All-out Attempt By Red Shirts To Bring Down Government

[Ricardo]

Abisits geremandered, contrived at gunpoint junta government is quite illegitimate and illegal.

The government is certainly not illegitimate nor illegal but it does need a fresh mandate.December 2011 is in my judgement a little too distant but it's Abhisit's call.I can certainly see the argument that the country should have settled down before elections.Looking ahead the question is whether fair elections can be held - and on that there's a lot of doubt given the elite and the military's appaling record in seeking to stamp their agenda over the will of the Thai people.

I find myself agreeing with jayboy on this, the current government (and the previous two) were about as legitimate as you can hope to get, in recent Thai politics. Which isn't saying too very much.

By the way, the "junta government" was surely the one appointed by the junta following the coup in late-2006, not any of the two PPP-led or current Democrat-led coalitions. Let's keep our terms clear, or the thread descends into utter confusion, which doesn't help anyone.

If only PM-Abhisit can get past the disruption arising out of the current court-cases, then there is no great reason that he should wait the full balance of the term, before calling the next election. He seems to be under pressure from some of his coalition-allies, to increase their pork-rations, he might prefer to call an election instead of feeding their appetite !

But I doubt that any election held right now could result in a balanced or fair result, there's simply too much stirring going on, so a little more time & stability is reasonable, before a fresh mandate is sought.

[scorecard]

Abisits geremandered, contrived at gunpoint junta government is quite illegitimate and illegal.

The government is certainly not illegitimate nor illegal but it does need a fresh mandate.December 2011 is in my judgement a little too distant but it's Abhisit's call.I can certainly see the argument that the country should have settled down before elections.Looking ahead the question is whether fair elections can be held - and on that there's a lot of doubt given the elite and the military's appaling record in seeking to stamp their agenda over the will of the Thai people.

I find myself agreeing with jayboy on this, the current government (and the previous two) were about as legitimate as you can hope to get, in recent Thai politics. Which isn't saying too very much.

By the way, the "junta government" was surely the one appointed by the junta following the coup in late-2006, not any of the two PPP-led or current Democrat-led coalitions. Let's keep our terms clear, or the thread descends into utter confusion, which doesn't help anyone.

If only PM-Abhisit can get past the disruption arising out of the current court-cases, then there is no great reason that he should wait the full balance of the term, before calling the next election. He seems to be under pressure from some of his coalition-allies, to increase their pork-rations, he might prefer to call an election instead of feeding their appetite !

But I doubt that any election held right now could result in a balanced or fair result, there's simply too much stirring going on, so a little more time & stability is reasonable, before a fresh mandate is sought.

QUOTE FROM ABOVE: "....But I doubt that any election held right now could result in a balanced or fair result, there's simply too much stirring going on, so a little more time & stability is reasonable, before a fresh mandate is sought. ....."

I agree, in fact I suggest that if an an election is held in the near future the PT/Redshirts will go all out in terms of vote buying, intimidation, lies etc., to guarantee they win and become the government, possibly without the need for a coalition, with full knowledge that in time (perhaps a few months, although maybe they will again severely intimidate the EC) their vote-buying activities will see them removed from office and with a new batch with 5 year bans. But part of their strategy would be to very very quickly (within days of forming a government) force (by numbers) the return of the 2007 election and a whitewash for taxsin, all before they are banned.

Then we see the whole process start again. Meanwhile Thailand suffers again for numerous years into the future in terms of any professional management, development, investments, lack of respect for the rule of law gets even worse, etc.

[Davidusaf99]

I don't forsee an election called until Thaksin's money is disposed of, and the red shirts have blown themselves out (or up). Late in the year, or early next year. Frankly, the current government is doing more than any of the previous governments (since Thaksin I) They are the best at the moment, and that's why they are still there.

[yoshiwara]

Above all, the red shirts want to be paid.

[Artisi]

Why should the current government call elections any earlier than they need to, it's within their rights to decide when, not a pack of rebels dancing the tune of the criminal elements.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Artisi

[khunstuart]

This government was not elected !!!

plain and simple fact

elections are the only true way to see the view of the people, apparently in your eyes taking over an airport and costing the country billions is not a crime but protesting about it is

hmmmm

[rixalex]

This government was not elected !!!

plain and simple fact

Far from being plain and simple, even further from being a fact.

[Old Man River]

This government was not elected !!!

plain and simple fact

elections are the only true way to see the view of the people, apparently in your eyes taking over an airport and costing the country billions is not a crime but protesting about it is

hmmmm

Why do you say this government was not elected?

[hammered]

Argh the old arguements that have been had many times over once again. Maybe TV should have a stickied read this first politics especially parliamentary versus presidential politcal theory thread.

[Old Man River]

Argh the old arguements that have been had many times over once again. Maybe TV should have a stickied read this first politics especially parliamentary versus presidential politcal theory thread.

Yeh I know, but sometimes it is good to find out why people continue to make the same mistake over and over and over etc.

[Sao Jiang Mai]

This government is legitimate according to the Thai law. What other yardstick are people using to whine about its lack of ligitimacy? The same group of people who try to pardon Thaksin...from breaking the law. If we stuck to the rule of law Thaksin would have been booted after the assets concealment case in 2001 and we would all be better off for it. All thse people that go on and on about elections, where were their voices when Thaksin's government raped and ripped our constitution and democracy apart? As to comments about Chiang Mai, don't write us off completely. In my offices of 100 staff, about 90 percent are very anti Thaksin, though sadly many of their families are still pro...they don't discuss politics at home, only vent at work. Chiang Mai is by no means red. As a matter of fact we are all getting seroiusly fed up with their antics.

[rixalex]

As to comments about Chiang Mai, don't write us off completely. In my offices of 100 staff, about 90 percent are very anti Thaksin, though sadly many of their families are still pro...they don't discuss politics at home, only vent at work. Chiang Mai is by no means red.

Good to hear

Tis funny though that a large number of posters on this forum who take a pro-red stance, do seem to hail from that region. I guess it's the home-boy hero thing that sucks them in.

[animatic]

This government is legitimate according to the Thai law. What other yardstick are people using to whine about its lack of ligitimacy? The same group of people who try to pardon Thaksin...from breaking the law. If we stuck to the rule of law Thaksin would have been booted after the assets concealment case in 2001 and we would all be better off for it. All thse people that go on and on about elections, where were their voices when Thaksin's government raped and ripped our constitution and democracy apart? As to comments about Chiang Mai, don't write us off completely. In my offices of 100 staff, about 90 percent are very anti Thaksin, though sadly many of their families are still pro...they don't discuss politics at home, only vent at work. Chiang Mai is by no means red. As a matter of fact we are all getting seroiusly fed up with their antics.

Thankfully there are still some up there willing to stand up to the oppression by Thaksinists

to conform over arching whims of Chaing mai's prodigal son.

Edited January 19, 2010 by animatic

[Dustybin]

I think you mean the people with the guns who geremandered the government, and deny the country democracy.

As for vote buying, how many bought votes is the equivalent of one loaded gun.

I still havn't worked out where guns sit in a democracy.

[way2muchcoffee]

I think you mean the people with the guns who geremandered the government, and deny the country democracy.

As for vote buying, how many bought votes is the equivalent of one loaded gun.

I still havn't worked out where guns sit in a democracy.

I guess machetes are preferable then given the attacks in Udon by the redshirts on the PAD.

Or maybe guns were fine, see the murder of thousands under the direct order of K. Thaksin.

Or maybe we don't guns at all, just round up dissidents and stack them in a railway car until the suffocate, as in K. Thaksin's handling of the peaceful Muslim groups down South.

Or perhaps terrorism is more acceptable, as in the positioning of a gas tanker by redshirts threatening to blow up an apartment complex filled with women, children, and grandmothers.

You're on to something dustybin. It's fun to distort and manipulate facts to make a point. I get it now.

Edited January 19, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Steve2UK]

As to comments about Chiang Mai, don't write us off completely. In my offices of 100 staff, about 90 percent are very anti Thaksin, though sadly many of their families are still pro...they don't discuss politics at home, only vent at work. Chiang Mai is by no means red.

Good to hear

Tis funny though that a large number of posters on this forum who take a pro-red stance, do seem to hail from that region. I guess it's the home-boy hero thing that sucks them in.

1) Who are they? (If the number is really too large to list in full, just the first half-dozen or so that spring to mind will do)

2) Please define "pro-red stance".

[Dustybin]

so if thailand practices democracy as you say, where do the guns come in.

[Davidusaf99]

When your master got too greedy, and stole too much, of course.

[ChiangMaiFun]

As to comments about Chiang Mai, don't write us off completely. In my offices of 100 staff, about 90 percent are very anti Thaksin, though sadly many of their families are still pro...they don't discuss politics at home, only vent at work. Chiang Mai is by no means red.

Good to hear

Tis funny though that a large number of posters on this forum who take a pro-red stance, do seem to hail from that region. I guess it's the home-boy hero thing that sucks them in.

Tis an election to see who the people want - not you or I - and all the bleating and hero worship of those who take over airports and help ruin the Thai economy for a few years won't mean a jot! let the people decide - still there have been some hilarious posts on here in favour of the Canaries... talk about twisting things and smearing those who may not agree... disgraceful actually.

[Sao Jiang Mai]

Nope, I think that the PAD's behavoiur is disgraceful and unacceptable. As are those of the red's. The reds are more of an immediate threat, hence the discussion about them. And I am one of the 'people' so I shall discuss my thoughts and form opinions as and when I see fit.

[ballpoint]

Tis an election to see who the people want - not you or I - and all the bleating and hero worship of those who take over airports and help ruin the Thai economy for a few years won't mean a jot! let the people decide - still there have been some hilarious posts on here in favour of the Canaries... talk about twisting things and smearing those who may not agree... disgraceful actually.

Pot, kettle? A selection of your posts on this thread alone...

Post 25: "How naive this post is - I will say this you will be very hard pressed to find any support for Yellows up here - all the Thais I know are Red (but don't attend rallies). Bring on an election and you will see how much Yellow support there really is - but of course they won't do that."

Post 28: "Only one way to find out - hold an ELECTION"

Post 42: "...Anyway, when all’s said and done they should hold an election to give themselves legitimacy - if they win fair enough (which I doubt)."

Post 44: "haha - so lets not let them vote right? maybe the black Americans in Chicago should not get the vote either? or the Aboriginies? maybe no one without a degree should get it either... Jeez - of course it was all the poors fault - how dare they be poor!!! and you think the Yellows dont take bribes huh? only one way out - election, election, election (a fair one of course)."

Post 73: "I actually like him (but dislike the yellows) he comes across as intelligent and articulate - but nothing will be resolved until he wins a mandate from the people by election (which is highly unlikely). When all is said and done many say things were much better under Thaksin - I am not a Thaksin apologist but there is little support here for the current government - mostly because people feel it was foisted upon them through the airport takeover etc. but TIT and we are guests."

Post 77: "what a pussy footed liberal PC response..."

Post 93: "you seem to live in an idealised 'western' mind-set - go live in PC friendly farangland not here... "

Post 169: "The basic, unalterable truth is... until an election is held (and a fair one if possible) there will be no peace in the Kingdom becaue people elected a red government - whichever way you look at it that is the truth and it was 'taken' from them - whether this was 'good' or 'bad' is not the point - I actually like Abhsit - hold an election."

Post 173: "let them decide who they want as the political landscape has changed. I bow to your superior knowldege of Parliamentary procedure but.. you would agree? an election? to decide? bring peace? fair and square? (the last point is mute i know). "

Post 180: "Hold an election and find out... who knows? why fears democracy? of course we all know the answer... people do not always vote the ways that pseudo intellectual’s want them to..."

Post 181: "My hero? that's an insult and typical of your type... of course YOU are superior in every way right? YOU know what's good for the Thai people right? I actually have many misgivings about Thaksin and your coating of me is puerile and immature rhetoric - I simply comment -you simply condemn and wallow in your intellectual superiority – don’t worry it shines through – loud and clear!"

Let's see, "election, election" interspersed with comments on opposing posters intellect and bold statements about "the truth" and how Thaksin was so good, not that you support him of course, without any facts to back any of this up, other than "I talked to some people in Chiang Mai once". No rebuttal, or criticism, of any points made by opposing posters, other than said abuse. A number of posters on this thread have said why they feel elections are not the answer at this point, maybe you could enlighten us as to why you think they are, giving an explanation of how they would be achieved fairly in the current political climate? Although having said that, you do go from saying they should be fair "of course" in post 44, to saying they should be fair "if possible" in post 169. So you now just want an election, no matter if fair or not?

[rixalex]

Tis funny though that a large number of posters on this forum who take a pro-red stance, do seem to hail from that region. I guess it's the home-boy hero thing that sucks them in.

1) Who are they? (If the number is really too large to list in full, just the first half-dozen or so that spring to mind will do)

2) Please define "pro-red stance".

1) Mr Fun from this thread has been a good example. As for compiling a list, not sure what that would achieve, besides two or three of the following pages on this thread filled with bickerings and denials (much as it is already!). If you wish to take that as proof of there being no substance to my claim, go right ahead.

2) Define "pro-red stance"??? Really? You want me to define that? Which part of "pro-red stance" are you struggling with? Seems pretty clear to me.

[jayboy]

If you wish to take that as proof of there being no substance to my claim, go right ahead.

I think that will be the conclusion of most people.No substance and predictably silly to boot.

[rixalex]

If you wish to take that as proof of there being no substance to my claim, go right ahead.

I think that will be the conclusion of most people.No substance and predictably silly to boot.

Better to stick to drawing your own conclusions jayboy, rather than speaking for "most people".

If you believe that not naming names is some sort of proof that there aren't members of this forum who consistently take a pro-red stance, up to you. It's about as daft though as me claiming that there aren't certain members of this forum who consistently take a pro-yellow stance on this forum, simply because you refuse to draw me up an accusatory list of the member's names.

[hammered]

Nope, I think that the PAD's behavoiur is disgraceful and unacceptable. As are those of the red's. The reds are more of an immediate threat, hence the discussion about them. And I am one of the 'people' so I shall discuss my thoughts and form opinions as and when I see fit.

It is quite heartening to see a Thai person knock both gangs on TV. Thanks for the input on here

[jayboy]

If you wish to take that as proof of there being no substance to my claim, go right ahead.

I think that will be the conclusion of most people.No substance and predictably silly to boot.

Better to stick to drawing your own conclusions jayboy, rather than speaking for "most people".

If you believe that not naming names is some sort of proof that there aren't members of this forum who consistently take a pro-red stance, up to you. It's about as daft though as me claiming that there aren't certain members of this forum who consistently take a pro-yellow stance on this forum, simply because you refuse to draw me up an accusatory list of the member's names.

But that's not what you said.You said many pro-red members tend to come from Chiangmai and possibly hold Thaksin in reverence for that reason. (I paraphrase)

As to taking a pro-Red stance that's generally my position and that of many others.I also happen to hold Thaksin in contempt though often argue the case for his significance as a catalyst.I haven't been to Chiang Mai for many years.I wouldn't bother normally responding to this kind of nonsense except that it's quite important to stress the red ranks are increasingly including believers in democracy but who have no truck with Thaksin.What we as foreigners think is of course neither here nor there.

[Dustybin]

The only point of tangible substance is that democracy was assassinated by the gun.

Only an election can normalise that sad state of affairs.

I still await enlightenment as to precisely where the gun sits in a democracy.

[way2muchcoffee]

The only point of tangible substance is that democracy was assassinated by the gun.

Only an election can normalise that sad state of affairs.

I still await enlightenment as to precisely where the gun sits in a democracy.

There was an election. Forgotten already? Alzheimer's perhaps?

Edited January 20, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Sao Jiang Mai]

Saying it over and over doesn't make it any more sensible Dustbin. The government is there legitimately, like it or not, they have not broken the law...while you are a broken record.

[Steve2UK]

Tis funny though that a large number of posters on this forum who take a pro-red stance, do seem to hail from that region. I guess it's the home-boy hero thing that sucks them in.

1) Who are they? (If the number is really too large to list in full, just the first half-dozen or so that spring to mind will do)

2) Please define "pro-red stance".

1) Mr Fun from this thread has been a good example. As for compiling a list, not sure what that would achieve, besides two or three of the following pages on this thread filled with bickerings and denials (much as it is already!). If you wish to take that as proof of there being no substance to my claim, go right ahead.

2) Define "pro-red stance"??? Really? You want me to define that? Which part of "pro-red stance" are you struggling with? Seems pretty clear to me.

The "large number" is....... one ? Since you invite a statement of the obvious, a list would provide some evidence to back up your statement. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; so, your declining to provide any evidence is, obviously enough, not proof either way.......... but people will draw their own conclusions.

I've been on the receiving end of accusations of "Thaksin is your guy", "False-Flag Friend syndrome" and other such froth from a pair of the more loquacious posters here (thus far with zero evidence to back up any of it) and have also seen them and others slinging the accusation around - including evidence-free accusations of members being paid to post (one of which was directed at a specific individual - that post was promptly and rightly deleted). So, I'm inclined to think that the bar of what constitutes "pro red stance" is set very differently by some and is thus far from "pretty clear" - hence my request for your definition. Up to you if you also decline to provide that.