Thailand to impose security law for Thaksin protests

[jdinasia]

Yes Tony ... Thailand really does have an elected government. Ignorance of the parliamentary form of democracy does not change that fact. It just makes one ignorant.

[anotherpeter]

There are other strayegies that the current government could apply, to reduce the tension and at the same time, knock the wind out of Thakasin's supporters ...

implement the policies that Thakasin intended bringing in, that presumably improved the lot of the poorer regions (North and North-East) of Thailand. these regions are obviously sick and tired of hearing promises, and immediately implementing some of these policies would undoubtably cool down the poltical unrest that exists.

Would they dare do this? Only time will tell, but until some of the wealth that the main cities make, is distibuted wider, I'd guess there will continue to be more of the same for some time to come. I would have thought ensuring that the farmers get a greater share of the profit made by middle-men off the rice and othe farm produce bought from farmers, and the sold elsewhere in Thailand and abroard, would have a significant impact on things.

However I am an ignorant falang, and don't have an in-depth knowlege of what the red-shirts complaints are, but I'd guess the prices farmers are paid for their produce, has a significant bearing on the present unrest. I live in England, and it is certainly the case here, that our farmers get a pretty raw deal on their goods in comparison to what they see their produce sold for in the shops, so I would guess the same thing also applies in Thailand.

What do other people think?

In every country wages in smaller cities and country areas are always lower than the major cities. And in every country, the farmers always complain about not getting paid enough for their produce at the farm gate.

In Thailand those problems are increased by the fact that they are taught from a young age that they should respect and shouldn't question those who are older, richer or more (supposedly) important. Also, the fact of the lack of education in these areas doesn't help the poor move ahead. Investing in education where the students are actually taught to think and ask questions would be a good start.

The wealth in Thailand is already being spread. Most city people pay taxes (ofcourse the richest ones know how to avoid it). Some of this is used for infrastructure/health care/etc in poorer areas.

Unfortunately a lot of the money spent in the poorer areas gets siphoned off by corruption at all levels. That is the crux of the problem.

Thaksin brought in 30 baht healthcare, which is very important.

What else did Thaksin do? What were the other things that he was planning to do? Besides the healthcare and cash handouts, did he actually invest in poorer areas to improve their plight in the longer term? (these aren't sarcastic questions. I would really like to know)

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Sad. ISA is essentialy "martial law in a particular area." Guess they don't have much faith in the police to deal with protests, like police manages to do in almost any other country in the world.

The police force is a para-military organisation with a more significant percentage of Thaksin oriented personnel and a command structure that identifies less rigidly with the national docrine. From the perspective of the elites it is unreliable, unpredictable and unaccountable. (As we all know )

The military by contrast has well delineated allegiances whilst encouraging "healthy" competition and rivalries and has a pretty good idea who can be relied upon and who can't. Personnel are shuffled accordingly. In my opinion it was Thaksins meddling in this preserve is what bought on the 2006 coup.

I agree. In a democratic country however, it would be the governments job to manage (meddle) with the military. In Thailand, the jockey don't own that horse.. Thaksin may have mistaken Thailand for a democtratic country.

[Thai at Heart]

I agree. In a democratic country however, it would be the governments job to manage (meddle) with the military. In Thailand, the jockey don't own that horse.. Thaksin may have mistaken Thailand for a democtratic country.

If there is one man who can take up the role of owner/jockey so to say, it may be Abhisit. If this alone is his legacy, getting the army under control would be a massive achievement.

It is a thin veil of democracy when there is a bunch of guys with guns beyond your control arbitrarily running the country as they see fit. But they did manage to fool the world for a long time that Thailand was democratic.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Over the last few days there has been a lot of flying around Udon airport. Namely A10 "Tankbusters" and large troop aircraft.

Perhaps the Government are going to use that sledge hammer after all !

Thailand doesn't have any A-10s.

They have those OV-10 Bronco turbo-prop ground attack planes though that look a bit similar, and are used for the same sort of tasks. I'd say they're equally effective against civillian protesters in terms of intimidation or otherwise.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...haiAF_1987.JPEG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10_Bronco

Edited March 9, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[tonywebster]

Yes Tony ... Thailand really does have an elected government. Ignorance of the parliamentary form of democracy does not change that fact. It just makes one ignorant.

Surely to be elected you need to win an election, therefore Thailand does not have an elected government. I must have missed the part where the dems were elected. Or is your argument going to be that they were elected by other MPs? They were not elected by the people.

Ps, as a Brit I am well aware of parliamentary democracies, but thanks for your concern

Edited March 9, 2010 by tonywebster

[jdinasia]

Yes Tony ... Thailand really does have an elected government. Ignorance of the parliamentary form of democracy does not change that fact. It just makes one ignorant.

Surely to be elected you need to win an election, therefore Thailand does not have an elected government. I must have missed the part where the dems were elected. Or is your argument going to be that they were elected by other MPs? They were not elected by the people.

Ps, as a Brit I am well aware of parliamentary democracies, but thanks for your concern

The MP's were elected by the people. The same people that elected the previous 2 government. If the MP's don't matter to you then the Democrats got the most votes (elected by the "people"?)

Otherwise NOBODY got over 50% of the seats in parliament the last elections...

[siampolee]

As a fellow ''Brit'' I feel I should point out that in the U.K. elections are fought on political values.

In Thailand they are fought on the premise of, how big is the purse.

Thaksin has never been elected he was a party list M.P.

'' Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely''

Thaksins antics have proved that adage beyond any shred of doubt.

[LomSak27]

Excellent work in the PR department as "martial law in a particular area." could have a detrimental affect on those planning a holiday in the Magic Kingdom

[anotherpeter]

Yes Tony ... Thailand really does have an elected government. Ignorance of the parliamentary form of democracy does not change that fact. It just makes one ignorant.

Surely to be elected you need to win an election, therefore Thailand does not have an elected government. I must have missed the part where the dems were elected. Or is your argument going to be that they were elected by other MPs? They were not elected by the people.

Ps, as a Brit I am well aware of parliamentary democracies, but thanks for your concern

Tony! Please tell me what you need to win an election?

Just so you understand what really happened and how the Democrats were able to form a legitimately elected government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

[Ricardo]

I kinda hate the idea of the ISA being invoked BUT I hate the idea of Thai killing Thai even more!

Ditto.

This is not a demonstration for democracy, Thailand already has an elected government, which the Red-Shirts now want to overthrow, and there are elections due in less than a couple of years.

It isn't a fight for justice, because Thaksin can't accept justice, when he receives it he runs from it !

It's not about the rights of the poor, many of the improvements made during the TRT-governments have continued, many more have been found to be corrupt failures and rightly stopped.

It's all about one man and his money, unable to accept his loss-of-face, and that his time has passed. No Thai blood should be spilt, in his defense, let-alone to return him to power.

really?

Yes.

PS My original post seems to have mysteriously-acquired 'bold' typeface, which I had not given it ?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Ricardo

[tonywebster]

Yes Tony ... Thailand really does have an elected government. Ignorance of the parliamentary form of democracy does not change that fact. It just makes one ignorant.

Surely to be elected you need to win an election, therefore Thailand does not have an elected government. I must have missed the part where the dems were elected. Or is your argument going to be that they were elected by other MPs? They were not elected by the people.

Ps, as a Brit I am well aware of parliamentary democracies, but thanks for your concern

The MP's were elected by the people. The same people that elected the previous 2 government. If the MP's don't matter to you then the Democrats got the most votes (elected by the "people"?)

Otherwise NOBODY got over 50% of the seats in parliament the last elections...

yes they were elected by the people and the party that wins the most seats is the party that is wanted to govern, so the dems did not win the most seats, the PPP won the most seats even taking aside their coalitions, they won more seats than the dems, the people wante dthe PPP to govern, if they wanted the dems to govern then the dems would have won enough seats to govern without needing the disbandment of the government, lets be honest here, this is the only way they are going to get to govern and that is why they are trying to hang on to it. if they call an election they will be out on their ears again, they will get the yellows to start up again and all hel_l will probably break lose again as the government elected by the people is not the government wanted by the elite and ruling classes.

that said however there should be an elected government in place, and not one that the people did not want in the first place.

[jdinasia]

Tony ----

Less than 50% does NOT equal the party that was "wanted by the people". That is simple obfuscation. Every person that votes wants their party to lead. The fact that a coalition is needed means that the MAJORITY of the people are represented in the new government. The Thaksin crony parties got TWO bites at the apple before they could no longer hold a coalition together. The current government by nature of being a coalition that represents more than 50% of the MP's is OBVIUOSLY the choice of the people since the people elected the MP's to represent them in this choice. No amount of obfucating will change this fact.

[tonywebster]

Yes Tony ... Thailand really does have an elected government. Ignorance of the parliamentary form of democracy does not change that fact. It just makes one ignorant.

Surely to be elected you need to win an election, therefore Thailand does not have an elected government. I must have missed the part where the dems were elected. Or is your argument going to be that they were elected by other MPs? They were not elected by the people.

Ps, as a Brit I am well aware of parliamentary democracies, but thanks for your concern

Tony! Please tell me what you need to win an election?

Just so you understand what really happened and how the Democrats were able to form a legitimately elected government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

Thanks Peter, I already know this and I am not disputing the legitimacy of the current government under Thai law, read my posts mate and not the responses of my stalkers that alter my posts for their own benefits. my argument is that if the dems were wanted they would have won the election, they never won it therefore the people did not want them in power just as they have not wanted them for the past 3 elections.

The fairest way here in my opinion to return stability would be to call an election, if the dems win that then it is fine and dandy, if the PPP or their new incarnate win it then fine and dandy, the fact will be is that the government will be there at the will of the people and not there because one party was disbanded for electoral fraud while another party that also practised electoral fraud now sits in the government seat.

You seem like an intelligent and non argumentative guy from your posts (compared to the others) so hopefully you will understand my point (if not respect it or have the same view) and try and twist it for your own means.

over the past few weeks I have been accused of advocating civil war, I have been called thaksinite, a red shirt, a liar etc, all petty really because I have a different view, a more balanced view,

[tonywebster]

Tony ----

Less than 50% does NOT equal the party that was "wanted by the people". That is simple obfuscation. Every person that votes wants their party to lead. The fact that a coalition is needed means that the MAJORITY of the people are represented in the new government. The Thaksin crony parties got TWO bites at the apple before they could no longer hold a coalition together. The current government by nature of being a coalition that represents more than 50% of the MP's is OBVIUOSLY the choice of the people since the people elected the MP's to represent them in this choice. No amount of obfucating will change this fact.

JD, they won the last election, they won the most seats, more than the dems and then formed a coalition. Using your argument above that less than 50% does not equal the party that is wanted by the people then I am happy that you finally agree that the dems are not wanted by the people.

[daboyz1]

It is needed. Well done.

Stop talking rubbish, this is thailand and the thai,s have a right to demonstrate how they chose fit,this is one sure way of over reaction, when will us farang just keep our mouths shut and mind our own business,

No reasonable government in the world would sit back and allow free rein to a violent terrorist movement massing in their capital. If you actually believe the red shirts are a peaceful movement, I would agree with you. However, I think the proof is overwhelming that they are a violent movement willing to do anything to achieve their goals. That is simply not acceptable.

Certainly given what happened last year the penchant for violence by at least some factions would make this decision prudent at the least. I would hope the government would not sit back and allow the blockading of roads, attacks on residents of Bangkok, and attempts at exploding trucks full of gasoline in residential areas, not to mention the threats made by prominent members of the red shirt movement and actual terrorist acts involving explosives in Bangkok.

Exactly. All Thailand needs is more videos of bus bombs going out of control. If they see fit to start fires and blow up gas trucks, is that cool with you Trebelone? You must live in that area?

[anotherpeter]

yes they were elected by the people and the party that wins the most seats is the party that is wanted to govern, so the dems did not win the most seats, the PPP won the most seats even taking aside their coalitions, they won more seats than the dems, the people wante dthe PPP to govern, if they wanted the dems to govern then the dems would have won enough seats to govern without needing the disbandment of the government, lets be honest here, this is the only way they are going to get to govern and that is why they are trying to hang on to it. if they call an election they will be out on their ears again, they will get the yellows to start up again and all hel_l will probably break lose again as the government elected by the people is not the government wanted by the elite and ruling classes.

that said however there should be an elected government in place, and not one that the people did not want in the first place.

In a democracy it is possible for a party with the most votes still not to be able to form a government. The fact that they didn't get more than 50% of the votes just shows that a majority of the people didn't want them.

They then need to form a coalition with minor parties to form government.

If all the smaller parties decide that they actually want to form government with the party that got the second largest number of votes, then that makes it a legitimately formed government.

[animatic]

Yes Tony ... Thailand really does have an elected government. Ignorance of the parliamentary form of democracy does not change that fact. It just makes one ignorant.

Surely to be elected you need to win an election, therefore Thailand does not have an elected government. I must have missed the part where the dems were elected. Or is your argument going to be that they were elected by other MPs? They were not elected by the people.

Ps, as a Brit I am well aware of parliamentary democracies, but thanks for your concern

The MP's were elected by the people. The same people that elected the previous 2 government. If the MP's don't matter to you then the Democrats got the most votes (elected by the "people"?)

Otherwise NOBODY got over 50% of the seats in parliament the last elections...

There is not one MP who has not won and election.

There is not one Prime Minister who has not won his election as and MP,

and ALSO not one his election by the Ministers of Parliament as PM.

THATS is why Abhisit is the elected PM. There need never be a new election of MPs

to validate a change of PM, the MP's job is to do that not the average voters

The average voter HAS already done his job until the next mandated election comes around.

That is 2011.

Oh and by the way

many of the PPP partners MPs who had voted for Abhisit in the last PM election,

had won their MP seats by vowing NEVER to join PPP and vote for Samak as PM,

and then changed their votes. So THEIR constituents did NOT get what they voted for in PPP.

But when those same elected MPs return to their election promise positions,

the PTP Thaksin lovers cry foul. Such crocodile tears can flat a red ship in the sunset.

But can't be allowed to bring down a proper and legally elected government via street actions.

AND ALSO

Get 50%+ and you can form the government, fail to do so and then must call for new elections.

Fail to get 50% but win the LARGEST MINORITY you get FIRST chance to form a government, maybe two chances.

Fail to form a government coalition in a reasonable period of time and the SECOND LARGEST MINORITY vote

getter then gets a chance to form a government. But the bigger minority must fail first.

That is the current situation.

But a third option is what has happened in Israel, where neither of the larger two parties could do it,

but the 3rd largest announced a deal with several smaller parties and put together a government coalition.

It didn't last long, but was legitimate.

After the MPs are elected it is up to them to 'somehow' form a government, it is not up to the people to

intervien again unless NO ONE CAN DO IT.

What has been repeated many times about bringing in the ISA is two fold.

1 ) the existing laws without and signed ISA are not enough to hold a rally gone wrong in check.

Even if these laws are too strong, they are still a better choice if not used to their extremes,

because as of the moment there IS no other workable choice.

2 ) If things do go wrong, convening a cabinet meeting with quorum to official sign in these

emergency laws could be prevented or not reach a quorum leaving the country utterly unprotected from riots

or worse.

IF the country had some laws in place for the in between situation, then this would not be invoked as often,

but as of the moment that is not the case.

Edited March 9, 2010 by animatic

[anotherpeter]

my argument is that if the dems were wanted they would have won the election, they never won it therefore the people did not want them in power just as they have not wanted them for the past 3 elections.

I don't agree with this. No party got a majority of the vote. Therefore the majority of the people did not want any particular party. Then it came down forming a coalition with minor parties. Considering a few of the smaller parties that formed a coalition with the PPP, said that they wouldn't do that during their campaigning, there would have been a number of people who voted for them that *didn't* want the PPP.

The fairest way here in my opinion to return stability would be to call an election, if the dems win that then it is fine and dandy, if the PPP or their new incarnate win it then fine and dandy, the fact will be is that the government will be there at the will of the people and not there because one party was disbanded for electoral fraud while another party that also practised electoral fraud now sits in the government seat.

An election now would not return the country to stability. Until Thaksin is out of the way and not involved in Thai politics, then the country will not move forward.

You seem like a ... non argumentative guy from your posts ...

wrong again ... I love arguing (or discussing).

But there are too many broad statements with out any substance. Give some reasoning for your opinions (not you, everyone). Have a constructive argument. There is no point coming back with a response of "That's just crap" without explaining why.

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

Endless discussion about that, animatic... people like Tony simply refuse to see the fact that PPP probably would not have gotten 10% if they hadn't paid 200 Baht for every vote they got. Which is the exact reason why that party was disbanded, and the only reason The Yellows staged The Airport Blockade was to speed up the disbanding process/court ruling as PPP was in the process of amending the constitution so their own vote-buying would have become quasi legal.

It's easy to be a criminal if you can change the laws to sanction your crimes. PPP/Thaksin just didn't expect The Yellows to be able to come out in such force WITHOUT destroying the whole country in the process.

The downside is - as The Yellows were successful with their strategy and their LEGITIMATE cause, now The Reds think they can use that same strategy for their ILLEGITIMATE cause. I would not wonder if Suvarnabhumi would be seized by them, too...... The only actual solution to this problem would be removing the snake's head. If Thaksin was no longer able to do his "phone ins" and his money transfers then the red movement would fizzle out very quickly except for maybe a few hundred who are genuine believers in their own version of "democracy".

Any red shirt reading? Face it - YOUR vision of "government" is NOT democracy, it is commonly known as "dictatorship", something the very name "UDD" stands against. Even if that one man has help from his immediate family and a few ex classmates in key positions. Just take a history lesson and check out what happened 70 years ago in the middle of Europe, and don't let history repeat itself.

Best regards.....

Thanh

[tonywebster]

I kinda hate the idea of the ISA being invoked BUT I hate the idea of Thai killing Thai even more!

Ditto.

This is not a demonstration for democracy, Thailand already has an elected government, which the Red-Shirts now want to overthrow, and there are elections due in less than a couple of years.

It isn't a fight for justice, because Thaksin can't accept justice, when he receives it he runs from it !

It's not about the rights of the poor, many of the improvements made during the TRT-governments have continued, many more have been found to be corrupt failures and rightly stopped.

It's all about one man and his money, unable to accept his loss-of-face, and that his time has passed. No Thai blood should be spilt, in his defense, let-alone to return him to power.

really?

Yes.

PS My original post seems to have mysteriously-acquired 'bold' typeface, which I had not given it ?

I highlighted it and did not change the text, I highlighted it to highlight which part of your post I was referring to, I don't like to edit posts down as this can lead to abuse and not allow others to see the post in its full context. Is this against forum rules?

Oh, and No

[tonywebster]

Hi.

Endless discussion about that, animatic... people like Tony simply refuse to see the fact that PPP probably would not have gotten 10% if they hadn't paid 200 Baht for every vote they got. Which is the exact reason why that party was disbanded, and the only reason The Yellows™ staged The Airport Blockade™ was to speed up the disbanding process/court ruling as PPP was in the process of amending the constitution so their own vote-buying would have become quasi legal.

It's easy to be a criminal if you can change the laws to sanction your crimes. PPP/Thaksin just didn't expect The Yellows™ to be able to come out in such force WITHOUT destroying the whole country in the process.

The downside is - as The Yellows™ were successful with their strategy and their LEGITIMATE cause, now The Reds™ think they can use that same strategy for their ILLEGITIMATE cause. I would not wonder if Suvarnabhumi would be seized by them, too...... The only actual solution to this problem would be removing the snake's head. If Thaksin was no longer able to do his "phone ins" and his money transfers then the red movement would fizzle out very quickly except for maybe a few hundred who are genuine believers in their own version of "democracy".

Any red shirt reading? Face it - YOUR vision of "government" is NOT democracy, it is commonly known as "dictatorship", something the very name "UDD" stands against. Even if that one man has help from his immediate family and a few ex classmates in key positions. Just take a history lesson and check out what happened 70 years ago in the middle of Europe, and don't let history repeat itself.

Best regards.....

Thanh

Thanh,

Do you have any proof that they would not have got 10% and do you have proof that they paid 200 Baht for EVERY vote.

I stopped reading your post at this point, the first line is full of hyperbole so I would imagine the rest of your post is the same.

[jdinasia]

Tony ----

Less than 50% does NOT equal the party that was "wanted by the people". That is simple obfuscation. Every person that votes wants their party to lead. The fact that a coalition is needed means that the MAJORITY of the people are represented in the new government. The Thaksin crony parties got TWO bites at the apple before they could no longer hold a coalition together. The current government by nature of being a coalition that represents more than 50% of the MP's is OBVIUOSLY the choice of the people since the people elected the MP's to represent them in this choice. No amount of obfucating will change this fact.

JD, they won the last election, they won the most seats, more than the dems and then formed a coalition. Using your argument above that less than 50% does not equal the party that is wanted by the people then I am happy that you finally agree that the dems are not wanted by the people.

Ummmm ---- right ... The Dems alone are not wanted by the majority and neither are the Thaksin cronies. The MAJORITY of Thais did not choose ANY single party to govern. To try and prove anything from that is obfuscation yet again. The purpose of a coalition government is to thus represent the majority. ANY grouping that gets over 50% of the seats represents the majority.

[anotherpeter]

There is not one Prime Minister who has not won his election as and MP,

Actually, that might not be entirely true.

480 in parliment. 400 elected directly as MPs. 80 elected by proportional voting from party lists.

The party lists work in a way that allows *the party* to elect a percentage of the 80 ministers (or what ever you call them) in proportion to the number of proportional votes they get.

That would allow the Prime Minister to not actually be a directly elected MP.

[tonywebster]

Tony ----

Less than 50% does NOT equal the party that was "wanted by the people". That is simple obfuscation. Every person that votes wants their party to lead. The fact that a coalition is needed means that the MAJORITY of the people are represented in the new government. The Thaksin crony parties got TWO bites at the apple before they could no longer hold a coalition together. The current government by nature of being a coalition that represents more than 50% of the MP's is OBVIUOSLY the choice of the people since the people elected the MP's to represent them in this choice. No amount of obfucating will change this fact.

JD, they won the last election, they won the most seats, more than the dems and then formed a coalition. Using your argument above that less than 50% does not equal the party that is wanted by the people then I am happy that you finally agree that the dems are not wanted by the people.

Ummmm ---- right ... The Dems alone are not wanted by the majority and neither are the Thaksin cronies. The MAJORITY of Thais did not choose ANY single party to govern. To try and prove anything from that is obfuscation yet again. The purpose of a coalition government is to thus represent the majority. ANY grouping that gets over 50% of the seats represents the majority.

This is true, so you once again prove me right when I say the dems were not wanted to govern the country. They are not in power because of the will of the people. The smaller parties choice to enter a coalition with the PPP as they held the most seats and were therefore the peoples choice to govern Thailand. Surely the people that voted for the smaller parties did so with the understanding there was a likelihood that they would join with the PPP. They had the chance to join with the dems but didn't.

The fact that even after the disbandment the dems had to BUY the smaller parties to join a coalition speaks volumes in my opinion. One good thing that has come of this though is that the people can see how inept the dems actually are in power, the next election will tell us all we need to know, I am sure you agree with this. Where we seem to disagree is that I think that election should come sooner rather than later.

[asiawatcher]

"10. Order the "training at a special location" of suspects, in lieu of pressing charges against them, for up to six months (Article 31) – such training apparently requires the "consent" of the suspect, but with the threat of criminal procedures as alternative, the voluntariness of consent to such "training" is doubtful. In the absence of freely given consent, such training is therefore likely to amount to arbitrary detention.

Unless otherwise stated, none of the above provisions requires court authorisation for the powers to be exercised."

this is an imprisonment without a charge and without the court - just an administrative decision. No much less than "prisoner of war"

Correct - and war it is...

[tonywebster]

There is not one Prime Minister who has not won his election as and MP,

Actually, that might not be entirely true.

480 in parliment. 400 elected directly as MPs. 80 elected by proportional voting from party lists.

The party lists work in a way that allows *the party* to elect a percentage of the 80 ministers (or what ever you call them) in proportion to the number of proportional votes they get.

That would allow the Prime Minister to not actually be a directly elected MP.

Yes, Peter is correct. even cabinet members here do not need to be elected MPs

[cdnvic]

I highlighted it and did not change the text, I highlighted it to highlight which part of your post I was referring to, I don't like to edit posts down as this can lead to abuse and not allow others to see the post in its full context. Is this against forum rules?

Yes.

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[tonywebster]

I highlighted it and did not change the text, I highlighted it to highlight which part of your post I was referring to, I don't like to edit posts down as this can lead to abuse and not allow others to see the post in its full context. Is this against forum rules?

Yes.

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

apologies, like I said I find this preferable to editing the post down to just show that comment, as that can lead to abuse and editing to change the context of a post. This way the content and the context of the post has not been altered.

[Thanh-BKK]

Thanh,

Do you have any proof that they would not have got 10% and do you have proof that they paid 200 Baht for EVERY vote.

I stopped reading your post at this point, the first line is full of hyperbole so I would imagine the rest of your post is the same.

Hi.

No, Tony, i don't have proof. No receipts were given or demanded. There sadly is no proof for pretty much any of the actions that either red or yellow have done or are accused of having done.

However i was one of many who observed the vote-buying with my own eyes..... and i also heard the speaker announcements twice daily over the village PA system that drummed the message into everyone that happened not to be around when the boys with the money came knocking - "vote PPP the coming weekend or we will face consequences", to that context...... and vote PPP they did.

One person who took the money (boyfriend's uncle) commented on it, and i can't even blame him.... "i don't care who runs the country, nothing will change for me anyway. They have paid me so it would be wrong not to vote for them". Right he was... he was a poor farmer before Thaksin, he was a poor farmer under Thaksin, he was a poor farmer under the military and, guess what - he is still a poor farmer, now, under the Democrats.

I guess you have stopped reading after the first line anyway, thinking i agreed with you - no, Tony, i didn't agree with you. You should read some more to get the bigger picture, really.

Best regards.....

Thanh