Is Avoiding Chiang Mai A Good Idea?

[Jingthing]

As for striking some sort of deal. I'm all against it. Striking a deal assumes the Reds are strong. They're not.

That is so true. However, the danger lies in the fact that the weaker they (along of course wth their supreme leader Takki) get, the more desperate they become.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Jingthing

[Old Man River]

By the way some maintain that Thaksin was Thailand Lee or Mahatir or Suharto

At the time, it was widely thought that Thaksin was favoring LKY's leadership of Singapore and it was not surprising that when he sold his company it went to the Singaporean government. He was close and getting closer, until the coup.

[Old Man River]

Plus, striking a deal which might involve some sort of promise(s) from T is ridiculous. He is a liar. Nothing he says or promises can be believed.

That is my view as well, but this is still the land of compromise so I never say never. The money would have to stay in Thailand for any deal to work which would then subject it to be frozen again. Along these lines, anything is possible.

[animatic]

I think Abhisit should have gone to CM with sufficient support to whack all the trouble makers who have threatened to react to the visit, it now looks like they have frightened him off and it will be repeated next time he wants / they don't want a visit.

Despite all the weasel words he should have shown that it's not Takki and his lakkies who are in control -but the current government.

A poor decision, submitting to the school yard bully.

I said this in a different thread.

It isn't just his pride or ability to project power and control as sole issues,

but one of general public safety.

Since bombs HAVE been thrown reacently, the threat of a large scale bomb,

would seem viable, and means not just Abhisit, but many innocent bystanders are at risk.

Until it could be truly deemed safe, this should be a real concern.

I also agree with a posters comment about high level chess being played.

Thaksin can only try to calm things after mis-judging his timing once again.

Attempting his 'revolution' at this time was as bad a bit of PR as anything in memory.

Abhisit took the safer option for public safety, and ignored pride.

Until Thaksin is take out of the equation let Chaing Mai stew in it's juices, for backing a bad horse.

And when this is resolved, be forgiving of those from Lanna. ( Not CM51 of course)

[animatic]

Sorry, but the "creation of no-go areas" for prime ministers of Thailand has begun with the PAD and their Democrat Party collaborators, when Somchai was blocked from going to many southern provinces, where airports have been blocked last year on the news of his arrival, and his motorcade has been attacked. This is here is just a logical development of an existing and yet unsolved conflict scenario where hardly anyone has the moral high ground, especially not Abhisit.

Sorry, but finding excuses for the actions of the CM 51 group is hilarious!

And why does Abhisit lack morallity, please explain!

Somchai had no respect from anyone. End of story.

But PAD never once saidf they would bomb otr try to kill Somchai did they,

not that I ever heard.Apples and oranges.

Somchai was detested as an appointed puppet for a criminal on the run.

Some whine that Abhisit is a puppet, but those he has some measure of deference to

are not convicted and attempting to control the country from afar using cash and intimidation.

PTP's candidates got to campaign and run freely in Surrat Thani. No hassles from PAD or Dems.

They lost resoundingly and then THEIR PTP LEADER got publicly slapped around

BY THEIR OWN PTP tough guy... when they went to PTP head quarters

seeking promised campaign finances.

[mca]

Anyone recall those 2 who refused to stand for the national anthem in the cinema and were reported for lese majeste? Those among us who read Thai and read the Thai press may recall the Manager website posting their addresses inline. Possibly so well meaning yellows could send them cards on their birthdays . Some of the comments about the situation weren't exactly "sympathetic" to the couples dilemma either. More along the lines of calling for their murder.

Apples and oranges? One big basket of fruit irrespective of the colour imho.

Edited November 29, 2009 by mca

[animatic]

Plus, striking a deal which might involve some sort of promise(s) from T is ridiculous. He is a liar. Nothing he says or promises can be believed.

That is my view as well, but this is still the land of compromise so I never say never. The money would have to stay in Thailand for any deal to work which would then subject it to be frozen again. Along these lines, anything is possible.

No deal with him can be expected to be held in good faith,

He has a history of acting in bad faith.

Ask the other mobile telecom operators.

Ask Mr. Monson for instance.

Long list available no doubts.

[Old Man River]

Plus, striking a deal which might involve some sort of promise(s) from T is ridiculous. He is a liar. Nothing he says or promises can be believed.

That is my view as well, but this is still the land of compromise so I never say never. The money would have to stay in Thailand for any deal to work which would then subject it to be frozen again. Along these lines, anything is possible.

No deal with him can be expected to be held in good faith,

He has a history of acting in bad faith.

Ask the other mobile telecom operators.

Ask Mr. Monson for instance.

Long list available no doubts.

I am under no delusions that Thaksin is a man of honor. I don't have to check anyone on your list. However, I know enough about the current situation to know that a compromise is possible. Even the most hardcore are seeing splits in loyalty.

[TAWP]

Anyone recall those 2 who refused to stand for the national anthem in the cinema and were reported for lese majeste? Those among us who read Thai and read the Thai press may recall the Manager website posting their addresses inline. Possibly so well meaning yellows could send them cards on their birthdays . Some of the comments about the situation weren't exactly "sympathetic" to the couples dilemma either. More along the lines of calling for their murder.

Apples and oranges? One big basket of fruit irrespective of the colour imho.

You are confused about basic facts. The National Anthem isn't played in the cinema [and not standing/stopping/singing it will never lead to LM].

[termad]

Sorry, but the "creation of no-go areas" for prime ministers of Thailand has begun with the PAD and their Democrat Party collaborators, when Somchai was blocked from going to many southern provinces, where airports have been blocked last year on the news of his arrival, and his motorcade has been attacked. This is here is just a logical development of an existing and yet unsolved conflict scenario where hardly anyone has the moral high ground, especially not Abhisit.

Sorry, but finding excuses for the actions of the CM 51 group is hilarious!

And why does Abhisit lack morallity, please explain!

I would like to interject here and ask how on earth can you ask why Abhisit lacks morality? Where have you been for the last two years?

First, as far as I know, the Thai Constitutional Monarchy is based on the UK Constitutional Monarchy. If impossibly there were to be a military coup in the UK any laws passed by the Coup members would be scrapped by the first democratically elected government following the Coup reign. The change to the Thai 1997 constitution is the main reason for the present turmoil in Thailand as it has made it impossible for the majority of the Thai electorate to to have the goverment they want and elect.

Why does Abhisit lack morality? Abhisit has not been elected and knows that put to a vote by the people he won't be elected. This is the reason that he will not call a General Election.

Abhisit came to/assumed power after a group of Phue Thai MPs led by a banned politician (Newin Chitbob) betrayed the people who had elected them and alligned themselves to the Democrat party - the reason that they did this (most Thais believe) is that there was an awful lot of Military/Elite Family money put on the counter as an incentive. Are you saying that Abhisit had no part in this in spite of the newspaper pictures of him arm in arm with Newin Chitbob? Are you saying that the Friends of Newin behaved in a moral way? Are you saying that their bedfellow Abhisit behaved in a moral way?

If any British/Australian/Canadian/New Zealand PM came to power under such circumstances - knowing full well that he did not have the support of the majority of the electorate - he would be honour bound to call a general election within months of assuming office. Abhisit's latest statement on this is that he could call an election within two years! A moral man?

[Siripon]

You shouldn't compare the UK and Thailand, the former has had democracy a lot longer.

Thaksin would never have been PM in England what with hiding billions of baht in his servants' names.

He could not have remained as PM of UK if 2,500 had been found shot dead in an anti- drugs campaign

He could not have been PM if he had told the nation if you voted for him you would get the budget first.

Morality and ethics can vary according to time and place.

To become PM of Thailand you have to join hands with some unsavoury characters, otherwise you'll never be PM.

[mca]

Anyone recall those 2 who refused to stand for the national anthem in the cinema and were reported for lese majeste? Those among us who read Thai and read the Thai press may recall the Manager website posting their addresses inline. Possibly so well meaning yellows could send them cards on their birthdays . Some of the comments about the situation weren't exactly "sympathetic" to the couples dilemma either. More along the lines of calling for their murder.

Apples and oranges? One big basket of fruit irrespective of the colour imho.

You are confused about basic facts. The National Anthem isn't played in the cinema [and not standing/stopping/singing it will never lead to LM].

My apologies. The royal anthem. Now any comment on the rest of my post?

Edited November 30, 2009 by mca

[TAWP]

I would like to interject here and ask how on earth can you ask why Abhisit lacks morality? Where have you been for the last two years?

First, as far as I know, the Thai Constitutional Monarchy is based on the UK Constitutional Monarchy. If impossibly there were to be a military coup in the UK any laws passed by the Coup members would be scrapped by the first democratically elected government following the Coup reign. The change to the Thai 1997 constitution is the main reason for the present turmoil in Thailand as it has made it impossible for the majority of the Thai electorate to to have the goverment they want and elect.

Your claim is nonsensical. What in the new constitution prohibits the people from having the government they voted from?

Why does Abhisit lack morality? Abhisit has not been elected and knows that put to a vote by the people he won't be elected. This is the reason that he will not call a General Election.

The democrats are elected to the same degree as PPP was...but please explain why there is a difference now.

Abhisit came to/assumed power after a group of Phue Thai MPs led by a banned politician (Newin Chitbob) betrayed the people who had elected them and alligned themselves to the Democrat party

You mean, the same way several coalition parties did when the aligned themselves with PPP and went back on their 'will not cooperate with the proxy party' promises? So you are finally now understanding politics?

[Continue in second post due to illogical quote segment limit]

[TAWP]

[part 2/2]

- the reason that they did this (most Thais believe) is that there was an awful lot of Military/Elite Family money put on the counter as an incentive. Are you saying that Abhisit had no part in this in spite of the newspaper pictures of him arm in arm with Newin Chitbob? Are you saying that the Friends of Newin behaved in a moral way? Are you saying that their bedfellow Abhisit behaved in a moral way?

Or how Newin helped PPP when it gave him power and money, but then it was ok?

Thaksin and PPP was being 'moral' when they offered the same things?

If any British/Australian/Canadian/New Zealand PM came to power under such circumstances - knowing full well that he did not have the support of the majority of the electorate - he would be honour bound to call a general election within months of assuming office. Abhisit's latest statement on this is that he could call an election within two years! A moral man?

Haha, best nonsensical part yet. You mean, just like Brown has called for an general election now? Wait, no, he hasn't? Wow...so you claim is not worthy the electricity it cost to type it out with.

[bowin]

Red Shirts Harass Deputy Commerce Minister in Lop Buri

The Deputy Commerce Minister was harassed by red-shirt supporters during his trip to Lop Buri.

Deputy Commerce Minister Alongkorn Ponlaboot traveled to Lop Buri province to monitor the progress of the agricultural products price-guarantee scheme.

He visited the Lop Buri's city hall to meet with provincial officials.

There was a group of red-shirt supporters protesting outside the city hall.

The red shirt protesters had to be barred from entering the Lob Buri's city hall by more than 200 police officers and volunteers.

After having received the officials' reports at the city hall, Alongkorn was on his way to a local rice-mill while the red shirt protesters started throwing things at his motorcade.

The police had to redirect the motorcade out of the area and use an alternate route.

Further, Alongkorn was at a local rice-mill to meet with mill-owners and to observe a new method of rice farming and some red shirts were protesting outside the mill.

However, their protest was closely monitored by police officers.

-- Tan Network 01-12-2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[termad]

[part 2/2]

- the reason that they did this (most Thais believe) is that there was an awful lot of Military/Elite Family money put on the counter as an incentive. Are you saying that Abhisit had no part in this in spite of the newspaper pictures of him arm in arm with Newin Chitbob? Are you saying that the Friends of Newin behaved in a moral way? Are you saying that their bedfellow Abhisit behaved in a moral way?

Or how Newin helped PPP when it gave him power and money, but then it was ok?

Thaksin and PPP was being 'moral' when they offered the same things?

If any British/Australian/Canadian/New Zealand PM came to power under such circumstances - knowing full well that he did not have the support of the majority of the electorate - he would be honour bound to call a general election within months of assuming office. Abhisit's latest statement on this is that he could call an election within two years! A moral man?

Haha, best nonsensical part yet. You mean, just like Brown has called for an general election now? Wait, no, he hasn't? Wow...so you claim is not worthy the electricity it cost to type it out with.

People often use the word nonsensical in lieu of bafflement i.e. when they haven't a clue what they are talking about - as in this case where your knowledge of the workings of Parliamentary Democracies is lamentable.

The Thai Constitutional Democracy was brought into being in 1932 I believe and is based on the UK Constitutional Democracy.

In a Parliamentary Democracy you vote for a party (not a person) to govern the country unlike in a Republic where you have the choice to vote for a person i.e. a President.

Unlike Thailand the UK does not have written Constitution.

When Tony Blair resigned it was quite proper for the Labour Party to elect a new Prime Minister as they still had the majority of MPs in the House - that is to say they came to power because they had received the most votes from the British electorate and they still had those votes.

The new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, then had the choice of either calling a General Election or staying on as Prime Minister for the full term of the Parliament, either would be quite proper and legal. However, he obviously has to take into consideration the views of fellow parliamentarians and of the people, especially so if he feels he does not have the support of the majority of the electorate. In that case as has been demonstrated many times in the past hanging onto power is usually counter productive as the people will turn against you. I understand that Gordon Brown has said that he will call for an election before June 2010. What you find nonsensical/baffling about that I don't understand. All of this is based on Precedent and the Law which is why I commented that the UK does not have a written Constitution. (You can read about UK Parliamentary Procedure on the Net).

The Thai Democrat Party was thrashed in two elections and Abhisit has never even stood for election and certainly doesn't have the support of the majority of the Thai people.

Perhaps it would be useful to recap on how Abhisit came to power.

The sole purpose of the Military Coup was to get rid of Thaksin and the Thai Rak Thai party the reason being that he was too popular and was consider a threat to the status quo i.e. he not only actually consulted the Rural Poor he gave them things like access to medical care. Obviously, this could not be allowed to go because the next thing could be that people in rural areas would get outlandish ideas like thinking that they shouldn't live in grinding poverty to keep the Ruling Elite Families and Generals in luxury. Worst of all they might even think that just because they were the majority of the population of Thailand they had the right to elect a Government of their choice!

One of the things that the Ruling Elite and the Military Coup makers did was to change the Thai 1997 Constitution and this legacy of a Military Coup has caused strife and most probably will cause further possibly worse strife in Thailand. One of the changes was to pass an electoral law saying that if an executive of a Thai Political Party was found guilty of contravening electoral law then the Thai Political Party of which he was a member could be banned and disbanded. The history of the last year will tell you why because of that law and the misuse of that law many people in Thailand believe that they will never be able to have the government that they want and overwhelmingly voted for. Whether an amended Constitution brought in by an illegal Military Government is in fact legal in itself would not be accepted in most countries.

However, in spite of the best laid plans of the Coup Makers they had still not taken back control of the country so they resorted to the time honoured Asian method of bribery. A banned polititian by the name of Newin Chidbob had control over a group of forty elected Phue Thai MPs who were called 'The Friends of Newin'. Abhisit entered into negotiation with Newin Chidbob and on the table in those negotiations were large amounts of Thai Military and Ruling Elite money. The upshot of these negotiations was that the group of forty Phue Thai MPs betrayed the people who had elected them and in return for monetary considerations and positions in the government moved on block to support the Democrats in Parliament thus giving them the majority vote. It should have been the moral duty of those forty Phue Thai MPs to return to the constituents and explain their actions and make an offer to re-stand for election. They didn't which is why those that do pay visits to their constituencies are usually accompanied by armed bodyguards. They will never be re-elected but obviously the rewards that they received must have been large enough to make them not care about that.

The group of forty MPs, still led by a banned politician who was described in the British Press as 'notorious' then - totally disregarding the wishes of the people who had elected them - went on to form a new political party called Bhumjaithai. (I confess to being baffled when you say that PPP gave Newin and the forty thieves money. All of those forty MPs were elected Phue Thai MPs why would their own party give them money? Where did you discover that they did?)

Where does that leave us? Well we have a Coalition Government the majority of which is comprised of the Democrat Party that was thrashed in the elections (rejected) led by Abhisit who has never stood in an election as a prospective Prime Minister and is under the thumb of the Military (check the Military's last budget allocation) and the Bhumjaithai party that not only has never stood in any election at all doesn't even have the support of the people who elected its members.

Is the Abhisit government a legally elected government? To borrow your word the idea is nonsensical!

Somebody said in this thread that the socio-political circumstances makes it impossible for Abhisit to call an election. However, I can remember riots on the streets of London, very serious riots, but Thatcher went ahead and call a General Election and I think Abhisit has to do the same thing or the feelings festering in the country will boil over and Thailand will never be the same for many many years.

[Siripon]

I see Newin has announced he will not continue in politics, after Apisit's sterling performance he probably realizes he would look so second rate.

In the last election the Democrats party list vote was very near to PPP, in the next it will probably be a lot higher.

Thaksin was thrown out because educated people realized what an autocrat and greedy man he was. The demonstrations and coup were widely supported by the middle class.

If the reds want genuine democracy they have to get rid of Thaksin who never ran his own party on democratic lines.

What policies have they been proposing to help the poor over the last year?

It's fruitless to compare Thai politics with the UK, what would have happened in the UK if Richard Branson had started a party and 70 MPs defected wholesale to his greener pastures? The public would have been outraged, but that's what Thaksin did to the NAP and nobody cared.

[LawnGnome]

I see Newin has announced he will not continue in politics, after Apisit's sterling performance he probably realizes he would look so second rate.

In the last election the Democrats party list vote was very near to PPP, in the next it will probably be a lot higher.

Thaksin was thrown out because educated people realized what an autocrat and greedy man he was. The demonstrations and coup were widely supported by the middle class.

If the reds want genuine democracy they have to get rid of Thaksin who never ran his own party on democratic lines.

What policies have they been proposing to help the poor over the last year?

It's fruitless to compare Thai politics with the UK, what would have happened in the UK if Richard Branson had started a party and 70 MPs defected wholesale to his greener pastures? The public would have been outraged, but that's what Thaksin did to the NAP and nobody cared.

In the last election, the Dems party list was higher then PPP.

[Ricardo]

The Thai Democrat Party was thrashed in two elections and Abhisit has never even stood for election and certainly doesn't have the support of the majority of the Thai people.

PM-Abhisit is an MP, and therefore surely was elected as such, so it's wrong to say he "has never even stood for election" ?

The two elections to which you refer, when "the Democrat Party was thrashed" are presumably 2001 and 2005, when TRT won a majority. But didn't the Democratic Party gain an equal share of the vote, as the PPP got (about 40%), in December-2007 ?

Which demonstrates that Thaksin's original TRT-coalition party has been steadily declining in popularity, who knows what PTP might now get, in the next election ? An overall majority seems unlikely. Just have to wait and see.

[Steve2UK]

<snip?

But didn't the Democratic Party gain an equal share of the vote, as the PPP got (about 40%), in December-2007 ?

<snip>

Partly true - for the proportional voting where the Democrats actually got 0.03% more than PPP. Not so for the constituency voting - where PPP got 6.33% more than the Democrats. As the attached results table shows, the combination of proportional and constituency votes gave 233 seats to PPP and 165 seats to the Democrats (82 to other parties - all of whom joined PPP in the coalition).

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Thailand )

[Edit to fix link]

Edited December 2, 2009 by Steve2UK

[hammered]

<snip?

But didn't the Democratic Party gain an equal share of the vote, as the PPP got (about 40%), in December-2007 ?

<snip>

Partly true - for the proportional voting where the Democrats actually got 0.03% more than PPP. Not so for the constituency voting - where PPP got 6.33% more than the Democrats. As the attached results table shows, the combination of proportional and constituency votes gave 233 seats to PPP and 165 seats to the Democrats (82 to other parties - all of whom joined PPP in the coalition).

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Thailand )

[Edit to fix link]

The comment about the constituency vote and the link show a total number far more than the Thai popualtion. In comparing votes this wouldnt normally matter, but in the case of Thailand different constituncies had different MP weightings usually 2 0r 3 MPs, and if there were two everyone in the constituency got two vote and if three everyone got three votes, so without correcting for this any comparison of constituncy vote remains meaningless. Bacially some people got three votes and others got two and maybe (not sure on this) a couple only got one. This is why serious scholars compared the party list vote and only commented on the seats people got in the constituences as at end of the day it is seats and MPs on your side that count and not vote percentages.

[Ricardo]

I'd still suggest that, when you're trying to show how much support a party has with the electorate, and whether or not TRT/PPP/PTP has "the support of the majority of the Thai people" as termad claimed, it's the proportional vote, which gives the best idea.

[Steve2UK]

I'd still suggest that, when you're trying to show how much support a party has with the electorate, and whether or not TRT/PPP/PTP has "the support of the majority of the Thai people" as termad claimed, it's the proportional vote, which gives the best idea.

Allowing for what hammered described, I'll defer to your take on this - and I'm sure you realise that I wasn't trying to back up termad's claims but rather just supplying qualifying detail to what you said earlier about the neck-and-neck (my paraphrase) 2007 result. Speaking of results, as hammered points out, it's ultimately the seats won that count and not the voter (proportional or constituency) percentages. As I'm sure you know, there's no shortage of examples (US, UK etc) where the losing side actually had the higher percentage of national/popular vote - and still didn't "win" (as in become president or form the next government).

[TAWP]

Is the Abhisit government a legally elected government? To borrow your word the idea is nonsensical!

Thanks for showing to us that in all that big wall of text you still didn't manage to write much of value.

And you seem to be confused what part Newin had for PPP vs what he has now as you seem to think that when he was in bed PPP he was all good, but when he does the same power-bargaining with the Democrats then the Democrats and he is bad. Mkay. Interesting take on things.

Carry on.

[termad]

Is the Abhisit government a legally elected government? To borrow your word the idea is nonsensical!

Thanks for showing to us that in all that big wall of text you still didn't manage to write much of value.

And you seem to be confused what part Newin had for PPP vs what he has now as you seem to think that when he was in bed PPP he was all good, but when he does the same power-bargaining with the Democrats then the Democrats and he is bad. Mkay. Interesting take on things.

Carry on.

1. What is interesting is that what you described as 'nonsensical' in your reply you now don't mention.

2. Newin is a banned TRT politician and all of his forty 'friends' were elected PPP (TRT) MPs - what on earth are you talking about?

[termad]

I see Newin has announced he will not continue in politics, after Apisit's sterling performance he probably realizes he would look so second rate.

In the last election the Democrats party list vote was very near to PPP, in the next it will probably be a lot higher.

Thaksin was thrown out because educated people realized what an autocrat and greedy man he was. The demonstrations and coup were widely supported by the middle class.

If the reds want genuine democracy they have to get rid of Thaksin who never ran his own party on democratic lines.

What policies have they been proposing to help the poor over the last year?

It's fruitless to compare Thai politics with the UK, what would have happened in the UK if Richard Branson had started a party and 70 MPs defected wholesale to his greener pastures? The public would have been outraged, but that's what Thaksin did to the NAP and nobody cared.

People would care in the UK and I don't think that 70 British MPs could cross the floor and join a new party without elections being called very shortly afterwards - it would be unthinkable.

Newin can most probably afford to retire after his service to the Military and the Elite and receiving a reward that most Thais that I know think was a huge amount. Perhaps he'll re-emerge as a Business Adviser to the Generals.

The PAD say that the rural poor are stupid and uneducated and shouldn't be given a vote and instead MPs should be appointed under some vague system that they have never quite clarified. The idea that a criteria for being on the electoral roll is a good education (which most of them can't afford anyway) totally flies in the face of the accepted view of democracy.

You should also take into consideration that the Elite Families became Elite and a rich Bangkok middle class evolved on the backs of the rural poor (serfs) and at the end of the day The Elite Families and The Bangkok middle class comprise a minority of the electorate.

Banharn Silpa-archa (Chart Pattana Party) is reported today that he is very upset that his and other small parties can't get the changes to the Constitution that they want. He also said that he thinks that the Abhisit government will lose the no-confidence vote at the end of January 2010 and the house will be dissolved and a general election called. He might be posturing I don't know. But I think that as onlookers we are about to witness those 'Interesting Times' that the Chinese pray that they never have to live through. What will be very interesting is what will happen to the Bhumjaithai MPs in an election.

[Siripon]

People would care in the UK and I don't think that 70 British MPs could cross the floor and join a new party without elections being called very shortly afterwards - it would be unthinkable.

Newin can most probably afford to retire after his service to the Military and the Elite and receiving a reward that most Thais that I know think was a huge amount. Perhaps he'll re-emerge as a Business Adviser to the Generals.

The PAD say that the rural poor are stupid and uneducated and shouldn't be given a vote and instead MPs should be appointed under some vague system that they have never quite clarified. The idea that a criteria for being on the electoral roll is a good education (which most of them can't afford anyway) totally flies in the face of the accepted view of democracy.

You should also take into consideration that the Elite Families became Elite and a rich Bangkok middle class evolved on the backs of the rural poor (serfs) and at the end of the day The Elite Families and The Bangkok middle class comprise a minority of the electorate.

Banharn Silpa-archa (Chart Pattana Party) is reported today that he is very upset that his and other small parties can't get the changes to the Constitution that they want. He also said that he thinks that the Abhisit government will lose the no-confidence vote at the end of January 2010 and the house will be dissolved and a general election called. He might be posturing I don't know. But I think that as onlookers we are about to witness those 'Interesting Times' that the Chinese pray that they never have to live through. What will be very interesting is what will happen to the Bhumjaithai MPs in an election.

Forget the PAD, they're not important politically, like Palang Tham in the 1990s. Sonthi is a fighter and deserves full credit for ousting Thaksin but now he's just a sideshow.

A lot of rural poor are not so poor these days, most have members of their families remitting funds, in the villages around Ban Pai, Khon Kaen, my home town, you would be hard pressed to find a house without a refrigerator, TV, DVD player and motorbike. The ' impoverished rural poor' line is an insult to Issan people.

Please don't take anything Banharn says at face value, he's been happy in charge of tourism behind the scenes, milking it for his own interests for what he can and failing the country. Perhaps he's scared of a censure debate.

It's not easy to hold a censure debate immediately Parliament reconvenes, to get enough evidence, speakers lined up, takes time. And once they file the motion the debate has to take place within a short time, the government can even move it up to take place within a week.

I won't be surprised to see it take place much later than January or fizzle out like last year.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Thanks Termad!! A brave attempt to get everyone on the same page vis a vis the 'Democrat' party being handed 'power'.

I see Newin has announced he will not continue in politics, after Apisit's sterling performance he probably realizes he would look so second rate.

In the last election the Democrats party list vote was very near to PPP, in the next it will probably be a lot higher.

Thaksin was thrown out because educated people realized what an autocrat and greedy man he was. The demonstrations and coup were widely supported by the middle class.

Wow. Please go google what Democracy means. Honestly, pretty please. The ruling elite of Thailand threw him out in a military coup. Then 'educated' people found it within themselves to stick yellow flowers on to their tanks and guns.

Whatever that picture represents to you or what it says about 'educated people' a fine example of democracy or being a 'grown up country' with laws it was not.

Edited December 4, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Siripon]

Thanks Termad!! A brave attempt to get everyone on the same page vis a vis the 'Democrat' party being handed 'power'.

I see Newin has announced he will not continue in politics, after Apisit's sterling performance he probably realizes he would look so second rate.

In the last election the Democrats party list vote was very near to PPP, in the next it will probably be a lot higher.

Thaksin was thrown out because educated people realized what an autocrat and greedy man he was. The demonstrations and coup were widely supported by the middle class.

Wow. Please go google what Democracy means. Honestly, pretty please. The ruling elite of Thailand threw him out in a military coup. Then 'educated' people found it within themselves to stick yellow flowers on to their tanks and guns.

Whatever that picture represents to you or what it says about 'educated people' a fine example of democracy or being a 'grown up country' with laws it was not.

The educated people started protesting against Thaksin long before the coup.

The army would never have dared have a coup without the support of the middle class.

Thaksin only discovered the word democracy after the coup.

It means checks and balances and separation of powers- something Thaksin trampled on whilst in power and would do again if given the chance.

[caf]

Thanks Termad!! A brave attempt to get everyone on the same page vis a vis the 'Democrat' party being handed 'power'.

I see Newin has announced he will not continue in politics, after Apisit's sterling performance he probably realizes he would look so second rate.

In the last election the Democrats party list vote was very near to PPP, in the next it will probably be a lot higher.

Thaksin was thrown out because educated people realized what an autocrat and greedy man he was. The demonstrations and coup were widely supported by the middle class.

Wow. Please go google what Democracy means. Honestly, pretty please. The ruling elite of Thailand threw him out in a military coup. Then 'educated' people found it within themselves to stick yellow flowers on to their tanks and guns.

Whatever that picture represents to you or what it says about 'educated people' a fine example of democracy or being a 'grown up country' with laws it was not.

The educated people started protesting against Thaksin long before the coup.

The army would never have dared have a coup without the support of the middle class.

Thaksin only discovered the word democracy after the coup.

It means checks and balances and separation of powers- something Thaksin trampled on whilst in power and would do again if given the chance.

By "educated" do you mean "elite"

I doubt if the military is controlled by the middle class.

Has the concept of checks and balances ever been realistically applied in Thailand. Pre-Taksin?

Have you compared the 1997 and 2006 constitutions on how checks and balances are perceived.