State Of Emergency Announced In Bangkok

[ace]

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. .....................................

EDIT: The edit is to point out to those who don't know, that The Economist is actually a fairly right-wing publication. So all the 'anti-commie' retired Sgt Roger A Smith types can put the helmet and ballpoint back under the desk..

Avid Economist reader - great article. Conclusion? Machiavellian?

[permanent_disorder]

Oh, and opportunist Catmac jumps in on this permanent-disorder mess saying the pictures are dodgy as well without proof.

You are a complete waste of time.

Have a good day.

I ll find the pics don't worry.

so where are the pics you are talking about? and where are the helmets you have seen?

continuously you came up with the most gross accusations and continuously you fail to deliver evidence.

reminds me of a certain square head, us-university educated. he also always cames up with lots of BS.

[Tony Clifton]

Oh, and opportunist Catmac jumps in on this permanent-disorder mess saying the pictures are dodgy as well without proof.

You are a complete waste of time.

Have a good day.

I ll find the pics don't worry.

so where are the pics you are talking about? and where are the helmets you have seen?

continuously you came up with the most gross accusations and continuously you fail to deliver evidence.

reminds me of a certain square head, us-university educated. he also always cames up with lots of BS.

Are you holding back a heavy morning dump standing on one leg in front of your pc or something?

What`s the hurry? My family needs me more than you do.

Meanwhile, keep posting your disgusting comments in topics where people were murdered by drunken slob policemen. As i said over there, you truly sound more and more like a paid poster trying to wipe the slate clean all over this forum.

[Plus]

LaoPo and Pumpui - where does it say that ANYONE would lose a right to vote under 30:70 system?

Blaze, the selection/appointment process is just a mechanism - like vote counting or checking candidates background. The candidates themselves will be a completely different breed of people.

Look at the possible downside in the worst case scenario - the union proposes three candidates, one is picked by "electoral college". It's still union's rerpesentative, not a wife of a crook who got banned for political fraud.

Realistically, the "electoral college" would choose someone with superior experience and track record, though he might not be as good at sweet talking as some other guy among the three. Thre's very little loss comparing to the present system.

[LaoPo]

LaoPo and Pumpui - where does it say that ANYONE would lose a right to vote under 30:70 system?

I answered you here Plus; didn't you read it ?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/State-Emerge...18#entry2208518

BTW, I can't recall that I said ANYONE.

LaoPo

[cmsally]

LaoPo and Pumpui - where does it say that ANYONE would lose a right to vote under 30:70 system?

Blaze, the selection/appointment process is just a mechanism - like vote counting or checking candidates background. The candidates themselves will be a completely different breed of people.

Look at the possible downside in the worst case scenario - the union proposes three candidates, one is picked by "electoral college". It's still union's rerpesentative, not a wife of a crook who got banned for political fraud.

Realistically, the "electoral college" would choose someone with superior experience and track record, though he might not be as good at sweet talking as some other guy among the three. Thre's very little loss comparing to the present system.

Realistically you can't expect representatives of an association, union, professional group to be better than direct election.

In reality it is not just the political system in terms of the electorate that is riddled with corruption. The bureaucracy and professional groups etc are too. You have to remember in tight knit groups the corruption can be far more entrenched and subtle. You are going to have a power group within that association that sets the agenda and a chosen representative is going to be a combination of controllable and pallatible or just the outright head of the power group, depending on characters involved . It will not be a case of the elected representative paying the members 500Bt per head etc for their vote.

The more likely scenario is the elected person and the power group will be splitting the gains of anything that comes their way as well as controlling upward and downward movement within their group.

What good will this do the general populace as a whole?

In a geographically assigned area, at least the representative has to go through the motions of providing for that area.

Whereas in an interest group, their path to election will be providing for their group members and juggling the power and benefits within that group. Where does the benefit for the ordinary people lay here?

The other danger you have is that whereas geographical areas are finite, interest groups are not.

In terms of how things work here; it would be interesting to say the least to see which groups are chosen and which left out.

The prospects for dissatisfaction regarding representation are huge, not to mention the creation of cliques and inbalance in the economy and budget allocation.

With infighting in progress in this scenario, you then have the average person with no veto power through their representative and the feeling of even greater disenfranchisement than you have at present. Those could be the conditions for a real revolution not just an upper class one. One wonders if your ordinary poor person from Nakhon Nowhere would be allowed to sit in government house for a couple of weeks making fun of the country's leaders.

[blaze]

LaoPo and Pumpui - where does it say that ANYONE would lose a right to vote under 30:70 system?

Blaze, the selection/appointment process is just a mechanism - like vote counting or checking candidates background. The candidates themselves will be a completely different breed of people.

Look at the possible downside in the worst case scenario - the union proposes three candidates, one is picked by "electoral college". It's still union's rerpesentative, not a wife of a crook who got banned for political fraud.

Realistically, the "electoral college" would choose someone with superior experience and track record, though he might not be as good at sweet talking as some other guy among the three. Thre's very little loss comparing to the present system.

Plus don't you understand the misgivings that many must feel when they hear the word 'appointed'. You seem to idealistically believe that those doing the appointing will choose candidates that best represent the feelings and aspiration of their sector- when in fact I think history would show that the final deciding criteria for appointments is the ideological overlap with those doing the appointment- in other words- they will appoint yes men and sycophants- because shared ideology will be the final determinant of suitability. Those appointed will have to be 'good people'- according to the definition of good held by the appointment committee.

That means that real power is still in the hands of those doing the appointing.

So then the question becomes- who appoints the appointment committees?

Who decides who is a 'good person' and who isn't- and based on what criteria?

If on the other hand the process is one of electing representatives from the various sectors- the system is not only still open to all the current abuses- but also to a real threat to the status quo- imagine that the workers and farmers elect people of a CHavez bent. How long would the establishment and the PAD for that matter- tolerate that? The communists were able to avoid the possibility of shit-disturbers being elected by prohibiting all but party members from standing for election. I think the Nazis and Italian Fascists did the same- party membership ensured shared social and political goals.

I'm sorry to bring up Nazi and Fascist and communist systems in this context but I know of no other analogous systems. And I try to look at this without the perjorative baggage that those systems carry- but simply as alternatives to the more widespread way that nations are governed.

[paulfromphuket]

People’s Alliance for a Special Thai Example of Democracy

<H5 class=detailsubmit>Harrison George

12 September 2008

Alien Thoughts</H5> The one thing they say about the People’s Alliance for Democracy is that their media campaign is brilliant.

Oh yeah?

For those of you who have neither the time nor stomach to trawl through the websites, I have selflessly and diligently stolen here a selection of comments on the PAD from foreign sources.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy proposes an audaciously undemocratic “new politics” whereby most members of parliament would be appointed. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva

The insurgents still style themselves as the “People’s Alliance for Democracy,” but this time some of their leaders are explicit in calling for just the opposite: the restoration of a full monarchy or a military-backed autocracy. Washington Post

What his [samak’s] opponents, who come under the misleading banner of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), want is a mandate on demand, by theft. Straits Times

Even though the PAD’s very name includes the word democracy, many of its supporters are skeptical of electoral politics. Time

Neither the PAD nor the DAAD advocate any recognisable form of democracy. Guardian

The rebel groups are trying to roll back the results of last December’s general elections and reinstall rule by an urban elite traditionally backed by the Thai armed forces. Irish Times

An alliance of street protesters and a reactionary elite. Financial Times

The latest ideologue [sondhi] who promises to fix their country’s democracy by -- once again -- breaking it. Wall Street Journal

What the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) did on August 26 … was a putsch. La Stampa

Authoritarian rabble … the woefully misnamed People’s Alliance for Democracy … a gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats. Economist

The PAD leadership is no collection of spotless democrats. The Independent (London)

The group’s name appears to be a misnomer as it is neither populist nor does it want representative democracy. Al-Jazeera

* * * * * * * * * * * *

So. A reactionary, putschist, autocratic, thieving, authoritarian, gruesome rabble of rebel ideologue insurgents. As a PR image, this can’t be that far from Al-Qaeda’s.

And all seem agreed that whatever they are after, it ain’t democracy.

Silly, silly farangs. (Well, not all farangs; you might note that the Straits Times and Al-Jazeera are in there.)

What these ignorant non-Thai commentators are completely failing to understand is that the D in PAD doesn’t refer to democracy as anyone else might know it. In fact they regularly denounce that kind of democracy as a ‘Western export’, injected into the purity of Thai society by seditious and misguided academics who have studied abroad, become infected, and surreptitiously spread the toxin into the Thai body politic.

No, what the PAD is after is a special, customized, made-for-Thailand style of democracy.

So how may this democracy differ from what the rest of the world understands by the term? There are a number of strands in the thinking about this.

One principle is that everyone has a vote and everyone in power is voted in. It’s not clear if the PAD buys into the second part of this. They’ve talked of 70% of representatives (or 50%, they’re prepared to negotiate) being appointed, or in some other way selected, to represent occupations and groups (like women and the disabled). And if you look at how the PAD operate, it seems that decisions are made at the top (by men), and the followers, well, follow. Representational democracy doesn’t really figure

Another principle is some form of safeguards to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. This doesn’t seem hopeful since the PAD has been called a tyranny of the minority. Low marks there, I’m afraid.

One of these safeguards would be a respect for human rights. Now the PAD bang on relentlessly about the right to freedom of assembly (regardless of where or how much anyone else in inconvenienced). But how about NBT’s right to freedom of speech? And they’ve got the unrepentant architect of the Krue Se massacre waiting in the wings. No, this doesn’t seem to figure.

The rule of law is normally somewhere in the mix. Everyone is equal before the law. Unless you’re a PAD leader facing a warrant, which you can blithely ignore. I mean, mob rule, which is what they’re pushing, is quite the opposite of the rule of law.

And how about just being civilized towards each other? Agreeing to disagree and all that, without slagging off on each other. I am told that inside the Government House encampment, folk do really well by each other. It’s what happens when you cross them that’s worrying. Fulminations and denunciations, often in a language that would make your mother blush. Disagreeing with someone who doesn’t stand for the Royal Anthem is fine; railing at them when they can’t easily exercise the right of reply is not so nice; printing their home address and phone number on your pet rag is just criminal.

So we’re talking about a democracy where voting may not be that important, where safeguards for minorities may not exist, where contempt for the rule of law is OK, where some human rights are respected for some, and where if you are considered to be on the wrong side of the ideological divide, you can expect to be vilified, demonized and threatened.

That is certainly a unique kind of democracy. So unique that I think the PAD deserves a name change to stop all this confusion about what ‘democracy’ means to them. How about the People’s Alliance for a Special Thai Example of Democracy? PASTED. I think that’s much clearer.

[permanent_disorder]

Oh, and opportunist Catmac jumps in on this permanent-disorder mess saying the pictures are dodgy as well without proof.

You are a complete waste of time.

Have a good day.

I ll find the pics don't worry.

so where are the pics you are talking about? and where are the helmets you have seen?

continuously you came up with the most gross accusations and continuously you fail to deliver evidence.

reminds me of a certain square head, us-university educated. he also always cames up with lots of BS.

Are you holding back a heavy morning dump standing on one leg in front of your pc or something?

What`s the hurry? My family needs me more than you do.

Meanwhile, keep posting your disgusting comments in topics where people were murdered by drunken slob policemen. As i said over there, you truly sound more and more like a paid poster trying to wipe the slate clean all over this forum.

a very low style phantasy you have. typical proPAD cultist style.

i am not paid. you just blabber your hate.

and you prove that you can't deliver any evidence.

look here at 0:44++

and tell what you call this.

[pumpuiman]

People’s Alliance for a Special Thai Example of Democracy

<H5 class=detailsubmit>Harrison George

12 September 2008

Alien Thoughts</H5> The one thing they say about the People’s Alliance for Democracy is that their media campaign is brilliant.

Oh yeah?

For those of you who have neither the time nor stomach to trawl through the websites, I have selflessly and diligently stolen here a selection of comments on the PAD from foreign sources.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy proposes an audaciously undemocratic “new politics” whereby most members of parliament would be appointed. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva

The insurgents still style themselves as the “People’s Alliance for Democracy,” but this time some of their leaders are explicit in calling for just the opposite: the restoration of a full monarchy or a military-backed autocracy. Washington Post

What his [samak’s] opponents, who come under the misleading banner of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), want is a mandate on demand, by theft. Straits Times

Even though the PAD’s very name includes the word democracy, many of its supporters are skeptical of electoral politics. Time

Neither the PAD nor the DAAD advocate any recognisable form of democracy. Guardian

The rebel groups are trying to roll back the results of last December’s general elections and reinstall rule by an urban elite traditionally backed by the Thai armed forces. Irish Times

An alliance of street protesters and a reactionary elite. Financial Times

The latest ideologue [sondhi] who promises to fix their country’s democracy by -- once again -- breaking it. Wall Street Journal

What the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) did on August 26 … was a putsch. La Stampa

Authoritarian rabble … the woefully misnamed People’s Alliance for Democracy … a gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats. Economist

The PAD leadership is no collection of spotless democrats. The Independent (London)

The group’s name appears to be a misnomer as it is neither populist nor does it want representative democracy. Al-Jazeera

* * * * * * * * * * * *

So. A reactionary, putschist, autocratic, thieving, authoritarian, gruesome rabble of rebel ideologue insurgents. As a PR image, this can’t be that far from Al-Qaeda’s.

And all seem agreed that whatever they are after, it ain’t democracy.

Silly, silly farangs. (Well, not all farangs; you might note that the Straits Times and Al-Jazeera are in there.)

What these ignorant non-Thai commentators are completely failing to understand is that the D in PAD doesn’t refer to democracy as anyone else might know it. In fact they regularly denounce that kind of democracy as a ‘Western export’, injected into the purity of Thai society by seditious and misguided academics who have studied abroad, become infected, and surreptitiously spread the toxin into the Thai body politic.

No, what the PAD is after is a special, customized, made-for-Thailand style of democracy.

So how may this democracy differ from what the rest of the world understands by the term? There are a number of strands in the thinking about this.

One principle is that everyone has a vote and everyone in power is voted in. It’s not clear if the PAD buys into the second part of this. They’ve talked of 70% of representatives (or 50%, they’re prepared to negotiate) being appointed, or in some other way selected, to represent occupations and groups (like women and the disabled). And if you look at how the PAD operate, it seems that decisions are made at the top (by men), and the followers, well, follow. Representational democracy doesn’t really figure

Another principle is some form of safeguards to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. This doesn’t seem hopeful since the PAD has been called a tyranny of the minority. Low marks there, I’m afraid.

One of these safeguards would be a respect for human rights. Now the PAD bang on relentlessly about the right to freedom of assembly (regardless of where or how much anyone else in inconvenienced). But how about NBT’s right to freedom of speech? And they’ve got the unrepentant architect of the Krue Se massacre waiting in the wings. No, this doesn’t seem to figure.

The rule of law is normally somewhere in the mix. Everyone is equal before the law. Unless you’re a PAD leader facing a warrant, which you can blithely ignore. I mean, mob rule, which is what they’re pushing, is quite the opposite of the rule of law.

And how about just being civilized towards each other? Agreeing to disagree and all that, without slagging off on each other. I am told that inside the Government House encampment, folk do really well by each other. It’s what happens when you cross them that’s worrying. Fulminations and denunciations, often in a language that would make your mother blush. Disagreeing with someone who doesn’t stand for the Royal Anthem is fine; railing at them when they can’t easily exercise the right of reply is not so nice; printing their home address and phone number on your pet rag is just criminal.

So we’re talking about a democracy where voting may not be that important, where safeguards for minorities may not exist, where contempt for the rule of law is OK, where some human rights are respected for some, and where if you are considered to be on the wrong side of the ideological divide, you can expect to be vilified, demonized and threatened.

That is certainly a unique kind of democracy. So unique that I think the PAD deserves a name change to stop all this confusion about what ‘democracy’ means to them. How about the People’s Alliance for a Special Thai Example of Democracy? PASTED. I think that’s much clearer.

Thank you for a great post.

[Plus]

LaoPo and Pumpui - where does it say that ANYONE would lose a right to vote under 30:70 system?

I answered you here Plus; didn't you read it ?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/State-Emerge...18#entry2208518

Yes, I've read it. Nowhere does it say that anyone would lose a right to vote. You and many other keep saying that farmers would lose that right. Where's the evidence of that?

Plus don't you understand the misgivings that many must feel when they hear the word 'appointed'. You seem to idealistically believe that those doing the appointing will choose candidates that best represent the feelings and aspiration of their sector- when in fact I think history would show that the final deciding criteria for appointments is the ideological overlap with those doing the appointment

Thais have used this system for ages when dealing with selection of variouas committees. There are both good and bad examples, but the bottome line still stands - each one of the finally selected members is a qualified professional, not someone's third cousin.

Political interference is greatly reduced by design and can it be kept under control if the mechanism is set properly, like the appointing commitee has no say in selection of original candidates - something the Finance Ministry did with the recent monetary boards.

Realistically you can't expect representatives of an association, union, professional group to be better than direct election.

Since their own well being will directly depend on their representatives, they will surely vote for someone REALLY representing their interests.

"Direct elections", if you mean georgraphical constituencies, end up representing nobody but the sponsors who invest a great deal in elections to protect their interests. Maybe it's different elsewhere, but here, in Thailand, one phone call from a main sponsor in Lodon has all the decision making power, not the MPs, and certainly not the people.

There's also a basic incompatibility here - say we get a group of Isan MPs representing their region, but what they do in parlament has absolutely NOTHING to do with Isan. There's no Isan Ministry, there are no Isan bills to delibirate.

What they come to Bangkok for is to take funds back home, and they don't need to be MPs for that, and they don't need to beg party bosses for that either.

It would make more sense if bills and laws affecting particular industries are delibirated by industry representatives, not local MPs who have no interests in them whatsoever and would join any group that promises more funds to take back to their regions.

[hammered]

Local government needs strengthening and giving more independence from Bangkok. There should. also only be a single layer and not the current multi layer of headmen and kamnan and also TAO. Governors should be elected and not selected by Bangkok and then enthralled to Bangkok government. That way each province could have a limited autonomy in carrrying out local iniitatives. Also local taxation could be levied rather than relying on central government handouts maybe with a decrease in national taxation so as not to increase the tax burden unnessarily. Local tax raising would give indepenedence from Bangkok but it can only really come to any real degree with elected representation.

Then you could move to a proportional representation system for national government which would address many of the PAD concerns and would also be a more democratic system so the PPP would no doubt support it! Having a ministry for each region may also be a good idea.

Checks and balances should be strengthened at local and national levels too.

Anyway it is not 70-30 or elections with no checks and balances but just an idea of how things could be different within a democratic framework. In fact far more democratic than anything now or in the past.

[Plus]

How about half "selected" Senate, proportional vote for Lower House, and local government for local MPs?

That way everybody get something - the parties, the interest groups, and even the feudal lords, and people get to choose their representatives on three levels - local, national government, and the senate (half according to their occupation/social group, half for non-partisan locals).

Ministry for Isan is out of the question, really. They have regional offices under each ministry already.

[Meerkat]

Cmsally's excellent post above shows some of the weaknesses inherent with special interest group/professional election (and remember that Sondhi doesn't even want that; he wants selection). Hong Kong is often cited as a potential model for a Functional Constituency based system. In the 2004 LegCo elections there, 11 out of 30 of the FC seats were won unopposed. This has now risen in last week's elections to 14 seats. Almost 50% of the FC seats, or 25% of total Legislative seats, offer voters no choice. Why? Because the real elections (for lack of a better word) are done in back-room deals between the sector hierarchy without bothering to go to their members for their views. No wonder the majority of HK people want the system gone.

Ireland has a similar system of sorts, but only for the Senate which has little power compared to the Lower House. I know little of how it works compared to the HK system, but according to wiki (yes not a great source I know) it is accused of pandering to the government of the day and there are allegations of patronage.

If the people really want some system of FC-styled representatives (and note - if the people want it, not just if PAD want it), surely the place to put them would be in lieu of the selected Senators. They are currently appointed by only seven judges (who themselves are affirmed by the same Senate). Wouldn't it be better to replace them with more representative people (assuming that a fully elected Senate is out of the question)?

[cmsally]

Thais have used this system for ages when dealing with selection of variouas committees. There are both good and bad examples, but the bottome line still stands - each one of the finally selected members is a qualified professional, not someone's third cousin.

Political interference is greatly reduced by design and can it be kept under control if the mechanism is set properly, like the appointing commitee has no say in selection of original candidates - something the Finance Ministry did with the recent monetary boards.

These various committees and associations tend to evolve over time as being a self serving system of patronage and alliances.

An appointing committee may have no official say in the selection of candidates, but I am sure they would have no trouble in making their wishes known at the golf course etc.

You are essentially taking the same system as it stands today and cutting out the general population from the general equation. It would just mean that the pool of cash is spread out over a smaller amount of people, which I think is the general idea.

As for saying that the elected/selected system (New P) would not be taking away people's votes. As I understand it they would still get a vote but the directly elected MP's would be without a power for veto, power for dissolution of the house and I am sure many other things. (I am not sure of the exact percentages needed for these, so someone please fill in)

So essentially you are giving people a token vote "the old feel good factor" but that vote has no power.

They are counting on the fact that many people don't have enough brain cells to notice.

[hammered]

How about half "selected" Senate, proportional vote for Lower House, and local government for local MPs?

That way everybody get something - the parties, the interest groups, and even the feudal lords, and people get to choose their representatives on three levels - local, national government, and the senate (half according to their occupation/social group, half for non-partisan locals).

Ministry for Isan is out of the question, really. They have regional offices under each ministry already.

Sounds reasonable. Certainly bettree than 30-70 or the elections with no checks and balances

[Plus]

Power of veto by elected part of parlament can be written in the Consitution.

>>>

Sweet back room deals are expected when selection process for seven member NTC drags on for years.

Try that with several hundred people on the EC (electoral commission) selecting hundreds of seats in space of a few months and it becomes impossible.

As I said - the "selection" process itslef is not the problem, it can be managed, and as long as candidates themselves are top quality the final choice doesn't really matter.

How to prevent certain small groups within these fuctional constituences from getting a monopoly on the process?

I don't think it's the right question - the system should be set in a way that everybody does what he is supposed to do. The social group representatives should be social group representatives - they have to share the goals and aspirations of the whole group and work for the whole group benefits.

Big businesses will surely want to have more influence to expand themselves, but what if a candidate should get 70-80% approval to be nominated - so that not one company can ram its choice through and be seen by others as a bully?

What's the worst that can happen anyway - even winning over seat allocation of one particular group doesn't guarantee smooth sailing in the whole House/Senate - it's still only one-two seats out of 500.

It also bring fairer competition to the process - you have to slug it out with your peers and win their endorsement. Under the current system the battles between business interests are fought out somwhere on the platoes of Isan, i.e. Thaksin wins there and proceedes to bend the laws in favour of his company.

[kurtgruen]

Good afternoon everyone

Just found this...

Jatuporn says House may be dissolved

People Power Party MP Jatuporn Promphan said Friday that the House might be dissolved if the choice of the next prime minister could not be agreed upon.

Jatuporn said he considered that the five coalition partners showed their friendly gesture to the PPP after seeing that PPP MPs could not agree among themselves on the choice of the next PM.

"If no agreement could be reached, we may have to return the ruling mandate to the people by dissolving the House," Jatuporn said.

The Nation

I would sure like to see the house disolved, new elections scheduled, in which parties, maybe this time, could say what they really stand for. (Sadly, they would probably just deceive the voters again, like they did last time)

At least, people who voted for parties, who joined the PPP coalition, had their eyes opened since the election. Hopefully, they won't fall for the same scam again next time. (but they probably will)

Like I said many times in these forums already, I would like to see fair elections, with Scrutineers from every party at every polling station, to ensure the process (at least at polling stations) remains fair and honest. I would like to see international observers (which probably won't happen, because of so much concern over loosing one's face in Thailand).

(In the West, we have a saying..."You can't save your face and your A$$ at the same time")

and I would like to see a system set up, where citizens can report voting irregularities, without fearing for their lives or the lives and well being of their families. (Sadly, this probalby won't happen anytime soon, either)

Regardless, the above it what I would like to see and what I call real democracy. Thailand has not had democracy and it won't have in the future, unless things change drastically.

This is an opportunity for Thailand to move ahead and to put an end to vote buying and Election corruption. The courts, with the help of the PAD, who put pressure on the current government not to amend the Constitiution, are moving in the right direction.

If it was not for the continuing pressure of the PAD, by now, the PPP would probably have found a way to amend the Constitution (probably even retroactively), in order to save their own butts (to keep themselves and their allies from being disolved for vote buying and election fraught) and the butt of their buddy Thaksin.

Like it or not, the PAD and the courts, at the moment are our best bet, to clean up Government.

[hammered]

Good afternoon everyone

Just found this...

Jatuporn says House may be dissolved

People Power Party MP Jatuporn Promphan said Friday that the House might be dissolved if the choice of the next prime minister could not be agreed upon.

Jatuporn said he considered that the five coalition partners showed their friendly gesture to the PPP after seeing that PPP MPs could not agree among themselves on the choice of the next PM.

"If no agreement could be reached, we may have to return the ruling mandate to the people by dissolving the House," Jatuporn said.

The Nation

I would sure like to see the house disolved, new elections scheduled, in which parties, maybe this time, could say what they really stand for. (Sadly, they would probably just deceive the voters again, like they did last time)

At least, people who voted for parties, who joined the PPP coalition, had their eyes opened since the election. Hopefully, they won't fall for the same scam again next time. (but they probably will)

Like I said many times in these forums already, I would like to see fair elections, with Scrutineers from every party at every polling station, to ensure the process (at least at polling stations) remains fair and honest. I would like to see international observers (which probably won't happen, because of so much concern over loosing one's face in Thailand).

(In the West, we have a saying..."You can't save your face and your A$$ at the same time")

and I would like to see a system set up, where citizens can report voting irregularities, without fearing for their lives or the lives and well being of their families. (Sadly, this probalby won't happen anytime soon, either)

Regardless, the above it what I would like to see and what I call real democracy. Thailand has not had democracy and it won't have in the future, unless things change drastically.

This is an opportunity for Thailand to move ahead and to put an end to vote buying and Election corruption. The courts, with the help of the PAD, who put pressure on the current government not to amend the Constitiution, are moving in the right direction.

If it was not for the continuing pressure of the PAD, by now, the PPP would probably have found a way to amend the Constitution (probably even retroactively), in order to save their own butts (to keep themselves and their allies from being disolved for vote buying and election fraught) and the butt of their buddy Thaksin.

Like it or not, the PAD and the courts, at the moment are our best bet, to clean up Government.

This point is interesting. It is an opinion held by many in non-PPP areas and creates conditions under which new politics could come to the fore. There are a lot of people who think that the parliamentary system would not have prevented Thaksin from freeing himself without recourse to court through his proxy party. That it took the PAD to stop this and that the PPP networks will ensure another parliamentary victory has given pause for thought among a lot of people that the system should be reformed to be more limited. That this opionion is growing in Bangkok and surrounds means we could actually get new politics. However, it is up to the government and parliamnet. If they start to be seen as being less confrontational any swell of support for new politcs could still go down. As PPP is Thaksin's party and he nees to change the constitution to get his money and avoid court though it is unlikely confrontation will go down. The irony is that Thaksins desire to win and free himself and release his money nay create the very conditions in which new politcs comes about.

Just for the record I am not advocating new politics nor supporting the PAD but just trying to point out and analyse developments.

[sriracha john]

Literally... an astounding 2,500 posts... and 10 days ago...

Emergency may be lifted in a few days after problems solved: Samak

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said he made the decision with caution to announce the state of emergency and would try to end the problems in a few days.

-- The Nation 2008-09-02

the definition of "a few days" is in doubt...

Somchai says he will make decision on emergency lifting in a few days

Caretaker Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat said Friday that he would need a few days before making a decision whether to lift the state of emergency in Bangkok.

Somchai said he would have to consult government agencies concerned first.

Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda on Thursday called on Somchai to lift the state of emergency.

-- The Nation 2008-09-12

[ubonjoe]

Samak withdraws his bid to become prime minister

Power People Party's leader Samak Sundaravej has decided to end his bid to become prime minister, a PPP MP said Friday.

Somsak Kietsuranont, also PPP executive member, said that now it is understood that Samak who is disqualified for violating charter, has decided not to accept his party's nomination for him to be prime minister again

[h90]

Literally... an astounding 2,500 posts... and 10 days ago...

Emergency may be lifted in a few days after problems solved: Samak

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said he made the decision with caution to announce the state of emergency and would try to end the problems in a few days.

-- The Nation 2008-09-02

the definition of "a few days" is in doubt...

Somchai says he will make decision on emergency lifting in a few days

Caretaker Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat said Friday that he would need a few days before making a decision whether to lift the state of emergency in Bangkok.

Somchai said he would have to consult government agencies concerned first.

Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda on Thursday called on Somchai to lift the state of emergency.

-- The Nation 2008-09-12

he had no other choice!! He tried 3 times to call the real boss, but he didn't hear the phone, so he need to wait a bit longer for orders.

You know the time difference to London.....And I wouldn't want to be the first one who call him after the last few days.....better wait.

[h90]

Samak withdraws his bid to become prime minister

By Piyanart Srivalo

The Nation

Samak Sundaravej, leader of People Power Party, expected to resign from the party soon. : source

PPP leader Samak Sundaravej has decided to end his bid to become prime minister after witnessing the parliament session on Friday which saw many MPs disagreed with his nomination to be prime minister.

Somsak Kietsuranont, PPP executive member, said that now it is understood that Samak who is disqualified for violating charter earlier this week, has decided not to accept his party's nomination for him to be prime minister again.

"It is understood that Khun Samak will no longer want to be reinstate as prime minister again after the Parliamentary session on Friday morning," Somsak said.

Meanwhile a well-informed source in the PPP said that Samak is highly likely that Samak will resign from the party in the near future.

House speaker Chai Chidchob postponed the meeting on Friday morning after failing to meet the quorum of the House seats.

Most of the coalition parties as well as part of his own PPP boycotted the session, citing Samak should not be reinstated as the premiership again.

end quote

what does this mean?

[Artisi]

what does this mean?

It means hurrah hurrah - another corrupt politician out of the way.

[ubonjoe]

Samak to resign as party leader: source

Samak Sundaravej plans to resign as the People Power Party leader and will not accept his nomination as the next prime minister, a source close to him said Friday.

The Nation

[h90]

what does this mean?

It means hurrah hurrah - another corrupt politician out of the way.

Yes I understand that.....but what exaclty? He resign as party member? or as MP or just that he is silent for 2 weeks?

My wife and I would democratic elect him as our new cook if he needs a job.

[ubonjoe]

what does this mean?

It means hurrah hurrah - another corrupt politician out of the way.

Yes I understand that.....but what exaclty? He resign as party member? or as MP or just that he is silent for 2 weeks?

My wife and I would democratic elect him as our new cook if he needs a job.

I think they left out he words party leader.

I am glad he is dropping out. I think it's the best for Thailand. Also my wife a staunch supporter of PPP agrees.

[h90]

what does this mean?

It means hurrah hurrah - another corrupt politician out of the way.

Yes I understand that.....but what exaclty? He resign as party member? or as MP or just that he is silent for 2 weeks?

My wife and I would democratic elect him as our new cook if he needs a job.

I think they left out he words party leader.

I am glad he is dropping out. I thinks it's the best for Thailand. Also my wife a staunch supporter of PPP agrees.

yes that is most probable, as other news tells that he resign as "party leader"

if he would have done it 1 week earlier, he would be a hero who sacrifice himself for the country.....No he looks like an old idi*t.

[LaoPo]

LaoPo and Pumpui - where does it say that ANYONE would lose a right to vote under 30:70 system?

I answered you here Plus; didn't you read it ?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/State-Emerge...18#entry2208518

Yes, I've read it. Nowhere does it say that anyone would lose a right to vote. You and many other keep saying that farmers would lose that right. Where's the evidence of that?

Didn't Sondhi say that the rural poor were not educated enough to understand what and why they were voting for, or words of the same understanding ?

Meaning he doesn't want them to vote anymore...TAKE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE AWAY !

I have said before that a more dramatic insult towards the people of Thailand is unthinkable; do you know an even better insult ?

Where is the evidence of that ? OK, read here:

"They (the key PAD leaders, in particular Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuanghave) now refined their argument to propose rural voters in Thailand are too poorly educated to be allowed to elect a parliament, and that it should be a largely appointed body instead."

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584369.stm

The article was written August 27th and it's now September 12th; that's some 2 weeks apart.

In the meantime I have heard so much bull, it's unbelievable.

Another poster told me that the 70:30 new politics -suggestions- (yeah right...) from Sondhi was abandoned AGES AGO. I asked when and where with a link....NO ANSWER.

Let me repeat it once more:

I do NOT believe Sondhi because he has been lying many times and I think this is a very dangerous man for the future of Thailand.

Sondhi Limthongkul wants to take away a very painful struggling but slowly growing democracy and put a totalitarian governance system in place instead.

And you support such a man ? He's doing all this out of hate, self-pity and frustration because his one time Imperium was brought down in 1997 as a so called:

"SONDHI LIMTHONGKUL: Debt-ridden payment avoider" written by The Nation, 11 September 2000. If you wish I can send you a PM with the whole article (but I posted it already here on TV).

Edit:

some more "food for thought":

Sirote Klampaiboon: A critique of the 30:70 idea. The People’s Alliance for Democracy alternative will not give the people more power.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=694

LaoPo

[sriracha john]

A group of expatriates from Florida working in Thailand visit anti-government demonstrators barricaded inside the Government House compound in Bangkok on September 12, 2008. The leader of Thailand's ruling party, Samak Sundaravej, has withdrawn from next week's parliamentary vote for a new prime minister, a close aide to the former premier said on Friday.

REUTERS