Pm Threatens To Kill Entire Process

[jasreeve17]

So R, you want to start an argument instead of commenting on the thread... Ummm, no thanks. I'm very bored of posters who hang around looking for arguments...

Why so defensive Mr J?

I wasn't trying to start an argument, simply asking a question - practice that i believe is common when engaged in a discussion.

That being that since reporting never has been balanced, why in particular does it trouble you now?

Any particular reason?

Fair enough, I'm trying to avoid arguments, not sure my status can handle any more hits...

But discussion, that's all good (I feel a bit American using these terms ). My opinion would be that the Nation is ridiculously one-sided which wouldn't be such a problem if the forum had a variety of news sources, but nowadays we are only allowed this single source for the majority of our news.

Look at the headlines posted here daily... The starting point for every conversation is heavily biased.

Now, as I say, poor reporting aside, if we had a variety of sources they'd tend to balance each other out over time; but alas, we only have vanilla.

To go back to the American idea (subtly infiltrated above ): The great US of A has very polarized media, but a wide variety encompassing most 'flavours', so overall there's some balance. Now, on ThaiVisa it's 'Foxnews' only, all day, every day...

Edited October 15, 2009 by jasreeve17

[animatic]

Thankfully this is NOT an all FoxNews 24/7 situation here.

FoxNews clearly is much more akin to D-TV.

As to status taking a hit.... well nothing surprises me.

[jasreeve17]

Thankfully this is NOT an all FoxNews 24/7 situation here.

FoxNews clearly is much more akin to D-TV.

As to status taking a hit.... well nothing surprises me.

I chose FoxNews just because it's very well known, so people can relate to the general concept.

I could ask you to explain why D-TV is akin to FoxNews, but your answer, I reckon, would be beyond belief, thus I won't bother - not even for the sake of amusement...

Back on topic: Abhisit needs to decide what is right for the Thai people, not what is easiest for him politically...

[way2muchcoffee]

Back on topic: Abhisit needs to decide what is right for the Thai people, not what is easiest for him politically...

He did. He listened to the opposition. He took action. He was willing to inflame the PAD situation to do so. He was looking for compromise and reconciliation. Then the phone rang. Five minutes later 'the people' no longer wanted charter amendments.

Edited October 15, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[jasreeve17]

Back on topic: Abhisit needs to decide what is right for the Thai people, not what is easiest for him politically...

He did. He listened to the opposition. He took action. He was willing to inflame the PAD situation to do so. He was looking for compromise and reconciliation. Then the phone rang. Five minutes later 'the people' no longer wanted charter amendments.

Two points:

1) He needs to ignore what other parties think and do what's best for the Thai people.

2) Your assesment is wrong. Both the PAD and reds are now aparently against Abhisit's stance. My feeling is (just IMO) that he backed down from the PAD, not the reds. This was in complete contrast to what he said he would do the week before...

Come on, keep spinning...

Edit to ask: Who was on the phone to make him change his mind?

Edited October 15, 2009 by jasreeve17

[rixalex]

My opinion would be that the Nation is ridiculously one-sided.. <snip>

As i say, always has been biased in some form. The powers that be on that given day have always exerted a degree of pressure on the media.

I see no change in the media, just a change in the powers that be.

Maybe the reason why you are noticing it more now is because the line they are taking opposes your own point of view. I think this is a natural thing to do. It bothers us less when the media runs stories that support our own standpoint - indeed when this does happen we are inclined to feel that in fact there is no bias.

Anyway Mr J, if you wish to start a campaign for balanced news, i'm 100% behind you, but maybe we should wait until the media has swung back in your favour, otherwise people might question our sincerity on this issue. Don't worry, a week is a long time in politics. Give it time.

[way2muchcoffee]

1) He needs to ignore what other parties think and do what's best for the Thai people.

Hmm. I thought politicians were to represent the people, even those who support opposition candidates. I also thought Thailand was severely divided and in deep need of compromise and reconciliation. Perhaps I missed something?

2) Your assesment is wrong. Both the PAD and reds are now aparently against Abhisit's stance. My feeling is (just IMO) that he backed down from the PAD, not the reds. This was in complete contrast to what he said he would do the week before...

Really. I was under the impression that much support for Charter Reform came from the PTP. As I recall the Democrat party was lukewarm to the idea, but decided to work toward compromise. The PAD was never for Charter Reform. Newin's group were pro. It looked like a majority pro Charter Amendment. So, as a good PM should do, he went forward with it, knowing it would alienate some of the Democrat supporters who also support PAD.

Who was on the phone to make him change his mind?

Don't be disingenuous.

[jasreeve17]

My opinion would be that the Nation is ridiculously one-sided.. <snip>

As i say, always has been biased in some form. The powers that be on that given day have always exerted a degree of pressure on the media.

I see no change in the media, just a change in the powers that be.

Maybe the reason why you are noticing it more now is because the line they are taking opposes your own point of view. I think this is a natural thing to do. It bothers us less when the media runs stories that support our own standpoint - indeed when this does happen we are inclined to feel that in fact there is no bias.

Anyway Mr J, if you wish to start a campaign for balanced news, i'm 100% behind you, but maybe we should wait until the media has swung back in your favour, otherwise people might question our sincerity on this issue. Don't worry, a week is a long time in politics. Give it time.

I know what you're saying, but I give myself a tad (and only a tad) more credit because I prefer to hear a varity of viewpoints. I don't mind FoxNews, as long as you have the option of CNBC, CNN, etc...

Really, I'm talking about ThaiVisa. Now, we only have one biased source, instead of a selection of biased sources. Thus, there's less chance of balance.

I like vanilla, but if it's the only choice then I want chocolate.

[rixalex]

I like vanilla, but if it's the only choice then I want chocolate.

What are we talking about? News, ice-cream or women?

[jasreeve17]

1) He needs to ignore what other parties think and do what's best for the Thai people.

Hmm. I thought politicians were to represent the people, even those who support opposition candidates. I also thought Thailand was severely divided and in deep need of compromise and reconciliation. Perhaps I missed something?

2) Your assesment is wrong. Both the PAD and reds are now aparently against Abhisit's stance. My feeling is (just IMO) that he backed down from the PAD, not the reds. This was in complete contrast to what he said he would do the week before...

Really. I was under the impression that much support for Charter Reform came from the PTP. As I recall the Democrat party was lukewarm to the idea, but decided to work toward compromise. The PAD was never for Charter Reform. Newin's group were pro. It looked like a majority pro Charter Amendment. So, as a good PM should do, he went forward with it, knowing it would alienate some of the Democrat supporters who also support PAD.

Who was on the phone to make him change his mind?

Don't be disingenuous.

Sorry, but I don't understand any of your points (especially when you use such big words).

You merrily contradict yourself, just to be anti-red... Let's ignore them if we can and focus on this thread and the PM.

1) Yes, his primary goal is to work for the Thai people which he has stated, up until this latest release, will be best served by asking them directly for their input. Now, he has given way to political pressure.

2) The various parlimentary groups are going back and forth in irrational ways - so the PM said he will take charge and take the debate forward through the people (that was strong leadership which I applauded). When the PAD threaten to take to the streets he immediately backed down - weak leadership...

[way2muchcoffee]

Sorry, but I don't understand any of your points (especially when you use such big words).

Buy a dictionary.

You merrily contradict yourself, just to be anti-red...Let's ignore them if we can and focus on this thread and the PM.

I see. So the opposition party should have no say or influence. They lost and therefore should be ignored? I don't follow the logic. They are not to be ignored. They represent a significant portion of the population.

1) Yes, his primary goal is to work for the Thai people which he has stated, up until this latest release, will be best served by asking them directly for their input. Now, he has given way to political pressure.

I suppose that is one interpretation. Perhaps the correct one. Another would be that the only point of the referendum was to determine whether the people approve the plan for Parliament to amend the charter. Given that the majority of Parliament now opposes the charter, there seems to be little point in a referendum.

2) The various parlimentary groups are going back and forth in irrational ways. So the PM said he will take charge and take the debate forward through the people (that was strong leadership which I applauded). When the PAD threaten to take to the streets he immediately backed down - weak leadership...

Actually only one group is going back and forth in irrational ways. The PM has been working toward reconciliation with the opposition party. Remember - the PTP was a primary instigator in the whole charter rewrite agenda. I could be in error, but I interpreted the PM threat to kill the charter amendment referendum as a direct result of the ever-changing position of the opposition party. The PM, in working toward reconciliation, was willing to listen to the opposition and provide them with some of their wishes. Compromise.

Given that he already knew the PAD position on this issue, their threat to take to the streets would have had zero impact. It was expected. The PM was willing to have this happen in the hopes for a greater reconciliation. He was willing to turn his back on his friends and extend an olive branch to his enemies - for the greater good of Thailand. That is what I call strong leadership.

Edited October 15, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[baht&sold]

EDITORIAL

Rumours on HM's health are deplorable

By The Nation Published on October 16, 2009

False hearsay regarding the King could have been started for political, even financial gain

The stock market tumbled two days in a row on planted rumours. On Wednesday, the index shed 2 per cent as the Dow Jones breached the 10,000 mark. Yesterday the Thai index plunged more than 8 per cent amid concerns about the King's health. In afternoon trading, the benchmark index fell 8.3 per cent to 670.72 despite the Palace saying that 81-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej, receiving treatment at Siriraj Hospital since September 19, was recovering from a lung inflammation.

The market later trimmed those losses to down 6.1 per cent. The unfounded rumours about the health of His Majesty had circulated for more than three days. The Nation's office received several phone calls on Wednesday. One call was from Hong Kong, where investors were trying to inquire about the monarch's health. Another call came from Singapore, again inquiring about the King's condition. The rumours were so widespread that the Palace was prompted late on Wednesday to issue a statement saying that the King's doctors asked him to stay in hospital "for dietary supplements and physical therapies". The statement said his "general condition is good. However, lung inflammation, which has reduced, will require some time to fully recover, as is the case for the elderly".

We condemn the source or sources of rumours that play on this subject. King Bhumibol is a constitutional monarch with no formal political role, but he has repeatedly brought calm in times of turbulence and is widely revered as the country's moral authority and a unifying figure. Thousands of well-wishers have crowded daily outside Siriraj Hospital, and events have been organised around the country in honour of His Majesty.

The ill-conceived source(s) of the rumours have apparently gone so far as to plant them in the Hong Kong and Singapore markets. But the truth of the matter is that the 81-year-old King has gone to Siriraj to receive treatment for fever, fatigue and lack of appetite. He is now recovering at a pace that is natural for his age, and he certainly will be able to resume functions and his role sooner rather than later. There is nothing more to this fact.

The rumours were designed to create panic and speculation on Thailand's politics. The political situation indeed remains divisive, with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva trying to hang on to his job. There is growing conflict over how the constitution should be reformed. Red-shirt protesters have been trying to rock the boat again, while the government has threatened to invoke the Internal Security Act to subdue protesters at the upcoming Asean Summit in Hua Hin.

The various factions in Thai politics should not exploit the health of the King for ambition or advantage. Again, we condemn those who began the rumours and call on them to stop playing tricks on public sentiment as the nation sends its best wishes to the beloved monarch.

-- The Nation 16 Oct 2009

[baht&sold]

Red-shirt protesters have been trying to rock the boat again, while the government has threatened to invoke the Internal Security Act to subdue protesters at the upcoming Asean Summit in Hua Hin.

The various factions in Thai politics should not exploit the health of the King for ambition or advantage. Again, we condemn those who began the rumours and call on them to stop playing tricks on public sentiment as the nation sends its best wishes to the beloved monarch.

Ambiguous? Apparently nothing and no one supersedes some personal ambitions ' squared '...

Meanwhile, Thailand and a rightfully beloved Father are likely sick of it all. What a price simply for desired continuation of convenient deMOCKcracy.... but as long as it serves a single square-faced purpose, cynically manipulated via sadly used and blind sheep...

Edited October 15, 2009 by baht&sold

[jasreeve17]

B&S, there is no reason for your last two posts in this thread - other than a thinly veiled agenda of nationalism and 'bad-Thai people'...

If you have something to say on a completely different subject then start a new thread.

[h90]

Well to summarize it:

The Democrats don't want to change the constitution

PTP (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it (at the moment, it was different yesterday and it will be different tomorrow)

The Red Shirts (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it.

The PAD don't want to change it

Each of them, PTP, the Red Shirts and PAD claim that they have the majority of Thai people behind them.

At the moment there is noone who want to change it.

A referendum about the current constitution was done in 2006 (or 2007??) so 3 years ago the majority wanted this constitution.

[h90]

B&S, there is no reason for your last two posts in this thread - other than a thinly veiled agenda of nationalism and 'bad-Thai people'...

If you have something to say on a completely different subject then start a new thread.

What B&S wants to tell is that all the troubles are coming from one criminal who wants to get power. Paying for violent demonstrations, phoning in an telling lies and most probably he sees an opportunity just now.

What he thinks about the monarchy is pretty obvious.

[jasreeve17]

B&S, there is no reason for your last two posts in this thread - other than a thinly veiled agenda of nationalism and 'bad-Thai people'...

If you have something to say on a completely different subject then start a new thread.

What B&S wants to tell is that all the troubles are coming from one criminal who wants to get power. Paying for violent demonstrations, phoning in an telling lies and most probably he sees an opportunity just now.

What he thinks about the monarchy is pretty obvious.

Yeah, I understand that H90, but using the monarchy to make a political point is cheeky to say the least (I won't go any further)...

It's also a waste of time on a Thai based forum as it's very one-sided; i.e. agree with what I say or get immediately banned and run the risk of a long prison sentence too.

[jasreeve17]

Well to summarize it:

The Democrats don't want to change the constitution

PTP (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it (at the moment, it was different yesterday and it will be different tomorrow)

The Red Shirts (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it.

The PAD don't want to change it

Each of them, PTP, the Red Shirts and PAD claim that they have the majority of Thai people behind them.

At the moment there is noone who want to change it.

A referendum about the current constitution was done in 2006 (or 2007??) so 3 years ago the majority wanted this constitution.

I agree with your major point: if nobody is prepared to commit themselves to changing the constitution then let it go and move on - agreed. (I personally think it should be thrown away, but that's a different point entirely...)

Your last point is clearly wrong and you know it: on the back of a coup, with martial law in place, goverment money spent to market the document, illegal to protest against it... And the army saying they will only give back power if the document (they wrote to protect themselves from their criminal activity and more [iSOC powers, etc]) was voted in. Then, with all these factors in place, it was carried by a tiny %... That's the truth.

Edited October 16, 2009 by jasreeve17

[h90]

Well to summarize it:

The Democrats don't want to change the constitution

PTP (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it (at the moment, it was different yesterday and it will be different tomorrow)

The Red Shirts (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it.

The PAD don't want to change it

Each of them, PTP, the Red Shirts and PAD claim that they have the majority of Thai people behind them.

At the moment there is noone who want to change it.

A referendum about the current constitution was done in 2006 (or 2007??) so 3 years ago the majority wanted this constitution.

I agree with your major point: if nobody is prepared to commit themselves to changing the constitution then let it go and move on - agreed. (I personally think it should be thrown away, but that's a different point entirely...)

Your last point is clearly wrong and you know it: on the back of a coup, with martial law in place, goverment money spent to market the document, illegal to protest against it... And the army saying they will only give back power if the document (they wrote to protect themselves from their criminal activity and more [iSOC powers, etc]) was voted in. Then, with all these factors in place, it was carried by a tiny %... That's the truth.

you forgot to mention that Thaksin tried everything to get a no vote.

Which criminal activities????

[jasreeve17]

A coup would be a start. It was criminal under Thai law at the time it happened, that was of course changed in their constitution...

We could go on about this all day: I state the pure facts, you spin. It's pointless, let's move on... Back to this thread.

[Rumfoord]

Well to summarize it:

The Democrats don't want to change the constitution

PTP (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it (at the moment, it was different yesterday and it will be different tomorrow)

The Red Shirts (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it.

The PAD don't want to change it

Each of them, PTP, the Red Shirts and PAD claim that they have the majority of Thai people behind them.

At the moment there is noone who want to change it.

A referendum about the current constitution was done in 2006 (or 2007??) so 3 years ago the majority wanted this constitution.

that wasn't so well summarised. you did not only forget the year of the referendum for the current constitution, but forget also an other very important factor and the circumstances of it.

[h90]

A coup would be a start. It was criminal under Thai law at the time it happened, that was of course changed in their constitution...

We could go on about this all day: I state the pure facts, you spin. It's pointless, let's move on... Back to this thread.

coups are only illegal if they are not successful.

what do you think all the constitutions in most countries come from? Most base on revolutions and coups else everywhere in Europe would be still absolute monarchies and the rest of the world under control of Europe.

The independence of America was illegal under the British law, with your arguments USA should tear their constitution and go back under the crown of England???

[h90]

Well to summarize it:

The Democrats don't want to change the constitution

PTP (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it (at the moment, it was different yesterday and it will be different tomorrow)

The Red Shirts (aka Thaksin) don't want to change it.

The PAD don't want to change it

Each of them, PTP, the Red Shirts and PAD claim that they have the majority of Thai people behind them.

At the moment there is noone who want to change it.

A referendum about the current constitution was done in 2006 (or 2007??) so 3 years ago the majority wanted this constitution.

that wasn't so well summarised. you did not only forget the year of the referendum for the current constitution, but forget also an other very important factor and the circumstances of it.

so beside the people voted for yes even with No vote propaganda what is wrong with the constitution?

the only thing criticized from TRT, PPP, PTP is punishment for vote buying.

If you can explain what is so great on vote buying??

[hammered]

It was not only PAD, it was Chalerm speaking on behalf of Thaksin and PTP, too, and the reds demands coming from the streets.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter. All of that has happened only in a couple of days.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter..

..and we all know what this "turning back of the wheel" would mean...

and why an amendment would not suffice...it could, not work out for someone

very desperate to have the wheel of fortune change direction soon..

reminds me of someone like the "scrooge" character only that this

one was a harmless comic figure and absolutely fiction!

That is the point. Everyone involved also knows it although all kinds of spin and explanations have to be played

[h90]

It was not only PAD, it was Chalerm speaking on behalf of Thaksin and PTP, too, and the reds demands coming from the streets.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter. All of that has happened only in a couple of days.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter..

..and we all know what this "turning back of the wheel" would mean...

and why an amendment would not suffice...it could, not work out for someone

very desperate to have the wheel of fortune change direction soon..

reminds me of someone like the "scrooge" character only that this

one was a harmless comic figure and absolutely fiction!

That is the point. Everyone involved also knows it although all kinds of spin and explanations have to be played

No one can tell why the current constitution is bad, the only explanation is "because the Army installed it".

[rixalex]

No one can tell why the current constitution is bad,

Quite probably because nobody here has read it.

[hammered]

It was not only PAD, it was Chalerm speaking on behalf of Thaksin and PTP, too, and the reds demands coming from the streets.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter. All of that has happened only in a couple of days.

Now they are collecting signatures for reinstalling 97 charter..

..and we all know what this "turning back of the wheel" would mean...

and why an amendment would not suffice...it could, not work out for someone

very desperate to have the wheel of fortune change direction soon..

reminds me of someone like the "scrooge" character only that this

one was a harmless comic figure and absolutely fiction!

That is the point. Everyone involved also knows it although all kinds of spin and explanations have to be played

No one can tell why the current constitution is bad, the only explanation is "because the Army installed it".

I have found one Thai person who has read both and she analysed the differences as being the 2007 enshrined a lot more basic rihgts of the people whihc 1997 left out and that 1997 gave more power to politcal parties while 2007 lessened it. Her worry was that poltiicans would quite happily dump the rights enshrined in 2007.

2007 remains the only constitution that was voted by the pople too. the so called people's constitution of 1997 never went to a vote and the consultation was of "people's groups".

Neither constitution is bad per se and the vote no campaign lost at the end of the day

[animatic]

I have found one Thai person who has read both and she analysed the differences as being the 2007 enshrined a lot more basic rihgts of the people whihc 1997 left out and that 1997 gave more power to politcal parties while 2007 lessened it. Her worry was that poltiicans would quite happily dump the rights enshrined in 2007.

That quote speaks rather loudly in a hushed voice...

[Thai at Heart]

The way forward is to change 2007.

isn't it better in a Thai context to reform a law that is too stringent? Are there any laws in Thailand that are too stringent?

1997 got railroaded. Too easy to subvert.

Is a reform of the senate part of the proposed reform?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[Plus]

Yes, I believe fully elected senate is part of the proposed changes.

Now even within Democrats themselves there's disagreement on how to proceed (thanks to the biased reporting in a Foxlike media group who probably made this all up anyway..)

To me the whole exercise seems pointless after reds, yellows and PTP publicly opposed amending process. What made Abhisit to change his mind? Who knows, news were coming in very fast with daily about turns. At the end of the day - none of the warring parties support this method of reconciliation anymore, so why bother in the first place? Oh, the people, he is supposed to serve the people.

Where do people come into this equation? Reds are people, yellows are people, MPs were elected by the people, members of his own party are the people - so Abhisit deals with these entities. The silent majority stays silent because it doesn't care, by definition.