Arrest Warrants Issued For 14 Red Shirt Leaders And Thaksin

[justanothercybertosser]

... and then the same people turn around and ridicule those that accomplished the same under one ID.

Have a good one.

Accomplished?!

Nevertheless, to cut this entirely futile discussion short, here are a few links for you to read that might change your life:

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

http://www.netaddiction.com/resources/inte...iction_test.htm

[JacknDanny]

... and then the same people turn around and ridicule those that accomplished the same under one ID.

Have a good one.

Accomplished?!

Nevertheless, to cut this entirely futile discussion short, here are a few links for you to read that might change your life:

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

http://www.netaddiction.com/resources/inte...iction_test.htm

:D says the man who says goodnight from his computer at 0159, yet continues the 'futile discussion' before 9am :D

Unreal.

[justanothercybertosser]

says the man who says goodnight from his computer at 0159, yet continues the 'futile discussion' before 9am

Unreal.

Says the man, who has to get up far too early because he has to go out soon and do some work at this ungodly hour...

[JacknDanny]

says the man who says goodnight from his computer at 0159, yet continues the 'futile discussion' before 9am

Unreal.

Says the man, who has to get up far too early because he has to go out soon and do some work at this ungodly hour...

Work??

Whats that?????

[Plus]

Sure, the boycott, or non-participation and campaigning for No vote, was a loophole to derail TRT attempt to stay in power. It was based on technicalities - that in some provinces TRT wouldn't be able to get 20% of votes, and that led TRT to manufacturing fake parties and tampering with official EC database, and that led to TRT eventual dissolution.

BUT as OMR said, elections were annulled for different reasons, fake party fraud had nothing to do with it.

Assuming that the boycott led to all these troubles, or that it was the starting point of weakening of Thai democracy, is hypocritical. Boycott was the answer to illegitimate House dissolution, and that attempt to use elections for personal ends and not for benefit of the country, was a far greater offence to the democracy and it shouldn't have been acceptable to any "democracy lover".

Thaksin had legal rights to dissolve the House any time he wanted, so technically it was legal - another loophole, though someone could have sued him for not having valid reasons for doing it. Something about failing "The PM should execute his duties for the benefit of the people" principle. Could the PM dissolve the House because he was constipated that morning? Wouldn't it be an offence to democracy? Could the PM dissolve the House on a third day of working, just for the fun of it?

I understand that Thaksin's personal benefits and the benefit of the coutnry are one and the same for reds, so they don't see a confilct of interest. But what about those reds who love to talk about how they moved past Thaksin? Don't they see that the democratic system at that time failed to address this conflict of interest? Don't they see that it was used for Thaksin's personal benefits? At that point it was terminally ill already.

This is where the split for and against the coup generates. For the pro-coup argument - that kind of democracy was extremely dangerous for the country in the long run as it had installed completely wrong values, so it had to be put out of its misery. For the anti-coup argument - it could have recovered by itself and proven itself to be strong, and put itself above self-appointed moral guardians, the generals and PAD and Democrats.

Well, I didn't see it working out that way then, and now, THREE YEARS later, I still don't see that people realise the difference between Thaksin's personal interests and the country. What are the chances they would have realised that difference if TRT was allowed to have its elections and govern during these three years?

You know my answer - the coup was necessary to stop that nonsense, there was no other way.

[justanothercybertosser]

Assuming that the boycott led to all these troubles, or that it was the starting point of weakening of Thai democracy, is hypocritical. Boycott was the answer to illegitimate House dissolution, and that attempt to use elections for personal ends and not for benefit of the country, was a far greater offence to the democracy and it shouldn't have been acceptable to any "democracy lover".

Thaksin had legal rights to dissolve the House any time he wanted, so technically it was legal - another loophole, though someone could have sued him for not having valid reasons for doing it. Something about failing "The PM should execute his duties for the benefit of the people" principle. Could the PM dissolve the House because he was constipated that morning? Wouldn't it be an offence to democracy? Could the PM dissolve the House on a third day of working, just for the fun of it?

You know my answer - the coup was necessary to stop that nonsense, there was no other way.

The house dissolution was neither illegitimate nor for personal reasons at the time. With Chamlong Srimuang leaving Thaksin, and other important members of TRT beginning to side with PAD (Sanoh Tienthong, for example, was soon seen regularly behind PAD stages), calling for new elections was not just legitimate, but necessary. Faced by mass protests, and the defection of key supporters, Thaksin needed to reconfirm his electoral mandate. That is what usually happens in parliamentary democracies when faced by a crises of confidence.

The election boycott by the democrats and the other opposition parties taking the undemocratic route, instead of competing within the framework of democracy, following the demands of an extraparliamentary opposition group, have been a major factor of causing that "nonsense" which the military and other elites used then for their powergrab, of which the democrats have profited as well, even though some of the laws and institutions introduced by the coup makers are everything else than democratic.

Thaksin did indeed weaken democracy in many parts, no argument about that. But it takes two to tango - the democrats have the entire time avoided to comptete democratically by presenting themselves as a more democratic alternative to the electorate. And now, in sort of power, the have avoided to confirm their position by an electoral mandate, and relied on elite support, giving those elites the space to have extraordinary powers again.

Edited June 13, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[Plus]

The house dissolution was neither illegitimate nor for personal reasons at the time. With Chamlong Srimuang leaving Thaksin, and other important members of TRT beginning to side with PAD (Sanoh Tienthong, for example, was soon seen regularly behind PAD stages), calling for new elections was not just legitimate, but necessary.

There was no crisis of confidence in parliament of any kind.

Chamlong Srimuang wasn't even an MP and had no control over any members of TRT or parliament, Snoh's fraction was too small to make any difference.

TRT still had control of some 75% of the House.

Thaksin needed new electoral mandate to make his Shin sale crisis go away, not to assert his party control over the House. It was never threatened, the parliament and the government were as stable as ever.

On the other hand, Shin sale, Thaksin's personal matter, was heavily critisisd, and you don't settle tax cases by running elections. That's abuse of democratic system to your own ends.

The House was scheduled to debate Shin sale before it was dissolved, and you must have a really thick face to say that Shin sale, Thaksin's personal matter, wasn't a reason for House dissolution.

[hammered]

See the thread gets back to a rehash of this outdated stuff that is quite honestly all based on what you believe and not fact.

One word that rarely gets mentioned in the Thai politcal power game is consensus. There has for a long time been no consensus meaning every side, and there are now many, must play for either a win or reach a point where groups with enough power will coalesce around an at least temporary consensus to move forward. The idea that one group or another will win is just not going to happen as the regional divide will not support that kind of solution. There are other complicating factors which are best left unmentioned on here too.

Anyway until an at least temporary consensus can be found nothing much will occur in forward movement although we could see the mistakes of the last 5 years or so repeated again and again in the meantime.

[Plus]

Good point.

The consensus will be that the country has to move forward without Thaksin, he is too divisive.

Then we shall see if any other structural disagreements are as bad as they are portrayed to be. I, personally, think that next issue will be people vs politicians rather than rural vs urban, though politicians will surely try to dress it that way by commandeering thousands of villagers to rally on thier behalf.

[animatic]

The court said the Constitution Court had also proved that the Thai Rak Thai Party had really hired the small parties to contest the election.

Ah, 'true democracy' in action !

I take for granted TRT hired small parties. Why? Because Democrat Party and 2 more from memory boycotted election. I didn't know boycotting election is democratic. Maybe they know they would lose in that election. To save face.

Not partaking in an election is democratic,

whether an registered party or as an individual.

It is their right to not enter candidates, especially if they think the balloting will be unfair.

As it is yours to not vote or to vote as you please.

Hiring small parties as shills to get around election laws

because you are pretty sure your party can't get enough votes to win outright

is against election laws and so is undemocratic.

If TRT was the heads on leader of 'ALL' the Thai people, as it attempted to portray itself,

it would NEVER have needed to buy parties to contest against,

and thus lower the threshold percentage of winning the election.

Bottom line TRT suspected it could NOT reach the uncontested limit and then cheated.

Andf got caught and banned. YOu can now take that for granted.

You can't blame the democrats for making TRT cheat,

TRT did THAT all on it's own.

PS. a 'Loophole' in a law is STILL a LAW.

There was nothing that said calling for others to boycot also is ileagal,

PAYING others to not run would be, and TRT tried to acuse them of that,

AFTER TRT got caught themselves for the inverse.

Thaksin had JUST won a landslide victory of monumental proportions,

why would he need to re-affirm his mandate just a few short months on?

Even if there were defections?

Why were there core group defections if he had just won so big?

Oh yes, his jiggering of the laws and sale THE NEXT DAY

of Shincorp to Temmasek enraged most everyone... including his partners.

This whole mess is caused by Thaksin himself.

Edited June 13, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Amazing Thailand's Amazing Thaivisa rolls on with the right to privacy of one's vote being tossed aside as nothing more than a "technicality."

One of the bedrock fundamentals of ballot voting

is the right to do it UN-OBSERVED and thus free from manipulation.

Throw that out and it is just corruption overlaid on balloting.

[Old Man River]

That is a surprising comment above. Given the facts, I wouldn't be so quick to think the boycott of the April 2006 elections made the Sept. 2006 coup possible since the boycott had nothing to do with it. The fact is, as it ended up, in May 2006, the April 2006 elections were annulled by the Constitutional Court for "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote." To jog your memory, this was the election that eventually lead to members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail.

Hence, it didn't matter that three political parties (not just the Democrats) boycotted the April 2006 election, because even if there was no boycott these elections would still have been declared null and void.

You or anyone else interested in this period of Thai history can google it and find numerous articles about this election and why it was annulled.

The boycott led to a prolonged interim government, especially because it went hand in hand with PAD demands and protests, which has weakened the system to the extend that the coup group was able to justify their takeover. With a stable and elected government in place the coup group would have had much more difficulties to explain the possibly worst infraction against democratic development imaginable to both the Thai population and to the outside world. The system still suffers from this coup, and will so for the foreseeable future.

And , please, the so called "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote" was a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies.

The April 2006 election would have been annulled regardless of whether all parties participated or not. The non participation by the three parties was a side issue.

I find humorous your description of the systematic violation as being a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies as clearly, the violation was widespread (hence, members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail). Enough has been written about this already.

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, the extent of the violation is academic. The fact remains that the election was annulled by the courts and hence, the non participation of the three political parties had nothing to do with the prolonged interim government as you claim.

[Ricardo]

The court said the Constitution Court had also proved that the Thai Rak Thai Party had really hired the small parties to contest the election.

Ah, 'true democracy' in action !

I take for granted TRT hired small parties. Why? Because Democrat Party and 2 more from memory boycotted election. I didn't know boycotting election is democratic. Maybe they know they would lose in that election. To save face.

If you don't find it even slightly un-democratic or just plain weird, for TRT to hire someone to stand against their own candidates, then I would suggest you need further study.

Refusing to stand for what you believe will be an unwinable/rigged-election, is however a perfectly acceptable form of protest, against the way things are being done. It carries the very-real risk that, if the election is properly organised and the election-results ratified, your parties may well find themselves without any elected-representatives.

The only face lost was by the then-PM, who called & ran an election, which was then annulled by the E.C. Perhaps you may remember who that was ?

[justanothercybertosser]

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, the extent of the violation is academic. The fact remains that the election was annulled by the courts and hence, the non participation of the three political parties had nothing to do with the prolonged interim government as you claim.

And of course the new laws regarding contempt of court won't allow us continue and conclude this discussion.

Very convenient indeed...

Just what all this has to to do with "democracy" is not just questioned by me, but by almost all notable academics, if you care to read the papers and articles by the likes of Chris Baker, Duncan McCargo, Thitinan Pongsudhirak, etc.

[slimdog]

That is a surprising comment above. Given the facts, I wouldn't be so quick to think the boycott of the April 2006 elections made the Sept. 2006 coup possible since the boycott had nothing to do with it. The fact is, as it ended up, in May 2006, the April 2006 elections were annulled by the Constitutional Court for "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote." To jog your memory, this was the election that eventually lead to members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail.

Hence, it didn't matter that three political parties (not just the Democrats) boycotted the April 2006 election, because even if there was no boycott these elections would still have been declared null and void.

You or anyone else interested in this period of Thai history can google it and find numerous articles about this election and why it was annulled.

The boycott led to a prolonged interim government, especially because it went hand in hand with PAD demands and protests, which has weakened the system to the extend that the coup group was able to justify their takeover. With a stable and elected government in place the coup group would have had much more difficulties to explain the possibly worst infraction against democratic development imaginable to both the Thai population and to the outside world. The system still suffers from this coup, and will so for the foreseeable future.

And , please, the so called "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote" was a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies.

The April 2006 election would have been annulled regardless of whether all parties participated or not. The non participation by the three parties was a side issue.

I find humorous your description of the systematic violation as being a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies as clearly, the violation was widespread (hence, members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail). Enough has been written about this already.

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, the extent of the violation is academic. The fact remains that the election was annulled by the courts and hence, the non participation of the three political parties had nothing to do with the prolonged interim government as you claim.

Whilst the Election Commissioners were jailed, their convictions had nothing to do with the placements of the polling booths.

The first conviction in July 2006 (4 years), was on charges filed by Thaworn Senneam, regarding allowing additional candidates to contest in an re-election which had been caused by the winning candidate not securing 20% of the constituencies vote without first obtaining a new royal decree.

The second conviction in september 2006 (2 years) was on charges filed by Suthep Thaugsuban, regarding the Election Commissioners failure to investigate claims that the TRT party had hired small parties to run in the April 2006 election in order to overcome the 20% rule.

The irony of it all of course, is that today, the 20% rule (Section 88 of the organic law) has been re-written to the extent that it would not be neccessary for a political party to do what TRT did....

[sriracha john]

Former Social Development and Human Security Minister in the Thaksin Cabinet Watana Muangsuk (right)

Anti-graft Panel Forwards Conclusion on Housing Project Scandal Case to Prosecutor

The National Anti-Corruption Commission has forwarded a case against a former Social Development and Human Security minister to the Attorney-General's Office, recommending that a complaint be filed with the Supreme Court.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission, or NACC, has recommended that charges be filed against former Social Development and Human Security Minister Wattana Muangsuk to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Post Holders.

Wattana is accused of asking contractors for bribes in exchange for work on a state-subsidized housing project.

Previously, the now-defunct Assets Examination Committee, which had been appointed by the military government in the wake of the 2006 coup, had investigated the allegations before being dissolved.

a new discovery of 1.2 Billion Baht in bribes paid by contractors in the government's Ua Athorn affordable-housing project.

The tea money was allegedly stashed in individual accounts linked to a rice-trading firm seen as close to former Social Development and Human Security Minister Watana Muangsook.

The Assets Examination Committee yesterday indicted eight individuals for corruption relating to 1.2 Billion Baht in kickbacks over construction of the Ua Athorn housing project.

They included former Social Development and Human Security Minister Watana Muangsook, his aide Mana Wongpipat, and former MP Arisman Pongruangrong.

"Of the 15 contractors for the Ua Athorn project, eight have been linked to the 1.2 Billion Baht in bribes and evidence has clearly shown that the minister and his middlemen demanded and received kickbacks," AEC member Kaewsan Atibhodi said.

Singer-turned-politician former MP from Banned Thai Rak Thai Party and current Red Shirt Leader Arisman Phongruangrong

Arisman Ponggruengrong, before (music CD cover) and after

Ex-minister faces prosecution

Public prosecutors agreed to recommend legal action against former Social Development and Human Security Minister Watana Muangsuk in connection with alleged irregularities involving the Ua Athon housing project, a senior prosecutor said yesterday.

Deputy Attorney-General Waiyawut Lotrakul, who chairs the working group looking into a suggestion by the National Anti-Corruption Commission for legal action against Watana and six others, said that his panel would in a few days recommend Attorney-General Chaisakem Nitisiri to pursue the case.

If the Attorney-General agrees to the recommendation, prosecutors will file a petition with the Supreme Court's Division on Political Office Holders, Waiyawut said.

If the Attorney-General thinks that some of the accused should be spared, prosecutors will discuss further action with the NACC.

Watana and five other people, including former MP Arisman Pongruangrong and one private company, are accused of malfeasance in connection with the controversial project.

-- The Nation 2009-06-14

[hammered]

That is a surprising comment above. Given the facts, I wouldn't be so quick to think the boycott of the April 2006 elections made the Sept. 2006 coup possible since the boycott had nothing to do with it. The fact is, as it ended up, in May 2006, the April 2006 elections were annulled by the Constitutional Court for "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote." To jog your memory, this was the election that eventually lead to members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail.

Hence, it didn't matter that three political parties (not just the Democrats) boycotted the April 2006 election, because even if there was no boycott these elections would still have been declared null and void.

You or anyone else interested in this period of Thai history can google it and find numerous articles about this election and why it was annulled.

The boycott led to a prolonged interim government, especially because it went hand in hand with PAD demands and protests, which has weakened the system to the extend that the coup group was able to justify their takeover. With a stable and elected government in place the coup group would have had much more difficulties to explain the possibly worst infraction against democratic development imaginable to both the Thai population and to the outside world. The system still suffers from this coup, and will so for the foreseeable future.

And , please, the so called "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote" was a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies.

The April 2006 election would have been annulled regardless of whether all parties participated or not. The non participation by the three parties was a side issue.

I find humorous your description of the systematic violation as being a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies as clearly, the violation was widespread (hence, members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail). Enough has been written about this already.

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, the extent of the violation is academic. The fact remains that the election was annulled by the courts and hence, the non participation of the three political parties had nothing to do with the prolonged interim government as you claim.

Whilst the Election Commissioners were jailed, their convictions had nothing to do with the placements of the polling booths.

The first conviction in July 2006 (4 years), was on charges filed by Thaworn Senneam, regarding allowing additional candidates to contest in an re-election which had been caused by the winning candidate not securing 20% of the constituencies vote without first obtaining a new royal decree.

The second conviction in september 2006 (2 years) was on charges filed by Suthep Thaugsuban, regarding the Election Commissioners failure to investigate claims that the TRT party had hired small parties to run in the April 2006 election in order to overcome the 20% rule.

The irony of it all of course, is that today, the 20% rule (Section 88 of the organic law) has been re-written to the extent that it would not be neccessary for a political party to do what TRT did....

It wasnt "necessary" for TRT to do what it did. They chose to do it! Do we detect a hint of bias in Slimdog's usually factual comments

[Plus]

No, I don't see it. I'd give Slimdog a benefit of doubt. I think he used the word "necessary" in a sense that it was the only available, though illegal, way to fix the results.

[sriracha john]

UDD protesters to 'peacefully' mark 1932 revolution

BANGKOK, June 14 (TNA) -- The anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) has pledged that its rally on June 27 will also mark Thailand’s abrupt change from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy 77 years ago, a leading UDD member said Sunday.

Jaran Ditapichai said his ‘Red Shirts’ will gather in Bangkok on that day to demand the ouster of the Democrat-led coalition government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjachiva.

Also, the UDD plans smaller rallies June 22-24 at Sanam Luang with its leading members speaking on the political changes which took place on June 24, 1932, he said.

Regarding a by-election June 21 in the northeastern province of Sakon Nakhon’s constituency 3, Jaran said the dignity of the Bhumjaithai Party, a major partner in the coalition government, will be tarnished if its candidate loses to the candidate of the opposition Puea Thai Party.

But if Bhumjaithai wins the seat, several Puea Thai MPs representing the northeastern province are likely to switch camps and join it.

As the by-election draws near, the Election Commission has ordered its staff to monitor movements of both political parties on concerns of electoral fraud.

-- TNA 2009-06-14

[Old Man River]

That is a surprising comment above. Given the facts, I wouldn't be so quick to think the boycott of the April 2006 elections made the Sept. 2006 coup possible since the boycott had nothing to do with it. The fact is, as it ended up, in May 2006, the April 2006 elections were annulled by the Constitutional Court for "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote." To jog your memory, this was the election that eventually lead to members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail.

Hence, it didn't matter that three political parties (not just the Democrats) boycotted the April 2006 election, because even if there was no boycott these elections would still have been declared null and void.

You or anyone else interested in this period of Thai history can google it and find numerous articles about this election and why it was annulled.

The boycott led to a prolonged interim government, especially because it went hand in hand with PAD demands and protests, which has weakened the system to the extend that the coup group was able to justify their takeover. With a stable and elected government in place the coup group would have had much more difficulties to explain the possibly worst infraction against democratic development imaginable to both the Thai population and to the outside world. The system still suffers from this coup, and will so for the foreseeable future.

And , please, the so called "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote" was a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies.

The April 2006 election would have been annulled regardless of whether all parties participated or not. The non participation by the three parties was a side issue.

I find humorous your description of the systematic violation as being a technicality because of a slightly wrong placing of the booths in some constituencies as clearly, the violation was widespread (hence, members of the Election Commission being thrown in jail). Enough has been written about this already.

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, the extent of the violation is academic. The fact remains that the election was annulled by the courts and hence, the non participation of the three political parties had nothing to do with the prolonged interim government as you claim.

Whilst the Election Commissioners were jailed, their convictions had nothing to do with the placements of the polling booths.

The first conviction in July 2006 (4 years), was on charges filed by Thaworn Senneam, regarding allowing additional candidates to contest in an re-election which had been caused by the winning candidate not securing 20% of the constituencies vote without first obtaining a new royal decree.

The second conviction in september 2006 (2 years) was on charges filed by Suthep Thaugsuban, regarding the Election Commissioners failure to investigate claims that the TRT party had hired small parties to run in the April 2006 election in order to overcome the 20% rule.

You are right. However, it was a throw away comment. My stance does not change. The April 2006 election would still have been annulled whether the three opposition parties directly participated or not and the violation by the EC of "systematic violation of the secrecy of the vote" was not a simple technicality of slightly wrong placing of the booths.

[Old Man River]

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, the extent of the violation is academic. The fact remains that the election was annulled by the courts and hence, the non participation of the three political parties had nothing to do with the prolonged interim government as you claim.

And of course the new laws regarding contempt of court won't allow us continue and conclude this discussion.

Very convenient indeed...

Just what all this has to to do with "democracy" is not just questioned by me, but by almost all notable academics, if you care to read the papers and articles by the likes of Chris Baker, Duncan McCargo, Thitinan Pongsudhirak, etc.

I don't have to read papers and articles by the likes of ... Instead, I base my view of the April 2006 election violation from discussions with some of the directors of P-Net. You get a much better view of things when you talk with the people/organizations directly involved.

[justanothercybertosser]

I don't have to read papers and articles by the likes of ... Instead, I base my view of the April 2006 election violation from discussions with some of the directors of P-Net. You get a much better view of things when you talk with the people/organizations directly involved.

Yes, of course, an "independent organization"...

The last time i spoke with one of PNET's parent organisation's member from Poll Watch, he tried to convince me that the PAD is an entirely peaceful organization, and that i should watch ASTV if i want to be informed about Thai politics. Of course he pointed out that he is perfectly neutral, not taking sides at all...

...I guess you get the idea.

So, excuse me if i prefer to inform myself from the papers and articles by known and respected analysts, most of them who are ardent Thaksin opponents, yet not blinded by ideology that they excuse the even more undemocratic actions by his fanatic rabble rousing opponents.

Edited June 14, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[Plus]

Thitinan not blinded by ideology?!?

I can write his "opinions" myself, I think I can even write a "Progressive Leftist handbook for compiling opinions on any current developments" in a form of a computer program - that would make Thitinan services redundant. You input a situation, select parameters, and the program would spit out two-three pages of cliches. Like "create a rap song" thing, if you ever seen it.

I'm also curious what Christ Baker had to say about April 2006 election saga and boycotts in particular. I don't think he critisised Democrats for that at all.

[justanothercybertosser]

Thitinan not blinded by ideology?!?

I can write his "opinions" myself, I think I can even write a "Progressive Leftist handbook for compiling opinions on any current developments" in a form of a computer program - that would make Thitinan services redundant. You input a situation, select parameters, and the program would spit out two-three pages of cliches. Like "create a rap song" thing, if you ever seen it.

Thitinan leftist? Don't be ridiculous.

Why is it that just because somebody learned how to post on an internet forum he thinks he is smarter than all the top analysts and academics?

[Plus]

I've read Thitinan's columns for ages, now you tell me he is not a leftist. Duh, next you'll want the absolute solid proof that alphabet starts with A.

And you rely on "top analysts" of your own choosing, and it doesn't strike you as off if they completely diverge from mainstream opinion.

And why do we have to accept someone's opinion on politics as absolute truth anyway? It's not an exact science, even worse than economic predictions.

Still waiting to see what Chris Baker had to say about 2006 elections. You didn't add his name to the list without reading his opinion, did you?

[hammered]

Before this degenrates into a row over which source is best, maybe it is a good time to step back and admit that a variety of different sources with different perspectives viewed critically along with some common sense and speaking to ordinary people isnt a bad way to come to an opinion.

There has been a lot of wrong analysis on TV as has there been on NM and others that we see regularly. Then the reds and yellows basically produce one sided propoganda and even the academics and analysts almost to a man got it wrong on one very obvious case (with no mea culpa etc I add): After Samak allowed Anupong to reshuffle the military and then authorised a large position allowance for all generals it was widely analysed by this group that he had strengthened his position with the establishment by showing he was a strong deal maker apart form Thaksin and that he had strengthened his position in PPP be showing he could lead and keep the military onside. A few days he was cast out of his job by a court and then the PPP decided to ditch him.

In short there is no perfect source but an open minded and critcal approach to what everyone writes/says is required. And at the end we all have our own biases and have a tendency to prefer that which naturally sits better with our views. Being aware of this is critical imho.

Now back to Thaksin and the 14 leaders and more seriously Arisman seems to have lost those boyish good looks.....

[animatic]

Thitinan not blinded by ideology?!?

I can write his "opinions" myself, I think I can even write a "Progressive Leftist handbook for compiling opinions on any current developments" in a form of a computer program - that would make Thitinan services redundant. You input a situation, select parameters, and the program would spit out two-three pages of cliches. Like "create a rap song" thing, if you ever seen it.

Thitinan leftist? Don't be ridiculous.

Why is it that just because somebody learned how to post on an internet forum he thinks he is smarter than all the top analysts and academics?

Just because someone can post on an internet forum,

doesn't make them automatically MORE stupid than the top analysts and academics.

Just less likely to be quoted as an expert or having access to sources. Or press hungry.

Edited June 15, 2009 by animatic

[justanothercybertosser]

Before this degenrates into a row over which source is best, maybe it is a good time to step back and admit that a variety of different sources with different perspectives viewed critically along with some common sense and speaking to ordinary people isnt a bad way to come to an opinion.

Only that one source here cited - PNET/Pollwatch - is staffed by PAD supporters, has been closely allied with PAD, and their members have been going around lobbying on their and the Democrat's behalf.

I take care that i do not cite sources allied with the Red Shirt movement, i look for sources that are as independent as possible, and not allied with one or the other side, and if possible, ones that have a track record of having been critical during the Thaksin period as well.

It is more than legitimate and necessary to question sources and their background.

[hammered]

Before this degenrates into a row over which source is best, maybe it is a good time to step back and admit that a variety of different sources with different perspectives viewed critically along with some common sense and speaking to ordinary people isnt a bad way to come to an opinion.

Only that one source here cited - PNET/Pollwatch - is staffed by PAD supporters, has been closely allied with PAD, and their members have been going around lobbying on their and the Democrat's behalf.

I take care that i do not cite sources allied with the Red Shirt movement, i look for sources that are as independent as possible, and not allied with one or the other side, and if possible, ones that have a track record of having been critical during the Thaksin period as well.

It is more than legitimate and necessary to question sources and their background.

I take a slightly different line I think. I dont think there is anything wrong with considering what red or yellow are saying provided one is aware that it is a view from a slanted source. I dont think it is wrong to cite them either as they are both part of the political landscape. It just needs context and balance and analysis.

I dont know enough about P-Net to comment beyond these: I thought P-Net boycotted the coup initiated election becuase they werent given freedom to monitor independently which doesnt sound like something the PAD would have done at the time. P-Net were iirc the ones who came up with the goods that wrecked TRT but that doesnt prove they were anti-TRT. They could have been doing their job. Kind of all devils advocatey. I honestly dont know anyone in P-Net and so couldnt draw a conclusion on their politcal motivations as individuals or a group.

Anyway my main point is on the wider use of multiple and even conflicting sources. One problem is that the number of Thailand analysts and academics and other sources is very limited so it can at times be easily skewed if a common view takes hold. That would be a lot harder if there were a lot more commentators when skewing becomes far more difficult. Getting too academic here for my liking so I will stop

[justanothercybertosser]

Before this degenrates into a row over which source is best, maybe it is a good time to step back and admit that a variety of different sources with different perspectives viewed critically along with some common sense and speaking to ordinary people isnt a bad way to come to an opinion.

Only that one source here cited - PNET/Pollwatch - is staffed by PAD supporters, has been closely allied with PAD, and their members have been going around lobbying on their and the Democrat's behalf.

I take care that i do not cite sources allied with the Red Shirt movement, i look for sources that are as independent as possible, and not allied with one or the other side, and if possible, ones that have a track record of having been critical during the Thaksin period as well.

It is more than legitimate and necessary to question sources and their background.

I take a slightly different line I think. I dont think there is anything wrong with considering what red or yellow are saying provided one is aware that it is a view from a slanted source. I dont think it is wrong to cite them either as they are both part of the political landscape. It just needs context and balance and analysis.

I dont know enough about P-Net to comment beyond these: I thought P-Net boycotted the coup initiated election becuase they werent given freedom to monitor independently which doesnt sound like something the PAD would have done at the time. P-Net were iirc the ones who came up with the goods that wrecked TRT but that doesnt prove they were anti-TRT. They could have been doing their job. Kind of all devils advocatey. I honestly dont know anyone in P-Net and so couldnt draw a conclusion on their politcal motivations as individuals or a group.

Anyway my main point is on the wider use of multiple and even conflicting sources. One problem is that the number of Thailand analysts and academics and other sources is very limited so it can at times be easily skewed if a common view takes hold. That would be a lot harder if there were a lot more commentators when skewing becomes far more difficult. Getting too academic here for my liking so I will stop

Not too different line, i think.

But this side discussion began when Old Man River dismissed the analysts i cited and quoted PNET. I though question very much the motives of PNET/Pollwatch, based on some of their very onesided published reports, and personal encounters as well.

I do listen to both sides.

And in some points PAD and their allied forces are right, especially when they talk about corruption. The only problem is that they are so fanatic and ideologically bent, that they turn into tools of far more undemocratic forces than Thaksin. One has to go to some of their events, especially when they try to explain the unexplainable. The sophism used there is impressive.

The Red Shirts and their allies have a lot of points as well, and apart from some of their politicos or the radical factions, they are a lot more self critical. But again, one has to go to events in person, and not just get the news from the media, which has a very strong pro yellow bias.