Samak Will Announce Resignation Thursday Morning?

[visionquesthai]

I just told the wife about this "news", and she asks why it is not being reported on TV? Then I log on to here and see it is merely a rumor. Passing on rumors this way is not very helpful, in my estimation, anyone can dream up stuff like that. Let's see what happens tomorrow, huh?

I totally agree. I think it is very irresponsible! Especially in such volitile times.

[IAmMarchHare]

The coalition parties had 5 conditions they said they would respect upon joining the PPP.

Once they joined, all 5 conditions vanished in a flash.

Yeah, how unlike politicians to break their promises.

It still doesn't invalidate the process that got them there, however. What Thailand does not seem to have is an accepted legal way to remove unpopular politicians, such as impeachment.

[h90]

H90 - crack heads, euphemism for clamp down, however I doubt you would understand smth as subtle as that.

Use other euphemism which are not about killing people. Specially in regard of 1976 and 1992 were they "cracked heads".

[h90]

The coalition parties had 5 conditions they said they would respect upon joining the PPP.

Once they joined, all 5 conditions vanished in a flash.

Yeah, how unlike politicians to break their promises.

It still doesn't invalidate the process that got them there, however. What Thailand does not seem to have is an accepted legal way to remove unpopular politicians, such as impeachment.

Actually it would just need small adjustments: the laws for vote buying are OK but it shouldn't need years to dissolve parties.

Somehow it should be prevent that if a party is dissolved it can run immediately under a different name again.

[IAmMarchHare]

For the 775th time, massive vote buying, therefore PPP and the coalition partners are on the way to get dissolved. Vote buying is no valid form of democracy.

I believe you are confusing valid with ethical or legal. People normally vote for what they can get and/or someone who will substantiate what they believe. Sometimes it is subtle, like raising the minimum wage. Sometimes it is blatant. While I don't agree that it is a Good Thing to accept money for your vote, the fact is that all of the parties do it, and the fact is that if all of them that did it were dissolved, there would be no one left. Unethical? OK. Illegal? I guess that is why red cards are being handed out. Invalid? Not necessarily. TIT, and that is the practice.

[IAmMarchHare]

The coalition parties had 5 conditions they said they would respect upon joining the PPP.

Once they joined, all 5 conditions vanished in a flash.

Yeah, how unlike politicians to break their promises.

It still doesn't invalidate the process that got them there, however. What Thailand does not seem to have is an accepted legal way to remove unpopular politicians, such as impeachment.

Actually it would just need small adjustments: the laws for vote buying are OK but it shouldn't need years to dissolve parties.

Somehow it should be prevent that if a party is dissolved it can run immediately under a different name again.

Unfortunately, easier said than done. So, here we are.

[Soontorn]

Oh Dear, Its Not Final Yet

Posted by Thanong , Reader "The Nation"

Samak Sundaravej, the prime minister, felt sorry that he had disappointed several people. He would not resign, nor would he dissolve Parliament.

It is all his trick. He has no intention whatsoever to step down.

Yesterday there were rumours that he would go on Radio of Thailand at 7:30 AM today to announce his resignation. It was unusual for the prime minister to book a radio programme of the Public Relations of Thailand at that early hour of Thursday because he could always speak wherever he would like to. An army of media and reporters have been following his trails wherever he goes.

Besides, Samak has his own weekly TV and radio talk show, Conversation in the Style of Samak, on Sunday broadcast through NBT and Radio of Thailand.

In his radio address this morning, Samak repeated his determination to stay on as prime minister and defend democracy till the end. Nobody could apply pressure on him. This time around he tried to use a more amiable tone to calm the nerve of his audience.

Sorry, I have disappointed you all.

Samak outlined the similar reason of his decision to stay on that he gave on Sunday at the joint session of the Senate and Parliament, where no resolution was reached over how the lawmakers would deal with the political crises.

Known as the Great Communicator, Samak did not want to use the TV to convey his message this time. He would like to reach a broader mass of the Thais living in the countryside. Radio serves him as a better medium. He spoke with easy language to appeal to the rural mass, hoping to rally for their support of his premiership and his administration.

In the afternoon, he also went on a radio talk show hosted by Weera Thiraphat. Again, the prime minister hoped to reach his grass-roots audience, including the taxi-drivers and common people.

Weera is a famous radio host, known for his hard-hitting comment and analysis. (You get a slap in the face if you phone into his programme and ask a stupid question.)

Samak plans to speak directly to his audience via 140 radio stations nationwide. He will be handling his own propaganda war.

In between his Cabinet, which met at an army headquarters because the Government House had been hijacked, approved to resolve the political crisis by holding a national referendum.

Somsak Prisnananthakul, the deputy leader of the Chat Thai Party, proposed this idea to the Cabinet meeting. The old politician like Banharn Silapa-archa would never lose his shine. Chat Thai wants to hang on to this sinking ship to the last minute. The party has not begun yet.

It is part of a delaying tactic. To start with, it is funny that the Samak Cabinet plans to launch a referendum on whether the Thais still prefers the Samak government to continue to run the country; or on between the People's Alliance for Democracy and the Samak Government, which side the Thais take.

A referendum is only introduced on very hard and serious issue that critically determines the future of the country, such as approval or disapproval of a new constitution, joining or not joining the Single Asian Currency. No country in this world introduces a referendum on an unregistered movement like the PAD or on a simple question of whether you like this government or not.

Anyway, it serves to show the whole world that Samak is sticking to the democratic principles against the mob rule at the Government House.

In the meantime, Samak said the protesters can continue to occupy the Government House until the referendum is finished. He would like the Council of the State, the legal advisory body of the administration, to consider the possibility of the referendum.

The referendum law, which has passed the House of Representatives, is now in the Senate process. The Senate will have to pass the law within 90 days. So when will the referendum ever get started?

But more importantly, Samak's lip service on the referendum is an answer to Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda, Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrat leader, and the public at large for him to resolve the political crises via Parliament.

If you want Parliament to solve this issue, so be it. Let's have a referendum.

In the meantime, Bangkok is going through the State of Emergency for the third day, without any incidents but with growing signs of state failure. Thailand's credit is plummeting.

[Soontorn]

[stuandchris]

Have to agree with Ironhut, this thread has become a farce, I have now learnt that falangs here can't see the difference between the US [mainly] and Europe [minority] and the others that are so entrenched into the [Thai] way that constructive debate is a waste of time.

I hoped this forum would give reasoned debate and information, whilst we all disagree with each other, slagging each other off and flaming lends weight to the Thai problem that there is no solution.

Think about it.

[thaigene2]

Yep the idea of one person one vote is lost in the eather-heads..

[h90]

For the 775th time, massive vote buying, therefore PPP and the coalition partners are on the way to get dissolved. Vote buying is no valid form of democracy.

I believe you are confusing valid with ethical or legal. People normally vote for what they can get and/or someone who will substantiate what they believe. Sometimes it is subtle, like raising the minimum wage. Sometimes it is blatant. While I don't agree that it is a Good Thing to accept money for your vote, the fact is that all of the parties do it, and the fact is that if all of them that did it were dissolved, there would be no one left. Unethical? OK. Illegal? I guess that is why red cards are being handed out. Invalid? Not necessarily. TIT, and that is the practice.

Not all do it, at the democrats are just minor cases. And no mater who is doing it there should go to the court, and if all parties need to get dissolved than so shall it be, the next parties (not that Thailand does not has enough parties) will be more carefully.

the problem of a vacuum will be just a short time.

[RadioCityMike]

The coalition parties had 5 conditions they said they would respect upon joining the PPP.

Once they joined, all 5 conditions vanished in a flash.

Yeah, how unlike politicians to break their promises.

It still doesn't invalidate the process that got them there, however. What Thailand does not seem to have is an accepted legal way to remove unpopular politicians, such as impeachment.

Actually it would just need small adjustments: the laws for vote buying are OK but it shouldn't need years to dissolve parties.

Somehow it should be prevent that if a party is dissolved it can run immediately under a different name again.

Unfortunately, easier said than done. So, here we are.

Yes, not easy. However there seems to be more exposure and more objecton to election corruption then ever before. If the 30-50,000 PAD members agreed to man the voting sites to document and report on sites not following the proper procedures, they would accomplish so much more then their negative tactics. However, I think that would never happen because the populist party would still be elected and PAD would need to find another excuse to oppose the elected party.

[h90]

Have to agree with Ironhut, this thread has become a farce, I have now learnt that falangs here can't see the difference between the US [mainly] and Europe [minority] and the others that are so entrenched into the [Thai] way that constructive debate is a waste of time.

I hoped this forum would give reasoned debate and information, whilst we all disagree with each other, slagging each other off and flaming lends weight to the Thai problem that there is no solution.

Think about it.

I agree! No news anymore, no discussion, just flaming.....

Maybe all no matter what opinion should step a bit back and increase quality

[RadioCityMike]

For the 775th time, massive vote buying, therefore PPP and the coalition partners are on the way to get dissolved. Vote buying is no valid form of democracy.

I believe you are confusing valid with ethical or legal. People normally vote for what they can get and/or someone who will substantiate what they believe. Sometimes it is subtle, like raising the minimum wage. Sometimes it is blatant. While I don't agree that it is a Good Thing to accept money for your vote, the fact is that all of the parties do it, and the fact is that if all of them that did it were dissolved, there would be no one left. Unethical? OK. Illegal? I guess that is why red cards are being handed out. Invalid? Not necessarily. TIT, and that is the practice.

Not all do it, at the democrats are just minor cases. And no mater who is doing it there should go to the court, and if all parties need to get dissolved than so shall it be, the next parties (not that Thailand does not has enough parties) will be more carefully.

the problem of a vacuum will be just a short time.

However, if someone benefited from Thailand not having an elected government, one tactic might be to outlaw all political parties by setting voting standards that were unreasonable. There are many ways to disrupt young democracies. Easy to break, difficult to build.

[IAmMarchHare]

PAD proposing to change one article in the Constutution to find a legal way out of a stalemate situation. Samak wants to alter the laws to save his ass from prosecution. Don't you see the difference?

--[snip]--

Yes, the first is blackmail, and the second is fraud. Next question...

[IAmMarchHare]

...

For me PAD have lost all credibility unless maybe you are on some mind altering substance. It looks more like he croquet game in Alice in Wonderland where the hoops and balls etc change by the minute just so she (the character - I think it was a queen or duchess) wins.

The Queen of Hearts (if anyone cares)

[KhunG]

It's unfortunate since the site used to be much more dependable regarding occurrences within BKK and surroundings. Many of the posts now prefer to bashing of Bush/Americans, Europeans, Thai government affairs, etc. and likely written by misfits...instead of providing valued information concerning BKK, Thailand, and environs.

+1

[Tony Clifton]

H90 - crack heads, euphemism for clamp down, however I doubt you would understand smth as subtle as that.

Your euphemisms have no bounds.

Even more subtle in poor dead people`s topics for family and friends to read.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=2034383

Edited September 4, 2008 by Tony Clifton

[Plus]

PAD proposing to change one article in the Constutution to find a legal way out of a stalemate situation. Samak wants to alter the laws to save his ass from prosecution. Don't you see the difference?

--[snip]--

Yes, the first is blackmail, and the second is fraud. Next question...

So Sondhi goes to the media and proposes a legal way out of a situation, and you call it "blackmail".

He also proposed an interim government by PPP commited to political reform, is it also a blackmail?

Samak has to go simply for losing control and credibility, it doesn't even matter whether PAD is right/wrong/popular/unpopular - it's gone too far for Samak to stay. Let someone else sort out this mess.

[Tony Clifton]

PAD proposing to change one article in the Constutution to find a legal way out of a stalemate situation. Samak wants to alter the laws to save his ass from prosecution. Don't you see the difference?

--[snip]--

Yes, the first is blackmail, and the second is fraud. Next question...

So Sondhi goes to the media and proposes a legal way out of a situation, and you call it "blackmail".

He also proposed an interim government by PPP commited to political reform, is it also a blackmail?

Samak has to go simply for losing control and credibility, it doesn't even matter whether PAD is right/wrong/popular/unpopular - it's gone too far for Samak to stay. Let someone else sort out this mess.

Is there anyone left on that side of the fence who is NOT a criminal litigant AND who truly earned a valid university degree?

Edited September 5, 2008 by Tony Clifton

[aussimike]

ER

To explain this to the "Upcountry Folks" you would need to develop a "Rather Specil Programme"

thinking like a typical so called educated and elite thai - just like the ones at the PM office right now - have u paid your PAD subscription this year --- HAVE A READ OF THIS - HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD --

BURNING ISSUE

PM's future trivial given huge philosophical differences

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Published on September 5, 2008

It should be clear to even a casual follower of the political crisis that neither the resignation of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej nor the dissolution of Parliament will put an end to the deadlock. And a proposed referendum on whether the premier should stay or resign would likely be rejected by the anti-government protesters.

Meanwhile, the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) appears determined to establish nothing less than their so-called "New Politics", but with a fresh general election, the ruling People Power Party (PPP) appears likely to gain the most votes and form a government yet again.

PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul may have given a huge discount, as quoted by the Bangkok Post yesterday, when he said that perhaps the PAD's original 70:30 ratio proposal - wherein 70 per cent of the members of Parliament should be appointed and 30 per cent elected - could be reduced to 50:50, to make it more palatable.

A generous concession it may be, but this kind of New Politics would still automatically reduce every citizen's right to elect their own representatives by half.

Should the rural and urban poor, who form the largest block of voters, be returned to feudal times and be made to accept rule by a small group of self-righteous and supposedly benign rulers - leaders that would be appointed by an even a smaller group of "benign" elite? Would a majority of voters really accept, let alone learn to be content with, such a system?

If the PAD advocates this rule by the few - which could easily degenerate into rule by the fewer for the fewer - then there's no meaningful electoral and political space for rural and urban poor under the New Politics scheme, and indeed for most other voters as well.

So when will the well-intended but self-righteous middle class and elite who have been occupying Government House wake up to the reality that they will ultimately have to share political power and some space with the majority of the populace, distasteful though the thought might be? Or perhaps they believe the formula of 70:30 under New Politics is already "sharing", even if it must be discounted to 50:50.

As much as the Thai media like to talk about the need for the rural and urban poor needing re-education about the meaning and mechanism of elections and democracy, the so-called "educated" middle class and elite also need to unlearn their stereotypes and prejudices and learn more about democracy themselves.

For one thing, while the majority of the PAD protesters seem middle class and even conspicuously rich, a visible presence of urban and rural poor within the PAD rally can also be detected. Does this not mean that not all poor and less-formally educated people are "hopeless" from the standpoint of the PAD, who carp on so much about how "naive" the poor urban and rural voters are?

A recent remark by a major PAD supporter and jewellery-business owner Preeda Tia-suwan is very revealing. Last Saturday, at a public symposium attended by academics at Chulalongkorn University, Preeda defended the PAD's ASTV satellite television mouthpiece, saying it was not cultivating any political cult.

Preeda stressed those who watched ASTV and attended PAD rallies could not possibly have been brainwashed, "because they are middle-class people".

So now there is a new theory based on the notion that the so-called educated middle class are somehow immune to propaganda and brainwashing and an assumption that others outside this group easily fall for it.

The longer the "educated" middle class and elite continue to fail to see that an election does not ensure an honest and morally upright government - but it does ensure that every voter has a say in choosing their own representatives - the longer the political crisis and confrontation will linger. The current drama could take years, if not decades, to resolve itself. It is nothing short of a class war with two opposite groups of elites backing their respective sides, as well as a struggle to legitimise or invalidate the electoral process.

[Plus]

Sure no one really wants Surapong as a PM, but legally it might be the only way, if they want to keep the constution.

If PPP government sets a clear timeline for political reform, and constution committees both in the Senate and Parlament agree to consider "new politics" in whatever shape or form, then I guess it's ok for Surapong to sit at the top for a while.

[Plus]

"Should the rural and urban poor, who form the largest block of voters, be returned to feudal times and be made to accept rule by a small group of self-righteous and supposedly benign rulers - leaders that would be appointed by an even a smaller group of "benign" elite?"

Yet again, there's nothing in "new politics" about small groups of self-righteous and supposedly benign rulers. There's "various occupations and associations".

Obviously, the bigger the group or an association, the better chance of getting into parliament it gets.

The difference in crucial.

Another evidence that Pravit has stopped listening to anyone but himself a long time ago. Or maybe he reads a lot of Thai visa.

[younghusband]

"Should the rural and urban poor, who form the largest block of voters, be returned to feudal times and be made to accept rule by a small group of self-righteous and supposedly benign rulers - leaders that would be appointed by an even a smaller group of "benign" elite?"

Yet again, there's nothing in "new politics" about small groups of self-righteous and supposedly benign rulers. There's "various occupations and associations".

Obviously, the bigger the group or an association, the better chance of getting into parliament it gets.

The difference in crucial.

Another evidence that Pravit has stopped listening to anyone but himself a long time ago. Or maybe he reads a lot of Thai visa.

I'm afraid I don't find your rejoinder to Pravit's article very convincing.In the first instance the so called "new politics" has never been promulgated as a written manifesto as far as I know.Therefore observers have to rely on what PAD leadership have been saying.Secondly the intent is crystal clear,namely to end or neutralise the voting power of the rural majority.Obviously PAD does not use expressions with loaded meanings but the end result is the same.The distinction you make doesn't really advance your argument further.

[Plus]

In the first instance the so called "new politics" has never been promulgated as a written manifesto as far as I know.Therefore observers have to rely on what PAD leadership have been saying.

I've been quoting what they've been saying for a few days now - various occupations and associations. Every critic, though, seems to be hel_l bend on elites, bureaucrats, middle class, and urban minority.

Secondly the intent is crystal clear,namely to end or neutralise the voting power of the rural majority.

Again, according to what PAD has been saying, and not Prawit and co, the intent is to neutralise corrupt politicians lock on electoral process.

[hammered]

At the end of the day the lower house is going to stay and imho quite rightly fully elected. The upper house is now a mix. Leave it like that at this stage in Thai politcal development. After all the US upper house is a long way from OMOV selected and the British one even further and theyare long term functioning democracies that accept local factors sometimes have to be factored in even at the expense of direct democracy.

Even in the Thai lower house we have parliament as supreme as they elect the government after the people elect parliament. There is no direct election of government in Thailand, which allows flexibility to change government outside of elections. In fact it is parlaiments responsibility to oversee government in this kind of system.

Imho the PAD would be better off arguing for stronger, better and more independent check and balance mechanisms particularly in terms of electoral oversight, and a greater transparency in all things political and of course any chnage to the constitituion that allows government to nullify these mechanisms. That is reasonable and part of the debate over freedom of elected government to act versus mechnisms to stop governmental abuse.

[Smithson]

Imho the PAD would be better off arguing for stronger, better and more independent check and balance mechanisms particularly in terms of electoral oversight, and a greater transparency in all things political and of course any chnage to the constitituion that allows government to nullify these mechanisms. That is reasonable and part of the debate over freedom of elected government to act versus mechnisms to stop governmental abuse.

I agree, I find the PAD's idea of 'new politics' very scary. I understand why they think the rural majority aren't educated enough to make informed decisions, however returning to appointed officials is a step backwards.

No government has really tried to reform education or make rural ppl aware of their rights. I believe the elite are scared of the prospect of Isan ppl becoming empowered and challenging their grip on power and this is reflected in many of the things being said by PAD supporters.

[Insight]

Imho the PAD would be better off arguing for stronger, better and more independent check and balance mechanisms particularly in terms of electoral oversight, and a greater transparency in all things political and of course any chnage to the constitituion that allows government to nullify these mechanisms. That is reasonable and part of the debate over freedom of elected government to act versus mechnisms to stop governmental abuse.

I agree, I find the PAD's idea of 'new politics' very scary. I understand why they think the rural majority aren't educated enough to make informed decisions, however returning to appointed officials is a step backwards.

No government has really tried to reform education or make rural ppl aware of their rights. I believe the elite are scared of the prospect of Isan ppl becoming empowered and challenging their grip on power and this is reflected in many of the things being said by PAD supporters.

There's no doubt all this talk about "new politics" is the Achilles Heel of the PAD movement - no wonder the pro-TRT/PPP sides are jumping on it at every opportunity. It doesn't if it's the most amazing idea ever coined, if it's not democratic as the western media understands it you'll only invite scorn.

[hammered]

Imho the PAD would be better off arguing for stronger, better and more independent check and balance mechanisms particularly in terms of electoral oversight, and a greater transparency in all things political and of course any chnage to the constitituion that allows government to nullify these mechanisms. That is reasonable and part of the debate over freedom of elected government to act versus mechnisms to stop governmental abuse.

I agree, I find the PAD's idea of 'new politics' very scary. I understand why they think the rural majority aren't educated enough to make informed decisions, however returning to appointed officials is a step backwards.

No government has really tried to reform education or make rural ppl aware of their rights. I believe the elite are scared of the prospect of Isan ppl becoming empowered and challenging their grip on power and this is reflected in many of the things being said by PAD supporters.

There's no doubt all this talk about "new politics" is the Achilles Heel of the PAD movement - no wonder the pro-TRT/PPP sides are jumping on it at every opportunity. It doesn't if it's the most amazing idea ever coined, if it's not democratic as the western media understands it you'll only invite scorn.

The western media will give you a pass on appointed upper deliberative houses as the west has a plethora of odd ones, but the lower legislative house must be fully elected by some system.

Actually why dont the PAD argue for proportional representation. That is more democratic than what Thailand currently has and makes it pretty damned hard for any party to get an overall majority. It also undermines local power families by getting rid of constituencies. That would be a reasonable addition to the debate.

[ubonjoe]

Imho the PAD would be better off arguing for stronger, better and more independent check and balance mechanisms particularly in terms of electoral oversight, and a greater transparency in all things political and of course any chnage to the constitituion that allows government to nullify these mechanisms. That is reasonable and part of the debate over freedom of elected government to act versus mechnisms to stop governmental abuse.

I agree, I find the PAD's idea of 'new politics' very scary. I understand why they think the rural majority aren't educated enough to make informed decisions, however returning to appointed officials is a step backwards.

No government has really tried to reform education or make rural ppl aware of their rights. I believe the elite are scared of the prospect of Isan ppl becoming empowered and challenging their grip on power and this is reflected in many of the things being said by PAD supporters.

The elite are so scared that they instigated a coup.

Most of the rural people are very aware of their rights now.

Education reform is needed. One change was to put the schools under local control instead of being centralized in Bangkok has only occured in a few places because of the belief that the local goverment organizations were not smart enough to do it.