I think PM Abhisit should immediately call thaksins bluff and continual trouble making by dispatching an aircraft to pick up Thaksin and return him to Thailand so they can have a real heart-to-heart discussion regarding the ongoing politics of Thailand together with the current unserved prison sentence together with all other outstanding charges.

That should shut thaksin up for a day or two until he forgets once again that he is a convicted on the run criminal who is welcome to return anytime he likes.

Didn't he promise to stay out of politics not too long ago? Oh well, this is Thaksin after all....

Thaksin is right that Abhisit cant make decisions. In a parlaimentary democracy the parliament must ultimately make them and not any minister even the PM. At best Abhisit could take his ideas to parliament. In a parliamentary democracy the parliament remains the ultimate decison maker until voters render their verdict at an election. Few seem to really understand how parliamentary systems work preffering to try to confuse the idea with presidential systems of directly elected leaders.

Thaksin seems to have learned this since his time as PM when he relied on government issued resolutions that rarely went anywhere near parlaiment and ultimately wouldd run foul of the courts. I guess it is good to see lessons in the proper functioning of the parts in a parliamnetary democracy being learned

Thaksin is right that Abhisit cant make decisions. In a parlaimentary democracy the parliament must ultimately make them and not any minister even the PM. At best Abhisit could take his ideas to parliament. In a parliamentary democracy the parliament remains the ultimate decison maker until voters render their verdict at an election. Few seem to really understand how parliamentary systems work preffering to try to confuse the idea with presidential systems of directly elected leaders.

Thaksin seems to have learned this since his time as PM when he relied on government issued resolutions that rarely went anywhere near parlaiment and ultimately wouldd run foul of the courts. I guess it is good to see lessons in the proper functioning of the parts in a parliamnetary democracy being learned

Good in theory.

But until it is practised in a truly democratic environment, ie an election, it remains flawed when set against the backdrop of military coup and junta appointed judiciary.

Thaksin is right that Abhisit cant make decisions. In a parlaimentary democracy the parliament must ultimately make them and not any minister even the PM. At best Abhisit could take his ideas to parliament. In a parliamentary democracy the parliament remains the ultimate decison maker until voters render their verdict at an election. Few seem to really understand how parliamentary systems work preffering to try to confuse the idea with presidential systems of directly elected leaders.

Thaksin seems to have learned this since his time as PM when he relied on government issued resolutions that rarely went anywhere near parlaiment and ultimately wouldd run foul of the courts. I guess it is good to see lessons in the proper functioning of the parts in a parliamnetary democracy being learned

Good in theory.

But until it is practised in a truly democratic environment, ie an election, it remains flawed when set against the backdrop of military coup and junta appointed judiciary.

The junta left years ago, the government lower and upper house

were installed after the people voted, YES, on a constitution.

it is a completely new ballgame. And it is all legal,

no matter your boss's whining for his lost face.

By your logic there NEVER was ONE legitimate Thailand government,

because they ALL were preceded by coups prior to their constitutions being installed.

Sorry, but your logic is so full of holes a ship can sail through them one and all.

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a statement through a radio interview, that he did not know who to discuss national issues with

Mirror, mirror, on the wall ...

Say what you want but history records that taksin was elected by the thai people 3 times.

He won 3 consecutive general elections.

Erm, 2001 & 2005, I make that twice, not three times ? Oh, could you possibly be counting the April 2006 election also, the one which the Electoral Commission annulled, because it was rigged ?

Thaksin: PM can't decide himself

Writer: BangkokPost.com

Published: 6/09/2009 at 11:26 AM

Fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra believed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva may have no decision-making authority.

Thaksin said in a radio interview on Sunday that he did not know who he could discuss problems in the country with.

"Prime Minister Abhisit and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban have never contacted me to discuss issues in the country. I'm ready to talk with government leaders, including Mr Abhisit, even though I believe he may not have the authority to decide," the ousted premier said.

Thaksin also said in his Twitter message that he was not ill as rumoured.

Link: http://bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/153525...-decide-himself

-- Bangkok Post 2009/06/09

I think he should try to make a new career as an stand-up comedian.

Say what you want but history records that taksin was elected by the thai people 3 times.

He won 3 consecutive general elections.

That puts him up there with the likes of thatcher and blair, hat-trick heroes.

History also records that Abisit is the installed pawn of a military coup, and junta appointed judiciary.

Fact is, poor abi doesn't run the show: even the slightest whif of him thinking about an election would bring him a fate worse than Sondi's.

This is beginning to taste like .

And in every aisle besides.

Last years Spam,

left out in the heat since then...

Thaksin is right that Abhisit cant make decisions. In a parlaimentary democracy the parliament must ultimately make them and not any minister even the PM. At best Abhisit could take his ideas to parliament. In a parliamentary democracy the parliament remains the ultimate decison maker until voters render their verdict at an election. Few seem to really understand how parliamentary systems work preffering to try to confuse the idea with presidential systems of directly elected leaders.

Thaksin seems to have learned this since his time as PM when he relied on government issued resolutions that rarely went anywhere near parlaiment and ultimately wouldd run foul of the courts. I guess it is good to see lessons in the proper functioning of the parts in a parliamnetary democracy being learned

Good in theory.

But until it is practised in a truly democratic environment, ie an election, it remains flawed when set against the backdrop of military coup and junta appointed judiciary.

The junta left years ago, the government lower and upper house

were installed after the people voted, YES, on a constitution.

it is a completely new ballgame. And it is all legal,

no matter your boss's whining for his lost face.

By your logic there NEVER was ONE legitimate Thailand government,

because they ALL were preceded by coups prior to their constitutions being installed.

Sorry, but your logic is so full of holes a ship can sail through them one and all.

Your choice of word "installed" is only appropriate in the sense that the junta installed the "illegitimate government".

A better word for you is maybe un-installed in the context of the democratically elected government.

Well maybe the military junta use the same logic, prior to the overthrow of democratically elected governments.

That would be the junta view.

And yes the junta gunboat sure put the holes in the logic of electoral democracy in thailand.

And thats why its third world and falling, holed below the waterline.

Thaksin: PM can't decide himself

Writer: BangkokPost.com

Published: 6/09/2009 at 11:26 AM

Fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra believed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva may have no decision-making authority.

Thaksin said in a radio interview on Sunday that he did not know who he could discuss problems in the country with.

"Prime Minister Abhisit and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban have never contacted me to discuss issues in the country. I'm ready to talk with government leaders, including Mr Abhisit, even though I believe he may not have the authority to decide," the ousted premier said.

Thaksin also said in his Twitter message that he was not ill as rumoured.

Link: http://bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/153525...-decide-himself

-- Bangkok Post 2009/06/09

I think he should try to make a new career as an stand-up comedian.

Or perhaps part of a double act.

Say what you want but history records that taksin was elected by the thai people 3 times.

He won 3 consecutive general elections.

That puts him up there with the likes of thatcher and blair, hat-trick heroes.

History also records that Abisit is the installed pawn of a military coup, and junta appointed judiciary.

Fact is, poor abi doesn't run the show: even the slightest whif of him thinking about an election would bring him a fate worse than Sondi's.

This is beginning to taste like .

And in every aisle besides.

Ah that wonderful american institution....spam..spiced ham.

Always on the table at the joint thai american military operations hq

Last years Spam,

left out in the heat since then...

Like the great american institution, stood the heat of time, unlike thai democracy, took it below the waterline.

Thaksin is right that Abhisit cant make decisions. In a parlaimentary democracy the parliament must ultimately make them and not any minister even the PM. At best Abhisit could take his ideas to parliament. In a parliamentary democracy the parliament remains the ultimate decison maker until voters render their verdict at an election. Few seem to really understand how parliamentary systems work preffering to try to confuse the idea with presidential systems of directly elected leaders.

Thaksin seems to have learned this since his time as PM when he relied on government issued resolutions that rarely went anywhere near parlaiment and ultimately wouldd run foul of the courts. I guess it is good to see lessons in the proper functioning of the parts in a parliamnetary democracy being learned

Good in theory.

But until it is practised in a truly democratic environment, ie an election, it remains flawed when set against the backdrop of military coup and junta appointed judiciary.

The junta left years ago, the government lower and upper house

were installed after the people voted, YES, on a constitution.

it is a completely new ballgame. And it is all legal,

no matter your boss's whining for his lost face.

By your logic there NEVER was ONE legitimate Thailand government,

because they ALL were preceded by coups prior to their constitutions being installed.

Sorry, but your logic is so full of holes a ship can sail through them one and all.

Your choice of word "installed" is only appropriate in the sense that the junta installed the "illegitimate government".

A better word for you is maybe un-installed in the context of the democratically elected government.

Well maybe the military junta use the same logic, prior to the overthrow of democratically elected governments.

That would be the junta view.

And yes the junta gunboat sure put the holes in the logic of electoral democracy in thailand.

And thats why its third world and falling, holed below the waterline.

If only you could or would consistently read English.

Installed after an election, and this speaks OBVIOUSLY of the PPP government.

Which was installed after the election, because that is how it is done.

the results go to his majesty and he signsa them into their seats.

And 'Installation'.

To risk be pedantic with a slow child:

By your logic there NEVER was ONE legitimate Thailand government,

because they ALL were preceded by coups prior to their constitutions being installed.

Sorry, but your logic is so full of holes a ship can sail through them one and all.

If only you could or would consistently read English.

Installed after an election, and this speaks OBVIOUSLY of the PPP government.

Which was installed after the election, because that is how it is done.

the results go to his majesty and he signsa them into their seats.

And 'Installation'.

To risk be pedantic with a slow child:

By your logic there NEVER was ONE legitimate Thailand government,

because they ALL were preceded by coups prior to their constitutions being installed.

Sorry, but your logic is so full of holes a ship can sail through them one and all.

Lets see how your reading holds up with this one then,

Democratically elected government by all the people.

Military coup.

Junta government and judiciary.

Junta installed government.

Your assertion that its happened before so its ok now shows you are in tune with the junta.

The democratically elected government was overthrown by a military coup and replaced with a junta installed regime.

The only ships around being the junta gunboats.

Resort to PAD and yellow one like tactics , it shows you have no argument.

Lets see how your reading holds up with this one then,

Democratically elected government by all the people.

Military coup.

Junta government and judiciary.

Junta installed government.

Your assertion that its happened before so its ok now shows you are in tune with the junta.

The democratically elected government was overthrown by a military coup and replaced with a junta installed regime.

The only ships around being the junta gunboats.

Resort to PAD and yellow one like tactics , it shows you have no argument.

Hello? It's 2009, not 2007. We don't have a "Junta installed government". In case you missed it, there was an election that voted in all the members of parliament. The MP's chose a PM, he was dismissed for legal reasons, the MP's chose another PM, he was dismissed for legal reasons, the MP's chose another PM, he is still in the job, and, despite the Thaksinista propaganda, doing okay. Every current member of the Thai parliament was democratically elected. The majority of those members voted for Abhisit as PM. This is not a Junta installed government, despite what whoever pays anyone to post the opposite says.

If only you could or would consistently read English.

Installed after an election, and this speaks OBVIOUSLY of the PPP government.

Which was installed after the election, because that is how it is done.

the results go to his majesty and he signsa them into their seats.

And 'Installation'.

To risk be pedantic with a slow child:

By your logic there NEVER was ONE legitimate Thailand government,

because they ALL were preceded by coups prior to their constitutions being installed.

Sorry, but your logic is so full of holes a ship can sail through them one and all.

Lets see how your reading holds up with this one then,

Democratically elected government by all the people.

Military coup.

Junta government and judiciary.

Junta installed government.

Your assertion that its happened before so its ok now shows you are in tune with the junta.

The democratically elected government was overthrown by a military coup and replaced with a junta installed regime.

The only ships around being the junta gunboats.

Resort to PAD and yellow one like tactics , it shows you have no argument.

I don't assert in any way it's alright. That is purely your interpretation.

I just say it is now the past, and things must move forward on the existing legal footing.

We have a functioning government, legally brought to the job by the laws of Thailand.

Not the time to change, just cause a minority is whining about losing loudly. End of story.

17 coups in Thailand since 1932, yes it HAS happened before,

guess you don't read books.

Or it isn't on Thaksin's PR department's reading lists.

It's always the winners who write history,

but it's always the most recent losers that try so hard to rewrite it.

You're not coming off like a winner much here.