More Rallies 'as Soon As Decree Ends'

[animatic]

Arguing who is the worst terrorist is meaningless.

And a definite no win situation for a red or red apologist, eh?

If elections are hold today. Who do you believe are the most likely to accept the result regardless of the outcome?

I don't know about UDD, but I know PAD would not.

Yes, you 'know' that. Sounds fair and balanced.

And you have no love for either groups.

That you are always defending one of them is pure coincidence.

It's not a coincidence. It's a result of most people here being very pro-yellow. It's also a result of many here getting the facts wrong.

And I'm not interested in what individual people do. I'm sure both the yellows and the reds are not interested in violence, at least not violence that will make themselves look bad and loose support.

Most people here are pro THAILAND and not pro yellow as a actual entity.

There was a lot of anti-yellow resentment after the Airport,

and many loud voices before that too.

It just may be that the Red side has shown a more significantly more violent side,

even if SOME of their ideas are quite worthy of consideration.

Others ideas are absolutely not, and their violent side, which is how they came into being,

is anathema for MOST people, not just Farangs, but many thoughful Thais too.

Hence the whites appearance.

You can seem to get it into your head, Red dislike is not a yellow thing exclusively.

Many non-aligned people feel the same way,

but don't go onto the streets top ralley or riot to let it be known.

[chrislarsson]

Most people here are pro THAILAND and not pro yellow as a actual entity.

There was a lot of anti-yellow resentment after the Airport,

and many loud voices before that too.

It just may be that the Red side has shown a more significantly more violent side,

even if SOME of their ideas are quite worthy of consideration.

Others ideas are absolutely not, and their violent side, which is how they came into being,

is anathema for MOST people, not just Farangs, but many thoughful Thais too.

Hence the whites appearance.

You can seem to get it into your head, Red dislike is not a yellow thing exclusively.

Many non-aligned people feel the same way,

but don't go onto the streets top ralley or riot to let it be known.

I didn't know the reds had any other agenda than trying to force new elections. What other ideas do they have?

[Insight]

Most people here are pro THAILAND and not pro yellow as a actual entity.

There was a lot of anti-yellow resentment after the Airport,

and many loud voices before that too.

It just may be that the Red side has shown a more significantly more violent side,

even if SOME of their ideas are quite worthy of consideration.

Others ideas are absolutely not, and their violent side, which is how they came into being,

is anathema for MOST people, not just Farangs, but many thoughful Thais too.

Hence the whites appearance.

You can seem to get it into your head, Red dislike is not a yellow thing exclusively.

Many non-aligned people feel the same way,

but don't go onto the streets top ralley or riot to let it be known.

I didn't know the reds had any other agenda than trying to force new elections. What other ideas do they have?

Are you serious? Their transient demands have been repeatedly echoed this forum for weeks, including:

Abhisit to resign

Kasit to resign

Suthep to resign

Prem to resign

Surayad to resign

(they're big on this resignation thing)

.. and new snap elections.

[Jingthing]

They also of course what Thakky pardoned of all crimes and to get to KEEP HIS MONEY.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Jingthing

[chrislarsson]

It just may be that the Red side has shown a more significantly more violent side,

even if SOME of their ideas are quite worthy of consideration.

I didn't know the reds had any other agenda than trying to force new elections. What other ideas do they have?

Are you serious? Their transient demands have been repeatedly echoed this forum for weeks, including:

Abhisit to resign

Kasit to resign

Suthep to resign

Prem to resign

Surayad to resign

(they're big on this resignation thing)

.. and new snap elections.

That's not much of a political ideology. It sounds more like demands than ideas.

Edited May 5, 2009 by chrislarsson

[chrislarsson]

It just may be that the Red side has shown a more significantly more violent side,

even if SOME of their ideas are quite worthy of consideration.

I didn't know the reds had any other agenda than trying to force new elections. What other ideas do they have?

Are you serious? Their transient demands have been repeatedly echoed this forum for weeks, including:

Abhisit to resign

Kasit to resign

Suthep to resign

Prem to resign

Surayad to resign

(they're big on this resignation thing)

.. and new snap elections.

That's not much of a political ideology. It sounds more like demands than ideas.

Both the reds and the yellows are big on the resignation thing. But what I mean is that while PAD also have a political agenda beyond the resignations, that doesn't really seem to be the case for the reds.

[animatic]

"reveal the truth"

That one is rich.

Like going to the meat butcher for vegetables.

Am I biased against everything red now? YES! They lost me when they attacked Asean, when they threatened the LIFE of Abhisit, when they killed civilians at the market, when they threatened to blow up a gas truck in a residential area. How anyone who is not a true red believer can listen to even one word out their Thaksinista mouths is beyond me.

they try everything to save their masters ar5e with hope of eternal financial benefits in return!

When he would buy a company and fire them all

if he thought the profits were right to flog the parts and machinery.

Right out of Zorg Industries for a parody.

[sriracha john]

Most people here are pro THAILAND and not pro yellow as a actual entity.

There was a lot of anti-yellow resentment after the Airport,

and many loud voices before that too.

It just may be that the Red side has shown a more significantly more violent side,

even if SOME of their ideas are quite worthy of consideration.

Others ideas are absolutely not, and their violent side, which is how they came into being,

is anathema for MOST people, not just Farangs, but many thoughful Thais too.

Hence the whites appearance.

You can seem to get it into your head, Red dislike is not a yellow thing exclusively.

Many non-aligned people feel the same way,

but don't go onto the streets top ralley or riot to let it be known.

I didn't know the reds had any other agenda than trying to force new elections. What other ideas do they have?

Are you serious? Their transient demands have been repeatedly echoed this forum for weeks, including:

Abhisit to resign

Kasit to resign

Suthep to resign

Prem to resign

Surayad to resign

(they're big on this resignation thing)

.. and new snap elections.

AND also...

reinstating the 1997 Constitution and dissolving the House of Representatives.

and as per the date of the above... their nonsense has been going on for months...

Edited May 6, 2009 by sriracha john

[chrislarsson]

Are you serious? Their transient demands have been repeatedly echoed this forum for weeks, including:

Abhisit to resign

Kasit to resign

Suthep to resign

Prem to resign

Surayad to resign

(they're big on this resignation thing)

.. and new snap elections.

AND also...

reinstating the 1997 Constitution and dissolving the House of Representatives.

and as per the date of the above... their nonsense has been going on for months...

Why do you believe this is nonsense? What is better in the new constitution compared to the 1997 one?

[sriracha john]

Are you serious? Their transient demands have been repeatedly echoed this forum for weeks, including:

Abhisit to resign

Kasit to resign

Suthep to resign

Prem to resign

Surayad to resign

(they're big on this resignation thing)

.. and new snap elections.

AND also...

reinstating the 1997 Constitution and dissolving the House of Representatives.

and as per the date of the above... their nonsense has been going on for months...

Why do you believe this is nonsense? What is better in the new constitution compared to the 1997 one?

Allowing MP's the freedom to vote independently on issues in Parliament instead of being required to tow the Party line vote on a Parliamentary issue is a good example.

[chrislarsson]

AND also...

and as per the date of the above... their nonsense has been going on for months...

Why do you believe this is nonsense? What is better in the new constitution compared to the 1997 one?

Allowing MP's the freedom to vote independently on issues in Parliament instead of being required to tow the Party line vote on a Parliamentary issue is a good example.

They don't have this freedom in the 1997 constitution? How did this change in the new one?

There are no laws regarding this in Europe. MPs, in general, are always voting along party line.

[Plus]

What is better in the new constitution compared to the 1997 one?

There are more restrictions on politicians and their executive power, and people have more rights in checking it.

For example the PM can't stay longer than eight years, and the number of MPs required for no-confidence debate is half of 1997 version.

National Human Rights Commission can take people's complaints straight to the courts, and the number of signatures required for proposing new laws is reduced from fifty to ten thousand. I believe it's twenty thousand to petition Senate for impeachement of office holders.

[hammered]

What is better in the new constitution compared to the 1997 one?

There are more restrictions on politicians and their executive power, and people have more rights in checking it.

For example the PM can't stay longer than eight years, and the number of MPs required for no-confidence debate is half of 1997 version.

National Human Rights Commission can take people's complaints straight to the courts, and the number of signatures required for proposing new laws is reduced from fifty to ten thousand. I believe it's twenty thousand to petition Senate for impeachement of office holders.

Also the 2007 one enshrines certain people's rights that 1997 didnt. The framers of 1997 felt the rights of people should be determined by parliament and held upthis ideal but parliament basically didnt match it. Those bits of 2007 shouldnt be watered down. Strangely enough no politican talks about these bits. Clearly poltiicans rights aremoreimportant than mere people's rights. Anyway those bits need retaining.

There is nothing wrong with PTP demands. However, what is needed is consensus formed by debate and that means everyone compromises and that includes PTP. They hopwever dont seem to date to do this but just regurgitate the same. Abhisit whatever people think of him has offered concessions such as charter ammendment, amnesty and elections and that is after poltical victories in the censure debate and the red riot shooting itself in the foot.Offeringconcessions after politcalvictories is a mature and consensual thing todo. Now we need PTP to respond with their concessions

[animatic]

AND also...

and as per the date of the above... their nonsense has been going on for months...

Why do you believe this is nonsense? What is better in the new constitution compared to the 1997 one?

Allowing MP's the freedom to vote independently on issues in Parliament instead of being required to tow the Party line vote on a Parliamentary issue is a good example.

They don't have this freedom in the 1997 constitution? How did this change in the new one?

There are no laws regarding this in Europe. MPs, in general, are always voting along party line.

This is no Europe....

And no they don't in general always vote party line in Europe.

Which explains the regular splintering of European parties.

[Plus]

All this talk about reconciliation via const amendements is just a diversion, a red herring.

The crux of PTP protest was expressed very eloquently by Chalerm: "people elected us to govern, not to be in opposition". I don't believe for a second that his party would accept any elections or any conditions that don't bring them back to power.

They don't care about the rules or constitution versions or fairness or democracy - they just want to be the government. That's the real meaning of "reconciliation" for them. They are not interested in holding MP positions as those are legislative, not executive. Legislation doesn't pay as much as getting hands on real budgets.

You can't reason with them, you can't be logical - they don't accept logic and reasoning if doesn't get them what they want.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Plus

[animatic]

The crux of PTP protest was expressed very eloquently by Chalerm: "people elected us to govern, not to be in opposition". I don't believe for a second that his party would accept any elections or any conditions that don't bring them back to power.

They don't care about the rules or constitution versions or fairness or democracy - they just want to be the government. That's the real meaning of "reconciliation" for them. They are not interested in holding MP positions as those are legislative, not executive. Legislation doesn't pay as much as getting hands on real budgets.

You can't reason with them, you can't be logical - they don't accept logic and reasoning if doesn't get them what they want.

Pretty much sums up their Zero Sum game plan.

All or nothing and a lot of noise while they have nothing.

But give them everything they want and silence will reign on important things

as they quietly go for all the gold then can find.

Edited May 6, 2009 by animatic

[hammered]

All this talk about reconciliation via const amendements is just a diversion, a red herring.

The crux of PTP protest was expressed very eloquently by Chalerm: "people elected us to govern, not to be in opposition". I don't believe for a second that his party would accept any elections or any conditions that don't bring them back to power.

They don't care about the rules or constitution versions or fairness or democracy - they just want to be the government. That's the real meaning of "reconciliation" for them. They are not interested in holding MP positions as those are legislative, not executive. Legislation doesn't pay as much as getting hands on real budgets.

You can't reason with them, you can't be logical - they don't accept logic and reasoning if doesn't get them what they want.

They are not aiming at PTP as an entity imho but at individual MPs in the party who are quite willing to side change even if still nominally in PTP. They are also aiming at bringing in certain of the ex-111. PTP probably doesnt retain the support or backing it once had. Political realignment is the watchword now and while the red sympathising blogosphere obsesses onthis being about PAD losing certain backers the other side is that PTP is unravelling and unless Thaksins ex-missus stumps up a monumental fortune the party will collapse. Even if she does the party may be over after the red riot has set the movement back to its feudal lanna root of gay and farmer bashing Thaksinistas. Potjaman didnt come back to dust the ornaments but to bring back from beyond the dead the corpse of PTP as a newly packaged attractive offering just like in those vampire movies.

[Insight]

UDD to end rally this afternoon

By: BangkokPost.com

Published: 6/05/2009 at 12:06 PM

The red-shirt rally outside Government House, led by United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) core member Somyos Pruksakaseamsuk, may disband earlier than expected as the number of protesters was not many.

The protesters marched to the front of Government House from the Equestrian Statue of King Rama V on Wednesday morning, calling on the government to stop blocking the satellite-based DTV station and pro-Thaksin community radio stations.

Snipped

-------------------------

I'm groaning when I read this; it very possibly means she'll now be spamming the news forum 24/7....

[sriracha john]

Returning to the Reds' Rallies topic... it seems like an old problem has reared its head again... lack of participants...

[hammered]

UDD to end rally this afternoon

By: BangkokPost.com

Published: 6/05/2009 at 12:06 PM

The red-shirt rally outside Government House, led by United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) core member Somyos Pruksakaseamsuk, may disband earlier than expected as the number of protesters was not many.

The protesters marched to the front of Government House from the Equestrian Statue of King Rama V on Wednesday morning, calling on the government to stop blocking the satellite-based DTV station and pro-Thaksin community radio stations.

Snipped

-------------------------

I'm groaning when I read this; it very possibly means she'll now be spamming the news forum 24/7....

As ex-TRT minister Suranand said the reds are in retreat.

Edited to add: Will Potjaman open the cheque book?

Edited May 6, 2009 by hammered

[Jingthing]

Returning to the Reds' Rallies topic... it seems like an old problem has reared its head again... lack of participants...

the red movement

so last month ...

[hammered]

Dont know if this student i-report of the Songkhran thing has been posted before but interesting:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-243682

[chrislarsson]

Allowing MP's the freedom to vote independently on issues in Parliament instead of being required to tow the Party line vote on a Parliamentary issue is a good example.

They don't have this freedom in the 1997 constitution? How did this change in the new one?

There are no laws regarding this in Europe. MPs, in general, are always voting along party line.

This is no Europe....

And no they don't in general always vote party line in Europe.

Which explains the regular splintering of European parties.

Can you give some examples of this? I know it happens often in the US. But the executive and legislative branches are tied much more closely together in Europe.

In the US they use the "party whip" and "pork barrels", to get people to vote in line with the party. In Thailand, they actually had a law requiring MP's to vote along party line?

[Plus]

They are not aiming at PTP as an entity imho but at individual MPs in the party who are quite willing to side change even if still nominally in PTP. They are also aiming at bringing in certain of the ex-111.

I don't know what Democrats are aiming for, Abhisit started talking about amnesty right after the red riots, on the spur of the moment.

Who is really going to benefit from it is a different story. These last couple of days the matter has been overshadowed by speculation of blue power moves. By the time the appointed commission finishes its amendment proposals the question could be - "Who cares?"

I believe two weeks initially set by Abhisit for all parties to come with their ideas have quietly passed already - who cares?

I won't be surprised if two weeks from now everyone will completely forget what all this "reconciliation" was all about and who was supposed to reconcile what.

[Plus]

Dont know if this student i-report of the Songkhran thing has been posted before but interesting:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-243682

Yeah, in the middle of the video someone throws a molotov at advancing soldiers, several go up in flames and while they tried to put out the fire a taxi rams through the line sending at least one person flying several meters back.

[sriracha john]

Can you give some examples of this? I know it happens often in the US. But the executive and legislative branches are tied much more closely together in Europe.

In the US they use the "party whip" and "pork barrels", to get people to vote in line with the party. In Thailand, they actually had a law requiring MP's to vote along party line?

apparently so... they did... unbelievable as it may seem by international standards, but somehow... not so surprising in LOS...

It all came out in the last censure debate when an opportunity to finally use it came up and the resulting effect was immediate as numerous PTP MP's did NOT vote their party's line. It's this sort of basic independence that is necessary and it's the sort of thing the leaders of PTP and their square-headed leader wish to amend.

The rebels could, in fact, claim that they were doing more than just following their consciences. They could also claim they were exercising their constitutional right to a free vote. Unlike the 1997 constitution, the current charter doesn't bind MPs to their respective party lines in casting major votes.

- Sutichai Yoon, Editorial Page, The Nation / 2009-03-26

and also from that same pre-Black Songkran-dated article.... Sutichai's prophecy is eerily accurate...

Having failed in his parliamentary strategy to oust the Abhisit government, Thaksin will now go all out with his alternative tactic to apply pressure on the coalition. Today's/Yesterday's rally of red-shirted anti-government protestors is/was being openly orchestrated by Thaksin himself.

It's a huge gamble - one in which Thaksin's political offensive will become do-or-die.

while the resulting Bangkok Riots should have been Thaksin's epitaph... I don't think they are...

Edited May 6, 2009 by sriracha john

[TAWP]

Dont know if this student i-report of the Songkhran thing has been posted before but interesting:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-243682

Yeah, in the middle of the video someone throws a molotov at advancing soldiers, several go up in flames and while they tried to put out the fire a taxi rams through the line sending at least one person flying several meters back.

Yes, it is clear that people that claim Red's never do any harm is dead wrong.

Either a Red taxi-driver just tried to kill a a few people or not all can-drives support the Red. It cannot be both ways...

[Thai at Heart]

apparently so... they did... unbelievable as it may seem by international standards, but somehow... not so surprising in LOS...

I would love to see that law. What is the crime?

It was a law, or it was a party enabled whip system? In many countries, various types of votes are subject to different types of "whip" control and some are declared free votes such as votes on moral, ethical issues or possibly constitutional issues also. It may well be that a censure motion is declared a "free" vote. It is however significant that not everyone voted on party lines, which is a good thing on a vote like this.

The party whip system has been around for eon's as has vote matching. Otherwise, every single MP would have to spend every minute of every day loitering around parliament just in case there was a vote. There is nothing to say that someone can't vote against the whip, it is just that it is a very very rare occasion because it tends to be political career suicide or can bring down a government. Just see Gordon Brown's labour party imploding over the gurkhas or the anti-European conservatives that brought down the conservative government by not following the whip.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[HagenvonTronje]

Dont know if this student i-report of the Songkhran thing has been posted before but interesting:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-243682

i think i mentioned that youtube video a while ago, as one of the very few video of that night and where you can see actually not that much. and i asked the question why there arn't more of such video, because the argument was nowadays everybody has a mobile cam and is filming all the time.

[hammered]

Edited to change to: Shawn Crispin has a new pice up at Asia Times. Worth a read as ever imho.

Edited May 6, 2009 by hammered