Thaksin Interviews On CNN and BBC

[jayboy]

Everyone of the MPs in the current parliament was elected by people. During the campaign not a single party was affiliated with pro-Thaksin PPP, they all offered a "third choice" - not with Thaksin, not with Democrats. After the election PPP arm twisted them into a coaltion (which didn't make them or their voters Thaksin supporters in any way), after the court ruling last December Democrats arm tiwsted them into a different kind of coaltion.

Of course it would be nice to have another elections to see how the things changed since 2007, but it's not a time for curiosity, nor there's any problem with legislative work - the government functions with full support of the parliament. Street politics have the potential to paralise the govt and force the elections but that threat is over.

So, why exactly should we have new elections now? There's a reason they hold them every four years, and there are reasons why they could be held earlier, none of which exist now. So why?

Plus

There's nothing in your post which is strictly speaking wrong, but you as usual I'm afraid miss the overall point spectacularly.Whether deliberately or not I will leave others to speculate.

I already have posted the following article from the Financial Times, that well known bastion of socialist revolution.But for easy reference it explains why elections should be held sooner rather than later.

Money quote: " 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."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26826500-2920-11...144feabdc0.html

[tracer]

Kaiwatnok

Are you ex military?.....No, I thought not

Now we see how the folly of journalists (assuming when you say 'working for Foreign News', you don't mean teaboy or sandwich maker) can escalate a situation when they display the level of irresponsibility that you have done in your post. Paper bullets as they have been termed still have a brass cartridge. The brass cartridge is required to hold the charge, that in this case propels the wodge of paper forward. You would not be able to tell the difference in the noise of the weapon whatever munition it was firing. There was one scene I remember when there was intense firing activity from the troops and the guns were indeed horizontal. Let me tell you, if they were using live rounds at that point the scene on the streets would have resembled something you would see on the inside of a butchers shop. So really it is not a wonder that the people were not killed, they were not killed because there was no lead flying at them, just paper, which I doubt would travel more than 60-80 mtrs. Had the bullets been real, the ensuing wall of lead would have taken out many many people. As a journalist I am sure you will have access to the resources to ascertain how many people were admitted to Bangkok hospitals with bullet wounds, and if they were bullet wounds were they from M16 or hand held small arm weapons that the reds were carrying. Go ahead, make yourself a name with the subsequent breaking news. I can see the headlines now 'Just about Nada, zilch, zero deaths and injuries from M16 rounds'.

Thaskin was right, there were many people killed on the streets in Bangkok on Saturday night, Sunday and Monday, what he omitted to say was that the deaths and injuries were caused as a result of heavy drinking and driving during Songkhran festivities.

I donot think most people have any idea how many types of blanks have been produced and in Europe years ago plastic was used for the lot and it didnt have a bullet part. ONLY a cartridge made out of plastic making a bang... First time I saw them I wondered what it would to the riffle...

Anyway, at least it looks that at present the mess is more or less over but I wonder what will happen to that request to essentially kick him out of the Middle East!

[tracer]

Times say PM Abhisit defeats Mr.Thaksin in media battle

The Times declares Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva winner of the media battle with former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, saying that Mr.Abhisit "seemed reasonable, patient and articulate while Thaksin, his exiled antagonist, was shrill and unconvincing" during his interview with CNN on April 13th.

Despite the magazine’s criticism that the Abhisit administration embarrassed the country by postponing the ASEAN Summits in Pattaya due to a red-shirt protest, it said the government was successful in preventing Thailand from descending into anarchy and redeeming the country’s image in the eyes of the foreign press.

The Prime Minister’s phone-in after CNN’s interview with Mr.Thaksin successfully clarified the latter’s allegations that Mr.Abhisit’s government used force to disperse red-shirt protesters, resulting in deaths and injuries. Mr.Abhisit also rebutted the allegation that his administration was undemocratic by saying that the Democrat-led administration had ascended to power in the same way as the administrations of the now-defunct People Power Party.

However, The Times believed that there was a tough job awaiting Mr.Abhisit in terms of the government’s operations to tackle the remaining red-shirt rallies throughout the country as well as suspicions on the protest dispersal in the capital Bangkok.

Source: National News Bureau of Thailand - 15 April 2009

Personally I think it quite likely they went ahaed with meeting in Pataya so that if Taksins followers did anything silly they could get the reason to declare an emergency...

[Ricardo]

Dubai King asked not to welcome Thaksin

BANGKOK: -- A Muslim community in Bangkok said Tuesday that its residents will petition to King of Dubai not to welcome fugitive ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra because he is leader of red shirted protesters who stage violence in Thailand.

Manit Saengthong, leader of Darrulaman Mosque community, said that the community opposed the violence instigated by the red shirts during the past days.

Some of the protesters invaded and destroyed properties of a mosque, Manit said.

"We will submit a petition to King of Dubai through United Arab Emirates ambassador of Thailand, requesting the King not to allow Thaksin to enter the country and use it as a springboard to attack Thailand," Manit said.

The request will also be for other Muslim countries, he added.

Thaksin is known for his close relationship with Dubai businessmen. He usually talked to the media while he stayed in Dubai.

-- The Nation 2009-04-14

I wish the Nation wasn't so sloppy in its reporting. There is no "King" of Dubai. His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is the "Ruler of Dubai", and he is an Emir, as Dubai is an emirate.

Not sloppy reporting by the Nation in fairness, it is Manit Saengthong who is quoted above as referring to the 'King of Dubai', and who is therefore mistaken.

[TAWP]

He was elected by the people in free and fair elections as were his proxies after he left the country. Like him or not, that is how a democracy is supposed to work! If there were another election today, he would STILL win by a landslide and PAD knows it. PAD remaining in power is an affront to the will of the people. You can call that many things, but democracy is not one of them.

Get over it.

you need to get over it singhalife

you backed the wrong horse

Thaksin is now part of Thailands colourful history and becoming more politically irrelavent every day

todays polls tell us that Abhisit would win by a landslide and for the record thaksin never won by a landslide, he only got just over 50% of the vote having paid out millions of baht in taxpayers money to get that much by buying votes and employing thugs to get it

Quite the contrary, I do not have any interest whatsoever who or which party runs the country. However, I am interested in the democratic process just as I would be for any democratic country. In Thailand, the process has clearly been usurped at one point or another by both parties. Notwithstanding that, the process should be allowed to proceed.

New elections is the best solution to resolve the current state of affairs. It's a mess and a do-over (again) is in order. I do not know where YOU live, but the rural MAJORITY clearly backs Thaksin's party. The yellows are the minority and every election thus far has proved that they do not have the votes to retain power after a new election. Those are the facts. Get over it.

...and yes, the red is for effect because I do agree with their position that new elections should be held. Beyond that, I really don't care.

Since you claim the majority backs Thaksin, you can hardly be calling yourself 'objective' as current indications (including the trend shown in the last election) shows that his 'majority' support (even if regionalized to 'Outside Bangkok' - which is is what rural means - unless you happen to mean 'north/eastern rural and just forgot to write it) is dwindling and isn't anymore and absolutely not even a sure thing if he came back in person to lead TRT v3 or 4.

[animatic]

Endless on going sour grapes and bile from several posters angered

at being out maneuvered parlamenarily is just venting it's spleen

about how undemocratic it MUST be since their BOSS is not in charge.

Most all of the governments of the world and certainly the ones most likely to be picky,

and say as much, have ALL accepted this government as perfectly legitimate.

It is now seen as sharp, canny and strong too.

And Thaksin is now toast, burned on the spit of his own hubris.

He hung himself with his own mouth and lack of information.

He assumed his plans would go as planned, no fog of battle for Thaksin,

he knows all he plans all and controls all, until he doesn't then

stutters and sputters and flops on his behind.

[ronthompson]

I am not pro or con on the government of Thailand Past or Present.

I do how ever have a few comments

I was under the impression Thaksin placed his company in the off shore account prior to being elected PM.

I was under the impression his wealth came from selling his company and selling his English football team.

If my impressions are correct where is he guilty of greed?

I served in Vietnam and trust me, M-16's fired in a crowd, you would not need a photo you could hear the screams of pain.

In reporting I do wish a spade was called a spade, the media has a strange agenda, people want the truth not some reporter's version of what he believes or wants.

[Plus]

Everyone of the MPs in the current parliament was elected by people. During the campaign not a single party was affiliated with pro-Thaksin PPP, they all offered a "third choice" - not with Thaksin, not with Democrats. After the election PPP arm twisted them into a coaltion (which didn't make them or their voters Thaksin supporters in any way), after the court ruling last December Democrats arm tiwsted them into a different kind of coaltion.

Of course it would be nice to have another elections to see how the things changed since 2007, but it's not a time for curiosity, nor there's any problem with legislative work - the government functions with full support of the parliament. Street politics have the potential to paralise the govt and force the elections but that threat is over.

So, why exactly should we have new elections now? There's a reason they hold them every four years, and there are reasons why they could be held earlier, none of which exist now. So why?

Plus

There's nothing in your post which is strictly speaking wrong, but you as usual I'm afraid miss the overall point spectacularly.Whether deliberately or not I will leave others to speculate.

I already have posted the following article from the Financial Times, that well known bastion of socialist revolution.But for easy reference it explains why elections should be held sooner rather than later.

Money quote: " 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."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26826500-2920-11...144feabdc0.html

Thailand will start taking FT advice on Thai politics right after Bangkok Winter Olympics, but, besides that, why there's not a single mention of Bbangkok riots and Abhisit handling of them? True, right after Pattaya fiasco Abhisit was under pressure and his leadership under a question mark bu things have changed since then, if you haven't noticed.

Also - what would elections possibly change in Thai political landscape? Reds HAVE their political representation, the largest party in parliament. What more do they hope to achieve? Their party is in a complete disarray, without proper leadership or agenda. The exuse given by Chalerm was that people didn't vote for them to be in opposition, so they don't know how to perform those duties.

And if you want to remind me about PAD's protests against elections outcome - there weren't any. PAD accepted them and started rallying only against specific policies regarding Thaksin and PAD didn't think that fresh elections was the anwer. Towards the end the parliament itself was very ineffective and much time was spent on battling government's political proposals like amnesties or reinstating Samak. Calls for House dissolution were coming from all over the spectrum, sans PAD itself.

There are no such problems now - the govt and parliament work, there's no power vacuum, no meaninful challenges to their power either.

[animatic]

noahvall

One small point - since we have pictures of soldiers firing horizontally at the crowd, where are the pictures of the butcher shop, as you called it? Certainly whoever took the pictures of the soldiers could have easily swung the camera around and showed the carnage, had there been any.

Eeeeeeexactly!!

Where are all those photos? Journos love those types of photos, funny that isn't it!

Blanks can be fired directly at people 6 meters or more away

and not even the wadding will reach that far.

But if a platoon of soldiers drops weapons aimed your way,

and you see muzzle flashes and smoke aimed at you...

are you going to assume it blanks?

Or stop what you are doing and run away, quick fast?

This is perfectly logical use of blanks to stop rioters.

And there is NO WAY international cameras would have missed a real army caused bloodbath.

Ignore the sound bites and inuendo, cause that is just propaganda.

Thaksin didn't answer ONE question she asked, slipped off to his script ever time,

and much of the script was WRONG. What a pratt. Can't get accurate intelligence

before speaking on the world stage. He made it clear his is not the world class

leader of nations that he pretends.

Where is Sam Moon when he needs him?

Not spinning his press releases anymore?

Edited April 16, 2009 by animatic

[scorecard]

Re Taxsins claim that the military had thrown red shirt bodies onto a pick up truck and driven away.

Just wondering if other poters are aware of where taxsin got this from?

The 1992 coup was much deadlier then the events just seen, including soldiers shooting and killing large numbers of the public on the streets. (I was working in Bangkok at the time.)

It was claimed several times that soldiers had thrown numerous dead members of the public onto trucks (I think several hundred) and driven them to undiscclosed locations, and dumped the bodies in mass graves Still today there are occasional protests from their surviving families for an enquiry.

I'm wndering whether taxsin remembered all of the above and decided to 'copy' it regardless of whether it's currently factual or not.

[Plus]

I was under the impression Thaksin placed his company in the off shore account prior to being elected PM.

It is basically correct, but also illegal according to Thai laws and it forms the gist of the upcoming asset concealment court battle.

By laws political office holders must transfer their shareholding into blind trusts or sell their companies altogether.

The prosecution argues that while on paper Thaksin sold the company to his children, he was still in control, with his signatures on bank accounts and transfers.

If they establish that, he'd be open to all kinds of additional power abuse cases since he changed plenty of laws to benefit *his* company.

Simly hiding his true ownership would be enough to confiscate the profits from the sale, however.

Football club is a different story altogether - legally Thaksin has never had any funds overseas, Thai govt would love to see where they come from. Reportedly when UK authorities looked into money movements they froze some of his accounts and put pressure on him to sell, then revoked his visa while he was out of the country. Shortly after than the club, under new owners, revoked his honorary chairmanship and stripped all memories of him from publci places around the stadium.

Proceeds from sale were reportedly invested in oil when prices were at the peak last year. Guess what happened to those investments.

[animatic]

I am not pro or con on the government of Thailand Past or Present.

I do how ever have a few comments

I was under the impression Thaksin placed his company in the off shore account prior to being elected PM.

I was under the impression his wealth came from selling his company and selling his English football team.

If my impressions are correct where is he guilty of greed?

I served in Vietnam and trust me, M-16's fired in a crowd, you would not need a photo you could hear the screams of pain.

In reporting I do wish a spade was called a spade, the media has a strange agenda, people want the truth not some reporter's version of what he believes or wants.

Thaksin legally placed some of his assets, in off shore accounts,

Some is now presumeed to have never reached Thailand yet still to be subject to thai law since he is Thai.

He then changed the law repatriated some of it through the kids, and tried avoiding taxes and

THEN SOLD HIS COMPANY, that is what made this all kick off. His arrogance became too much,

and when the pressure grew his decision making faltered notably.

There is no legitimate reason WHY he should have enough offshore to BUY Manchester City.

His greed is in make every effort to avoid legal tax payment,

and using policy corruption while in office top amass huge profits.

Also selling his company was counter to national security laws because it

controlled Thailand's national asset of a communications satilite in space.

Your impression is based on his PR machine giving a full court press to the world.

Inside ~Thailand the guy is not the same animal as the world was being lead to believe.

Many square faces to go around, none of them likely his TRUE face.

Edited April 16, 2009 by animatic

[ronthompson]

Guess my impressions of Thaksin were wrong, wonder how he was able to obtain control of all satellite communications for Thailand in the first place.

But then I have never been good with politics, years ago I was for Goldwater to be president of the US, i was told if I cast my vote for Goldwater I would be drafted and sent to Vietnam. I did not believe and cast my vote for Goldwater and guess what; i was drafted and sent to Vietnam.

Goes to show how little I know of politics and politicians.

[animatic]

Guess my impressions of Thaksin were wrong, wonder how he was able to obtain control of all satellite communications for Thailand in the first place.

But then I have never been good with politics, years ago I was for Goldwater to be president of the US, i was told if I cast my vote for Goldwater I would be drafted and sent to Vietnam. I did not believe and cast my vote for Goldwater and guess what; i was drafted and sent to Vietnam.

Goes to show how little I know of politics and politicians.

Basically Thaksin was central to the consortium that did finally get Thailand a satellite, ShinSat.

As in Shiniwatra. My internet is through Shinsat as I type. Listening to an indian raga on Youtube actually.

I won't say he wasn't forward looking. But also cut throat in the communications business.

He wanted the satellite to expand his mobile phone concessions and computer networking businesses.

And the competing telephone companies got less than preferential rates.

Dealing with the government was needed to get a national level unit like a

Com Sat funded and approved, since a forgiegn space power would have to

build and launch it.

All this rubbing shoulders with the Democratic government of the day,

gave him a taste for the levers of power, so he formed TRT to increase his grasp.

It also would need to be a military and secure government communications platform.

And as such selling a controlling interest to Singapore sent MANY flags a flutter.

But just as with Rachadapisek land deal he thought he could do anything he wanted

and no one could touch him.

Wrong.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely,

and hubris runs rampant before a fall.

Edited April 16, 2009 by animatic

[Loaded]

Does anyone have a link to, or copy of, Jim Clancy's CNN interview with Thaksin? It was one of the best.

it wasn't with Jim Clancy. here's the interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRevg_xMfec

[parryhandy]

wonder how he was able to obtain control of all satellite communications for Thailand in the first place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_L_Monson

Press Release

Bangkok - October 30, 2008….11:15 AM

Thaksin’s Associates Face Criminal Complaint

A complaint was filed today with the Thai Supreme Court by Nataporn Toeprayoon, attorney for William L. Monson, a former business partner of Thaksin Shinawatra. The Supreme Court convicted Thaksin of corruption charges last week. Named in the Complaint are Chalerm Yubumrang, the Mass Communications Organization of Thailand (MCOT), its Board Members, International Broadcasting Corporation (IBC), now TrueVision, and others. The charges stem from a Cable TV contract granted illegally by MCOT to IBC in 1989. The concession became the base for Thaksin’s telecommunications empire. Monson has fought a long legal battle with Thaksin and his companies in both Thai and US courts. Monson’s company Clearview International Ltd., pioneered telecommunications in Asia in the 1980’s. Starting in 1982 Clearview worked with MCOT to develop the framework to introduce the technology. In late 1985, when Thaksin was still a policeman, a joint venture between Monson’s companies and Thaksin’s (Shinawatra Computer and IBC) became the first Wireless Cable TV system to go on air in Asia. A government delay caused the partnership to be terminated with Thaksin’s companies selling their interest to Monson’s companies. Thaksin was paid to help clear the government blocks while Monson operated a company delivering CNN to Hotels in Bangkok. In mid 1988 Chalerm, Thaksin’s friend and fellow policeman became the Minister overseeing MCOT and its Chairman of the Board. Later, Thaksin informed Monson that he was going to operate the Cable TV concession himself. When Monson asked about the contracts and payments from Clearview to Thaksin for the business, Thaksin’s response was “This is Thailand”. After Chalerm became the Minister overseeing MCOT he reversed MCOT approval of Clearview for the contract corrupting the process of granting the concession for Clearview’s benefit. Police confiscated Monson’s equipment and filed Criminal Charges against him and his staff. After 7 years the Supreme Court cleared them of all these charges. During this period it was extremely difficult for Monson to travel to and do business in Thailand. Civil courts have ruled that Monson’s company owned the equipment. Thaksin’s IBC received the concession using Monson’s equipment and without bidding. When IBC went Public the value of the company in the Stock Market was $760,000,000 USD giving Thaksin the base for his future telecom empire. Monson claims losses of $4.5 billion USD dollars.

On December 1, 2008 the Court accepted the case and appointed the Counter Corruption Commission to investigate.

[Richard-BKK]

BM can you show us the original file, this Flash Video you uploaded to youtube has several markers that do not match. Meaning that in 20 to 25 frames you not see it but frame by frame your art is exposed...

P.S. I'm not want to see Thaksin back, buty more then that I hate people editing stuff and republish it as the truth

Edited April 16, 2009 by Richard-BKK

[animatic]

wonder how he was able to obtain control of all satellite communications for Thailand in the first place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_L_Monson

Press Release

Bangkok - October 30, 2008….11:15 AM

Thaksin’s Associates Face Criminal Complaint

A complaint was filed today with the Thai Supreme Court by Nataporn Toeprayoon, attorney for William L. Monson, a former business partner of Thaksin Shinawatra. The Supreme Court convicted Thaksin of corruption charges last week. Named in the Complaint are Chalerm Yubumrang, the Mass Communications Organization of Thailand (MCOT), its Board Members, International Broadcasting Corporation (IBC), now TrueVision, and others. The charges stem from a Cable TV contract granted illegally by MCOT to IBC in 1989. The concession became the base for Thaksin’s telecommunications empire. Monson has fought a long legal battle with Thaksin and his companies in both Thai and US courts. Monson’s company Clearview International Ltd., pioneered telecommunications in Asia in the 1980’s. Starting in 1982 Clearview worked with MCOT to develop the framework to introduce the technology. In late 1985, when Thaksin was still a policeman, a joint venture between Monson’s companies and Thaksin’s (Shinawatra Computer and IBC) became the first Wireless Cable TV system to go on air in Asia. A government delay caused the partnership to be terminated with Thaksin’s companies selling their interest to Monson’s companies. Thaksin was paid to help clear the government blocks while Monson operated a company delivering CNN to Hotels in Bangkok. In mid 1988 Chalerm, Thaksin’s friend and fellow policeman became the Minister overseeing MCOT and its Chairman of the Board. Later, Thaksin informed Monson that he was going to operate the Cable TV concession himself. When Monson asked about the contracts and payments from Clearview to Thaksin for the business, Thaksin’s response was “This is Thailand”. After Chalerm became the Minister overseeing MCOT he reversed MCOT approval of Clearview for the contract corrupting the process of granting the concession for Clearview’s benefit. Police confiscated Monson’s equipment and filed Criminal Charges against him and his staff. After 7 years the Supreme Court cleared them of all these charges. During this period it was extremely difficult for Monson to travel to and do business in Thailand. Civil courts have ruled that Monson’s company owned the equipment. Thaksin’s IBC received the concession using Monson’s equipment and without bidding. When IBC went Public the value of the company in the Stock Market was $760,000,000 USD giving Thaksin the base for his future telecom empire. Monson claims losses of $4.5 billion USD dollars.

On December 1, 2008 the Court accepted the case and appointed the Counter Corruption Commission to investigate.

Parry thanks for bringing that one back up on radar.

And with a few newer facts in it.

Thaksin has left a WIDE, deep swath of people he has burned,

Sondhi of PAD is just one of the more pissed off and active ones.

Edited April 16, 2009 by animatic

[suthnuh]

Lucy was very confrontational.

Did she think she was doing "Hard Talk"?

At the end of the day, Mr T was legally elected and deposed by a military junta. He deserved a more respectful interviewer.

flame away. I don't care.

ok lets warm you up..........

he is a wanted fugitive and he does not deserve respect nor BBC airtime

i thought that Aphisit got a much harder time actually on hard talk and came out with a lot more credibility than he went in with

i cannot say the same for Thaksin especially as he has now been proven to be a liar when he answered NO to Lucy's question 'was he financing the reds protest?''

Wow! 65 posts and you just joined yesterday? Must have had a lot of pent up things to say!!

Convicted fugitive? Non-issue to the political sophisticate. Convicted by a victorious rival faction is not the same as being convicted by a transparent legal system.

He was the first elected PM in Thai history to finish his term. All previous PM's were deposed by unelected military juntas. Almost a definition of Banana Republics. He was massively re-elected to a second term before falling victim to the previous noted "modus operandi" of the Thai military and their backers, both visible and invisible.

I take by your tone that you believe a "political sophisticate" is one who believes rule-of-law only applies to those at the bottom of the political and wealth food-chain, and not the wealthy despotic elitists?

Mr. Shinawatra was convicted by a trial, presided over by judges who were in place during Thaksin's time as PM, not inserted by the military junta. The trials of Thaksin and Pojamon were transparent, and appropriately handled. Evidence not speculation or opinion won the day. Both he and his wife, instead of working within the system through appeals and allowing rule-of-law to prevail, chose fugitive status.

Massively re-elected does not place someone above the law. How the votes were gained is immaterial, and not related to the reasons he was convicted of criminal conflict of interest.

[suthnuh]

He was elected by the people in free and fair elections as were his proxies after he left the country. Like him or not, that is how a democracy is supposed to work! If there were another election today, he would STILL win by a landslide and PAD knows it. PAD remaining in power is an affront to the will of the people. You can call that many things, but democracy is not one of them.

Get over it.

Can we just first set the record straight on the use of the term "Democracy"? A true democracy requires the direct election of representatives including the national executive.

The USA is a republic - it directly elects representatives and senators to congress through population and equality based divisions. The senate is comparable to the Paliamentary Upper House, and the House of Representatives is comparable to the Parliamentary Lower House. The national executive, in this case the President, is elected through a representative Electoral College with each state of the union allocated votes based on population/quantity.

Thailand is a Constitutional Monarchy similar in form to the United Kingdom. The Ministers of Parliament are elected directly by the population. The MP's then elect the national executive, in this case a "Prime Minister", or "First among equals." Originally intended to be the Parliamentary representative to the royal head of state, the PM role has evolved into the current national executive we see now in most Parliamentary systems.

So, none of the above are Democracies, but they are all according to a "Democratic Process" which allows for votes cast by the citizenry being allocated either directly or indirectly into establishment of some form of representative government.

In Thailand's case specifically, as a parliamentary system and according to their own process, no re-election is required because the previous government was not disolved by the previous PM. The same MPs who were previously elected by direct vote of the citizenry, with exception of the PM and those affected members of the dissolved PPP party, formed a new coalition and elected a new PM. Nothing about that process requires a new vote by the general population.

Last I checked, riots, molotov cocktails, and burning of ministry buildings and public transport were not considered part of the "Democratic Process"

I wish Thailand would teach this in their schools, but it is still somewhat new for them and I understand it takes time generationally to fully absorb political processes into a culture.

[webfact]

He was elected by the people in free and fair elections as were his proxies after he left the country. Like him or not, that is how a democracy is supposed to work! If there were another election today, he would STILL win by a landslide and PAD knows it. PAD remaining in power is an affront to the will of the people. You can call that many things, but democracy is not one of them.

Get over it.

Can we just first set the record straight on the use of the term "Democracy"? A true democracy requires the direct election of representatives including the national executive.

The USA is a republic - it directly elects representatives and senators to congress through population and equality based divisions. The senate is comparable to the Paliamentary Upper House, and the House of Representatives is comparable to the Parliamentary Lower House. The national executive, in this case the President, is elected through a representative Electoral College with each state of the union allocated votes based on population/quantity.

Thailand is a Constitutional Monarchy similar in form to the United Kingdom. The Ministers of Parliament are elected directly by the population. The MP's then elect the national executive, in this case a "Prime Minister", or "First among equals." Originally intended to be the Parliamentary representative to the royal head of state, the PM role has evolved into the current national executive we see now in most Parliamentary systems.

So, none of the above are Democracies, but they are all according to a "Democratic Process" which allows for votes cast by the citizenry being allocated either directly or indirectly into establishment of some form of representative government.

In Thailand's case specifically, as a parliamentary system and according to their own process, no re-election is required because the previous government was not disolved by the previous PM. The same MPs who were previously elected by direct vote of the citizenry, with exception of the PM and those affected members of the dissolved PPP party, formed a new coalition and elected a new PM. Nothing about that process requires a new vote by the general population.

Last I checked, riots, molotov cocktails, and burning of ministry buildings and public transport were not considered part of the "Democratic Process"

I wish Thailand would teach this in their schools, but it is still somewhat new for them and I understand it takes time generationally to fully absorb political processes into a culture.

Well done, well written! My respect!

[animatic]

I take by your tone that you believe a "political sophisticate" is one who believes rule-of-law only applies to those at the bottom of the political and wealth food-chain, and not the wealthy despotic elitists?

Mr. Shinawatra was convicted by a trial, presided over by judges who were in place during Thaksin's time as PM, not inserted by the military junta. The trials of Thaksin and Pojamon were transparent, and appropriately handled. Evidence not speculation or opinion won the day. Both he and his wife, instead of working within the system through appeals and allowing rule-of-law to prevail, chose fugitive status.

Massively re-elected does not place someone above the law. How the votes were gained is immaterial, and not related to the reasons he was convicted of criminal conflict of interest.

Of course you are leaving out that months after the 'big win'

and he has sold Shin corp and the national satellite to Singapore.

And refused to give a cent of taxes since he changed the law

the day before the sale of Shin Corp to Singapore.

There resounded a logical hue and cry and baying for blood,

he had GONE TOO FAR. Way too far....

So HE CALLS A SNAP ELECTION, then that is boycotted by the Dems,

He bribes non entity parties to make sure there are people they can beat to run against,

and it is annulled for fraud by HIS PARTY and three others, that were disbanded.

This guy brought on his own downfall.

The army just had to clean up his MESS.

And the same was done yet again this weekend.

Edited April 16, 2009 by LivinginKata

[andrewfr]

Does anyone have a link to, or copy of, Jim Clancy's CNN interview with Thaksin? It was one of the best.

it wasn't with Jim Clancy. here's the interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRevg_xMfec

Thanks for the link. That was the earlier CNN interview. Clancy also interviewed Thaksin at around 10pm. Very hard hitting.