Pro-thaksin Group Considers Bangkok Airport Protest

[way2muchcoffee]

Was the current government elected by the people for the people? Just Yes or No pls

For about the 600th time - politics 101: Thailand has a parliamentary system of government. Other countries do to - Japan, England, Israel to name 3, but it is a rather popular form - more popular than a presidential system. The people elect locals to the national parliament. Those folks belong to any of several approved political parties. those people - the ELECTED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT vote for PM, not the people. If one party has a majority, like TRT did way back when, its a simple procedure. But if one party does not win a majority of seats, they must form coalitions with other parties. And guess what - if the party with the most votes, but not a majority, cannot put together a majority, then the minority parties can do so, and thats what happened. Thaksins (PPP) coalition fell apart and his buddies jumped ship, for whatever reason ($), and a new PM was elected. So, YES it is a government elected by the people.

All true but what you have omitted is the reality that a Prime Minister with no personal mandate from the people needs to obtain that sooner rather than later.That is the case for Abhisit as it is for Gordon Brown in the UK and regardless of the parliamentary system authority begins to ebb away without a fresh election.In Abhisit's case given the events that led him to power - coup, rigged constitution, directed court verdicts etc - the matter needs real attention.As in Brown's case the ebb of credibility is palpable and elections are the only real answer.

I agree. Election are necessary. As soon as the Thaksin situation is settled, and there is freedom to campaign everywhere in the nation, then, and only then, will elections be free and fair and produce a result that can be accepted by the disparate interest groups throughout the country.

[rixalex]

All true but what you have omitted is the reality that a Prime Minister with no personal mandate from the people needs to obtain that sooner rather than later.That is the case for Abhisit as it is for Gordon Brown in the UK and regardless of the parliamentary system authority begins to ebb away without a fresh election.In Abhisit's case given the events that led him to power - coup, rigged constitution, directed court verdicts etc - the matter needs real attention.As in Brown's case the ebb of credibility is palpable and elections are the only real answer.

Yes, what you say is true both of Brown and Abhisit, but the point is that elections are required as a matter of those leaders being able to effectively do their jobs i.e. if they call an election and manage to get reelected, they can push on with ruling and administering the country well (one optimistically hopes); if they don't call an election, they risk having their authority increasingly questioned and becoming under more pressure.

That is what is at stake for Abhisit and Brown and that is for them to decide, concerning how long they leave it before calling an election. They have no obligation to call an election - it is their decision. They both are legally and legitimately where they are. For people to demand Abhisit to call an election on the grounds that he is not legal or not legitimate, as we hear day after day, week after week, month after tedious month on this forum from certain misinformed members, is simply wrong... and it's very boring.

[ovaltina]

Most Thai people I know saw the airport block 08 & delayed/cancelled flights as inconvenient or vaguely funny,and within the broadest rights of democratic protest. A large number of my upper-blue collar/middle class Bangkok friends felt that it was for a good cause in the long run. What is probably more important is how the rest of the world sees all this, especially big business as what Thailand needs is non-tourist, & infrastructure investment.

I don't think most big business around the world were especially traumatised by hordes of yellow shirts waving those foam hands around, but in my opinion the Reds' beamed-around-the-world images of the ASEAN summit leaders escaping in terror off a rooftop in emergency helicopter, is something that will haunt the global business & investment community's view of Thailand for a long-long-time. I was even told by a Thai head-nurse friend in Bkk, that the Asean thing had set Thailand back at least a century.

[Publicus]

Most Thai people I know saw the airport block 08 & delayed/cancelled flights as inconvenient or vaguely funny,and within the broadest rights of democratic protest. A large number of my upper-blue collar/middle class Bangkok friends felt that it was for a good cause in the long run. What is probably more important is how the rest of the world sees all this, especially big business as what Thailand needs is non-tourist, & infrastructure investment.

I don't think most big business around the world were especially traumatised by hordes of yellow shirts waving those foam hands around, but in my opinion the Reds' beamed-around-the-world images of the ASEAN summit leaders escaping in terror off a rooftop in emergency helicopter, is something that will haunt the global business & investment community's view of Thailand for a long-long-time. I was even told by a Thai head-nurse friend in Bkk, that the Asean thing had set Thailand back at least a century.

Don't know about a century but Pattaya/Asean was a whopping body blow to the country, which is all the more reason to burn Thaksin's loot.

At least last year during the several meetings of the G-20, Apec, Asean etc Abhisit and Korn managed to gain some distinction for the work they've been doing to rehabilitate Thailand and its image abroad, among investors and corporations in particular.

So we don't need to see the color red around the airport any more than we need to see any other color there, to include Brown.

[yoshiwara]

If the Red Shirts think they can capture the airport they will do it. Unfortunately there has been a distinct violent edge to their previous actions which would be difficult to control in such an assault, so Thaksin will be weighing up the risks involved. Accusing regal advisors of corruption in land occupation is strictly small time and has been effectively monitored by the government, so the reds and Thaksin will be consulting daily how to regain the initiative. Nobody in Bangkok has forgotten the reds hijacking of a tanker and shots fired at residents.

Edited January 21, 2010 by yoshiwara

[Samuian]

I think it's quite funny and tells a lot about the voices, who restlessly defend the "Union against Dictatorship", their actions and the time of rule under this ousted former politician, leaving no good on the present government, but can;t find a grain of wrong with the banned politicians, parties and ousted premier.... none, nothing wrong with that - they have been ousted by a 'politically biased Elite"... this alone is one of the best jokes of the century and tells it all - how "genuine and honest" their agenda really is!

Edited January 21, 2010 by Samuian

[steveromagnino]

If the Red Shirts think they can capture the airport they will do it. Unfortunately there has been a distinct violent edge to their previous actions which would be difficult to control in such an assault, so Thaksin will be weighing up the risks involved. Accusing regal advisors of corruption in land occupation is strictly small time and has been effectively monitored by the government, so the reds and Thaksin will be consulting daily how to regain the initiative. Nobody in Bangkok has forgotten the reds hijacking of a tanker and shots fired at residents.

after the f&*kwad yellow shirts took over the airport, surely anyone with a brain can see the massive issues of doing it again; bearing in mind that the support the redshirts have in Bangkok among Bangkok residents is very low; far lower than the yellow shirts. Their support is mostly from the northeast and the north (I don't say rural areas, because the recent by election proves this isn't the case nationwide, and the PPP/TRT/et al were never the party du jour in the south or parts of central Thailand where factions and/or Democrats or smaller parties have tended to hold sway.) That said, there are a decent number of red shirts (and for that matter yellow shirts) anywhere, certainly enough to drum up a crowd for some sort of activity.

Far from saying that the red shirts are simply a pack of thugs which is a very simplistic and unfair view - the red shirts have already proven that they CAN protest peacefully in some cases, but equally have sometimes shown a somewhat nasty side that surfaced in the riots at Songkran as well as at ASEAN, as well as the pay for smashing faces in attacks on the yellow shirts protests a few months earlier. The behaviour of some factions such as the anti gay group in Chiang Mai is symptomatic of the red shirts being a group of groups - some factions are very pro democracy, peaceful(and these guys are perhaps somewhat interesting); other factions are pushing other agendas...protests SHOULD be a part of a functioning democracy. however, rolling gas tankers into residential areas and setting buses on fire with supporters drunk and staggering around picking fights.....hmmmm not so much. The image of one of the Australian delegation trying to leave the hotel and being set upon by 3-4 red shirt thugs still sticks in my mind as a good example for why smashing faces in with the boot is a great English sport, but really, it is great fun only until someone gets hurt.

What can be counted on is no matter how it plays out with an airport occupation, if it goes badly, we'll get all the same lies about masses of dead bodies, conspiracy and a general failure to admit fault - exactly as per the yellow shirts (at least) peaceful protest and their subsequent attempts to avoid paying for it, and the red shirt violent faction's somewhat less peaceful approach in Songkran. I have heard yellow shirters claim that the airport occupation was actually red shirts in disguise for instance! If you want to protest and be a <deleted>, at least have the balls to say afterwards, yep, that was me - in the words of erkel 'did i do that?!'

As a last gasp ahead of Feb 26, I think it's been put out there more as a threat than anything else, and to test whether the leaders can creat the impression among their relatively small but rather enthusiastic fan base, that there is a true double standard; yellow shirts allowed to go and protest no problem (not actually true but ah well); red shirts not allowed (also not really true, but ah well).....further evidence of how the red shirts are hard done by - by the media, the army, the police, the government, god, dogs, cats, sheep, kwai, Girly Berry, etc. Obviously it's not actually true, but truth has not been a core requirement of the yellow or red shirts belief system for some time now; in particular, some of the claims by the red shirts and the logic steps required to justify their actions are deserving of an oscar for 'most convoluted storyline' - even better than 2012, the worst movie ever other than possibly 2 Girls One Cup.

Right now the strategy seems to be about trying to prove how the red shirts are the downtrodden - attacking the privvy council, the land issue in Korat, threats at the airport, repeating the same stories - it's about showing the double standard in as many ways as possible. And while in power, while TRT and PPP never actually did anything about any of these points, it is true to say that this is a nice last gasp strategy because there IS a double standard between the rich and poor. One need only look at Chalerm and his sons, or Thaksin's kids getting into top universities and being caught cheating with no real repurcussions, any police checkpoint when a Benz rolls up, Moo Ham, etc etc for proof of that. Mostly no politicians ever rock the boat on this one...because they like the double standard and need it. Only a last gasp seeks to do anything about it, because no politician would want to give up the ability to skim without any real threat of being caught. We can ask former TAT Governor Jathamas for her opinion on that.

So I guess on some level it is ironic that it is exactly a double standard that they are asking for - criminals should face a trial and be punished if found guilty. Except when they are called Thaksin in which case all should be forgiven when found guilty, and any charges should be dropped.

So I wouldnt' pack up the bags for the airport just yet.

Edited January 21, 2010 by steveromagnino

[webfact]

Airports of Thailand threatens lawsuit against red-shirt protesters

Airports of Thailand Plc Thursday issued a stern warning to the red shirts related to their plan to protest at the Suvarnabhumi Airport and threatened to prosecute them as terrorists if the rally spirals ouf of control.

"Maximum law enforcement will be invoked to deal with the protesters and every precaution will be taken to prevent any attempts to trespass or seize the airport," Suvarnabhum general manager Nirand Theeranartsin said.

The airport as well as the authorities concerned will not allow a repeat of the seizure that happened in 2008, he said.

"The international airport is no place for achieving a political leverage and the political rivals, regardless of the colours of their shirts, should not put the country before their vested interests," he said.

-- The Nation 2010-01-21

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[jayboy]

All true but what you have omitted is the reality that a Prime Minister with no personal mandate from the people needs to obtain that sooner rather than later.That is the case for Abhisit as it is for Gordon Brown in the UK and regardless of the parliamentary system authority begins to ebb away without a fresh election.In Abhisit's case given the events that led him to power - coup, rigged constitution, directed court verdicts etc - the matter needs real attention.As in Brown's case the ebb of credibility is palpable and elections are the only real answer.

Yes, what you say is true both of Brown and Abhisit, but the point is that elections are required as a matter of those leaders being able to effectively do their jobs i.e. if they call an election and manage to get reelected, they can push on with ruling and administering the country well (one optimistically hopes); if they don't call an election, they risk having their authority increasingly questioned and becoming under more pressure.

That is what is at stake for Abhisit and Brown and that is for them to decide, concerning how long they leave it before calling an election. They have no obligation to call an election - it is their decision. They both are legally and legitimately where they are. For people to demand Abhisit to call an election on the grounds that he is not legal or not legitimate, as we hear day after day, week after week, month after tedious month on this forum from certain misinformed members, is simply wrong... and it's very boring.

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this.From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this particularly given the murky path, including the sheer criminality of a military coup, that led Abhisit to power.And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

[way2muchcoffee]

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this.From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this particularly given the murky path, including the sheer criminality of a military coup, that led Abhisit to power.And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

The military coup led directly to the PPP returning to power. The PPP engaged in electoral fraud, got caught and were disbanded. This led to the Democrats taking over. If the PPP had run an honest campaign they would still be in power today. It was the criminality and stupidity of the current opposition that led to the Democrats taking power.

Edited January 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Netfan]

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this.From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this particularly given the murky path, including the sheer criminality of a military coup, that led Abhisit to power.And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

Much of the pro-Thaksin / anti-government arguments are based on claiming Abhisit is not legitimate, so its interesting that you admit he is. Personal mandate? One of the risks of a parliamentary system is that the PM will be elected by minority coalitions. Look at Israel a year or two ago. The coup cannot be undone. Even if the last one could be, do we go back and undo the other 17?

And yes, it would be nice if elections could be called. Perhaps when the disgraced / deposed former PM stops trying to overthrow the government by any means, and his relatives and spokespeople stop threatening violent overthrow, it would signal things are calming down. Do you think Thaksins minions would allow a peaceful election to take place right now? Dealing with the Reds is like dealing with 6 year olds. If they behave for awhile then there can be talks about what they want. If they keep up the threats and throwing tantrums they haven't shown they can handle democracy.

[mca]

Much of the pro-Thaksin / anti-government arguments are based on claiming Abhisit is not legitimate, so its interesting that you admit he is. Personal mandate? One of the risks of a parliamentary system is that the PM will be elected by minority coalitions. Look at Israel a year or two ago. The coup cannot be undone. Even if the last one could be, do we go back and undo the other 17?

But doesn't the very fact that various elements are quite willing to fire up the tanks when it suits them make the actual concept of a democratic " one man one vote system " for the common man in Thailand something of a joke? If they don't like the cut of someones jib then all the concepts of mandates, coalitions, democratic process, legitimacy etc can be rolled up and stuffed where the old proverbial doesn't shine don't you think?

[rixalex]

Yes, what you say is true both of Brown and Abhisit, but the point is that elections are required as a matter of those leaders being able to effectively do their jobs i.e. if they call an election and manage to get reelected, they can push on with ruling and administering the country well (one optimistically hopes); if they don't call an election, they risk having their authority increasingly questioned and becoming under more pressure.

That is what is at stake for Abhisit and Brown and that is for them to decide, concerning how long they leave it before calling an election. They have no obligation to call an election - it is their decision. They both are legally and legitimately where they are. For people to demand Abhisit to call an election on the grounds that he is not legal or not legitimate, as we hear day after day, week after week, month after tedious month on this forum from certain misinformed members, is simply wrong... and it's very boring.

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.

My post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the many members of this forum who continue to parrot the "this government wasn't elected" mantra. What, you haven't read those posts?

But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this. From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this <snip>

"From your posts it would appear there is no problem here".???

You are simply wrong in making assumptions. I have never stated, nor do i believe that Abhisit is likely to win an election outright. Please quote where i have given you this impression.

And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

Never did go to Sunday School myself - found that boring too.

[Netfan]

Much of the pro-Thaksin / anti-government arguments are based on claiming Abhisit is not legitimate, so its interesting that you admit he is. Personal mandate? One of the risks of a parliamentary system is that the PM will be elected by minority coalitions. Look at Israel a year or two ago. The coup cannot be undone. Even if the last one could be, do we go back and undo the other 17?

But doesn't the very fact that various elements are quite willing to fire up the tanks when it suits them make the actual concept of a democratic " one man one vote system " for the common man in Thailand something of a joke? If they don't like the cut of someones jib then all the concepts of mandates, coalitions, democratic process, legitimacy etc can be rolled up and stuffed where the old proverbial doesn't shine don't you think?

yep. can't disagree. all i can say is there are supposed to be safeguards built in - separation of power and all that - like nixon being forced to resign. if he hadn't resigned the congress would have removed him from power. but what if he had refused to go? he would have had to have been forcibly removed. what had happened here was one man had taken almost complete control of the country, and was running it as his own private entity - at least thats the way it was seen by those you mention. i'm not comparing thaksin to hitler here, but dictators can come to power thru a democratic system - that is what hitler did. his party was elected, he formed coalitions and next thing you know... so perhaps those people you mention were afraid of someone in total control with no way to remove him. if you remember, thaksin did begin to talk about how long he would remain in power - 20 years i believe is what he said. his ego did him in, in more ways than one. so thailand is where it is now. democracy depends on a society that cares about what happens and politicians who "serve the people". thailand may not be there yet, a bit more trial and error might be required. but better to move forward with abhisit and korn than the yokels opposed to them.

[RegularReader]

Dealing with the Reds is like dealing with 6 year olds. If they behave for awhile then there can be talks about what they want. If they keep up the threats and throwing tantrums they haven't shown they can handle democracy.

Well said. An example of this childish behaviour is on show in most parts of the country, where the Democrats have put up posters and billboards. As soon as they go up, they get destroyed; Abhisit's face cut out and the local member with graffitti all over him/her.

I realize this is "circumstantail evidence", but near my home this was done to the 2 Dems boards. Meanwhile the PTP (placed in the middle) is as good as the day it went up. This might impress 6 year olds, and the rusted on Reds, but I doubt it does much to win over a "swinging voter"...

[jayboy]

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this.From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this particularly given the murky path, including the sheer criminality of a military coup, that led Abhisit to power.And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

The military coup led directly to the PPP returning to power. The PPP engaged in electoral fraud, got caught and were disbanded. This led to the Democrats taking over. If the PPP had run an honest campaign they would still be in power today. It was the criminality and stupidity of the current opposition that led to the Democrats taking power.

That's the party line for some who hate the idea of the Thai people being given their say and frankly increasingly threadbare in the light of events.In any event no point in rehashing this discussion since it's been flogged to death.It doesn't alter the fact that Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to secure one very soon.

[Old Man River]

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this.From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this particularly given the murky path, including the sheer criminality of a military coup, that led Abhisit to power.And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

The military coup led directly to the PPP returning to power. The PPP engaged in electoral fraud, got caught and were disbanded. This led to the Democrats taking over. If the PPP had run an honest campaign they would still be in power today. It was the criminality and stupidity of the current opposition that led to the Democrats taking power.

That's the party line for some who hate the idea of the Thai people being given their say and frankly increasingly threadbare in the light of events.In any event no point in rehashing this discussion since it's been flogged to death.It doesn't alter the fact that Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to secure one very soon.

Jayboy, you know that no PM in Thailand has a personal mandate to be PM and that isn't a party line.

[way2muchcoffee]

That's the party line for some who hate the idea of the Thai people being given their say and frankly increasingly threadbare in the light of events.In any event no point in rehashing this discussion since it's been flogged to death.It doesn't alter the fact that Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to secure one very soon.

It could be a party line as you say. Alternately it could be the truth, because that is exactly what happened. Elections, elections, elections. They had elections 2 years ago and will again in another 2, possibly earlier. Until free and fair elections can be garnered, and freedom to campaign, no threats of revolution, and no terrorist activity, I seriously think Thailand needs to hold off on the election front. And for the record, Abhisit already has a mandate. He has the mandate given him by the parliament the voters elected to represent them.

Edited January 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[jayboy]

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this.From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this particularly given the murky path, including the sheer criminality of a military coup, that led Abhisit to power.And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

The military coup led directly to the PPP returning to power. The PPP engaged in electoral fraud, got caught and were disbanded. This led to the Democrats taking over. If the PPP had run an honest campaign they would still be in power today. It was the criminality and stupidity of the current opposition that led to the Democrats taking power.

That's the party line for some who hate the idea of the Thai people being given their say and frankly increasingly threadbare in the light of events.In any event no point in rehashing this discussion since it's been flogged to death.It doesn't alter the fact that Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to secure one very soon.

Jayboy, you know that no PM in Thailand has a personal mandate to be PM and that isn't a party line.

I take your point completely, and I probably shouldn't have personalised Abhisit in the way I did.Nevertheless as far as his government is concerned I think my point still stands.There will be some like way2muchcoffee who keep on repeating the government has a legal mandate (how many times does one have to say that one agrees?).But as far as the need to obtain the approval of the Thai people, particularly given the subterfuge and murky goings on that brought this government to power, even high ranking Democrats agree on the necessity if not the timing.To deny there is a problem here is simply wilful.

[way2muchcoffee]

I take your point completely, and I probably shouldn't have personalised Abhisit in the way I did.Nevertheless as far as his government is concerned I think my point still stands.There will be some like way2muchcoffee who keep on repeating the government has a legal mandate (how many times does one have to say that one agrees?).But as far as the need to obtain the approval of the Thai people, particularly given the subterfuge and murky goings on that brought this government to power, even high ranking Democrats agree on the necessity if not the timing.To deny there is a problem here is simply wilful.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I agree an election should be called as soon as possible. I simply believe that the timing of the election needs to be carefully thought through in order to help move the country forward. The wrong timing for an election could be disastrous. I have stated what I believe are the conditions that are necessary before elections are held. So maybe it's not that we disagree about the need for elections, but that we disagree on the timing and preconditions.

Edited January 22, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[jayboy]

I take your point completely, and I probably shouldn't have personalised Abhisit in the way I did.Nevertheless as far as his government is concerned I think my point still stands.There will be some like way2muchcoffee who keep on repeating the government has a legal mandate (how many times does one have to say that one agrees?).But as far as the need to obtain the approval of the Thai people, particularly given the subterfuge and murky goings on that brought this government to power, even high ranking Democrats agree on the necessity if not the timing.To deny there is a problem here is simply wilful.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I agree an election should be called as soon as possible. I simply believe that the timing of the election needs to be carefully thought through in order to help move the country forward. The wrong timing for an election could be disastrous. I have stated what I believe are the conditions that are necessary before elections are held. So maybe it's not that we disagree about the need for elections, but that we disagree on the timing and preconditions.

No I do actually agree with you here, and I'm on record that it's Abhisit's call.Frankly I'm less concerned about the timing than that the election when it comes should be fairly conducted (but that's for another discussion)

[webfact]

Red-shirts cancel airport, Siriraj hospital rallies

-- The Nation 2010-01-22

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[TAWP]

Was the current government elected by the people for the people? Just Yes or No pls

Yes, that is how it works.

[SomTumTiger]

UDD did something right. Can't that let streak continue...what would the neighbors think?