Samak Found Guilty By Court, Must Resign

[hammered]

Hi

is it possible that they (absent MP's, coalition partners etc) try to "stall" the vote until after September 25th to see what Samak's appeal verdict will say? Possibly in order to save them from the joke that they elect a PM - who has to go to jail a few days later, in which case of course YET another PM has to be nominated (and voted for).

I mean, come on - pretty much the whole country appears to be against Samak (except for PPP), he was kicked out for violating the constitution and has an appeal verdict coming up 13 days from now that may result in him going straight to jail - what's the rush to get him back into office? Don't forget - PPP might get disbanded in a short while, too.

Me thinks it's only because someone in London dictates the course of the action...... using the might Baht as an instrument. But of course, i do not have any evidence for that.

I just hope PAD can hold on long enough, DAAD and PPP keep their cool (after all there seem to be people in that party who slowly open their eyes) so that the whole situation can find a happy end, a compromise of sorts - something which everyone can accept and be happy with.

Question. Can a person who is NOT member of any political party become prime minister?

regards.....

Thanh

Only an elected MP can become PM

By the way, rememeber that Thaksin need scontinuing confrontation and division to keep his side calling for the constitutional ammendment which set s him and his money free. If there is any compromise those ammendments will be dead. He is fighting hard now to make sure this doesnt happen. Unleashing Newin's is he still in the UK too?) paid hordes may be not that far off if it look slike any compromise deal is coming. Other options will involve offering all kind of weirods cabinet posts and vast amounts of moolah, if he still has enough left. Then again the lucre bait could be something his enemies now have an advantage in if the business community decides enough is enough.

[ando]

Only the sitting PM can dissolve the House, afaik - means they have to elect someone first.

just my idea: if enough MP resign, the parliament is dissolving itself automatic, or? At least it is outside the constitution and something must be done.

That might be a technical way of getting the same result, or?

The choices are:

1. PPP pull it off for a tad longer and get enough votes to push Samak through

2. PPP nominate one of Thaksin's relatives as PM and get coaliton support

3. Banharn or Snoh get nominated with broad support by either PPP or Dems

4. Government of national unity

5. Elections

6. Coup

Interstingly Gen. Anupong is backing number 4. Number 1 or 2 could easily result in number 6. Number 3 is always a possibility and number 4 could be combined with number 3. Nobody except a few academics currently seem to want number 5 as the parties lack money and a disolution during an election campaign would leave MPs with no party to run under as they need to be mebers for a set period to run. The military dont seem to want number 6. Also bear in mind the media, the business sector and foreign investors have had enough and are increasingly looking for stability which is a subtle change from talking democracy. One thing I hear is exasperation that the politicians are not talking. That could signal anything if the poltiicans dont come up with the goods. Goevrnment of national unity may be the only way to avoid further chaos now. The problem is that it doesnt suit Thaksin at all and he controls a lot of MPs and I wouldnt say the Isaan Pattana are defying him to any degree yet.

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy at this stage because it would hamstring the elected government by diluting their power on crucial issues. The opposition already has the opportunity to debate issues in parliament and to vote on general issues. The Democrats have been conspicuously quiet throughout this whole crisis with only a few feeble attempts to get involved such as thier attempted vote of no confidence in the government and some media releases supporting PAD. Handing the opposition the balance of power in government is not a solution and would likely end up with minority coalition partners switching back and forwards between sides to further their own interests.

Certainly I would endorse a national unity government in a time of anarchy such as when the politically incompetent military oust the elected government, however just because there is coalition disagreement over who should be PM and a group of hard core protesters on the street is no reason to invent some new form of government.

General Anupong had his chance to have his say at the ballot box the same as any other citizen. He is not elected by the people and has no right to interfere in politics or the government under a democratic system. In fact in any established, mature democratic system of government it is protocol for heads of the military to remain neutral regarding politics. Military involvement in Thai politics is at the core of much of the ongoing problems in the country. Rather than being the self appointed saviours of the people as the have claimed after seizing power in the past, they are a severe destabilizing element in the democratic process. The fact that the military has ousted governments 18 times in the past 60 years and democratically elected governments are unable to operate effectively without fear of a military coup at any time is a serious obstacle to democracy and the cause of much of the countries problems.

[hammered]

The rioting gang leader speaks out...

Jatuporn alleges senior military officer lobbied coalition partners not to support Samak

People Power Party MP Jatuporn Promphan Friday alleged that a senior military officer had lobbied other coalition partners not to support the nomination of Samak Sundaravej as the next prime minister.

Jatuporn said he would confront the military officer later to ask him why had done so.

He said the PPP still wanted to nominate Samak as the next PM.

- The Nation

The odious little man has spoken. Stir division create confrontation do as Master Thaksin says.

[hammered]

Only the sitting PM can dissolve the House, afaik - means they have to elect someone first.

just my idea: if enough MP resign, the parliament is dissolving itself automatic, or? At least it is outside the constitution and something must be done.

That might be a technical way of getting the same result, or?

The choices are:

1. PPP pull it off for a tad longer and get enough votes to push Samak through

2. PPP nominate one of Thaksin's relatives as PM and get coaliton support

3. Banharn or Snoh get nominated with broad support by either PPP or Dems

4. Government of national unity

5. Elections

6. Coup

Interstingly Gen. Anupong is backing number 4. Number 1 or 2 could easily result in number 6. Number 3 is always a possibility and number 4 could be combined with number 3. Nobody except a few academics currently seem to want number 5 as the parties lack money and a disolution during an election campaign would leave MPs with no party to run under as they need to be mebers for a set period to run. The military dont seem to want number 6. Also bear in mind the media, the business sector and foreign investors have had enough and are increasingly looking for stability which is a subtle change from talking democracy. One thing I hear is exasperation that the politicians are not talking. That could signal anything if the poltiicans dont come up with the goods. Goevrnment of national unity may be the only way to avoid further chaos now. The problem is that it doesnt suit Thaksin at all and he controls a lot of MPs and I wouldnt say the Isaan Pattana are defying him to any degree yet.

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy at this stage because it would hamstring the elected government by diluting their power on crucial issues. The opposition already has the opportunity to debate issues in parliament and to vote on general issues. The Democrats have been conspicuously quiet throughout this whole crisis with only a few feeble attempts to get involved such as thier attempted vote of no confidence in the government and some media releases supporting PAD. Handing the opposition the balance of power in government is not a solution and would likely end up with minority coalition partners switching back and forwards between sides to further their own interests.

Certainly I would endorse a national unity government in a time of anarchy such as when the politically incompetent military oust the elected government, however just because there is coalition disagreement over who should be PM and a group of hard core protesters on the street is no reason to invent some new form of government.

General Anupong had his chance to have his say at the ballot box the same as any other citizen. He is not elected by the people and has no right to interfere in politics or the government under a democratic system. In fact in any established, mature democratic system of government it is protocol for heads of the military to remain neutral regarding politics. Military involvement in Thai politics is at the core of much of the ongoing problems in the country. Rather than being the self appointed saviours of the people as the have claimed after seizing power in the past, they are a severe destabilizing element in the democratic process. The fact that the military has ousted governments 18 times in the past 60 years and democratically elected governments are unable to operate effectively without fear of a military coup at any time is a serious obstacle to democracy and the cause of much of the countries problems.

The main crucial issue the government would be hamstrung on in a government of national unity would be the constitutional ammendment to unfetter lord T and his servitors. Apart from that there is virtually no policy difference between parties. There is no winner takes all solution. Democracy is not just oh we won a bigger minority in the election than you and so we can do anything. That is Thaksinocracy but not democracy which is a lot more complicated.

There is no better democratic option than a government of national unity which by the way consists of PPP and Dems and so wouldnt rely on any minor party support unless someone decided to include them. Right now the copuntry is regionally divided. Do we want to see ethnic cleansing of minority view points form areas? Maybe that is extreme, but if mionority viewpoints cannot be expressed in areas because of fear then we already have no democracy and that is where we are quickly heading.

[hammered]

Only the sitting PM can dissolve the House, afaik - means they have to elect someone first.

just my idea: if enough MP resign, the parliament is dissolving itself automatic, or? At least it is outside the constitution and something must be done.

That might be a technical way of getting the same result, or?

The choices are:

1. PPP pull it off for a tad longer and get enough votes to push Samak through

2. PPP nominate one of Thaksin's relatives as PM and get coaliton support

3. Banharn or Snoh get nominated with broad support by either PPP or Dems

4. Government of national unity

5. Elections

6. Coup

Interstingly Gen. Anupong is backing number 4. Number 1 or 2 could easily result in number 6. Number 3 is always a possibility and number 4 could be combined with number 3. Nobody except a few academics currently seem to want number 5 as the parties lack money and a disolution during an election campaign would leave MPs with no party to run under as they need to be mebers for a set period to run. The military dont seem to want number 6. Also bear in mind the media, the business sector and foreign investors have had enough and are increasingly looking for stability which is a subtle change from talking democracy. One thing I hear is exasperation that the politicians are not talking. That could signal anything if the poltiicans dont come up with the goods. Goevrnment of national unity may be the only way to avoid further chaos now. The problem is that it doesnt suit Thaksin at all and he controls a lot of MPs and I wouldnt say the Isaan Pattana are defying him to any degree yet.

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy at this stage because it would hamstring the elected government by diluting their power on crucial issues. The opposition already has the opportunity to debate issues in parliament and to vote on general issues. The Democrats have been conspicuously quiet throughout this whole crisis with only a few feeble attempts to get involved such as thier attempted vote of no confidence in the government and some media releases supporting PAD. Handing the opposition the balance of power in government is not a solution and would likely end up with minority coalition partners switching back and forwards between sides to further their own interests.

Certainly I would endorse a national unity government in a time of anarchy such as when the politically incompetent military oust the elected government, however just because there is coalition disagreement over who should be PM and a group of hard core protesters on the street is no reason to invent some new form of government.

General Anupong had his chance to have his say at the ballot box the same as any other citizen. He is not elected by the people and has no right to interfere in politics or the government under a democratic system. In fact in any established, mature democratic system of government it is protocol for heads of the military to remain neutral regarding politics. Military involvement in Thai politics is at the core of much of the ongoing problems in the country. Rather than being the self appointed saviours of the people as the have claimed after seizing power in the past, they are a severe destabilizing element in the democratic process. The fact that the military has ousted governments 18 times in the past 60 years and democratically elected governments are unable to operate effectively without fear of a military coup at any time is a serious obstacle to democracy and the cause of much of the countries problems.

The main crucial issue the government would be hamstrung on in a government of national unity would be the constitutional ammendment to unfetter lord T and his servitors. Apart from that there is virtually no policy difference between parties. There is no winner takes all solution. Democracy is not just oh we won a bigger minority in the election than you and so we can do anything. That is Thaksinocracy but not democracy which is a lot more complicated.

There is no better democratic option than a government of national unity which by the way consists of PPP and Dems and so wouldnt rely on any minor party support unless someone decided to include them. Right now the copuntry is regionally divided. Do we want to see ethnic cleansing of minority view points form areas? Maybe that is extreme, but if mionority viewpoints cannot be expressed in areas because of fear then we already have no democracy and that is where we are quickly heading.

[Thanh-BKK]

Question. Can a person who is NOT member of any political party become prime minister?

The current constitution states that only MPs can become a prime minister. As of present, all MPs belong to political parties, so the next PM will definitely have to be a member of a political party. Not sure if I've answered your question though.

Hi

Yes, you answered it sufficiently, thank you very much.

Also thanks to "hammered" who answered the same question

Best regards....

Thanh

[ando]

Only the sitting PM can dissolve the House, afaik - means they have to elect someone first.

just my idea: if enough MP resign, the parliament is dissolving itself automatic, or? At least it is outside the constitution and something must be done.

That might be a technical way of getting the same result, or?

The choices are:

1. PPP pull it off for a tad longer and get enough votes to push Samak through

2. PPP nominate one of Thaksin's relatives as PM and get coaliton support

3. Banharn or Snoh get nominated with broad support by either PPP or Dems

4. Government of national unity

5. Elections

6. Coup

Interstingly Gen. Anupong is backing number 4. Number 1 or 2 could easily result in number 6. Number 3 is always a possibility and number 4 could be combined with number 3. Nobody except a few academics currently seem to want number 5 as the parties lack money and a disolution during an election campaign would leave MPs with no party to run under as they need to be mebers for a set period to run. The military dont seem to want number 6. Also bear in mind the media, the business sector and foreign investors have had enough and are increasingly looking for stability which is a subtle change from talking democracy. One thing I hear is exasperation that the politicians are not talking. That could signal anything if the poltiicans dont come up with the goods. Goevrnment of national unity may be the only way to avoid further chaos now. The problem is that it doesnt suit Thaksin at all and he controls a lot of MPs and I wouldnt say the Isaan Pattana are defying him to any degree yet.

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy at this stage because it would hamstring the elected government by diluting their power on crucial issues. The opposition already has the opportunity to debate issues in parliament and to vote on general issues. The Democrats have been conspicuously quiet throughout this whole crisis with only a few feeble attempts to get involved such as thier attempted vote of no confidence in the government and some media releases supporting PAD. Handing the opposition the balance of power in government is not a solution and would likely end up with minority coalition partners switching back and forwards between sides to further their own interests.

Certainly I would endorse a national unity government in a time of anarchy such as when the politically incompetent military oust the elected government, however just because there is coalition disagreement over who should be PM and a group of hard core protesters on the street is no reason to invent some new form of government.

General Anupong had his chance to have his say at the ballot box the same as any other citizen. He is not elected by the people and has no right to interfere in politics or the government under a democratic system. In fact in any established, mature democratic system of government it is protocol for heads of the military to remain neutral regarding politics. Military involvement in Thai politics is at the core of much of the ongoing problems in the country. Rather than being the self appointed saviours of the people as the have claimed after seizing power in the past, they are a severe destabilizing element in the democratic process. The fact that the military has ousted governments 18 times in the past 60 years and democratically elected governments are unable to operate effectively without fear of a military coup at any time is a serious obstacle to democracy and the cause of much of the countries problems.

The main crucial issue the government would be hamstrung on in a government of national unity would be the constitutional ammendment to unfetter lord T and his servitors. Apart from that there is virtually no policy difference between parties. There is no winner takes all solution. Democracy is not just oh we won a bigger minority in the election than you and so we can do anything. That is Thaksinocracy but not democracy which is a lot more complicated.

There is no better democratic option than a government of national unity which by the way consists of PPP and Dems and so wouldnt rely on any minor party support unless someone decided to include them. Right now the copuntry is regionally divided. Do we want to see ethnic cleansing of minority view points form areas? Maybe that is extreme, but if mionority viewpoints cannot be expressed in areas because of fear then we already have no democracy and that is where we are quickly heading.

As stated earlier, I believe a government of national unity would be acceptable under circumstances where there was a state of anarchy. There is no need to rewrite the rules of democracy right now just because the coallition government is in disagreement over who should be PM and street protests by an illegal mob representing a small minority of the population. I havnt read the constitution in any detail but I would imagine a government of national unity would be outside its bounds? Not sure on that one. With respect, perhaps you could elaborate?

The crisis we now have with PAD illegally occupying government house is one of the armies making. In a mature democracy these illegal protesters would have been moved on by use of all reasonable force and the leaders arrested. However the generals refusal to remove the protesters and the threat that they would intervene if there was violence (meaning if the government sends in police riot squad) allows this farcical stand off to continue.

No mature democracy in the world would tolerate such a situation. Yet in Thailand, because of the ever present threat of a military take over of political power it seems normal to propose a compromise sort of democracy such as a government of national unity and/or an appointed government .

Regardless of how corrupt some politicians might be it is a very dangerous precedent to start bargaining a way out by sacrificing basic principles of democracy.

First its a government of national unity and then its an appointed government overseen by the military.

The only way for Thailand to progress into a modern democracy is to let the courts deal with the crooked politicians and political law breakers, and allow true democracy to run its course without compromise. Buckling under pressure now and inventing some new form of government would set the country back decades and lead to a legalized form of dictatorship where by the wealthy elite rule over the poor majority backed up by force of arms provided by the military.

Thailand is a t a turning point in their political history right now. The courts are coming down on the crooked politicians and appear to be doing their job. Now at this crucial point is not the time to compromise the principles of democracy.

Edited September 12, 2008 by ando

[Tony Clifton]

Yes PAD have created enough chaos and are the only people who have beaten a man to death.... All your speculation about the past is just more propagandha that you have been fed like your fellow PAD sheep. Oh big bad Taksin.... Get over him and get some sleep.... There is more to life then Sondhi vs Taksin (PPP). PAD are just a Mob of programed robots who most of the time dont relise what the real issues are. If the rule of law worked properly in Thailand Sondhi would of been in jail a long time ago but he is just as currupted as the rest of the PAD leadership... Do a google of your PAD leadership and find out.

Intentional violent acts to shut people up under TRT-PPP is propaganda?

If your source is The Nation, the answer is probably "yes"

I`m leaving out much more others can add to the list.

You're right, you're leaving out much more ... When you highlight someone else post, please highlight what really matters :

Yes PAD are the only people who have beaten a man to death

And yes, interestingly enough, this man was lead to his death by a flag waving PPP MP, intentionally marching TOWARDS the PAD rally in a city where hundreds of other locations could have been safely chosen by the DAAD.

[hammered]

Only the sitting PM can dissolve the House, afaik - means they have to elect someone first.

just my idea: if enough MP resign, the parliament is dissolving itself automatic, or? At least it is outside the constitution and something must be done.

That might be a technical way of getting the same result, or?

The choices are:

1. PPP pull it off for a tad longer and get enough votes to push Samak through

2. PPP nominate one of Thaksin's relatives as PM and get coaliton support

3. Banharn or Snoh get nominated with broad support by either PPP or Dems

4. Government of national unity

5. Elections

6. Coup

Interstingly Gen. Anupong is backing number 4. Number 1 or 2 could easily result in number 6. Number 3 is always a possibility and number 4 could be combined with number 3. Nobody except a few academics currently seem to want number 5 as the parties lack money and a disolution during an election campaign would leave MPs with no party to run under as they need to be mebers for a set period to run. The military dont seem to want number 6. Also bear in mind the media, the business sector and foreign investors have had enough and are increasingly looking for stability which is a subtle change from talking democracy. One thing I hear is exasperation that the politicians are not talking. That could signal anything if the poltiicans dont come up with the goods. Goevrnment of national unity may be the only way to avoid further chaos now. The problem is that it doesnt suit Thaksin at all and he controls a lot of MPs and I wouldnt say the Isaan Pattana are defying him to any degree yet.

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy at this stage because it would hamstring the elected government by diluting their power on crucial issues. The opposition already has the opportunity to debate issues in parliament and to vote on general issues. The Democrats have been conspicuously quiet throughout this whole crisis with only a few feeble attempts to get involved such as thier attempted vote of no confidence in the government and some media releases supporting PAD. Handing the opposition the balance of power in government is not a solution and would likely end up with minority coalition partners switching back and forwards between sides to further their own interests.

Certainly I would endorse a national unity government in a time of anarchy such as when the politically incompetent military oust the elected government, however just because there is coalition disagreement over who should be PM and a group of hard core protesters on the street is no reason to invent some new form of government.

General Anupong had his chance to have his say at the ballot box the same as any other citizen. He is not elected by the people and has no right to interfere in politics or the government under a democratic system. In fact in any established, mature democratic system of government it is protocol for heads of the military to remain neutral regarding politics. Military involvement in Thai politics is at the core of much of the ongoing problems in the country. Rather than being the self appointed saviours of the people as the have claimed after seizing power in the past, they are a severe destabilizing element in the democratic process. The fact that the military has ousted governments 18 times in the past 60 years and democratically elected governments are unable to operate effectively without fear of a military coup at any time is a serious obstacle to democracy and the cause of much of the countries problems.

The main crucial issue the government would be hamstrung on in a government of national unity would be the constitutional ammendment to unfetter lord T and his servitors. Apart from that there is virtually no policy difference between parties. There is no winner takes all solution. Democracy is not just oh we won a bigger minority in the election than you and so we can do anything. That is Thaksinocracy but not democracy which is a lot more complicated.

There is no better democratic option than a government of national unity which by the way consists of PPP and Dems and so wouldnt rely on any minor party support unless someone decided to include them. Right now the copuntry is regionally divided. Do we want to see ethnic cleansing of minority view points form areas? Maybe that is extreme, but if mionority viewpoints cannot be expressed in areas because of fear then we already have no democracy and that is where we are quickly heading.

As stated earlier, I believe a government of national unity would be acceptable under circumstances where there was a state of anarchy. There is no need to rewrite the rules of democracy right now just because the coallition government is in disagreement over who should be PM and street protests by an illegal mob representing a small minority of the population. I havnt read the constitution in any detail but I would imagine a government of national unity would be outside its bounds? Not sure on that one. With respect, perhaps you could elaborate?

The crisis we now have with PAD illegally occupying government house is one of the armies making. In a mature democracy these illegal protesters would have been moved on by use of all reasonable force and the leaders arrested. However the generals refusal to remove the protesters and the threat that they would intervene if there was violence (meaning if the government sends in police riot squad) allows this farcical stand off to continue.

No mature democracy in the world would tolerate such a situation. Yet in Thailand, because of the ever present threat of a military take over of political power it seems normal to propose a compromise sort of democracy such as a government of national unity and/or an appointed government .

Regardless of how corrupt some politicians might be it is a very dangerous precedent to start bargaining a way out by sacrificing basic principles of democracy.

First its a government of national unity and then its an appointed government overseen by the military.

The only way for Thailand to progress into a modern democracy is to let the courts deal with the crooked politicians and political law breakers, and allow true democracy to run its course without compromise. Buckling under pressure now and inventing some new form of government would set the country back decades and lead to a legalized form of dictatorship where by the wealthy elite rule over the poor majority backed up by force of arms provided by the military.

Thailand is a t a turning point in their political history right now. The courts are coming down on the crooked politicians and appear to be doing their job. Now at this crucial point is not the time to compromise the principles of democracy.

Any government that parliament agrees on and votes up can becoem the government. A PPP-Dem grand alliance is equally as democratic and acceptable as PPP plus 5 partners or Dem plus 5 partners government. It is purely up to parliament. A so called government of national unity ie PPP-Dem grand alliance is no different in terms of validity or being with the constitutional democratic system of Thailand as any other government. Grand coalitons are not unheard of in many countries (maybe national unity is a misnomer). I think Germany currently has a grand coaliton of Christuian Dem plus Social Dem for example. It is all just part of the beauty of parliamentary systems.

Edited September 12, 2008 by hammered

[TAWP]

Los78>> If you are gonna quote and reply to one of my posts, please use the quote function properly. Don't interject your own lines into my posts to do some in-line responses, it screws over the quote-history and makes it impossible for others to be truly sure who wrote what. I refuse to have my statement diluted or perverted by your text interjected in the middle of them. Learn how to use the forum software properly instead.

[Artisi]

Yes PAD have created enough chaos and are the only people who have beaten a man to death.... All your speculation about the past is just more propagandha that you have been fed like your fellow PAD sheep. Oh big bad Taksin.... Get over him and get some sleep.... There is more to life then Sondhi vs Taksin (PPP). PAD are just a Mob of programed robots who most of the time dont relise what the real issues are. If the rule of law worked properly in Thailand Sondhi would of been in jail a long time ago but he is just as currupted as the rest of the PAD leadership... Do a google of your PAD leadership and find out.

Intentional violent acts to shut people up under TRT-PPP is propaganda?

If your source is The Nation, the answer is probably "yes"

I`m leaving out much more others can add to the list.

You're right, you're leaving out much more ... When you highlight someone else post, please highlight what really matters :

Yes PAD are the only people who have beaten a man to death

And yes, interestingly enough, this man was lead to his death by a flag waving PPP MP, intentionally marching TOWARDS the PAD rally in a city where hundreds of other locations could have been safely chosen by the DAAD.

Agreed, anybody with any sense can see that the DAAD were conned into confronting PAD in an effort to cause problems - luckily they got a hiding and the SOE put in place wasn't acted on by the military as planned by the king of cowards / samark - all they did was to shoot themelves in both feet.

Has it ever occured to anyone that maybe samark is one of those being supported by PAD as he appears to be doing such a good job daily on their behalf.

[blaze]

Only the sitting PM can dissolve the House, afaik - means they have to elect someone first.

just my idea: if enough MP resign, the parliament is dissolving itself automatic, or? At least it is outside the constitution and something must be done.

That might be a technical way of getting the same result, or?

The choices are:

1. PPP pull it off for a tad longer and get enough votes to push Samak through

2. PPP nominate one of Thaksin's relatives as PM and get coaliton support

3. Banharn or Snoh get nominated with broad support by either PPP or Dems

4. Government of national unity

5. Elections

6. Coup

Interstingly Gen. Anupong is backing number 4. Number 1 or 2 could easily result in number 6. Number 3 is always a possibility and number 4 could be combined with number 3. Nobody except a few academics currently seem to want number 5 as the parties lack money and a disolution during an election campaign would leave MPs with no party to run under as they need to be mebers for a set period to run. The military dont seem to want number 6. Also bear in mind the media, the business sector and foreign investors have had enough and are increasingly looking for stability which is a subtle change from talking democracy. One thing I hear is exasperation that the politicians are not talking. That could signal anything if the poltiicans dont come up with the goods. Goevrnment of national unity may be the only way to avoid further chaos now. The problem is that it doesnt suit Thaksin at all and he controls a lot of MPs and I wouldnt say the Isaan Pattana are defying him to any degree yet.

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy at this stage because it would hamstring the elected government by diluting their power on crucial issues. The opposition already has the opportunity to debate issues in parliament and to vote on general issues. The Democrats have been conspicuously quiet throughout this whole crisis with only a few feeble attempts to get involved such as thier attempted vote of no confidence in the government and some media releases supporting PAD. Handing the opposition the balance of power in government is not a solution and would likely end up with minority coalition partners switching back and forwards between sides to further their own interests.

Certainly I would endorse a national unity government in a time of anarchy such as when the politically incompetent military oust the elected government, however just because there is coalition disagreement over who should be PM and a group of hard core protesters on the street is no reason to invent some new form of government.

General Anupong had his chance to have his say at the ballot box the same as any other citizen. He is not elected by the people and has no right to interfere in politics or the government under a democratic system. In fact in any established, mature democratic system of government it is protocol for heads of the military to remain neutral regarding politics. Military involvement in Thai politics is at the core of much of the ongoing problems in the country. Rather than being the self appointed saviours of the people as the have claimed after seizing power in the past, they are a severe destabilizing element in the democratic process. The fact that the military has ousted governments 18 times in the past 60 years and democratically elected governments are unable to operate effectively without fear of a military coup at any time is a serious obstacle to democracy and the cause of much of the countries problems.

The main crucial issue the government would be hamstrung on in a government of national unity would be the constitutional ammendment to unfetter lord T and his servitors. Apart from that there is virtually no policy difference between parties. There is no winner takes all solution. Democracy is not just oh we won a bigger minority in the election than you and so we can do anything. That is Thaksinocracy but not democracy which is a lot more complicated.

There is no better democratic option than a government of national unity which by the way consists of PPP and Dems and so wouldnt rely on any minor party support unless someone decided to include them. Right now the copuntry is regionally divided. Do we want to see ethnic cleansing of minority view points form areas? Maybe that is extreme, but if mionority viewpoints cannot be expressed in areas because of fear then we already have no democracy and that is where we are quickly heading.

As stated earlier, I believe a government of national unity would be acceptable under circumstances where there was a state of anarchy. There is no need to rewrite the rules of democracy right now just because the coallition government is in disagreement over who should be PM and street protests by an illegal mob representing a small minority of the population. I havnt read the constitution in any detail but I would imagine a government of national unity would be outside its bounds? Not sure on that one. With respect, perhaps you could elaborate?

The crisis we now have with PAD illegally occupying government house is one of the armies making. In a mature democracy these illegal protesters would have been moved on by use of all reasonable force and the leaders arrested. However the generals refusal to remove the protesters and the threat that they would intervene if there was violence (meaning if the government sends in police riot squad) allows this farcical stand off to continue.

No mature democracy in the world would tolerate such a situation. Yet in Thailand, because of the ever present threat of a military take over of political power it seems normal to propose a compromise sort of democracy such as a government of national unity and/or an appointed government .

Regardless of how corrupt some politicians might be it is a very dangerous precedent to start bargaining a way out by sacrificing basic principles of democracy.

First its a government of national unity and then its an appointed government overseen by the military.

The only way for Thailand to progress into a modern democracy is to let the courts deal with the crooked politicians and political law breakers, and allow true democracy to run its course without compromise. Buckling under pressure now and inventing some new form of government would set the country back decades and lead to a legalized form of dictatorship where by the wealthy elite rule over the poor majority backed up by force of arms provided by the military.

Thailand is a t a turning point in their political history right now. The courts are coming down on the crooked politicians and appear to be doing their job. Now at this crucial point is not the time to compromise the principles of democracy.

Well put Ando- those advocating a government of national unity are essentially advocating that the current government resign- and thereby playing right into the hands- not just of the PAD- but the historical tendency for governments in THailand to be forced out of power. This would actually serve as one more instance to justify the notion that democracy just can't function in THailand and thus a new political scheme must be devised. It is not the Samak government that is at risk here- it is the future of any hope for a more egalitarian state.

[ando]

Any government that parliament agrees on and votes up can becoem the government. A PPP-Dem grand alliance is equally as democratic and acceptable as PPP plus 5 partners or Dem plus 5 partners government. It is purely up to parliament. A so called government of national unity ie PPP-Dem grand alliance is no different in terms of validity or being with the constitutional democratic system of Thailand as any other government. Grand coalitons are not unheard of in many countries (maybe national unity is a misnomer). I think Germany currently has a grand coaliton of Christuian Dem plus Social Dem for example. It is all just part of the beauty of parliamentary systems.

If PPP had wanted to form a coalition government with the Democrats instead of the minor parties they would have done it at the onset.

They didn't then and they don't want to now as the Dems support the PAD line of thought of political power through the back door, (endorsed of course by the generals). The option of PPP forming a grand coalition or government of national unity with the Dems seems extremely unlikely no matter what happens.

[sriracha john]

and now it's the Issanites' turn to speak out....

PPP faction nominates Somphong Amornwiwat as PM candidate

MP from the Isan Phatthana faction in the People Power Party (PPP) Sakda Khongphet, announced that his group supported PPP Deputy Leader Somphong Amornwiwat to be a Prime Minister candidate.

Sakda says another PM candidate of the Party, Deputy Leader of PPP Somchai Wongsawat, is also qualified to be the premier, but he may be criticized as he is a brother-in-law of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Mr Sakda says further that PPP will no longer nominate ex-PM Samak Sundaravej to be a Prime Minister candidate and called on Samak to make sacrifices for the country.

He also urged the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) should leave the Government House.

- ThaiNews / today

[sriracha john]

Sakda says another PM candidate of the Party, Deputy Leader of PPP Somchai Wongsawat, is also qualified to be the premier, but he may be criticized as he is a brother-in-law of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

But Somphong won't be criticized as one of the longest and closest friends of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra??

As I understand, they have been close friends since their childhoods in Chiang Mai.

He's one of the few that could be entrusted with the ever-so-important-to-Thaksin position of Justice Minister.

Edited September 12, 2008 by sriracha john

[hammered]

Only the sitting PM can dissolve the House, afaik - means they have to elect someone first.

just my idea: if enough MP resign, the parliament is dissolving itself automatic, or? At least it is outside the constitution and something must be done.

That might be a technical way of getting the same result, or?

The choices are:

1. PPP pull it off for a tad longer and get enough votes to push Samak through

2. PPP nominate one of Thaksin's relatives as PM and get coaliton support

3. Banharn or Snoh get nominated with broad support by either PPP or Dems

4. Government of national unity

5. Elections

6. Coup

Interstingly Gen. Anupong is backing number 4. Number 1 or 2 could easily result in number 6. Number 3 is always a possibility and number 4 could be combined with number 3. Nobody except a few academics currently seem to want number 5 as the parties lack money and a disolution during an election campaign would leave MPs with no party to run under as they need to be mebers for a set period to run. The military dont seem to want number 6. Also bear in mind the media, the business sector and foreign investors have had enough and are increasingly looking for stability which is a subtle change from talking democracy. One thing I hear is exasperation that the politicians are not talking. That could signal anything if the poltiicans dont come up with the goods. Goevrnment of national unity may be the only way to avoid further chaos now. The problem is that it doesnt suit Thaksin at all and he controls a lot of MPs and I wouldnt say the Isaan Pattana are defying him to any degree yet.

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy at this stage because it would hamstring the elected government by diluting their power on crucial issues. The opposition already has the opportunity to debate issues in parliament and to vote on general issues. The Democrats have been conspicuously quiet throughout this whole crisis with only a few feeble attempts to get involved such as thier attempted vote of no confidence in the government and some media releases supporting PAD. Handing the opposition the balance of power in government is not a solution and would likely end up with minority coalition partners switching back and forwards between sides to further their own interests.

Certainly I would endorse a national unity government in a time of anarchy such as when the politically incompetent military oust the elected government, however just because there is coalition disagreement over who should be PM and a group of hard core protesters on the street is no reason to invent some new form of government.

General Anupong had his chance to have his say at the ballot box the same as any other citizen. He is not elected by the people and has no right to interfere in politics or the government under a democratic system. In fact in any established, mature democratic system of government it is protocol for heads of the military to remain neutral regarding politics. Military involvement in Thai politics is at the core of much of the ongoing problems in the country. Rather than being the self appointed saviours of the people as the have claimed after seizing power in the past, they are a severe destabilizing element in the democratic process. The fact that the military has ousted governments 18 times in the past 60 years and democratically elected governments are unable to operate effectively without fear of a military coup at any time is a serious obstacle to democracy and the cause of much of the countries problems.

The main crucial issue the government would be hamstrung on in a government of national unity would be the constitutional ammendment to unfetter lord T and his servitors. Apart from that there is virtually no policy difference between parties. There is no winner takes all solution. Democracy is not just oh we won a bigger minority in the election than you and so we can do anything. That is Thaksinocracy but not democracy which is a lot more complicated.

There is no better democratic option than a government of national unity which by the way consists of PPP and Dems and so wouldnt rely on any minor party support unless someone decided to include them. Right now the copuntry is regionally divided. Do we want to see ethnic cleansing of minority view points form areas? Maybe that is extreme, but if mionority viewpoints cannot be expressed in areas because of fear then we already have no democracy and that is where we are quickly heading.

As stated earlier, I believe a government of national unity would be acceptable under circumstances where there was a state of anarchy. There is no need to rewrite the rules of democracy right now just because the coallition government is in disagreement over who should be PM and street protests by an illegal mob representing a small minority of the population. I havnt read the constitution in any detail but I would imagine a government of national unity would be outside its bounds? Not sure on that one. With respect, perhaps you could elaborate?

The crisis we now have with PAD illegally occupying government house is one of the armies making. In a mature democracy these illegal protesters would have been moved on by use of all reasonable force and the leaders arrested. However the generals refusal to remove the protesters and the threat that they would intervene if there was violence (meaning if the government sends in police riot squad) allows this farcical stand off to continue.

No mature democracy in the world would tolerate such a situation. Yet in Thailand, because of the ever present threat of a military take over of political power it seems normal to propose a compromise sort of democracy such as a government of national unity and/or an appointed government .

Regardless of how corrupt some politicians might be it is a very dangerous precedent to start bargaining a way out by sacrificing basic principles of democracy.

First its a government of national unity and then its an appointed government overseen by the military.

The only way for Thailand to progress into a modern democracy is to let the courts deal with the crooked politicians and political law breakers, and allow true democracy to run its course without compromise. Buckling under pressure now and inventing some new form of government would set the country back decades and lead to a legalized form of dictatorship where by the wealthy elite rule over the poor majority backed up by force of arms provided by the military.

Thailand is a t a turning point in their political history right now. The courts are coming down on the crooked politicians and appear to be doing their job. Now at this crucial point is not the time to compromise the principles of democracy.

Well put Ando- those advocating a government of national unity are essentially advocating that the current government resign- and thereby playing right into the hands- not just of the PAD- but the historical tendency for governments in THailand to be forced out of power. This would actually serve as one more instance to justify the notion that democracy just can't function in THailand and thus a new political scheme must be devised. It is not the Samak government that is at risk here- it is the future of any hope for a more egalitarian state.

It is not possible to advocate the current government resign as they are a caretaker government until a new government is formed. It is in the hands of parlaiment and as long a s a majority of MPs back a new PM a new government will be democratically formed. What mix of parties is irrelevent as long as parliament agrees. A PPP-Dem government with parliamentary backing will perfectly democratic and as acceptable as any other government. Conversely within where we are democratically now and that is with no government and power in the hands of parliament it is undemocratic to actually rule out any potential government that parliament wants to endorse. It is also of course totally democratic for any individual to suggest what they would prefer to see.

This is how a parliamentary system such as Thailand has operates within a constituitonal and democratic framework. Right now absolutley nothing is at risk because the decison is in the hands of the supreme elected body. The Samk government is already dead. Whether it or something else comes back is purely up to parliamnet to decide or possibly the people although I understand there may be some question as to whether an acting PM can disolve the house (not sure on this).

[hammered]

Any government that parliament agrees on and votes up can becoem the government. A PPP-Dem grand alliance is equally as democratic and acceptable as PPP plus 5 partners or Dem plus 5 partners government. It is purely up to parliament. A so called government of national unity ie PPP-Dem grand alliance is no different in terms of validity or being with the constitutional democratic system of Thailand as any other government. Grand coalitons are not unheard of in many countries (maybe national unity is a misnomer). I think Germany currently has a grand coaliton of Christuian Dem plus Social Dem for example. It is all just part of the beauty of parliamentary systems.

If PPP had wanted to form a coalition government with the Democrats instead of the minor parties they would have done it at the onset.

They didn't then and they don't want to now as the Dems support the PAD line of thought of political power through the back door, (endorsed of course by the generals). The option of PPP forming a grand coalition or government of national unity with the Dems seems extremely unlikely no matter what happens.

I agree although more for the reason that the PPP must push through the constitutional change or Thaksin will get upset. For that to happen there can under no circumstances be any talk of compromise as that would doom the ammendments to by pass the law and checks and balances. That is where we are. None of this is about democracy as democracy entils allowing checks and balances to work. It also works on assumptions that a government on assuming power runs the country for all the people not just those who elected it. PPP at best believe in electiosn without any of the other stuff, and certainly believe in we were elected (by a slightly larger minority than the opposition) so we can do anything we want. That is not democracy. It certainly also isnt about trying to avoid any further divisions.

For anyone to try to play this to conclusion is going to be bad for people, democracy and country. Still Thaksin wants his dosh back so no doubt that is where we are going, and whatver gets crushed along the way is irrelevent. Anyway it cant go on like this for much longer so we can await some at least temporary denouement soon imho

[Samuian]

But Somphong won't be criticized as one of the longest and closest friends of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra??

As I understand, they have been close friends since their childhoods in Chiang Mai.

He's one of the few that could be entrusted with the ever-so-important-to-Thaksin position of Justice Minister.

The plane is circling and circling and circling and circling and circling and circling..... magically it doesn't seem to run out of fuel!

[sriracha john]

The rioting gang leader speaks out again... with news from London?

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

[sriracha john]

Although Mr. No Thought seems to contradict....

Caretaker PM reaffirms 'no thought of House dissolution'

BANGKOK, Sept 12 (TNA) – Caretaker Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat on Friday reaffirmed he had never thought of dissolving the House of Representatives although members of Parliament of the ruling coalition partners failed to present themselves to the House session Friday morning.

"I have never considered this matter," he said in response to a question by reporters as to whether he would dissolve the House to end the political deadlock after a number of MPs failed to join the House session.

Deputy Prime Minister Somchai, currently Acting Prime Minister said the House session held to vote for a new prime minister was adjourned until Wednesday because the quorum of the meeting was incomplete.

Such an adjournment is considered a normal process, he said, however, adding that now each party had to hold a new discussion.

Asked whether the People Power Party of which he is a Deputy Leader would nominate a new candidate as Prime Minister in place of Samak Sundaravej, Somchai said he was in a position to give the answer because it needed a prior consultation with members of the party, which is expected to take place in next one or two days.

Asked if he still personally supported Samak as a candidate for the premiership, he said he could not yet give an opinion on the matter.

===================================

No Opinion from Mr. No Thought

[007]

Samak left, Samak's coming back... Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the point of the high court ordering Samak to step down, just to have him come back through the 'revolving door' as his party wants him back as PM??

[Plus]

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy...

She will survive.

[hammered]

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy...

She will survive.

LOL. What you write is so true.

The national unity idea is big big danger to Thaksin and Newin and their desire to change the constitution let themselves off. It will be resisted to the utter destruction of anything by Mr. T and probably Mr. N who can always unleash the red guard after distributing copious amounts of whisky and machete's.

[hammered]

From the Nation:

Supreme Court disqualifies 3 PPP MPs

The Supreme Court Friday disqualified three People Power Party MPs in Phetchabun but allowed them to re-contest a sub-sequent by-election.

The court approved the Election Commission's request to annul the election results of Phetchabun's Constituency 2, and thus disqualifying three MPs - Iam Thongjaisod, Wanphen Promphat and Surasak Anakphan.

The EC will meet next week to schedule the by-election.

[hammered]

Banharn's daughter says Samak not suitable choice of PM now

Kanchana Silapa-archa, Chart Thai Party deputy leader and a daughter of Chart Thai leader Banharn Silapa-archa, said Friday that former prime minister Samak Sundaravej is not a suitable choice of PM now.

She said Samak has several advantages but he may not be suitable to lead the government under the current situation.

"Actually, he has several good qualifications but under the current situation, it may not be appropriate [for Samak to become the prime minister]," Kanchana said.

The Nation

[kurtgruen]

Samak left, Samak's coming back... Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the point of the high court ordering Samak to step down, just to have him come back through the 'revolving door' as his party wants him back as PM??

Exactly!

but it even goes beyond that, with the PPP wanting to change the Constitution retroactively, so they don't get disolved for their election votebuying, etc., also, so that they can protect Thaksin from proper justice being served against him. They even went as far as refusing to revoke Thaksin's diplomatic passport, even after warrants for Thaksin's arrests where issued, after he fled justice and ran of to England. Trying to reinstate Samak as Prime Minister, after the courts ordered him to step down, even though there may be a legal loophole to do so, is completely undemocratic and in my opinion very sick indeed.

I'm just glad that the PAD is still there, to hold these crooks accountable, otherwise, it would all just get swept under the table.

[ando]

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy...

She will survive.

LOL. What you write is so true.

The national unity idea is big big danger to Thaksin and Newin and their desire to change the constitution let themselves off. It will be resisted to the utter destruction of anything by Mr. T and probably Mr. N who can always unleash the red guard after distributing copious amounts of whisky and machete's.

Wont ever happen. Just a dream by some farangs clutching at straws. And certainly not anyone in the Thai political system.

[hammered]

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy...

She will survive.

LOL. What you write is so true.

The national unity idea is big big danger to Thaksin and Newin and their desire to change the constitution let themselves off. It will be resisted to the utter destruction of anything by Mr. T and probably Mr. N who can always unleash the red guard after distributing copious amounts of whisky and machete's.

Wont ever happen. Just a dream by some farangs clutching at straws. And certainly not anyone in the Thai political system.

I tend to agree that it wont happen. However, the idea came form within the Thai politcal establishment. Atleast two politcal parties and a number of academics etc. It has been more "farang's" that dont seem to like the idea of it as a Thai solution. Im not sure what cluhching at straws refers to.

[animatic]

Only the sitting PM can dissolve the House, afaik - means they have to elect someone first.

just my idea: if enough MP resign, the parliament is dissolving itself automatic, or? At least it is outside the constitution and something must be done.

That might be a technical way of getting the same result, or?

The choices are:

1. PPP pull it off for a tad longer and get enough votes to push Samak through

2. PPP nominate one of Thaksin's relatives as PM and get coaliton support

3. Banharn or Snoh get nominated with broad support by either PPP or Dems

4. Government of national unity

5. Elections

6. Coup

Interstingly Gen. Anupong is backing number 4. Number 1 or 2 could easily result in number 6. Number 3 is always a possibility and number 4 could be combined with number 3. Nobody except a few academics currently seem to want number 5 as the parties lack money and a disolution during an election campaign would leave MPs with no party to run under as they need to be mebers for a set period to run. The military dont seem to want number 6. Also bear in mind the media, the business sector and foreign investors have had enough and are increasingly looking for stability which is a subtle change from talking democracy. One thing I hear is exasperation that the politicians are not talking. That could signal anything if the poltiicans dont come up with the goods. Goevrnment of national unity may be the only way to avoid further chaos now. The problem is that it doesnt suit Thaksin at all and he controls a lot of MPs and I wouldnt say the Isaan Pattana are defying him to any degree yet.

A government of national unity would be a dangerous proposition for democracy at this stage because it would hamstring the elected government by diluting their power on crucial issues. The opposition already has the opportunity to debate issues in parliament and to vote on general issues. The Democrats have been conspicuously quiet throughout this whole crisis with only a few feeble attempts to get involved such as thier attempted vote of no confidence in the government and some media releases supporting PAD. Handing the opposition the balance of power in government is not a solution and would likely end up with minority coalition partners switching back and forwards between sides to further their own interests.

Certainly I would endorse a national unity government in a time of anarchy such as when the politically incompetent military oust the elected government, however just because there is coalition disagreement over who should be PM and a group of hard core protesters on the street is no reason to invent some new form of government.

General Anupong had his chance to have his say at the ballot box the same as any other citizen. He is not elected by the people and has no right to interfere in politics or the government under a democratic system. In fact in any established, mature democratic system of government it is protocol for heads of the military to remain neutral regarding politics. Military involvement in Thai politics is at the core of much of the ongoing problems in the country. Rather than being the self appointed saviours of the people as the have claimed after seizing power in the past, they are a severe destabilizing element in the democratic process. The fact that the military has ousted governments 18 times in the past 60 years and democratically elected governments are unable to operate effectively without fear of a military coup at any time is a serious obstacle to democracy and the cause of much of the countries problems.

Well this may be a well ordered and stated reasoning.

But the one thing it makes clear is that you are 100% for the powers that be at the moment

TRT/PPP /Thakin's minions, no matter what their ends or ethics of actions.

Finally you have stepped from behind the curtain of faux impartiality into the light of day.

The General has been saying he will not move repeatedly.

You seem to say he isn't, and is waiting to attack.

He has made efforts to avoid confrontation to the point of

standing off Samak's escalation towards violence.

You finally state that you are against unity if the opposition is in the lead on it.

Ho hum, much as suspected.

Edited September 12, 2008 by animatic

[ando]

Samak left, Samak's coming back... Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the point of the high court ordering Samak to step down, just to have him come back through the 'revolving door' as his party wants him back as PM??

Exactly!

but it even goes beyond that, with the PPP wanting to change the Constitution retroactively, so they don't get disolved for their election votebuying, etc., also, so that they can protect Thaksin from proper justice being served against him. They even went as far as refusing to revoke Thaksin's diplomatic passport, even after warrants for Thaksin's arrests where issued, after he fled justice and ran of to England. Trying to reinstate Samak as Prime Minister, after the courts ordered him to step down, even though there may be a legal loophole to do so, is completely undemocratic and in my opinion very sick indeed.

I'm just glad that the PAD is still there, to hold these crooks accountable, otherwise, it would all just get swept under the table.

Samak was dismissed on a legal technicality and can be reinstated on a legal technicality.Though that may not actually happen.

It does make the country look like a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.

The problem here is that with all the coups and new constitutions over the years they haven't had time to close the loopholes. But the current laws and the current constitution is the best hope Thailand has of maintaining some semblance of justice and order. So they just have to work within that flawed framework for the time being. The alternative would be return the country to a dictatorship under the rule of incompetent military generals.

Democracy in Thailand has had so many rebirths at the hands of the generals it has never had time to consolidate a constitution that serves the people adequately. Such is the mess they find themselves in now. But the process has got to start somewhere and now is yet another critical point in Thailand's political history. Thailand may be taking baby steps towards a true democracy right now but at least its a step in the right direction rather than the endless cycle of coups and restarts that have been part of Thailand's history for the past 60 years. The constitution needs some fine tuning and the courts need to rein in the crocked politicians (which it looks like they are doing now). To call a halt to the process and start all over again for the umpteenth time would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

For those who think deposing the elected government is the answer I would ask them to look back though history and see how far it has got Thailand. The only way forward for the country is to allow democracy to take its course and for the courts to cull out the crooks.