Red Shirts Moving For A Showdown: Jatuporn

[doggie888888]

But how would you call people, who got ripped of by their complete corrupt leader, get the ear full of commi talk about being equal, but their leader only try to get every single Baht money in his private pocket.

Giving loans (from state banks) to farmer which they can't pay back and than he lead personally arab investors thru these lands....

Than a demonstration with the purpose to let him get back 76 Billons stolen money. Someone who go there for a 300 Baht fee, how would you call them???

They are called VOTERS in a democracy. Whether they are perceived as ignorant, uneducated etc, they are still voters entitled to elect THEIR representative no matter how corrupt the man is...much like the often derided voters who voted for GW Bush. We may not agree with their choice but hey it's a democracy...and you don't get rid of the elected leader via a coup.

Anyway, when the poor organise themselves and revolt against the status quo, it's a revolution of sorts. As a foreigner, all I can say is good luck Thailand and I sincerely hope it will be a better system that comes out of all this pain.

[h90]

But how would you call people, who got ripped of by their complete corrupt leader, get the ear full of commi talk about being equal, but their leader only try to get every single Baht money in his private pocket.

Giving loans (from state banks) to farmer which they can't pay back and than he lead personally arab investors thru these lands....

Than a demonstration with the purpose to let him get back 76 Billons stolen money. Someone who go there for a 300 Baht fee, how would you call them???

They are called VOTERS in a democracy. Whether they are perceived as ignorant, uneducated etc, they are still voters entitled to elect THEIR representative no matter how corrupt the man is...much like the often derided voters who voted for GW Bush. We may not agree with their choice but hey it's a democracy...and you don't get rid of the elected leader via a coup.

Anyway, when the poor organise themselves and revolt against the status quo, it's a revolution of sorts. As a foreigner, all I can say is good luck Thailand and I sincerely hope it will be a better system that comes out of all this pain.

First of all you change the topic a little bit, but that shouldn't be a problem.

You may or may not heard about the MASSIVE vote buying at the last elections. Voting for money has nothing to do with democracy. And no, in no country I know the voter is entitled to elect their representatives no matter how corrupt. In every country I know you loose your (is it called "passive electoral rights") right for any political job if you are a criminal.

And for the coup. Look into the the situation 2006. The election was illegal therefor ALL other parties boycotted them. It was not possible in a single party election to fill the parliament with the necessary amount of MP so they started with a unconstitutional parliament. The PAD had demonstrations and the illegal government ordered armed forces from the border to kill them.

Than the military staged a coup against the anyway illegal government and made free elections and let the old powers go back into power without interfering. You can't hardly blame them.

Of course that dinosaurs like Newin, Banharn and many old (and new rich) family deals are killing the country. But Thaksin or the Reds are not the answer. Education is it, free media (Thailands media were very well BEFORE Thaksin came). Abhisit is no dictator and the coalition partner are a pain, but he is going in the right way.

[ballpoint]

...they are still voters entitled to elect THEIR representative no matter how corrupt the man is...

Finally one of the red supporters has come out and said it. They truly believe it's okay for a criminal to be PM if people vote for him. No need to look at just how the criminal gets those votes. No need to look at how much he steals from those very people who did vote for him, and all the others who didn't obviously. No need to look at the way he was setting up the country as his own personal fifedom. No, people voted for him so it doesn't matter that he's a criminal. Well, apart from the fact that there is a problem with these claims that people voted for him, (the evidence clearly shows that people mainly voted for the same old faces they always had. Thaksin had just bought them. Why else did he have to align himself with the old guard of Chavalit, Banharn, Newin et al in order to win? If people truly voted for Thaksin then he could have run any candidates under the TRT banner and they would have been voted in. But he didn't. And he cheated as well. Funnily enough, the people who can't see anything wrong with Thaksin buying entire parties are usually the same ones continually posting about the "dirty tactics" of the Democrats in attracting ex PPP and CTP members in order to form the current government.), you can not reconcile a democracy (another oft spouted claim of achievement by his supporters) with any man being above the law. There is not one Western democracy that would have ever allowed Thaksin to pass the asset concealment case. There is not one Western democracy that would not have forced him to resign, and probably convicted him, on:

The bird flu cover up.

The "war on drugs".

The loan to Burma.

The laws passed to favour AIS over other mobile operators.

Many of the airport deals.

The insider trading involved in his sell off to Temasek.

The law passed to allow that deal to go through.

The lack of taxes paid on that deal.

The creation of false parties to stand against him in the 2006 election.

And I haven't even mentioned the one charge he has been convicted on, so far...

Now, stand back and listen to "But, the PAD shut down the airport... He did some good, a taxi driver told me so... Prem is involved in politics... He wasn't the first corrupt PM... Abhisit is young, handsome, and went to Eton and Oxford... The present government wasn't elected... The poor love him... Other parties bought votes... "

[webfact]

UPDATE

Chalerm sceptical and vows to bring back Thaksin

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The red shirts might be too ambitious in trying to organise a showdown rally, with one million protesters and 100,000 pickup trucks, on March 14 to force the government's collapse, Pheu Thai MP Chalerm Yoobamrung said yesterday.

"I don't see how a million red shirts can be mobilised," he said.

Chalerm said he did not expect an upheaval and voiced scepticism about the red shirts succeeding in inflaming sentiment against the government.

He said he believes the anxiety would dissipate because he expects tomorrow's verdict on former PM Thaksin Shinawatra's frozen assets would be favourable.

"Wild speculation about violence and mayhem could pass once the verdict is read," he said.

He went on to say that Thaksin would only return home through parliamentary means, and vowed that he would do everything in his power to bring the main opposition party to election victory so the former PM could be brought back.

Chalerm added that if he could have his party adopt his campaigning strategy, Thaksin would be able to return in two years.

He also ruled out any possibility of engineering a coalition switch, arguing that the only way to defeat the Democrats was through the ballot box. He added that he was ready to censure the government and his targets for grilling would include Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya and Interior Minister Chaovarat Chanweerakul.

Meanwhile, Veera Musigapong, a leader of the red shirts, said yesterday the government was "making every effort" to create a negative image for the movement by trying to link the red shirts with the assets seizure case and painting a picture that the country was heading for chaos.

"We adhere to the path of peace and non-violence. On the day of judgement, people can think for themselves if they want to listen to the verdict's reading [at the court]. The red shirts have no appointment for a gathering [that day], or we may fall into a trap set by the government to crack down on the red shirts," Veera said.

He said the red shirts planned a large rally in Bangkok on March 12 and that during the run-up to that day, small gatherings would be held in different provinces.

Nattawut Saikua, another leader of the red shirts, said that the major rally in Bangkok would be held at Sanam Luang and throughout Rajdamnoen Avenue, where some 1 million people were expected to join. Nattawut said the goal was to force the government to dissolve the House of Representatives. He added that Thaksin would also address the demonstrators through a video link from overseas.

-- The Nation 2010-02-25

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[plachon]

...they are still voters entitled to elect THEIR representative no matter how corrupt the man is...

Finally one of the red supporters has come out and said it. They truly believe it's okay for a criminal to be PM if people vote for him. No need to look at just how the criminal gets those votes. No need to look at how much he steals from those very people who did vote for him, and all the others who didn't obviously. No need to look at the way he was setting up the country as his own personal fifedom. No, people voted for him so it doesn't matter that he's a criminal. Well, apart from the fact that there is a problem with these claims that people voted for him, (the evidence clearly shows that people mainly voted for the same old faces they always had. Thaksin had just bought them. Why else did he have to align himself with the old guard of Chavalit, Banharn, Newin et al in order to win? If people truly voted for Thaksin then he could have run any candidates under the TRT banner and they would have been voted in. But he didn't. And he cheated as well. Funnily enough, the people who can't see anything wrong with Thaksin buying entire parties are usually the same ones continually posting about the "dirty tactics" of the Democrats in attracting ex PPP and CTP members in order to form the current government.), you can not reconcile a democracy (another oft spouted claim of achievement by his supporters) with any man being above the law. There is not one Western democracy that would have ever allowed Thaksin to pass the asset concealment case. There is not one Western democracy that would not have forced him to resign, and probably convicted him, on:

The bird flu cover up.

The "war on drugs".

The loan to Burma.

The laws passed to favour AIS over other mobile operators.

Many of the airport deals.

The insider trading involved in his sell off to Temasek.

The law passed to allow that deal to go through.

The lack of taxes paid on that deal.

The creation of false parties to stand against him in the 2006 election.

And I haven't even mentioned the one charge he has been convicted on, so far...

Now, stand back and listen to "But, the PAD shut down the airport... He did some good, a taxi driver told me so... Prem is involved in politics... He wasn't the first corrupt PM... Abhisit is young, handsome, and went to Eton and Oxford... The present government wasn't elected... The poor love him... Other parties bought votes... "

Well replied Ballpoint. This in a nutshell is the basis of the TV Redshirt sympathisers arguments, as far as I can see. The poor, rural people voted for him, so no matter how bad or corrupt he may be, he is still the legitimate leader of Thailand and should be allowed back to serve his constituency (whom we're all supposed to feel sorry for as they are the "real" voters of Thailand whom every other party from time immemorial has ignored). The flaws in their "democracy is about votes" argument are gaping, as you point out, and was also used unfortunately by the judges in the Alpine land scandal case back in 2001, that allowed Mr T to remain in office. Even though they later on more or less admitted had been bribed by Thaksin to sway the vote to his favour. That was one despicable example of political interference in the courts, which hopefully won't be repeated tomorrow.

As an aside, for the last few months I've spent quite a bit of time in villages across the upper Northeast and have detected a serious waning for the Redshirts cause in the last month or so. Back in January, the Truth Today channel was on in lots of houses, but last week I only saw it on in one household and that was soon switched over to a soap by a bored teenage daughter who disapproved of her Dad's viewing tastes. The fact is Isaan people become rapidly bored and the Reds have been spouting the same violent, rabbble-rousing junk for months now with nothing new apart from empty promises that always seem to come to nothing. The rural people couldn't give a monkey's if Thaksin gets his money back now, as I think they are smart enough to realise he's burned his bridges and is now an embarassment to Thailand. My sense is they are no longer looking back as much as in the past, but are starting to look forward to a post-Thaksin era. There are still a lot of Reds for Rent about who are bored and unemployed and only too happy to pick up the odd 200 baht here and there at rallies and "kin free" at the Thaksin love-in feasts, but their loyalty is only baht-deep. It won't last much longer when the moolah runs out and then they'll be straight into the next patron's pocket.

Saw a village headman election run-up in progress and they were spending on food/drink to earn votes like money was going out of fashion. Wasn't Thaksin's money though. Same-same vote buying as ever in Isaan.

[Ricardo]

We may not agree with their choice but hey it's a democracy...and you don't get rid of the elected leader via a coup.

And indeed they didn't get rid of an elected leader, via the illegal coup in September 2006, now if only the Red-Shirts' re-education schools were making that clear to their followers.

[Wolfie]

The 2006 Coup removed a Caretaker PM, who for some reason was dragging his feet in calling a new election...

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary

[jayboy]

The 2006 Coup removed a Caretaker PM, who for some reason was dragging his feet in calling a new election...

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary

What's your point?

[Wolfie]

What's your point?

My point is i am disputing the claims by various people that the September 2006 Coup removed a democratically Elected Government/PM - they didn't, they removed a Caretaker PM - subtle but important difference

[Ricardo]

The 2006 Coup removed a Caretaker PM, who for some reason was dragging his feet in calling a new election...

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary

What's your point?

That the indignation felt by doggie and many others is misplaced ?

Sorry, Wolfie already replied while I was posting.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Ricardo

[jayboy]

What's your point?

My point is i am disputing the claims by various people that the September 2006 Coup removed a democratically Elected Government/PM - they didn't, they removed a Caretaker PM - subtle but important difference

Are you suggesting the caretaker government was not elected, specifically that it did not have a popular mandate?

[hammered]

My two cents worth, of course the Thaksin led government had been elected. Of course the caretaker government had continued past the length a caretaker government was constitutionally allowed to, and there was a legal question of whether the PM had earlier resigned or not. The two legal points were never clarified iirc. Make everyone right and wrong depending on what arguement you want to stress.

[jayboy]

My two cents worth, of course the Thaksin led government had been elected. Of course the caretaker government had continued past the length a caretaker government was constitutionally allowed to, and there was a legal question of whether the PM had earlier resigned or not. The two legal points were never clarified iirc. Make everyone right and wrong depending on what arguement you want to stress.

You are as usual quite right.Different people according to their views will interpret evidence differently, though in this instance I would have thought there is rather limited room for interpretation.Some of us incline for democratic values for all the flaws and messiness that often goes with them.Others will look for excuses to support military coups and repression to reinforce unelected and unaccountable elites.Returning to the particular it is of course either dishonest or ignorant to suggest the caretaker government was unelected.

[jdinasia]

My two cents worth, of course the Thaksin led government had been elected. Of course the caretaker government had continued past the length a caretaker government was constitutionally allowed to, and there was a legal question of whether the PM had earlier resigned or not. The two legal points were never clarified iirc. Make everyone right and wrong depending on what arguement you want to stress.

You are as usual quite right.Different people according to their views will interpret evidence differently, though in this instance I would have thought there is rather limited room for interpretation.Some of us incline for democratic values for all the flaws and messiness that often goes with them.Others will look for excuses to support military coups and repression to reinforce unelected and unaccountable elites.Returning to the particular it is of course either dishonest or ignorant to suggest the caretaker government was unelected.

The ELECTED parliament was dissolved by Thaksin. Parliament elects the government. No Parliament = no elected government.

Doesn't take a mental giant to see the truth here now does it?

[jayboy]

My two cents worth, of course the Thaksin led government had been elected. Of course the caretaker government had continued past the length a caretaker government was constitutionally allowed to, and there was a legal question of whether the PM had earlier resigned or not. The two legal points were never clarified iirc. Make everyone right and wrong depending on what arguement you want to stress.

You are as usual quite right.Different people according to their views will interpret evidence differently, though in this instance I would have thought there is rather limited room for interpretation.Some of us incline for democratic values for all the flaws and messiness that often goes with them.Others will look for excuses to support military coups and repression to reinforce unelected and unaccountable elites.Returning to the particular it is of course either dishonest or ignorant to suggest the caretaker government was unelected.

The ELECTED parliament was dissolved by Thaksin. Parliament elects the government. No Parliament = no elected government.

Doesn't take a mental giant to see the truth here now does it?

As I noted, some will look for any excuses to support military coups for the reasons detailed above.In this foolish example it's not worth bothering to demolish.There are some more compelling arguments but they're not articulated by this poster.

[jdinasia]

ad hominem? yeah ......

[somluck]

My two cents worth, of course the Thaksin led government had been elected. Of course the caretaker government had continued past the length a caretaker government was constitutionally allowed to, and there was a legal question of whether the PM had earlier resigned or not. The two legal points were never clarified iirc. Make everyone right and wrong depending on what arguement you want to stress.

You are as usual quite right.Different people according to their views will interpret evidence differently, though in this instance I would have thought there is rather limited room for interpretation.Some of us incline for democratic values for all the flaws and messiness that often goes with them.Others will look for excuses to support military coups and repression to reinforce unelected and unaccountable elites.Returning to the particular it is of course either dishonest or ignorant to suggest the caretaker government was unelected.

The ELECTED parliament was dissolved by Thaksin. Parliament elects the government. No Parliament = no elected government.

Doesn't take a mental giant to see the truth here now does it?

As I noted, some will look for any excuses to support military coups for the reasons detailed above.In this foolish example it's not worth bothering to demolish.There are some more compelling arguments but they're not articulated by this poster.

coup d'é·tat

a sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ or /ku de.ta/) (plural: coups d'état), or coup for short (French for overthrow of the state), is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government,

Edited February 25, 2010 by somluck

[Samuian]

yes, yes, yes.... the "democratically elected government"... this goes on and on like a Tibetan prayer mill, round, and round!

If it wasnt' a democratically elected government it would have been illegal!

And yes, "elected" as plachon describes rural Election in post #126... and yes dissolved, whatsoever - if sugar is dissolved in a glass of water, there is no sugar anymore, it's only evidence is the sweetness.... the evidence of a once elected government here in turn is rather bitter and quite annoying - move on PLEASE, the cheap, 1 actor stage play "they steal my life savings" is so repetitive that it is getting really very boring by now, someone put on a new reel please!!

it's really boring....!

Edited February 25, 2010 by Samuian

[h90]

What's your point?

My point is i am disputing the claims by various people that the September 2006 Coup removed a democratically Elected Government/PM - they didn't, they removed a Caretaker PM - subtle but important difference

Are you suggesting the caretaker government was not elected, specifically that it did not have a popular mandate?

yes it did not has the popular mandate because it was expired. Theoretic it was a plain dictatorship.

[jayboy]

yes, yes, yes.... the "democratically elected government"... this goes on and on like a Tibetan prayer mill, round, and round!

If it wasnt' a democratically elected government it would have been illegal!

And yes, "elected" as plachon describes rural Election in post #126... and yes dissolved, whatsoever - if sugar is dissolved in a glass of water, there is no sugar anymore, it's only evidence is the sweetness.... the evidence of a once elected government here in turn is rather bitter and quite annoying - move on PLEASE, the cheap, 1 actor stage play "they steal my life savings" is so repetitive that it is getting really very boring by now, someone put on a new reel please!!

it's really boring....!

So you are saying that any bunch of miltary thugs can take over a country, and to point out that the previous elected government had a popular mandate is "boring".What I find "boring" are the tired excuses for an unelected and unaccountable elite and the absurd assumption that rural voters are ignorant and corrupt.

[jdinasia]

yes, yes, yes.... the "democratically elected government"... this goes on and on like a Tibetan prayer mill, round, and round!

If it wasnt' a democratically elected government it would have been illegal!

And yes, "elected" as plachon describes rural Election in post #126... and yes dissolved, whatsoever - if sugar is dissolved in a glass of water, there is no sugar anymore, it's only evidence is the sweetness.... the evidence of a once elected government here in turn is rather bitter and quite annoying - move on PLEASE, the cheap, 1 actor stage play "they steal my life savings" is so repetitive that it is getting really very boring by now, someone put on a new reel please!!

it's really boring....!

So you are saying that any bunch of miltary thugs can take over a country, and to point out that the previous elected government had a popular mandate is "boring".What I find "boring" are the tired excuses for an unelected and unaccountable elite and the absurd assumption that rural voters are ignorant and corrupt.

Sorry, nobody is saying ALL rural voters are ignorant and corrupt. The ones that accepted money to vote are corrupt. The ones that think that voting for a party that gets caught for massive electoral fraud should make that party above being brought down for corruption are ignorant. The ones that think that the current government is not legitimate in the same way that the Samak and Somchai governments were legit are also ignorant.

Note ---- ignorance does NOT equal stupid.

Note ---- to think that popularity overrides democracy when the popular guy is corrupt --- is stupid and ignorant and corrupt

[aikawa]

Just as i am going for my holiday trip during march. News of rally start coming up again. OMG. Why do they love to rally so much.

Edited February 25, 2010 by aikawa

[h90]

yes, yes, yes.... the "democratically elected government"... this goes on and on like a Tibetan prayer mill, round, and round!

If it wasnt' a democratically elected government it would have been illegal!

And yes, "elected" as plachon describes rural Election in post #126... and yes dissolved, whatsoever - if sugar is dissolved in a glass of water, there is no sugar anymore, it's only evidence is the sweetness.... the evidence of a once elected government here in turn is rather bitter and quite annoying - move on PLEASE, the cheap, 1 actor stage play "they steal my life savings" is so repetitive that it is getting really very boring by now, someone put on a new reel please!!

it's really boring....!

So you are saying that any bunch of miltary thugs can take over a country, and to point out that the previous elected government had a popular mandate is "boring".What I find "boring" are the tired excuses for an unelected and unaccountable elite and the absurd assumption that rural voters are ignorant and corrupt.

Military can take over to protect democracy. As they did.

They called for new elections as soon as possible. If they wouldn't have done that we would have a 1 party parliament and maybe elections like in Cambodia or worse.

After Thaksins caretaker time was expired and he failed to make new legal complete elections his duty would have been to visit HM the King and tell that he has failed.

Such things happened in the past and there are approved methods to bring back democracy. For example an appointed government which prepares for new elections.

But Thaksin preferred to continue as self appointed premier.

[Siripon]

Just as i am going for my holiday trip during march. News of rally start coming up again. OMG. Why do they love to rally so much.

Because the leaders get a nice payout and (unofficial) commission from Thaksin and the protestors get a daily allowance plus food and travelling expenses paid.

[animatic]

No, he had no mandate,

he threw that away... fact

Guys don't feed the troll

[jayboy]

Sorry, nobody is saying ALL rural voters are ignorant and corrupt.

Note ---- to think that popularity overrides democracy when the popular guy is corrupt --- is stupid and ignorant and corrupt

Since most voters in the North And North East favoured TRT and its successors, the majority get caught in your definitions of ignorant and/or corrupt.Actually in terms of moral corruption, I'm not sure that the urban middle classes who enjoy a grotesquely unfair share of state resources - health, education, infrastructure etc have much to complain about.

I have no real idea what your final sentence means.Are you suggesting that a corrupt but popular leader should not be protected by democracy? I agree that's a hard one which the Italians for example are grappling with.But the supposed cure of military intervention is worse than the disease (as we have seen all too clearly in Thailand).Actually I think a PAD type movement (but with proper leadership as opposed to the actual grisly cabal and their repulsive value systems) has a role to play in this kind of difficult situation.It's hard work of course.

[ballpoint]

Since most voters in the North And North East favoured TRT and its successors, the majority get caught in your definitions of ignorant and/or corrupt.

No, they didn't. Most voters in the North East favoured the same candidates, and their proxies, as always. Thaksin merely bought many in 2001, and did deals with the rest to form a coalition, and then bought out most of the rest in 2005. He linked up with the vote winning (and vote buying) cabals of Newin, Chavalit, Banharn and others to win the elections. And still felt the need to have to cheat. If people were so enamoured of Thaksin, and the policies of the TRT, in 2001 then why did he need to do this? If that were true then he could have run new, "clean" candidates under the TRT banner and still won the election. Why align himself with the same corrupt old crowd, who were on the wrong side in 1992, whose incompetence helped cause the 1997 crash, and who have been part of the team keeping the rural voters poor and ignorant for decades? Thaksin was not merely a continuation of the rich poor divide, he was an escalation of it. By 2005, he had bought out most of the coalition members, including the remainder of the NAP, which had been the single biggest party in the 1996 elections. This meant TRT got more seats, and therefore got more proportional votes and more list MP's, and is the real reason for the landslide.

By the second half of 2006, Thaksin had exhausted his mandate. He was legally obliged to seek an audiance with HM the King in order to get parliament dissolved and a legal caretaker government installed (as opposed to his illegal one at the time), in order to set a timeframe for elections. The members of that government to be at the discretion of the parliamentary council. He didn't. Why? What did he have to fear? Remember, his popularity at the time was low. He'd sold off his business to Singapore. His main coalition partner, the CTP, had joined the Democrats in boycotting the elections. Maybe he thought he wouldn't get voted back in? Maybe he thought that any intermediate, independant government would start probing his deals as PM? Maybe the meglamaniac just couldn't live with the thought of losing power, if ever so briefly? Whatever the reason, he illegally clung on to his position as caretaker PM. In any parliamentary democracy, the cure for this is for the head of state to dissolve parliament and appoint a caretaker administration to prepare for new elections. It's also quite likely that the cause, ie/ the illegal caretaker, would be held on criminal charges too. We all know who the army answers to. Enough said about that. The "coup" was not an open and shut case of being illegal or legal.

As pointed out, there is a difference between "stupid" and "ignorant", not the least that an ignorant person may be educated to a knowledgable position, whereas a stupid one will probably remain so. The facts are out there. Who wishes to educate themselves?

[jdinasia]

Ballpoint ----

You left out that maybe Thaksin thought even then that he could get enough of a majority to protect TRT from being dissolved. (I don't see a way he could have actually accomplished that ... but trying to claim that the will of the voters superceeded the checks and balances provided by the EC is how I think he would have tried.)

Jay -- what I meant with popularity NOT overriding democracy is that it doesn't matter how popular someone is if they have violated the tenets of Democracy they have to go. Thaksin on that basis (and TRT) had to go. Their replacements (the coup leaders and then the coup installed government) had to go too. The difference is that the coup leaders KNEW they had to go ... they pushed the "reset button" then got out. Your position that they (as the cure) was worse than the disease is not shared by all and in my opinion, looking at how things worked, is short-sighted. They got in, held down the fort until real elections could happen, then got out.

Edited February 25, 2010 by jdinasia

[jayboy]

No, they didn't. Most voters in the North East favoured the same candidates, and their proxies, as always. Thaksin merely bought many in 2001, and did deals with the rest to form a coalition, and then bought out most of the rest in 2005. He linked up with the vote winning (and vote buying) cabals of Newin, Chavalit, Banharn and others to win the elections. And still felt the need to have to cheat. If people were so enamoured of Thaksin, and the policies of the TRT, in 2001 then why did he need to do this? If that were true then he could have run new, "clean" candidates under the TRT banner and still won the election.

I'm going to ignore your embarrassing apologetics for the military junta that grabbed power if you don't mind.In normal circumstances I would pull you up on your very misleading comment about what "normally happens in parliamentary democracies", but not on this occasion.

The part of your reply quoted is more interesting, and raises a very fair point, namely why did Thaksin participate the same old Thai electoral chicanery when in most peoples view he had the support anyway.I suspect the answer is the obvious one - meglomania and a kind of anal retentive determination.I know you doubt whether he had that basic support, but election after election proves you wrong.

[h90]

No, they didn't. Most voters in the North East favoured the same candidates, and their proxies, as always. Thaksin merely bought many in 2001, and did deals with the rest to form a coalition, and then bought out most of the rest in 2005. He linked up with the vote winning (and vote buying) cabals of Newin, Chavalit, Banharn and others to win the elections. And still felt the need to have to cheat. If people were so enamoured of Thaksin, and the policies of the TRT, in 2001 then why did he need to do this? If that were true then he could have run new, "clean" candidates under the TRT banner and still won the election.

I'm going to ignore your embarrassing apologetics for the military junta that grabbed power if you don't mind.In normal circumstances I would pull you up on your very misleading comment about what "normally happens in parliamentary democracies", but not on this occasion.

The part of your reply quoted is more interesting, and raises a very fair point, namely why did Thaksin participate the same old Thai electoral chicanery when in most peoples view he had the support anyway.I suspect the answer is the obvious one - meglomania and a kind of anal retentive determination.I know you doubt whether he had that basic support, but election after election proves you wrong.

well at the last election PPP got even with massive vote buying just the same amount of popular votes than the democrats. Without vote buying it would have been far less, no doubt.

It seems now he is also loosing support. Some simply forget him, others are angry by the Cambodia issue + the Thai technician soap opera.

Maybe they would still get the most MPs but it is going down.....