State Of Emergency Declared For Bangkok

[Seizhin]

You seem to forget how they want to keep the uneducated from voting and appoint a high percentage of cabinet from the cronie patch.

No, pal, YOU forget that it's a made up lie.

I'm sure that I heard of the same, and I'm sure my Thai vocabulary is good enough to translate, and read the newspaper that the PAD wishes to enforce new voting law, stripping the uneducated- baan nook (villagers) of their voting rights, and mostly appointing people (about 70% are appointed) from various of areas, doctors, teachers, lawyers, so and so.

So only 30% of the politician are left in the parliament? Or something?

I'm in the Southern actually, and during the yellow mob, I'm sure my neighbors had turned their radios to max so that the entire community can hear the propaganda 24/7.

Of course, I wasnt sure of the latest development of the plan, so I dont know of the latest details.

EDIT (after reading h90's post), I'm glad the cancelled the idea, and hopefully something new and better will emerge.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Seizhin

[canuckamuck]

PAD = Fuedalism which is: The scourge of Thailand, the reason for bad education for the poor, The reason why Thailand can't escape 3rd world antics, The enormous weight pressing this country down, a feeding trough for the hi so upper .1%

[Plus]

I'm sure that I heard of the same, and I'm sure my Thai vocabulary is good enough to translate, and read the newspaper that the PAD wishes to enforce new voting law, stripping the uneducated- baan nook (villagers) of their voting rights, and mostly appointing people (about 70% are appointed) from various of areas, doctors, teachers, lawyers, so and so.

So only 30% of the politician are left in the parliament? Or something?

Yes, that's the gist of it, with ommission of farmers. Doctors and lawyers can get into power on their own, the idea was to FORCE a certain proportion of farmers and other groups into parliament because there's absolutely no way they can get representation through the usual political system.

PAD argued that politicians do not actually represent people - they borrow money from business and then they have to repay their debts and represent interests of bsusiness that put them in power. Actual votes is like farm produce - with enough water and air and sunshine and gentle care you can get as much yield as you want. In politics it's the money, the canvassers that go door to door, it's rice bags and bottles of fish sauce and free jackets and food and photo-ops with big shots from Bangkok (standing next to Thaksin works best) and nice stories, and weeding out dissenters.

If you've got enough funds and do all of this right, people will vote for you. It works everywhere.

Actually, they might even get a real farmer to run once in a while, but, of course, then he'll have to answer to his bosses who made it happen, not to his community.

That's what pissed PAD off - the rotten system.

They thought that this is not a US, Thailand doesn't have a 200 year old consitution, they don't have to try to improve the system in little steps like they do in the west, they can actually completely overhaul it and no one would bat a lid. The idea was too radical at that point, though.

>>>

Oh, and "stripping the uneducated- baan nook (villagers) of their voting rights," was not in the proposal. They wanted the bannoks not simply to vote, they wanted them to BE in the parliament.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Plus

[Guest Reimar]

You seem to forget how they want to keep the uneducated from voting and appoint a high percentage of cabinet from the cronie patch.

No, pal, YOU forget that it's a made up lie.

I'm sure that I heard of the same, and I'm sure my Thai vocabulary is good enough to translate, and read the newspaper that the PAD wishes to enforce new voting law, stripping the uneducated- baan nook (villagers) of their voting rights, and mostly appointing people (about 70% are appointed) from various of areas, doctors, teachers, lawyers, so and so.

So only 30% of the politician are left in the parliament? Or something?

I'm in the Southern actually, and during the yellow mob, I'm sure my neighbors had turned their radios to max so that the entire community can hear the propaganda 24/7.

Of course, I wasnt sure of the latest development of the plan, so I dont know of the latest details.

EDIT (after reading h90's post), I'm glad the cancelled the idea, and hopefully something new and better will emerge.

PAD = Fuedalism which is: The scourge of Thailand, the reason for bad education for the poor, The reason why Thailand can't escape 3rd world antics, The enormous weight pressing this country down, a feeding trough for the hi so upper .1%

Don't understand why you guy bring all the time the PAD in !

First at all: The PAD in't a political Party;

Secondly: therefore the PAD isn't involved in any of the existing and future Law, as long as they not a political party;

Third: it's totally irrelevant what the PAD has proclamated in the past, it's today and tomorrow and ...and ..... and.......... what's insterested and that will NOT be done by the PAD!

The topic of this thread is the Emergency Degree of Bangkok and some Provinces. So don't try to bring "old Shoes" in just to start an argument.

[Seizhin]

Yes, that's the gist of it, with ommission of farmers. Doctors and lawyers can get into power on their own, the idea was to FORCE a certain proportion of farmers and other groups into parliament because there's absolutely no way they can get representation through the usual political system.

>>>

Oh, and "stripping the uneducated- baan nook (villagers) of their voting rights," was not in the proposal. They wanted the bannoks not simply to vote, they wanted them to BE in the parliament.

Hmm, so the main idea is, to 'force' the farmers and a few other groups to get into the parliament without the need of being elected (because they somehow cant win, for the reason of the lack of fund)?

Hm now, if you put it that way, that is very interesting, and I'd like to see it possible as well.

[canuckamuck]

Don't understand why you guy bring all the time the PAD in !

First at all: The PAD in't a political Party;

Secondly: therefore the PAD isn't involved in any of the existing and future Law, as long as they not a political party;

Third: it's totally irrelevant what the PAD has proclamated in the past, it's today and tomorrow and ...and ..... and.......... what's insterested and that will NOT be done by the PAD!

The topic of this thread is the Emergency Degree of Bangkok and some Provinces. So don't try to bring "old Shoes" in just to start an argument.

They are the only political force in Thailand strong enough to replace the government at will. And they have done it twice recently. They are far more dangerous than a political party, they are completely unaccountable, and have total disregard for any opinion but their own.

They seemed to be backed by untouchables and are therefore untouchable. How can you possibly talk politics in Thailand without the PAD.

[h90]

You seem to forget how they want to keep the uneducated from voting and appoint a high percentage of cabinet from the cronie patch.

No, pal, YOU forget that it's a made up lie.

I'm sure that I heard of the same, and I'm sure my Thai vocabulary is good enough to translate, and read the newspaper that the PAD wishes to enforce new voting law, stripping the uneducated- baan nook (villagers) of their voting rights, and mostly appointing people (about 70% are appointed) from various of areas, doctors, teachers, lawyers, so and so.

So only 30% of the politician are left in the parliament? Or something?

I'm in the Southern actually, and during the yellow mob, I'm sure my neighbors had turned their radios to max so that the entire community can hear the propaganda 24/7.

Of course, I wasnt sure of the latest development of the plan, so I dont know of the latest details.

EDIT (after reading h90's post), I'm glad the cancelled the idea, and hopefully something new and better will emerge.

I don't know if it is canceled, I just didn't hear about it. maybe they want to be silent on that.

In my opinion a proportional election would fix most of the problems. A local mafiosi can not buy the local people to elect him anymore, because he is either listed on a safe place than he does not need or on far away place than it does not help. And any party vote buying would get extreme expensive and much more dangerous.

[h90]

Don't understand why you guy bring all the time the PAD in !

First at all: The PAD in't a political Party;

Secondly: therefore the PAD isn't involved in any of the existing and future Law, as long as they not a political party;

Third: it's totally irrelevant what the PAD has proclamated in the past, it's today and tomorrow and ...and ..... and.......... what's insterested and that will NOT be done by the PAD!

The topic of this thread is the Emergency Degree of Bangkok and some Provinces. So don't try to bring "old Shoes" in just to start an argument.

They are the only political force in Thailand strong enough to replace the government at will. And they have done it twice recently. They are far more dangerous than a political party, they are completely unaccountable, and have total disregard for any opinion but their own.

They seemed to be backed by untouchables and are therefore untouchable. How can you possibly talk politics in Thailand without the PAD.

I might be a bit senile already, but maybe you can help me:

When did the PAD REPLACED a government?

[Seizhin]

I don't know if it is canceled, I just didn't hear about it. maybe they want to be silent on that.

In my opinion a proportional election would fix most of the problems. A local mafiosi can not buy the local people to elect him anymore, because he is either listed on a safe place than he does not need or on far away place than it does not help. And any party vote buying would get extreme expensive and much more dangerous.

It's not that I dont want any 'clean' politic in Thailand, but I dont think it's possible. Now if the new system is implemented, I'm sure there'll be new form of corruptions, starting from the lowest of the Police, Mayor, or even Villager's Chief.

The idea of getting Bhaan Nook people into the parliament is interesting, but once they're in, they're taken into power and will be corrupted once again.

It's just too clear that PAD's objective werent only to get a "True Democracy", but rather to get rid of any opposing forces who are against their ideal, and that means PAD arent accepting other's opinion anyways. (Putting corrupt officers aside, there are people who are sincere)

PAD are above law and are untouchable so, no more double standard and I'd like to see all Red and Yellow leaders playing sports in jail according to the crime they committed, only then I'd say Thailand had reached another step of "Democracy and Justice."

Edited April 15, 2009 by Seizhin

[h90]

I don't know if it is canceled, I just didn't hear about it. maybe they want to be silent on that.

In my opinion a proportional election would fix most of the problems. A local mafiosi can not buy the local people to elect him anymore, because he is either listed on a safe place than he does not need or on far away place than it does not help. And any party vote buying would get extreme expensive and much more dangerous.

It's not that I dont want any 'clean' politic in Thailand, but I dont think it's possible. Now if the new system is implemented, I'm sure there'll be new form of corruptions, starting from the lowest of the Police, Mayor, or even Villager's Chief.

The idea of getting Bhaan Nook people into the parliament is interesting, but once they're in, they're taken into power and will be corrupted once again.

It's just too clear that PAD's objective werent only to get a "True Democracy", but rather to get rid of any opposing forces who are against their ideal, and that means PAD arent accepting other's opinion anyways. (Putting corrupt officers aside, there are people who are sincere)

PAD are above law and are untouchable so, no more double standard and I'd like to see all Red and Yellow leaders playing sports in jail according to the crime they committed, only then I'd say Thailand had reached another step of "Democracy and Justice."

Well in my opinion: that 70/30 was a kind of brainstorming on how they can prevent that again and again some criminals get vote into office. It was a nice brainstorming idea, but later nobody had the balls to tell....well it was an idea but after thinking we found out it won't work....

The problem is at relative small areas for small amounts you can buy a seat. They tried to prevent that.

but if you make the same in societies you have exactly the same problem just you shift from geographic based to profession based.

So no benefit at that 70/30

The PAD is not above the law, just they read the law exactly, on whatever they did, they were just on the limit that is possible in the law. The constitution give a lot rights and some very general points for protecting democracy. With the PPP dissolved they might be able to ride on these laws. "We did that to protect democracy against a wrong government. That the government is wrong is proofed by the court (dissolve of PPP)".

That will do the trick on all major cases. But Thaksin does not has this luck

[jayboy]

Thailand's slide into mob rule

Published: April 14 2009

Ever since the autumn 2006 coup that deposed populist prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand has given every impression of having succumbed to mob rule, an impression only somewhat relieved by putting a young Eton- and Oxford-educated premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva, at the front of the house.

Events like last weekend's cancellation of an Asean summit, with leaders such as China's Wen Jiabao evacuated as "red shirts" protesters loyal to Mr Thaksin overran the coastal venue of Pattaya, are beginning to paint Thailand in the colours of a banana republic.

Before that, of course, Thailand ran through a brace of Thaksin proxy leaders, toppled by "yellow shirts" royalists who brought the country and the economy to a standstill under the indulgent eyes of the police and the army.

At the root of this now chronic instability is the complete inability of Thailand's ruling class to come to terms with the political implications of Mr Thaksin's constituency.

Thais emerged from the 1997-98 east Asian financial crisis looking for a strong but democratic champion of their interests. What they got was Mr Thaksin. A tycoon with deep pockets, he addressed for the first time the needs of the rural poor of the populous north-east. He was also ruthless in riding rough-shod over institutions from the central bank to the courts, and using blanket repression against Muslim unrest in south Thailand and death squads against drugs dealers.

But it was not just Mr Thaksin's pluto-populism that alienated the urban elite and elements from the army, bureaucracy and the court. They simply could not tolerate the shift in power to political out-castes.

This became clear when the 2007 constitutional reform was rejected by a big majority in the north-east. No wonder. It was a gerrymander to prevent the new actors from the countryside ever again taking political centre stage. Bans on Mr Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai (Thais love Thais) party – the only party ever to win an absolute majority – and its successors reinforced the message.

While Thailand ostensibly has a strong unifying force in King Bhumibol Adulyadej, there have been 18 coups under its constitutional monarchy. Like any other complex and dynamic society, Thailand needs more than a regal umbrella: it needs solid modern institutions.

Mr Abhisit, who came to power in a murky parliamentary vote, can justify his position by recognising Thailand's new political players are here to stay, and by making its institutions work to accommodate them. And he should seek a proper mandate through new elections.

The Financial Times Limited 2009

[ChiangMaiFun]

Thailand's slide into mob rule

Published: April 14 2009

Ever since the autumn 2006 coup that deposed populist prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand has given every impression of having succumbed to mob rule, an impression only somewhat relieved by putting a young Eton- and Oxford-educated premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva, at the front of the house.

Events like last weekend's cancellation of an Asean summit, with leaders such as China's Wen Jiabao evacuated as "red shirts" protesters loyal to Mr Thaksin overran the coastal venue of Pattaya, are beginning to paint Thailand in the colours of a banana republic.

Before that, of course, Thailand ran through a brace of Thaksin proxy leaders, toppled by "yellow shirts" royalists who brought the country and the economy to a standstill under the indulgent eyes of the police and the army.

At the root of this now chronic instability is the complete inability of Thailand's ruling class to come to terms with the political implications of Mr Thaksin's constituency.

Thais emerged from the 1997-98 east Asian financial crisis looking for a strong but democratic champion of their interests. What they got was Mr Thaksin. A tycoon with deep pockets, he addressed for the first time the needs of the rural poor of the populous north-east. He was also ruthless in riding rough-shod over institutions from the central bank to the courts, and using blanket repression against Muslim unrest in south Thailand and death squads against drugs dealers.

But it was not just Mr Thaksin's pluto-populism that alienated the urban elite and elements from the army, bureaucracy and the court. They simply could not tolerate the shift in power to political out-castes.

This became clear when the 2007 constitutional reform was rejected by a big majority in the north-east. No wonder. It was a gerrymander to prevent the new actors from the countryside ever again taking political centre stage. Bans on Mr Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai (Thais love Thais) party – the only party ever to win an absolute majority – and its successors reinforced the message.

While Thailand ostensibly has a strong unifying force in King Bhumibol Adulyadej, there have been 18 coups under its constitutional monarchy. Like any other complex and dynamic society, Thailand needs more than a regal umbrella: it needs solid modern institutions.

Mr Abhisit, who came to power in a murky parliamentary vote, can justify his position by recognising Thailand's new political players are here to stay, and by making its institutions work to accommodate them. And he should seek a proper mandate through new elections.

The Financial Times Limited 2009

Spot on - I really believe elections, at some stage, are the only answer to give a new mandate. It would be a move forward to see ALL parties of whatever colour committ to new elections and committ to honouring the result (hopefully validated by outside observers) - I may dream... but I'm not the only one...

[jayboy]

I don't know if it is canceled, I just didn't hear about it. maybe they want to be silent on that.

In my opinion a proportional election would fix most of the problems. A local mafiosi can not buy the local people to elect him anymore, because he is either listed on a safe place than he does not need or on far away place than it does not help. And any party vote buying would get extreme expensive and much more dangerous.

It's not that I dont want any 'clean' politic in Thailand, but I dont think it's possible. Now if the new system is implemented, I'm sure there'll be new form of corruptions, starting from the lowest of the Police, Mayor, or even Villager's Chief.

The idea of getting Bhaan Nook people into the parliament is interesting, but once they're in, they're taken into power and will be corrupted once again.

It's just too clear that PAD's objective werent only to get a "True Democracy", but rather to get rid of any opposing forces who are against their ideal, and that means PAD arent accepting other's opinion anyways. (Putting corrupt officers aside, there are people who are sincere)

PAD are above law and are untouchable so, no more double standard and I'd like to see all Red and Yellow leaders playing sports in jail according to the crime they committed, only then I'd say Thailand had reached another step of "Democracy and Justice."

Well in my opinion: that 70/30 was a kind of brainstorming on how they can prevent that again and again some criminals get vote into office. It was a nice brainstorming idea, but later nobody had the balls to tell....well it was an idea but after thinking we found out it won't work....

The problem is at relative small areas for small amounts you can buy a seat. They tried to prevent that.

but if you make the same in societies you have exactly the same problem just you shift from geographic based to profession based.

So no benefit at that 70/30

Rubbish.The 70/30 formula was floated to ensure the rural majority would never thwart or rival the elite's stranglehold on power. We hear less about it now partly because of the success of the elite's strategy but also it must be said because people like Abhisit and Korn have no truck with this kind of fascist garbage.You say now it was just brainstorming .Possibly but many took it very seriously just a few months ago, but backtracked when it emerged there was no chance of it being implemented - other than under the heel of a jackboot.

[Tony Clifton]

I'd love to know who his coaches and PR mentors are. I don't think its all CEO solo.

It's not solo. Not sure who he's using right now, but he's employed these PR firms in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelman_(firm)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BGR_Holdings_LLC

I guess my reaction is the same as many, having watched Thaksin and Abhisit last night -Abhisit came off the better by miles not only because of his excellent English but the reasonable tone, remarkable given the pressure he's under.There's something about Thaksin that turns the stomach.

The Times agrees

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6087472.ece

A normal reaction for many at the sight of a slithery snake.

Didn`t Thai Rak Thai have their own 70/30 formula?

70% involved in crime, under investigation or in jail

30% fake credentials.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Tony Clifton

[Chaimai]

Spot on - I really believe elections, at some stage, are the only answer to give a new mandate. It would be a move forward to see ALL parties of whatever colour committ to new elections and committ to honouring the result (hopefully validated by outside observers) - I may dream... but I'm not the only one...

Now, that would be democracy in action.

My heart says that it is absolutely the right thing for real progress in Thailand.

Unfortunately, my head says that elections at this stage would just see a return to the merry-go-round "we don't like the result so we will (a) change it in the courts or (b ) create civil unrest until we get what we want".

Perhaps a way forward is to change some of the prevailing conditions:-

Prevent a repeat of PAD/red-shirt civil disobedience by re-defining the conditions under which a protest can take place. Not easy, but a balance between allowing freedom of speech and PEACEFUL protest versus allowing mob-rule to pervaid is worth seeking.

Thailand would never allow itself to be seriously scrutinised by an outside agency, but corruption free elections have to be an objective. Almost impossible when the determining factor in a politician switching horses is the size of the bounty.

Transparent policies that allow all the electorate to see that their interests and concerns are indeed being addressed.

The problem I have in writing this is trying to find all the reasons that would make the democrats electable. Not because I am a signed up party member but because I have been sucked into the deeply-entrenched views that seem to be the real barrier to progress. The two party system seems to mean that on one side there TRT, or it's reincarnations, which means Thaksin. On the other there is the democratics which equals ruling classes/elite/army etc.

Because Thaksin "represents the poor" and the poor are in the physical majority then there is an inevitability about the election result. The wrong people 'get in' for the wrong reasons.

However, this is no reason to say that you cannot give "the peasants" the vote because they are not educated enough to use their vote properly. A democracy has to start with equality at the ballot box.

The challenge for the democrats appears to be in finding policies that curry favour with the masses - ultimately, any such steps will be seen in themselves as 'vote buying'.

Remember that in the UK many voters would vote for, say, labour because their father did and his father before him. There was no understanding of policies - Labour stood for the working classes and the Tories for the elite etc. Look what the UK ended up with - amorphous parties that all but shared the same manifestos.

It is a long road ahead for Thailand and teaching the need for civil obedience and peaceful protest has to be a prequesite for any electoral form. A first step is to understand that you cannot react by 'uprising' if you do not get the election you want.

I also find myself thinking that the Thaksin factor does not help Thailand's cause. Sure, he would still be in power were it not for the 2006 coup. This is now consigned Thailands history and if a leader has to be 'acceptable' to the military etc, etc then this is a part of Thailands current/future igeology that will not change overnight.

The Thaksin factor has become another unnecessary barrier to progress.

[canuckamuck]

They are the only political force in Thailand strong enough to replace the government at will. And they have done it twice recently. They are far more dangerous than a political party, they are completely unaccountable, and have total disregard for any opinion but their own.

They seemed to be backed by untouchables and are therefore untouchable. How can you possibly talk politics in Thailand without the PAD.

I might be a bit senile already, but maybe you can help me:

When did the PAD REPLACED a government?

The coup that removed Thaksin and the airport closures/protests that resulted in Abhisit becoming PM are the two examples I am referring. Now you will come at me with semantics about how it was the army in 2006, or it was a coalition that brought in Abhisit, But we all know if rabid dog Sonthi would have kept his yap shut Thailand would not have a revolving door at the PM's office.

If PAD was really for democracy, why aren't they screaming for an election with foreign observers at every stage. Why? because the majority will win again and they have to watch the poor get help with medical costs and finance and other quality of life issues that the PAD just cant abide.

Edited April 16, 2009 by canuckamuck

[samgrowth]

Thailand's slide into mob rule

Published: April 14 2009

Ever since the autumn 2006 coup that deposed populist prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand has given every impression of having succumbed to mob rule, an impression only somewhat relieved by putting a young Eton- and Oxford-educated premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva, at the front of the house.

Events like last weekend's cancellation of an Asean summit, with leaders such as China's Wen Jiabao evacuated as "red shirts" protesters loyal to Mr Thaksin overran the coastal venue of Pattaya, are beginning to paint Thailand in the colours of a banana republic.

Before that, of course, Thailand ran through a brace of Thaksin proxy leaders, toppled by "yellow shirts" royalists who brought the country and the economy to a standstill under the indulgent eyes of the police and the army.

At the root of this now chronic instability is the complete inability of Thailand's ruling class to come to terms with the political implications of Mr Thaksin's constituency.

Thais emerged from the 1997-98 east Asian financial crisis looking for a strong but democratic champion of their interests. What they got was Mr Thaksin. A tycoon with deep pockets, he addressed for the first time the needs of the rural poor of the populous north-east. He was also ruthless in riding rough-shod over institutions from the central bank to the courts, and using blanket repression against Muslim unrest in south Thailand and death squads against drugs dealers.

But it was not just Mr Thaksin's pluto-populism that alienated the urban elite and elements from the army, bureaucracy and the court. They simply could not tolerate the shift in power to political out-castes.

This became clear when the 2007 constitutional reform was rejected by a big majority in the north-east. No wonder. It was a gerrymander to prevent the new actors from the countryside ever again taking political centre stage. Bans on Mr Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai (Thais love Thais) party – the only party ever to win an absolute majority – and its successors reinforced the message.

While Thailand ostensibly has a strong unifying force in King Bhumibol Adulyadej, there have been 18 coups under its constitutional monarchy. Like any other complex and dynamic society, Thailand needs more than a regal umbrella: it needs solid modern institutions.

Mr Abhisit, who came to power in a murky parliamentary vote, can justify his position by recognising Thailand's new political players are here to stay, and by making its institutions work to accommodate them. And he should seek a proper mandate through new elections.

The Financial Times Limited 2009

Spot on - I really believe elections, at some stage, are the only answer to give a new mandate. It would be a move forward to see ALL parties of whatever colour committ to new elections and committ to honouring the result (hopefully validated by outside observers) - I may dream... but I'm not the only one...

Well written. I agree fully.

[jayboy]

The Guardian 14th April 2009

Even the worst moments of Thailand's many recent crises passed with an air of courtly unreality, as though beneath the anger and the coloured T-shirts everyone had agreed that no one would get seriously hurt. The drama seemed almost ritualistic - an airport siege where protesters apologised to tourists for inconveniencing them. No longer. Thailand's frightening political collapse, from emerging tolerant democracy to dysfunctional oligarchy, has reached a darker, threatening stage. On Saturday protesters stormed a regional summit in the resort of Pattaya. Leaders, including China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, had to be evacuated. Yesterday, soldiers in battle dress fired automatic weapons over crowds in Bangkok, some of the 6,000 troops deployed.

Only two people, at the time of writing, appear to have been killed, but many have been injured. The damage to Thailand's reputation and economy is huge. The country is being ripped apart by a political crisis which each day gets further from resolution. Voices are getting shriller and the government weaker. Revolution, or another military takeover, are beginning to look unavoidable.

Thailand should not be in this crisis and all sides share responsibility for bringing it about. The country is not split by ethnic or religious dispute, although conflict in the partly Muslim south has been exacerbated by events in Bangkok. Despite repeated coups, and a political monarchy, Thailand had built a democratic culture, which should have been strong enough to survive corruption and recession. But it is failing in the face of manipulative politicians and a public whose rage is being fired by a justified sense of exploitation and injustice.

Yesterday should have been joyful, the Songkran water festival, where Thais soak each other and tourists. Instead red-clad protesters were chased through the streets of Bangkok by forces supporting the unelected prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who himself now seems caught between the forces of revolt and reaction. He has the support of urban Thais - some of them middle-class democrats - as well as murkier backers in the military and the right. He came to power on the back of the yellow-shirted protests which paralysed Bangkok last year, and brought down an elected government backed by the exiled former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, who is now calling for revolution.

A democratic contest would go in Thaksin's favour, which is why the urban elite want to deny him one. He has the loyalty of the rural poor. But his brand of billionaire politics has proved a dead end too. Thailand desperately needs to find a democratic leader who can overcome its divisions, before more bloodshed.

[Priceless]

They are the only political force in Thailand strong enough to replace the government at will. And they have done it twice recently. They are far more dangerous than a political party, they are completely unaccountable, and have total disregard for any opinion but their own.

They seemed to be backed by untouchables and are therefore untouchable. How can you possibly talk politics in Thailand without the PAD.

I might be a bit senile already, but maybe you can help me:

When did the PAD REPLACED a government?

The coup that removed Thaksin and the airport closures/protests that resulted in Abhisit becoming PM are the two examples I am referring. Now you will come at me with semantics about how it was the army in 2006, or it was a coalition that brought in Abhisit, But we all know if rabid dog Sonthi would have kept his yap shut Thailand would not have a revolving door at the PM's office.

If PAD was really for democracy, why aren't they screaming for an election with foreign observers at every stage. Why? because the majority will win again and they have to watch the poor get help with medical costs and finance and other quality of life issues that the PAD just cant abide.

Possibly for similar reasons to those of the Samak and Somchai governments, when PAD demanded a fresh election

Personally I don't favour either the yellow or red shirts. However, I don't really think that the country can afford holding an election in the middle of the current global economic crisis. Right now the government, regardless of "colour", needs to get down to managing the economy (of the country, not their own).

The situation may well be more suitable for an election in, say, 18 months time.

/ Priceless

[webfact]

They are the only political force in Thailand strong enough to replace the government at will. And they have done it twice recently. They are far more dangerous than a political party, they are completely unaccountable, and have total disregard for any opinion but their own.

They seemed to be backed by untouchables and are therefore untouchable. How can you possibly talk politics in Thailand without the PAD.

I might be a bit senile already, but maybe you can help me:

When did the PAD REPLACED a government?

The coup that removed Thaksin and the airport closures/protests that resulted in Abhisit becoming PM are the two examples I am referring. Now you will come at me with semantics about how it was the army in 2006, or it was a coalition that brought in Abhisit, But we all know if rabid dog Sonthi would have kept his yap shut Thailand would not have a revolving door at the PM's office.

If PAD was really for democracy, why aren't they screaming for an election with foreign observers at every stage. Why? because the majority will win again and they have to watch the poor get help with medical costs and finance and other quality of life issues that the PAD just cant abide.

Possibly for similar reasons to those of the Samak and Somchai governments, when PAD demanded a fresh election

Personally I don't favour either the yellow or red shirts. However, I don't really think that the country can afford holding an election in the middle of the current global economic crisis. Right now the government, regardless of "colour", needs to get down to managing the economy (of the country, not their own).

The situation may well be more suitable for an election in, say, 18 months time.

/ Priceless

Yeah I can agree with you. To call on new elections during the current global economic crisis would be the wrong solution! We see then a caretaker Government which can not handle but only sit unable to make decisions or install laws. In the best case scenario a fully function Government, election included will take at least 4-5 month to have it running. This can't be allowed. Solve the crisis first. Thailand needs a leader now and elections in a few month!

Or do the Thai people want Chalerm?

[Priceless]

The Guardian 14th April 2009

Even the worst moments of Thailand's many recent crises passed with an air of courtly unreality, as though beneath the anger and the coloured T-shirts everyone had agreed that no one would get seriously hurt. The drama seemed almost ritualistic - an airport siege where protesters apologised to tourists for inconveniencing them. No longer. Thailand's frightening political collapse, from emerging tolerant democracy to dysfunctional oligarchy, has reached a darker, threatening stage. On Saturday protesters stormed a regional summit in the resort of Pattaya. Leaders, including China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, had to be evacuated. Yesterday, soldiers in battle dress fired automatic weapons over crowds in Bangkok, some of the 6,000 troops deployed.

Only two people, at the time of writing, appear to have been killed, but many have been injured. The damage to Thailand's reputation and economy is huge. The country is being ripped apart by a political crisis which each day gets further from resolution. Voices are getting shriller and the government weaker. Revolution, or another military takeover, are beginning to look unavoidable.

Thailand should not be in this crisis and all sides share responsibility for bringing it about. The country is not split by ethnic or religious dispute, although conflict in the partly Muslim south has been exacerbated by events in Bangkok. Despite repeated coups, and a political monarchy, Thailand had built a democratic culture, which should have been strong enough to survive corruption and recession. But it is failing in the face of manipulative politicians and a public whose rage is being fired by a justified sense of exploitation and injustice.

Yesterday should have been joyful, the Songkran water festival, where Thais soak each other and tourists. Instead red-clad protesters were chased through the streets of Bangkok by forces supporting the unelected prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who himself now seems caught between the forces of revolt and reaction. He has the support of urban Thais - some of them middle-class democrats - as well as murkier backers in the military and the right. He came to power on the back of the yellow-shirted protests which paralysed Bangkok last year, and brought down an elected government backed by the exiled former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, who is now calling for revolution.

A democratic contest would go in Thaksin's favour, which is why the urban elite want to deny him one. He has the loyalty of the rural poor. But his brand of billionaire politics has proved a dead end too. Thailand desperately needs to find a democratic leader who can overcome its divisions, before more bloodshed.

It appears that the Guardian (or its correspondent Jonathan Watts) has got an agenda of its (his) own regarding Thai politics. They may call Abhisit "unelected", but then he is "unelected" the same way that Thaksin, Samak and Somchai were and that Gordon Brown is and Tony Blair was before him. The same way as Angela Merkel in Germany and the Prime Ministers of e.g. Spain, Austria, Sweden and so on. Constitutionally, Thailand is a parliamentary democracy where the Parliament is elected by the people, and Parliament in its turn elects the Prime Minister. If the majority in Parliament shifts, whether after an election or through a change of coalitions, then a new Prime Minister will be elected.

Directly elected heads of government belong to another constitutional tradition, that of e.g. USA, France and a number of other countries.

For another example of the Guardian's "unbiased" reporting, have a look here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/1...trators-retreat Don't miss the readers' comments at the bottom of the page. Also note that the article was published 14 April, when the facts were rather well known and published in Thai media.

/ Priceless

[jayboy]

It appears that the Guardian (or its correspondent Jonathan Watts) has got an agenda of its (his) own regarding Thai politics. They may call Abhisit "unelected", but then he is "unelected" the same way that Thaksin, Samak and Somchai were and that Gordon Brown is and Tony Blair was before him. The same way as Angela Merkel in Germany and the Prime Ministers of e.g. Spain, Austria, Sweden and so on. Constitutionally, Thailand is a parliamentary democracy where the Parliament is elected by the people, and Parliament in its turn elects the Prime Minister. If the majority in Parliament shifts, whether after an election or through a change of coalitions, then a new Prime Minister will be elected.

Directly elected heads of government belong to another constitutional tradition, that of e.g. USA, France and a number of other countries.

/ Priceless

The position of Abhisit is completely different from the other leaders you mention, not least because he came to power on the back of unelected elites, both military and feudal as well as with the assistance of "directed" courts.This has been explained in detail many times before and other than a few PAD zealots I think all reasonable people accept the current government has very murky origins.All the evidence is Abhisit, who I think is the right man in the right place, is acutely conscious of this problem and the need for legitimacy (over and above the technical sense).The sooner elections are held the better.

You can rant about the Guardian all you like, but the view expressed by Jonathan Watts is universally accepted, for example The New Zealand Herald.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/print...6605&pnum=0

[Chaimai]

You can rant about the Guardian all you like, but the view expressed by Jonathan Watts is universally accepted.

jayboy - I don't accept it so you can poke your 'universal' comment.

The Guardian has little credibility for balanced reporting but 'up to you' if you want to blindly accept their standard/slant of reporting.

[Supernova]

They are the only political force in Thailand strong enough to replace the government at will. And they have done it twice recently. They are far more dangerous than a political party, they are completely unaccountable, and have total disregard for any opinion but their own.

They seemed to be backed by untouchables and are therefore untouchable. How can you possibly talk politics in Thailand without the PAD.

Spot on!

Although I don't agree the PAD are strong enough to replace the Government at will, they are very influential nevertheless. It's a well known fact that the PAD enjoy support from the powers that be. They want to transform the political system to one used in medieval times. Sorry, but no thanks. I'm all for moving forward, not backwards!!

Another common misconception is the PAD and Democrat Party are working together. Not entirely true. They have cooperated in some areas, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, rifts and a conflict of interest has risen between them recently.

Before the red-shirt sega, Sondhi (one of the PAD leaders) had threatend to start mass protests against Abhisit and his Government if certain demands weren't met. He also publicly criticized Abhisit for not giving the PAD enough respect and recognition... <deleted>?! I laughed so hard when I heard this. If anything, I think Sondhi & Co. should be grateful they're not imprisoned for what they did and should just <deleted>.

[madi]

The Guardian 14th April 2009

Even the worst moments of Thailand's many recent crises passed with an air of courtly unreality, as though beneath the anger and the coloured T-shirts everyone had agreed that no one would get seriously hurt. The drama seemed almost ritualistic - an airport siege where protesters apologised to tourists for inconveniencing them. No longer. Thailand's frightening political collapse, from emerging tolerant democracy to dysfunctional oligarchy, has reached a darker, threatening stage. On Saturday protesters stormed a regional summit in the resort of Pattaya. Leaders, including China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, had to be evacuated. Yesterday, soldiers in battle dress fired automatic weapons over crowds in Bangkok, some of the 6,000 troops deployed.

Only two people, at the time of writing, appear to have been killed, but many have been injured. The damage to Thailand's reputation and economy is huge. The country is being ripped apart by a political crisis which each day gets further from resolution. Voices are getting shriller and the government weaker. Revolution, or another military takeover, are beginning to look unavoidable.

Thailand should not be in this crisis and all sides share responsibility for bringing it about. The country is not split by ethnic or religious dispute, although conflict in the partly Muslim south has been exacerbated by events in Bangkok. Despite repeated coups, and a political monarchy, Thailand had built a democratic culture, which should have been strong enough to survive corruption and recession. But it is failing in the face of manipulative politicians and a public whose rage is being fired by a justified sense of exploitation and injustice.

Yesterday should have been joyful, the Songkran water festival, where Thais soak each other and tourists. Instead red-clad protesters were chased through the streets of Bangkok by forces supporting the unelected prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who himself now seems caught between the forces of revolt and reaction. He has the support of urban Thais - some of them middle-class democrats - as well as murkier backers in the military and the right. He came to power on the back of the yellow-shirted protests which paralysed Bangkok last year, and brought down an elected government backed by the exiled former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, who is now calling for revolution.

A democratic contest would go in Thaksin's favour, which is why the urban elite want to deny him one. He has the loyalty of the rural poor. But his brand of billionaire politics has proved a dead end too. Thailand desperately needs to find a democratic leader who can overcome its divisions, before more bloodshed.

It appears that the Guardian (or its correspondent Jonathan Watts) has got an agenda of its (his) own regarding Thai politics. They may call Abhisit "unelected", but then he is "unelected" the same way that Thaksin, Samak and Somchai were and that Gordon Brown is and Tony Blair was before him. The same way as Angela Merkel in Germany and the Prime Ministers of e.g. Spain, Austria, Sweden and so on. Constitutionally, Thailand is a parliamentary democracy where the Parliament is elected by the people, and Parliament in its turn elects the Prime Minister. If the majority in Parliament shifts, whether after an election or through a change of coalitions, then a new Prime Minister will be elected.

Directly elected heads of government belong to another constitutional tradition, that of e.g. USA, France and a number of other countries.

For another example of the Guardian's "unbiased" reporting, have a look here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/1...trators-retreat Don't miss the readers' comments at the bottom of the page. Also note that the article was published 14 April, when the facts were rather well known and published in Thai media.

/ Priceless

How many coups has Thailand had now? is it over 20 now? I think so.

So to even use the word Democracy and Thailand together in a sentence is a gross misuse of the English language unless you use the word "NOT" in the same sentence.

Next thing you will be telling us the iranian leader is elected. Yeah sure. And Cuba has free elections too. HAAA HAAAA

I am a farang--so you Thais call me, and so I do not care. But at least be honest people and say it like it really is. This Thai government is owned and operated by the elite here in Thailand that own the Army and all the land. Any PM is OK as long as he does exactly what he is told to do by the real leaders.

What is funny is how so many Thais post propaganda to hide the facts. it seems to be working too from the looks of it. I mean look at how many western people post idiotic responses here agreeing that Thailand does not need democracy. Yeah sure--pay your workers slave pay--like in America after the civil war, and it is all good. Westerners can come here and have pay for slaves just like the upper class Thais do. It is all fine.

How many of you could live on 2000 baht a month? How about 4000 baht?

Try even 10,000 baht? Of course the poor are abused here. The poor in the west have been raped in America now for 30 years too but they are a little better off than the Thais. They had a free election and elected their man. President Obama is left.

If a Thai man with obama's views were elected in Thailand he would be thrown out by coup in weeks.

HAAAAA HAAAA

Such is your Thai style democracy.

Please continue looking stupid and talking about elections and democracy in Thailand.

It make us laugh.

There is NO democracy in Thailand.

Courts can throw out any PM.

The courts were appointed by the Elite.

Heck--they threw out one PM for doing a tv show. HAAAA HAAAAA

This is not a democracy but again, keep saying it is so I can laugh some more.

[madi]

For the benefit of those of you who slept during political scinece class, NO--the Courts can throw out an elected leader in democratic nations.

A Parliament can throw out or remove a PM but NOT the courts.

In America, it is the congress that can throw out the president but NOT the courts.

The Courts in fact can be removed by the Congress and the Parliament in democratic nations.

Who appoints the Courts in America. The president nominates but it is the Senate that approves and puts the court members into the Supreme Court.

Who put the Thai court members in?

HAAAAA HAAAAA

Were they approved by an elected Parliament? NO

These clowns were put in during a Coup government.

They, like the PM, stay in power as long as they do exactly what they are told.

Am I wrong?

NO

Come on Thais.

tell the unaware farang who are dim how it really works here.

The Farang are dense it seems. They need to be told directly.

What happens to you farangs if you say something about the head of state here?

You go to jail.

If you are Thai and you do the same, you likely get killed.

Now again--go back to talking nonsense.

Thai posters who work for the propaganda machine do not need to work to hard here. <ost of the farangs do not know and do not care as long as they get theirs.

Such is life

[animatic]

Funny I don't remember those 'recent PAD demands' being met at all.

Looks like they got stiffed.

And looks like their court dates are grinding along the calendar at Thia speed.

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

For the benefit of those of you who slept during political scinece class, NO--the Courts can throw out an elected leader in democratic nations.

A Parliament can throw out or remove a PM but NOT the courts.

In America, it is the congress that can throw out the president but NOT the courts.

The Courts in fact can be removed by the Congress and the Parliament in democratic nations.

Am I wrong?

NO

Yes, you are very wrong. Maybe you should have taken a real political science class or actually obtained a degree in political science.

In any true democracy, a court can remove a president or PM, if the underlying election of the head of state violated the country's constitution. If you recall, in 2000, it was the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately decided the election result. Moreover, in an impeachment in the U.S., the Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial in the Senate. In a democracy, no branch of government can remove the courts. Such an act would mean the nation was no longer a democracy. An independent judiciary is a necessary part of any truly democratic government.

[animatic]

For the benefit of those of you who slept during political scinece class, NO--the Courts can throw out an elected leader in democratic nations.

A Parliament can throw out or remove a PM but NOT the courts.

In America, it is the congress that can throw out the president but NOT the courts.

The Courts in fact can be removed by the Congress and the Parliament in democratic nations.

Am I wrong?

NO

Yes, you are very wrong. Maybe you should have taken a real political science class or actually obtained a degree in political science.

In any true democracy, a court can remove a president or PM, if the underlying election of the head of state violated the country's constitution. If you recall, in 2000, it was the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately decided the election result. Moreover, in an impeachment in the U.S., the Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial in the Senate. In a democracy, no branch of government can remove the courts. Such an act would mean the nation was no longer a democracy. An independent judiciary is a necessary part of any truly democratic government.

Also wrong.

In the USA The Chief just RUNS the trial in the Senate.

The senate acts as the jury and as judges.

The IMPEACHMENT is done by the lower House of Representatives

It's leadership can act as the prosecutors.

That said if a sitting president is found indictable by a court,

that evidence is presented to the House of Reps for indictment/impeachment.

The SAME goes for the Supreme court members themselves.

The president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

But in case of election issues these CAN be decided by the courts.

And the special court for political office holders,

acts like a defacto USA Senate to try politicians.

Same mechanism, just not exactly.

Sitting senators and reps, like MP's can be judged in the courts

and then kicked out by their colleagues directly.

As a PM he is just an MP having formed a cabinet

and having executive authority

as long as his coalition or majority holds up.

So Samak was found guilty for conflict of interest, the law says here he's out.

Somchai went out with the dirty bath water of the whole party for election issues.

Edited April 16, 2009 by animatic

[TEFLMike]

No Winners in Thailand's Crisis >>>>>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7998243.stm

Edited April 16, 2009 by TEFLMike