our" guys, papers like Economist call it a beacon of democracy in Asia, PAD, who doesn't kow tow to big business, are called fascist reactonaries instead.

And there are posters here who take everything Economist (or WSJ) says as a god given gospel on democracy.

[paulfromphuket]

House dissolution or resignation? Or turning themselves in to the authorities, and continuing the rally in other appropriate places?

This does not have to be an either or situation, as I adressed a few hundred posts back already. I suggested quite a while back, that... the PPP and Samak step down, with the agreement that the PAD move their demonstration to a more neutral ground and vacate the government house grounds. This could be expanded, to the PAD leaders agreeing to deal with the charges against them in the legal system.

However, I think that the PAD is sitting with the "Power Hand" right now and should only agree to vacate Government grounds, if the Government steps down first,and agree to be dealt with in the legal system, after all the cases against Thaksin and the present corrupt government are done and dealt with ;-)

this was a new article from another thai commentator

They have come so far, why would they want to quit now, when every day, more people are hearing about the ongoing government corruption and more and more people are supporting the PAD.

I think the article is only wishful thinking, because it basically asks the PAD to give up, at least that is what it would amount to. Later Samak, after putting the PAD leaders in jail, could run around, call them criminals and go on with his own corruption.

Give me a break

I think you need to go back a few posts and find his original post. The bold text is not his opinion it is from the article he posted. He originally only posted the link.

[Los78]

don't matter who you vote for as the government always gets into power - call that democracy???

Whats your point? Yes I call it a democracy. Much better then having the army take over. If the opposition (Democrats) cant succeed with getting the majority then they should put out some better policies. If they will continue to be the lap dog and supporter of the PAD then I cant see them ever being elected.

[paulfromphuket]

House dissolution or resignation? Or turning themselves in to the authorities, and continuing the rally in other appropriate places?

This does not have to be an either or situation, as I adressed a few hundred posts back already. I suggested quite a while back, that... the PPP and Samak step down, with the agreement that the PAD move their demonstration to a more neutral ground and vacate the government house grounds. This could be expanded, to the PAD leaders agreeing to deal with the charges against them in the legal system.

However, I think that the PAD is sitting with the "Power Hand" right now and should only agree to vacate Government grounds, if the Government steps down first,and agree to be dealt with in the legal system, after all the cases against Thaksin and the present corrupt government are done and dealt with ;-)

this was a new article from another thai commentator

They have come so far, why would they want to quit now, when every day, more people are hearing about the ongoing government corruption and more and more people are supporting the PAD.

I think the article is only wishful thinking, because it basically asks the PAD to give up, at least that is what it would amount to. Later Samak, after putting the PAD leaders in jail, could run around, call them criminals and go on with his own corruption.

Give me a break

I think you need to go back a few posts and find his original post. The bold text is not his opinion it is from the article he posted. He originally only posted the link.

no not my opinions it was an entirely new artilcle i posted in full instead of a link/

and worth a read

[Los78]

It is the (minority) "power groups" who are threatened by democracy in Thailand. Hence their opposition to it.

And it is the majority poor, who are currently virtually powerless, who stand to gain a fair go through democratic system of government. Hence their support for it.

Exactly, the current bunch of businessmen in charge cannot tolerate PAD because they'd lose their grip on the country. The poor majority must not be allowed representation in parliament as per PAD's new politics proposal. Only candidates appointed and financed by big business are allowed to participate in electoral process.

>>>

Thanks for telling us about Hong Kong, CMsally. Half of their legislature is indeed selected, exactly like PAD proposes, but since their are "our" guys, papers like Economist call it a beacon of democracy in Asia, PAD, who doesn't kow tow to big business, are called fascist reactonaries instead.

And there are posters here who take everything Economist (or WSJ) says as a god given gospel on democracy.

I dont know how you can compare Thailand to Hong Kong....... For a start Hong Kongs history is completly different to Thailands and the dynamics with China change their situation completly. So to use Hong Kong as a good example of new politics is very misleading...

[Journalist]

Worse than a coup

Sep 4th 2008

From The Economist print edition

An authoritarian rabble should not be allowed to turf out a deeply flawed but popularly elected government

STANDING up for democracy sometimes entails standing up for some unappealing democrats. Thailand's pugnacious prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, is an especially hard man to defend. A ferocious rightist, Mr Samak was accused of inciting the policemen and vigilantes who slaughtered dozens of unarmed student protesters in Bangkok in 1976. On becoming prime minister following the election last December that restored democratic rule after a 2006 coup, Mr Samak chose for his cabinet some of the most unsavoury figures linked to the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister deposed in the coup. But with the army on the streets of Bangkok again, Mr Samak is for once, if not in the right, then at least less wrong than those calling for his head.

His government is deeply flawed. But it would be wrong and dangerous if the authoritarian rabble who have seized Government House in Bangkok forced it out of office. After violent clashes between supporters and opponents of the government, Mr Samak this week declared a state of emergency in Bangkok. The army chief backed his decision, but by mid-week was still ruling out the use of force to clear the squatters out. If the protesters, the woefully misnamed People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), do succeed, democracy in Thailand—not so long ago a beacon, by Asian standards, of pluralistic politics—will be in grave danger.

Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin's government and the sad signs that Mr Samak's is no better. The PAD's leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but "new politics"—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too "ill-educated" to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit

As in the build-up to the 2006 coup, PAD leaders are trying to oust a popular government on the bogus pretext of "saving" Thailand's revered King Bhumibol from a supposed republican plot. Some of the PAD protesters reportedly believe their sit-in has the crown's tacit backing. Almost anywhere else, the police would have removed them, forcibly if necessary, by now. But it is whispered that the PAD has protectors "on high"—hardline army generals and possibly figures in the royal palace (though not the king himself). This may be nonsense; but by preventing the discussion and hence refutation of such royal rumours, Thailand's harsh, much-abused lèse-majesté law has the ironic effect of helping them spread.

In the official version of modern Thai history, the king is the great defender of peace and democracy, who comes to the rescue at moments of crisis. Now would seem to be one such moment: some wise words from the king could do much to defuse tension. Thais like to believe they are good at seeking compromise to avoid conflict. But there has been little sign of compromise in the past three years, and there is now the risk of a bad one. The elected government might be forced out of office to pacify the PAD's demagogues, it might be made to share power with the undeserving opposition Democrat party, which has shown little leadership while waiting for power to be handed it on a plate, or, as in Bangladesh, a civilian front might provide a cloak for de facto military rule.

It is just possible to imagine a decent compromise in which Mr Samak gives way to a more emollient figure from the ruling coalition—and the PAD and its supporters in the army, the bureaucracy and (if they exist) the royal palace accept the verdict of the people. But the PAD's leaders may well not stop until they have imposed their own, undemocratic vision of Thailand. In this sense they are even more pernicious than the coupmakers of 2006, who at least promised to restore elected government and, under popular pressure, did so.

Prosperous, modern and open, Thailand has so far inhabited a different era from the dark ages in which its dismal neighbour, Myanmar, languishes under a thuggish, isolationist junta. Thailand's foreign friends should make clear to the Thai elite that toppling elected governments would be a step backwards. As Myanmar has found, it might also court sanctions. Foreign tourists, seeing the unchecked disorder on their television screens, including blockades of some airports, may soon be imposing a boycott of their own.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Journalist

[kurtgruen]

House dissolution or resignation? Or turning themselves in to the authorities, and continuing the rally in other appropriate places?

This does not have to be an either or situation, as I adressed a few hundred posts back already. I suggested quite a while back, that... the PPP and Samak step down, with the agreement that the PAD move their demonstration to a more neutral ground and vacate the government house grounds. This could be expanded, to the PAD leaders agreeing to deal with the charges against them in the legal system.

However, I think that the PAD is sitting with the "Power Hand" right now and should only agree to vacate Government grounds, if the Government steps down first,and agree to be dealt with in the legal system, after all the cases against Thaksin and the present corrupt government are done and dealt with ;-)

They have come so far, why would they want to quit now, when every day, more people are hearing about the ongoing government corruption and more and more people are supporting the PAD.

I think the article is only wishful thinking, because it basically asks the PAD to give up, at least that is what it would amount to. Later Samak, after putting the PAD leaders in jail, could run around, call them criminals and go on with his own corruption.

Give me a break

I think you need to go back a few posts and find his original post. The bold text is not his opinion it is from the article he posted. He originally only posted the link.

No, my issue is with the one sided article, trying to portray it as a legitimate option at this stage of the game. Why would the PAD leaders fight and work so hard to get to this point, with the battle almost won, and decide to turn themselves in and go to jail? Doesn't make any sense at all. I think the writer of the article is out to lunch

[paulfromphuket]

It is the (minority) "power groups" who are threatened by democracy in Thailand. Hence their opposition to it.

And it is the majority poor, who are currently virtually powerless, who stand to gain a fair go through democratic system of government. Hence their support for it.

Exactly, the current bunch of businessmen in charge cannot tolerate PAD because they'd lose their grip on the country. The poor majority must not be allowed representation in parliament as per PAD's new politics proposal. Only candidates appointed and financed by big business are allowed to participate in electoral process.

>>>

Thanks for telling us about Hong Kong, CMsally. Half of their legislature is indeed selected, exactly like PAD proposes, but since their are "our" guys, papers like Economist call it a beacon of democracy in Asia, PAD, who doesn't kow tow to big business, are called fascist reactonaries instead.

And there are posters here who take everything Economist (or WSJ) says as a god given gospel on democracy.

Hong Kong is a puppet state of the Peoples Republic of China so completley irrellavent unless we want then to take control here.

[Los78]

It's time Thai society spoke frankly: Thoughts on Kasian

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=791

worth a read

I have a problem with the term "mistakes", in the article. Vote buying and aiding a criminal on the run (Thaskin, by refusing to cancel his diplomatic passport) are crimes, not just mistakes, in my opinion and as far as I know also in the opinion of Thai law.

Yes and having elected governments taken over by the military junta to line their pockets and rewriting the constitution to suit themselves and their friends.

[kurtgruen]

It's time Thai society spoke frankly: Thoughts on Kasian

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=791

worth a read

I have a problem with the term "mistakes", in the article. Vote buying and aiding a criminal on the run (Thaskin, by refusing to cancel his diplomatic passport) are crimes, not just mistakes, in my opinion and as far as I know also in the opinion of Thai law.

Yes and having elected governments taken over by the military junta to line their pockets and rewriting the constitution to suit themselves and their friends.

Hmmm...I don't think rewriting the Constitution and making vote buying illegal for party executives was such a bad idea. It should have been part of the constitution a long time ago, in my opinion.

[catmac]

Those who conspire to get members who hold differing opinions banned -we all know who they are -are obviously rather sad creatures.

I welcome all views preferably if they are argued out rationally.

Well said, YH.

[paulfromphuket]

i heard today fro a very reliable sourse that one of the leading international hotels here in Phuket has 30% cancellations for next month

[pumpuiman]

I can not believe that people support this.

The PAD's leaders however are neither liberals nor democrats.A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen,generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections,which they would lose, but "new politics" -in fact a return to old fashioned authoritarian rule with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses"

A solution to corruption in Thai politics is needed.......but backing the PAD's agenda is not the answer.....OBVIOUSLY.

Only if you take the top quote as a fact, which I don't.

I see students, Union workers and Union officials, the middle class, the poor and just a lot of average citizens protesting. Plus a lot of academics. Until this corrupt government gets disolved, I am with the PAD and these Protesters on this.

Ok, even if it were the poor downtrodden masses who were protesting and closing airports......you still support the following....

"new politics" -in fact a return to old fashioned authoritarian rule with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses"

I just can not fathom why anyone would support military oversight and the elimination of democracy.

THIS IS WHAT PAD WANTS, THIS IS THEIR GOAL...SONDHI HAS REPEATEDLY STATED THIS...THIS IS FACT AND YOU SUPPORT THIS?

I apologize for yelling....but PAD is NOT the answer.

The government PAD is proposing, that would be something worth forcefully taking down (because it could not be done democratically)

Supporting PAD is like saying..."I don't want to be involved in my future governments decisions" and "Please hold a gun to my head"

[ubonjoe]

Worse than a coup

Sep 4th 2008

From The Economist print edition

An authoritarian rabble should not be allowed to turf out a deeply flawed but popularly elected government

STANDING up for democracy sometimes entails standing up for some unappealing democrats. Thailand's pugnacious prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, is an especially hard man to defend. A ferocious rightist, Mr Samak was accused of inciting the policemen and vigilantes who slaughtered dozens of unarmed student protesters in Bangkok in 1976. On becoming prime minister following the election last December that restored democratic rule after a 2006 coup, Mr Samak chose for his cabinet some of the most unsavoury figures linked to the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister deposed in the coup. But with the army on the streets of Bangkok again, Mr Samak is for once, if not in the right, then at least less wrong than those calling for his head.

His government is deeply flawed. But it would be wrong and dangerous if the authoritarian rabble who have seized Government House in Bangkok forced it out of office. After violent clashes between supporters and opponents of the government, Mr Samak this week declared a state of emergency in Bangkok. The army chief backed his decision, but by mid-week was still ruling out the use of force to clear the squatters out. If the protesters, the woefully misnamed People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), do succeed, democracy in Thailand—not so long ago a beacon, by Asian standards, of pluralistic politics—will be in grave danger.

Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin's government and the sad signs that Mr Samak's is no better. The PAD's leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but "new politics"—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too "ill-educated" to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit

As in the build-up to the 2006 coup, PAD leaders are trying to oust a popular government on the bogus pretext of "saving" Thailand's revered King Bhumibol from a supposed republican plot. Some of the PAD protesters reportedly believe their sit-in has the crown's tacit backing. Almost anywhere else, the police would have removed them, forcibly if necessary, by now. But it is whispered that the PAD has protectors "on high"—hardline army generals and possibly figures in the royal palace (though not the king himself). This may be nonsense; but by preventing the discussion and hence refutation of such royal rumours, Thailand's harsh, much-abused lèse-majesté law has the ironic effect of helping them spread.

In the official version of modern Thai history, the king is the great defender of peace and democracy, who comes to the rescue at moments of crisis. Now would seem to be one such moment: some wise words from the king could do much to defuse tension. Thais like to believe they are good at seeking compromise to avoid conflict. But there has been little sign of compromise in the past three years, and there is now the risk of a bad one. The elected government might be forced out of office to pacify the PAD's demagogues, it might be made to share power with the undeserving opposition Democrat party, which has shown little leadership while waiting for power to be handed it on a plate, or, as in Bangladesh, a civilian front might provide a cloak for de facto military rule.

It is just possible to imagine a decent compromise in which Mr Samak gives way to a more emollient figure from the ruling coalition—and the PAD and its supporters in the army, the bureaucracy and (if they exist) the royal palace accept the verdict of the people. But the PAD's leaders may well not stop until they have imposed their own, undemocratic vision of Thailand. In this sense they are even more pernicious than the coupmakers of 2006, who at least promised to restore elected government and, under popular pressure, did so.

Prosperous, modern and open, Thailand has so far inhabited a different era from the dark ages in which its dismal neighbour, Myanmar, languishes under a thuggish, isolationist junta. Thailand's foreign friends should make clear to the Thai elite that toppling elected governments would be a step backwards. As Myanmar has found, it might also court sanctions. Foreign tourists, seeing the unchecked disorder on their television screens, including blockades of some airports, may soon be imposing a boycott of their own.

Wow

Its hard and to the point on many things.

[cmsally]

If memory serves me correctly there were many protests in Hong Kong about loss of democracy after 1997, which included a 50% selected legislature largely selected by mainland China.

It is rather ironic that supposed pro democracy demonstrations here are for a conglomerate that would like to introduce this same idea. The system that keeps Hong Kong as a puppet of PRC supposedly here would keep the country as a puppet of certain elites and interest groups.

[paulfromphuket]

If memory serves me correctly there were many protests in Hong Kong about loss of democracy after 1997, which included a 50% selected legislature largely selected by mainland China.

It is rather ironic that supposed pro democracy demonstrations here are for a conglomerate that would like to introduce this same idea. The system that keeps Hong Kong as a puppet of PRC supposedly here would keep the country as a puppet of certain elites and interest groups.

exactly. lets turn them from muppets to puppets

[paulfromphuket]

This guy nails it

Rule of Lords: Victory of Thailand's coup-makers

<H5 class=detailsubmit>Awzar Thi

05 September 2008

Pick to Post</H5>Hong Kong, China — Two years to the month since the army in Thailand launched its latest takeover of government, the proof of its success is in the mayhem and madness on the streets ofBangkok and the utter farce to which politics there has again descended.

On the one side is a prime minister who is as much an accident of history as a denier of it, a dinosaur politician who should by now have been extinct from public life, let alone leading it; a man who at times can hardly form a coherent sentence, let alone a coherent government.

He and the gaggle of Thaksinites that gathered around him in a rebranded party for last year’s ballot were at the time cast as saviors of the masses, come to take democracy back from the generals. They may have won the vote, but the army, which quietly shelved plans for its own candidates, had in the meantime moved the playing field.

On the other side is an alliance of people united in their hatred of the ousted prime minister, and increasingly, of anybody else connected to him; an alliance motivated to oppose the elected government’s plans to amend a Constitution that a military junta forced down the country’s throat.

It is also an alliance whose foremost demand on behalf of democracy is that it wants less of it, and that too at a time that the country already has less of it than it did before the army had its way in September 2006. Half of the 150 seats in the Senate are now appointees, and how many people know who they are or how they got there, let alone what they do?

That the whole parliamentary process is at its lowest ebb since the early 1990s is exactly what the generals and their backers intended. Although the coup was aimed at removing that manager and manipulator of party politics, Thaksin Shinawatra, and dismantling his network, he was just the embodiment of the main target: the party political system itself.

Why are the armed forces of Thailand, or rather, their leaders, so hostile to a working party-based system of elected government?

In part because Thailand had the fortune never to be colonized, it did not become a home to political movements of the sort that grew from the historic nationalist struggles in some of its neighbors. There was never a Congress Party or Freedom League to emerge along with new ideas about political process and participatory government.

Instead, successive military regimes forged their own brand of mass politics and took it upon themselves to organize and direct people toward the sort of tasks that might otherwise have been undertaken by political parties, shaping an image of modernity in their own likenesses.

After all that, the May 1992 fiasco was a big fall from grace for the army. It had failed to keep up with changing public sentiment. Its image of modernity was no longer that of millions of its compatriots. It had lost the plot.

In 1997 the new Constitution greatly enhanced the authority of civilian and independent bodies as against those of the old powerbrokers, and strengthened the hand of parliamentary government considerably.

Thaksin recognized the opportunities and took every one that he could get, at the expense of many lives and liberties. But he also did something that had not been done before, successfully building a party with widespread appeal that campaigned both on policy and on personality.

Contrast that with the old-style alliance that Samak Sundaravej cobbled together last year. When asked about policies, he said that they’d take care of them later. What policies his Thai Rak Thai-lookalike party had campaigned upon were in fact recycled from the former government. After that, it was just one cock-up after another.

Back in 2006 amid the blind euphoria at Thaksin’s demise, a few sane voices warned that the military coup would, first, wind the country’s political clock back to the 1980s, and second, not end turmoil and violence but only exacerbate both for years to come.

Unfortunately, both of those warnings have proven correct. Today Thailand is slipping toward the “half-sail” democracy of earlier decades. A triumvirate of soldiers and a policeman is running Bangkok. Whatever happens, the street battles and confused yelling from camp to camp are not going to end any time soon. Why should they? After all, they are the fruits of the coup-makers’ victory.

--

(Awzar Thi is the pen name of a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission with over 15 years of experience as an advocate of human rights and the rule of law in Thailand and Burma. His Rule of Lords blog can be read at http://ratchasima.net)