Pm Vows Reconciliation In 8 Months

[sriracha john]

White shirts rally for peace

Members of professional media organisations and people from government agencies, the military, civic groups and business have joined a campaign calling on everyone to "Stop hurting Thailand" with social divisions.

Bangkok Post

Thousands rally to give peace a chance

'Stop hurting Thailand' push gains support

Thousands of professional media organisations, government agencies, the military, civic groups and business people have joined the "Stop hurting Thailand" campaign, urging political groups to end bickering that is causing social divisions.

The campaign was initiated by 21 organisations including the Thai Journalists Association, the King Prajadhipok Institute, and peace advocacy groups. The 21 organisations yesterday led a crowd of peace advocates dressed in white in a parade from King Rama VI statue in front of Lumpini Park along Silom Road to Bangkok Bank's headquarters.

Joining the parade were Borwornsak Uwanno, Secretary-General of the King Prajadhipok Institute, and his deputy Wuthisarn Tanchai, Prime Minister's Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey, Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boonyadet, TJA president Prasong Lertratanawisut and singer Add Carabao.

Continued:

-- Bangkok Post 2009-05-05

Edited May 4, 2009 by sriracha john

[warfie]

White shirts rally for peace

Members of professional media organisations and people from government agencies, the military, civic groups and business have joined a campaign calling on everyone to "Stop hurting Thailand" with social divisions.

Bangkok Post

Thousands rally to give peace a chance

'Stop hurting Thailand' push gains support

Finally a colour I can wear...

[animatic]

Yr right. Sorry about that.

I understand insider trading well. So why didn't he just wait a month, announce the sale before, and then just sell it? What did he gain by doing it quickly?

A few pennies to the petro-dollar, but he wanted them all.

He was to the point of greediness beyond reason. It all went to his head.

He had gotten off by alegedly buying off a Supreme judge or two

and thought he was the Teflon PM and invincible.

He had bad lawyering, because at this point no one dared talk back to him.

If you read his words at the time they guy was beyond arrogant.

He had just finished a full term,

won a 2nd election for the first time in the countries history.

And stymied the highest court in the land.

He felt all the money was his and none should be lost to anyone including the government tax bureau.

What real value did he have to gain... mostly ego gratification. He thought he could do it and tried to.

He misjudged.

Chris the more you look at Thaksin the more you will see his real actions

and not his well crafted and widely sold PR image, that he has spent bundles burnishing.

[animatic]

White shirts rally for peace

Members of professional media organisations and people from government agencies, the military, civic groups and business have joined a campaign calling on everyone to "Stop hurting Thailand" with social divisions.

Bangkok Post

Thousands rally to give peace a chance

'Stop hurting Thailand' push gains support

Finally a colour I can wear...

Bravo and Brava White Shirts.

The silent majority is finally angry enough to speak out.

[Old Man River]

Make no mistake. The 06 coup was going to happen whether the Democrats boycotted the election or not. I think you know this so let's not digress to the reasons for the coup.

.

I am not sure the coup makers would have gotten the nod if there would have been a elected government in place, and not a caretaker government in dire straights.

I think, at the end of the day, we agree with more things that not, but I do disagree with the above comment.

The boycott had nothing to do with the election being nullified. In fact, the ballots in the 2006 election had a "no vote" option which 31% of the voters selected. The boycott only impacted the Democrats chances of winning, it didn't invalidate the election and didn't lead to the caretaker government.

The elections were declared invalid by Thailand's Constitutional Court because the positioning of the voting booths violated voter privacy. Ultimately, the members of the Election Committee were jailed for malfeasance.

I had the opportunity to talk to some of the directors of the NGO that presented the evidence leading to the nullification and there is no doubt this was not one of those fair and free elections we hope to see in our lifetime.

New elections were slated for October 15, 2006, but were pre-empted by the coup. The reasons for the coup were given by the CNS on the night of the coup and the caretaker government had nothing to do with it.

[chrislarsson]

Boycotting the 2006 elections was a brilliant move.

They publicly stated that they would not join in a rigged whitewash of Thaksins deals.

Nothing low morals about that.

And because of that decision, Thaksin's minions

HAD to get higher percentages to get their seats

than they COULD GET VOTES FOR...

No other reason to hire parties to run against them.

AND THAT is what brought down TRT.

Please get serious. The election was not boycotted because of rigging. Who would be stupid enough to rig an election that would be won handily anyway?

Thaksin was and the dissolution of the TRT for rigging the election is confirmation of that.

This argument is plain stupid.

[justanothercybertosser]

Make no mistake. The 06 coup was going to happen whether the Democrats boycotted the election or not. I think you know this so let's not digress to the reasons for the coup.

.

I am not sure the coup makers would have gotten the nod if there would have been a elected government in place, and not a caretaker government in dire straights.

I think, at the end of the day, we agree with more things that not, but I do disagree with the above comment.

The boycott had nothing to do with the election being nullified. In fact, the ballots in the 2006 election had a "no vote" option which 31% of the voters selected. The boycott only impacted the Democrats chances of winning, it didn't invalidate the election and didn't lead to the caretaker government.

The elections were declared invalid by Thailand's Constitutional Court because the positioning of the voting booths violated voter privacy. Ultimately, the members of the Election Committee were jailed for malfeasance.

I had the opportunity to talk to some of the directors of the NGO that presented the evidence leading to the nullification and there is no doubt this was not one of those fair and free elections we hope to see in our lifetime.

New elections were slated for October 15, 2006, but were pre-empted by the coup. The reasons for the coup were given by the CNS on the night of the coup and the caretaker government had nothing to do with it.

An elected government would have made it much more difficult to find acceptance for the coup. It may have still happened, yes, but a coup would not have been that easy as under a caretaker government under heavy attack. A successful coup needs a nod, and under a elected governement such a nod would have been very difficult to get.

The boycott led to the stupid decision of TRT to set up/bribe smaller parties (but also, as i recall, there was a conviction/accusation for the Dems to have bribed smaller parties into boycotting).

Anyhow, what i mean to say here is that the boycott weakened the system, and under weak systems much can happen and be excused. In the 2006 elections democrats would not have won, but they would have broken TRT absolute majority from the 2005 elections. That would have given the Democrats the opportunity to take TRT on in the next elections.

Perception is very important in politics. Pre-boycott Abhisit was perceived by most TRT supporters as too young, but essentially a good future choice for PM. Now he is hated and despised by the sectors that still support Thaksin, and also by many democracy activists, even worse so since the not so clean parliamentarty elections. This perception is not going to go away easily anymore, and will be the biggest hindrance to the efforts of recounciliation, especially also because it is increasingly obvious that much he that he announced will not be performed, for various reasons. He has become at least as divisive as Thaksin.

Thailand is now running out of capable people who could represent the people, and are acceptable to both sides of the political divide. A situation like this could, in the worst case scenario, lead to a civil war. Also the continued efforts by many sectors here to demonize the Red Shirts, and accusing them of having no other agenda than Thaksin's return, being his paid and uneducated stooges, and ignoring their many righteous complaints does not help the situation.

[chrislarsson]

Yr right. Sorry about that.

I understand insider trading well. So why didn't he just wait a month, announce the sale before, and then just sell it? What did he gain by doing it quickly?

A few pennies to the petro-dollar, but he wanted them all.

He was to the point of greediness beyond reason. It all went to his head.

He had gotten off by alegedly buying off a Supreme judge or two

and thought he was the Teflon PM and invincible.

He had bad lawyering, because at this point no one dared talk back to him.

If you read his words at the time they guy was beyond arrogant.

He had just finished a full term,

won a 2nd election for the first time in the countries history.

And stymied the highest court in the land.

He felt all the money was his and none should be lost to anyone including the government tax bureau.

What real value did he have to gain... mostly ego gratification. He thought he could do it and tried to.

He misjudged.

Chris the more you look at Thaksin the more you will see his real actions

and not his well crafted and widely sold PR image, that he has spent bundles burnishing.

You have know clue about any details of any of Thaksin's corruption. You just have one fixed idea, and then u apply this idea to everything.

Let me tell you one thing. Thaksin is not stupid. And he would have hired the best ppl there are to get this transaction done without breaking any laws. And that is why it got thrown out of court.

[animatic]

Make no mistake. The 06 coup was going to happen whether the Democrats boycotted the election or not. I think you know this so let's not digress to the reasons for the coup.

.

I am not sure the coup makers would have gotten the nod if there would have been a elected government in place, and not a caretaker government in dire straights.

I think, at the end of the day, we agree with more things that not, but I do disagree with the above comment.

The boycott had nothing to do with the election being nullified. In fact, the ballots in the 2006 election had a "no vote" option which 31% of the voters selected. The boycott only impacted the Democrats chances of winning, it didn't invalidate the election and didn't lead to the caretaker government.

The elections were declared invalid by Thailand's Constitutional Court because the positioning of the voting booths violated voter privacy. Ultimately, the members of the Election Committee were jailed for malfeasance.

I had the opportunity to talk to some of the directors of the NGO that presented the evidence leading to the nullification and there is no doubt this was not one of those fair and free elections we hope to see in our lifetime.

New elections were slated for October 15, 2006, but were pre-empted by the coup. The reasons for the coup were given by the CNS on the night of the coup and the caretaker government had nothing to do with it.

While I agree with most of this, I saw that the EC was compromised

and the election voting booths CHANGE from standard to a new position,

abetting TRT operatives monitoring of votes cast, this WAS brought about

because of the boycot.

TRT had reasonable hopes of winning many CONTESTED CONTESTS,

which take a lower numerical base to win.

Being the clear higher vote getter of 2 or more being the standard.

BUT NOT UNCONTESTED CONTESTS... a set % of votes was needed.

Hence the need to ensure HIGHER NUMBERS than those candidates had been getting,

to thus ensure getting the HIGHER numbers needed to win an UNCONTESTED contest.

So the EC was compromised into setting a more PARTY monitorable voting booth system,

and thus increasing the TRT intimidation of voters, and monitoring of dissenting voters or later retribution.

This all became MUCH more necessary because of the Dems boycot.

Edited May 5, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Boycotting the 2006 elections was a brilliant move.

They publicly stated that they would not join in a rigged whitewash of Thaksins deals.

Nothing low morals about that.

And because of that decision, Thaksin's minions

HAD to get higher percentages to get their seats

than they COULD GET VOTES FOR...

No other reason to hire parties to run against them.

AND THAT is what brought down TRT.

Please get serious. The election was not boycotted because of rigging. Who would be stupid enough to rig an election that would be won handily anyway?

Thaksin was and the dissolution of the TRT for rigging the election is confirmation of that.

This argument is plain stupid.

Yes that IS agreed with they WERE JUST PLAIN STUPID about this.

Greed and especially hubris makes normally intelligent people make VERY stupid mistakes.

As S.J. said the proof is on the end result.

TRT -110 / DEMS +1

[animatic]

Thaksin has besic intelegence and a over grasping avarice

that got him to the PM's office and more money than he should have had.

Many gave Potjamin a lot of credit for guiding him.

When he stopped listening her her and made more and more mistakes she bailed.

History is littered with many not so bright but very aggressive people who made

lots of money and even ran countries for a time, but were never smart enough to keep it all.

Aggression can get you things and power, but being smarts keeps you there.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton said,

I see Thaksin as a textbook example, of a person of normal intelligence,

but atypical aggressiveness, doing well up to a point, but then

losing control and spinning wildly into the abyss.

[Old Man River]

Make no mistake. The 06 coup was going to happen whether the Democrats boycotted the election or not. I think you know this so let's not digress to the reasons for the coup.

.

I am not sure the coup makers would have gotten the nod if there would have been a elected government in place, and not a caretaker government in dire straights.

I think, at the end of the day, we agree with more things that not, but I do disagree with the above comment.

The boycott had nothing to do with the election being nullified. In fact, the ballots in the 2006 election had a "no vote" option which 31% of the voters selected. The boycott only impacted the Democrats chances of winning, it didn't invalidate the election and didn't lead to the caretaker government.

The elections were declared invalid by Thailand's Constitutional Court because the positioning of the voting booths violated voter privacy. Ultimately, the members of the Election Committee were jailed for malfeasance.

I had the opportunity to talk to some of the directors of the NGO that presented the evidence leading to the nullification and there is no doubt this was not one of those fair and free elections we hope to see in our lifetime.

New elections were slated for October 15, 2006, but were pre-empted by the coup. The reasons for the coup were given by the CNS on the night of the coup and the caretaker government had nothing to do with it.

While I agree with most of this, I saw that the EC was compromised

and the election voting booths CHANGE from standard to a new position abetting a TRT

monitoring of votes cast, this WAS brought about because of the boycot.

TRT had reasonable hopes of winning many CONTESTED CONTESTS,

which take a lower numerical base to win.

Being the clear higher vote getter of 2 or more being the standard.

BUT NOT UNCONTESTED CONTESTS... a set % of votes was needed.

Hence the need to ensure HIGHER NUMBERS than those candidates had been getting,

to thus ensure getting the HIGHER numbers needed to win an UNCONTESTED contest.

So the EC was compromised into setting a more PARTY monitorable voting booth system,

and thus increasing the TRT intimidation of voters, and monitoring of dissenting voters for later retribution.

This all became MUCH more necessary because of the Dems boycot.

Come on, what idiot in their right mind would structure a "secret" ballot so that all could see? You say it is because the EC needed to ensure a more PARTY monitored election? Fortunately, the Constitutional Court did not buy this lame excuse, and instead convicted the EC of malfeasance and sentenced them to jail.

Thaksin's resigning two days after the election (prior to their being nullified) led to the caretaker government. By then, he saw the writing on the wall. The boycott only caused 9,800,000 plus people to choose their legal right to vote the "no vote" option. There is nothing wrong with people exercising their legal right to vote as they wish.

[justanothercybertosser]

The boycott only caused 9,800,000 plus people to choose their legal right to vote the "no vote" option. There is nothing wrong with people exercising their legal right to vote as they wish.

Nothing wrong with these people's decision.

But there is much wrong with the at the time second largest party in Thailand circumventing the laws against calling for an election boycott by refusing to field candidates in a snap election, and that way forcing opponents of TRT to take the 'no' vote. This is not just a dirty game, but undermined and perverted the democratic process possibly even worse than Thaksin has done.

Edited May 5, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[sriracha john]

Boycotting the 2006 elections was a brilliant move.

They publicly stated that they would not join in a rigged whitewash of Thaksins deals.

Nothing low morals about that.

And because of that decision, Thaksin's minions

HAD to get higher percentages to get their seats

than they COULD GET VOTES FOR...

No other reason to hire parties to run against them.

AND THAT is what brought down TRT.

Please get serious. The election was not boycotted because of rigging. Who would be stupid enough to rig an election that would be won handily anyway?

Thaksin was and the dissolution of the TRT for rigging the election is confirmation of that.

This argument is plain stupid.

fact can sound more stupid than fiction... but just as a means of confirming the stupidity, Thaksin turned right around and rigged a second election that would be won handily and that resulted in the PPP getting dissolved.

[hammered]

Every arguement and rediscussion ad infinitum of exactly the same tyopics as have been discussed for the past x years is a very good example of why reconcilliation needs pushing.

The overall opinion of politicans in this country has always been on the low side. Now it is threatening to slide off the scale. Probably time forthem to reengage with the game rather than play the same games that have made them as a group so despised and I am not picking on any party or individual here.

I guess I have been following the developments for a number of years and quite frankly hearing the same arguements is boring, disappointing and clearly doesnt lead anywhere positive. If opinions on this board reflect Thai society then lets just kick off the civil war today and have done with it.However, I somehow doubt the opinions do really reflect wider opinion where most people tend to be apolitical.

[Plus]

Let me tell you one thing. Thaksin is not stupid. And he would have hired the best ppl there are to get this transaction done without breaking any laws. And that is why it got thrown out of court.

When his wife got convicted, she got caught supplying an allegedly decade old document signed with the title she recieved several years later. That kind of forgery doesn't sound smart.

Current case regarding his frozen assets is based on Singaporean bank accounts where Thaksin still has his signature despite officially selling all his businesses to his children. That's another slip up that can cost him 2 billion dollars. Not too smart, is it?

Once the richest man in the country, holding the highest executive position - the Prime Minister, is running around the world incognito on dodgy Nigerian passports - smart people don't screw their lives like that.

And I don't remember any of his cases being thrown out of courts. Some court back in early 2006 refused to consider Shin sale case on technicalities, that's all that happened, and it ultimately forced people to demand justice on the streets.

Also Securities and Exchange commission, under charimanship of Thaksin's personal banker, found no case of insider trading, while Thaksin was still the PM - no one expected them to rule against him anyway.

Oldmanriver said somewhere that elections were scheduled for 15 October 2006 - that's a factual mistake, no dates have been mentioned even tentatively, let alone announced. At the time of the coup there wasn't even functioning Election Commission.

[Old Man River]

The boycott only caused 9,800,000 plus people to choose their legal right to vote the "no vote" option. There is nothing wrong with people exercising their legal right to vote as they wish.

Nothing wrong with these people's decision.

But there is much wrong with the at the time second largest party in Thailand circumventing the laws against calling for an election boycott by refusing to field candidates in a snap election, and that way forcing opponents of TRT to take the 'no' vote. This is not just a dirty game, but undermined and perverted the democratic process possibly even worse than Thaksin has done.

I think this is something we will never agree on and could go back and forth on it for years and still not agree. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[Old Man River]

Oldmanriver said somewhere that elections were scheduled for 15 October 2006 - that's a factual mistake, no dates have been mentioned even tentatively, let alone announced. At the time of the coup there wasn't even functioning Election Commission.

Yes and no. You are right that the Oct. 15th date wouldn't have happened, but there many articles in the media that mention that the tentative date was set at October 15, 2006. I attach a link below where it is mentioned in The Nation, as an example.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/01...cs_30038672.php

BTW, the "personal banker" of Thaksin's that you mention is still in the same position that he was during the Temasek sale. If ever there was a survivor, it is this guy.

[sriracha john]

The boycott only caused 9,800,000 plus people to choose their legal right to vote the "no vote" option. There is nothing wrong with people exercising their legal right to vote as they wish.

Nothing wrong with these people's decision.

But there is much wrong with the at the time second largest party in Thailand circumventing the laws against calling for an election boycott by refusing to field candidates in a snap election, and that way forcing opponents of TRT to take the 'no' vote. This is not just a dirty game, but undermined and perverted the democratic process possibly even worse than Thaksin has done.

I think this is something we will never agree on and could go back and forth on it for years

you already have with him...

[Thai at Heart]

Yr right. Sorry about that.

I understand insider trading well. So why didn't he just wait a month, announce the sale before, and then just sell it? What did he gain by doing it quickly?

A few pennies to the petro-dollar, but he wanted them all.

He was to the point of greediness beyond reason. It all went to his head.

He had gotten off by alegedly buying off a Supreme judge or two

and thought he was the Teflon PM and invincible.

He had bad lawyering, because at this point no one dared talk back to him.

If you read his words at the time they guy was beyond arrogant.

He had just finished a full term,

won a 2nd election for the first time in the countries history.

And stymied the highest court in the land.

He felt all the money was his and none should be lost to anyone including the government tax bureau.

What real value did he have to gain... mostly ego gratification. He thought he could do it and tried to.

He misjudged.

Chris the more you look at Thaksin the more you will see his real actions

and not his well crafted and widely sold PR image, that he has spent bundles burnishing.

He had absolutely the best legal advice. What is more embarrasing or telling is who owns shares in that particular legal firm.

[chrislarsson]

Yr right. Sorry about that.

I understand insider trading well. So why didn't he just wait a month, announce the sale before, and then just sell it? What did he gain by doing it quickly?

A few pennies to the petro-dollar, but he wanted them all.

He was to the point of greediness beyond reason. It all went to his head.

He had gotten off by alegedly buying off a Supreme judge or two

and thought he was the Teflon PM and invincible.

He had bad lawyering, because at this point no one dared talk back to him.

If you read his words at the time they guy was beyond arrogant.

He had just finished a full term,

won a 2nd election for the first time in the countries history.

And stymied the highest court in the land.

He felt all the money was his and none should be lost to anyone including the government tax bureau.

What real value did he have to gain... mostly ego gratification. He thought he could do it and tried to.

He misjudged.

Chris the more you look at Thaksin the more you will see his real actions

and not his well crafted and widely sold PR image, that he has spent bundles burnishing.

He had absolutely the best legal advice. What is more embarrasing or telling is who owns shares in that particular legal firm.

And why would that be embarrassing ?

[Thai at Heart]

Yr right. Sorry about that.

I understand insider trading well. So why didn't he just wait a month, announce the sale before, and then just sell it? What did he gain by doing it quickly?

A few pennies to the petro-dollar, but he wanted them all.

He was to the point of greediness beyond reason. It all went to his head.

He had gotten off by alegedly buying off a Supreme judge or two

and thought he was the Teflon PM and invincible.

He had bad lawyering, because at this point no one dared talk back to him.

If you read his words at the time they guy was beyond arrogant.

He had just finished a full term,

won a 2nd election for the first time in the countries history.

And stymied the highest court in the land.

He felt all the money was his and none should be lost to anyone including the government tax bureau.

What real value did he have to gain... mostly ego gratification. He thought he could do it and tried to.

He misjudged.

Chris the more you look at Thaksin the more you will see his real actions

and not his well crafted and widely sold PR image, that he has spent bundles burnishing.

He had absolutely the best legal advice. What is more embarrasing or telling is who owns shares in that particular legal firm.

And why would that be embarrassing ?

Check out which law firm consulted and which entity owns shares in it. The level of entanglement in this particular deal is amazing. He wasn't dumb, he got consultation from a pretty well respected firm.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[animatic]

A few pennies to the petro-dollar, but he wanted them all.

He was to the point of greediness beyond reason. It all went to his head.

He had gotten off by alegedly buying off a Supreme judge or two

and thought he was the Teflon PM and invincible.

He had bad lawyering, because at this point no one dared talk back to him.

If you read his words at the time they guy was beyond arrogant.

He had just finished a full term,

won a 2nd election for the first time in the countries history.

And stymied the highest court in the land.

He felt all the money was his and none should be lost to anyone including the government tax bureau.

What real value did he have to gain... mostly ego gratification. He thought he could do it and tried to.

He misjudged.

Chris the more you look at Thaksin the more you will see his real actions

and not his well crafted and widely sold PR image, that he has spent bundles burnishing.

He had absolutely the best legal advice. What is more embarrasing or telling is who owns shares in that particular legal firm.

And why would that be embarrassing ?

Check out which law firm consulted and which entity owns shares in it. The level of entanglement in this particular deal is amazing. He wasn't dumb, he got consultation from a pretty well respected firm.

Among others....

And then ignored most of it.

No way would competent council advise the deals they did.

Because getting caught would be MUCH too easy,

as has been shown since.

[Plus]

Oldmanriver said somewhere that elections were scheduled for 15 October 2006 - that's a factual mistake, no dates have been mentioned even tentatively, let alone announced. At the time of the coup there wasn't even functioning Election Commission.

Yes and no. You are right that the Oct. 15th date wouldn't have happened, but there many articles in the media that mention that the tentative date was set at October 15, 2006. I attach a link below where it is mentioned in The Nation, as an example.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/01...cs_30038672.php

That article was published on 2007/07/01. It relies on information posted on wikipedia, the source of that date is from another wiki article:

"..it was decided that new elections would be held on 15 October 2006. Due to delays in the nomination of a new election committee the election were likely to be moved to November.."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_legi...n,_October_2006

There is no source for the Oct 15 date given.

It probably doesn't matter, but your original post made it appear as if the army staged a coup less than a month before scheduled elections, that would put the coup right in the middle of electoral campaign. Of course it was nothing like that.

[HagenvonTronje]

Oldmanriver said somewhere that elections were scheduled for 15 October 2006 - that's a factual mistake, no dates have been mentioned even tentatively, let alone announced. At the time of the coup there wasn't even functioning Election Commission.

Yes and no. You are right that the Oct. 15th date wouldn't have happened, but there many articles in the media that mention that the tentative date was set at October 15, 2006. I attach a link below where it is mentioned in The Nation, as an example.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/01...cs_30038672.php

That article was published on 2007/07/01. It relies on information posted on wikipedia, the source of that date is from another wiki article:

"..it was decided that new elections would be held on 15 October 2006. Due to delays in the nomination of a new election committee the election were likely to be moved to November.."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_legi...n,_October_2006

There is no source for the Oct 15 date given.

It probably doesn't matter, but your original post made it appear as if the army staged a coup less than a month before scheduled elections, that would put the coup right in the middle of electoral campaign. Of course it was nothing like that.

Election decree endorsed by His Majesty

Published on July 21, 2006

His Majesty the King has endorsed a royal decree to hold the election on October 15, the Cabinet Secretariat announced.

The secretariat announced that His Majesty signed the decree on Thursday and the decree will take effect on August 24 to set October 15 as the election date.

The Nation

[Plus]

Thanks,

It was just a few days before Election Commissioners were jailed en masse and the whole election plan was scrapped, two months before the coup.

[HagenvonTronje]

Thanks,

It was just a few days before Election Commissioners were jailed en masse and the whole election plan was scrapped, two months before the coup.

the 15. october was on topic all the time during the month before the coup and not a fantasy or hoax that appeared later somehow on wikipedia.

thaksin talked about reconciliation of all sides, peace for the country and so on - we know that tune. he suggested international observers taking part, take a look the poll and voting process.

new members for the EC had to be found, but the plan of the election was never dropped, but i was likely that it will be postphoned into november. but this never happen, because the tanks came to the city. and anyone who is for a fair game, played by the rules of 'democracy' is pushed into the same corner like Thaksin.

[chrislarsson]

He had absolutely the best legal advice. What is more embarrasing or telling is who owns shares in that particular legal firm.

And why would that be embarrassing ?

Check out which law firm consulted and which entity owns shares in it. The level of entanglement in this particular deal is amazing. He wasn't dumb, he got consultation from a pretty well respected firm.

But what is the problem with hiring consultants from a company you own shares in? I don't understand the issue?

[Plus]

the 15. october was on topic all the time during the month before the coup

Nonsense.

The decree was published on July 21, EC commissioners were jailed on July 26. There was no one to organise the elections and so impossible to keep the original schedule and no one talked about it.

There was a talk about mid-November at the earliest - about two months after appointing new commissioners.

And it wasn't the date that people were worried about - it was participation of Thaksin. He promised to stay away when he tearfully resigned in April but didn't show he was keeping his promise.

[chrislarsson]

He had absolutely the best legal advice. What is more embarrasing or telling is who owns shares in that particular legal firm.

And why would that be embarrassing ?

Check out which law firm consulted and which entity owns shares in it. The level of entanglement in this particular deal is amazing. He wasn't dumb, he got consultation from a pretty well respected firm.

But what is the problem with hiring consultants from a company you own shares in? I don't understand the issue?

I understand. It's not surprising that you will seek advice from a powerful firm when making such a large transaction. It's not just about following the law, which can easily be mangled against you.

Edited May 6, 2009 by chrislarsson