Thailand to impose security law for Thaksin protests

[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.

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.

Tony --- the master of obfuscation yet again. The PPP were not "wanted to govern the country" either. If you count MP seats then more people wanted them than wanted the Democrats. If you count votes more people wanted the Democrats than them. Only seats count in this system, not votes. The fact that ANY coalition that gathers more than 50% is entitled to establish the government is again the ONLY thing that matters.

"Surely the people that voted for the smaller parties..." is 100% erroneous. The smaller parties had PROMISED their constituencies they woule NOT form a government with PPP. They lied. Why? $$$$ What is the consequence of their actions? There probably are not any consequences as they represent not the people but the political machine that operates in their area of the country. Thaksin's success lay solely in his ability to buy the loyalty of the heads of those existing political machines and when it became obvious that he had lost his ability to control the outcome of events he lost those partners. (Newin etc)

Yes there was a rumor of payment to the somebody for the smaller parties to join the coalition that currently governs. It might even be true. The Dems have so far done a fairly decent job and given the time the constitution allows them to rule certainly have a better chance of solving some of the major issues here than anyone else. Abhisit and Korn together certainly present a better face to the world AND to Thailand than any other folks in recent history. (I'd love to see Suthep gone though!).

Those of us that actually want a REAL democracy in Thailand would like to see those political machines ripped apart and for there to be real education about Democracy in Thailand for everyone. That includes getting rid of the 1 man 4 vote system etc........

[tonywebster]

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

No I actually read this one, pointless as it was.

When you have proof of these things the it will be ok to write them, but writing pure speculation like you did that the PPP would have got less than 10% of the votes and then say EVERY vote they got was bought for 200 Baht then quite rightly I can not take any of your post seriously. It must be an amazing village you live in to be able to judge the whole of Thailand on this one little place. I live in a village in Bangkok, nobody offered my wife any money to vote for either side, in fact nobody seemed to enter the village. She voted PPP as that is her right and she voted for them on her own principles. She is not a fool or a poor person, she has a good career as do the rest of her family members (some professional, some not) and I am sure they also made their own choices with no payment received.

I don't dispute that some votes were bought, I do however dispute that EVERY vote was bought, in fact I think to even suggest that is an insult to those people that voted for the PPP because they thought that was the right thing to do, and still do believe this. next elections she will vote the same way, not because of Thaksin, but because in her educated mind she believes in the ideologies of the PPP and not the dems. Pure and simple.

Just a side note, did the dems not offer money in your village, some of their MPs were kicked out for this, can I assume from this that EVERY dem vote was bought for 250 Baht? Or should I be intelligent and see this allegation for the garbage it is?

Edited March 9, 2010 by tonywebster

[cdnvic]

Lets chill out a bit and can the nasty comments. It is possible to disagree with someone and still treat them with respect.

[tonywebster]

jd, thanks for constantly crediting me with the intelligence to obfuscate so fantastically. No wait a minute, here is an idea, just maybe there are no hidden meanings in my posts. I am on an internet forum and have no need to hide my true feelings, that is why I write down my true feelings.

If you want to continue giving yourself a hernia trying to find hidden meanings in my posts feel free, but no point trying to convince others, I am sure they can form their own opinions. How about just answering what is written rather tha what you wish was written, i seem to ask you to do this every day with no success, and you wonder why I once questioned your intelligence.

Stop with the nonsense in the first line of each post accusing me of obfuscation and I might read the rest of your post. Cheers

[Thai at Heart]

No I actually read this one, pointless as it was.

When you have proof of these things the it will be ok to write them, but writing pure speculation like you did that the PPP would have got less than 10% of the votes and then say EVERY vote the got was bought for 200 Baht then quite rightly I can not take any of your vote seriously. It must be an amazing village you live in to be able to judge the whole of Thailand on this one little place. I live in a village in Bangkok, nobody offered my wife any money to vote for either side, in fact nobody seemed to enter the village. She voted PPP as that is her right and she voted for them on her own principles. She is not a fool or a poor person, she has a good career as do the rest of her family members (some professional, some not) and I am sure they also made their own choices with no payment received.

I don't dispute that some votes were bought, I do however dispute that EVERY vote was bought, in fact I think to even suggest that is an insult to those people that voted for the PPP because they thought that was the right thing to do, and still do believe this. next elections she will vote the same way, not because of Thaksin, but because in her educated mind she believes in the ideologies of the PPP and not the dems. Pure and simple.

Just a side note, did the dems not offer money in your village, some of their MPs were kicked out for this, can I assume from this that EVERY dem vote was bought for 250 Baht? Or should I be intelligent and see this allegation for the garbage it is?

Indeed, to believe that every vote was paid for, beside being rather delusional, helps to dismiss the idea that there was any possible reason why the rural poor did as a general rule vote to TRT/PPP (or whatever other initials Thaksin's parties went under).

We all know that his manifesto (first ever in Thai political history) was very much aimed at rural issues and apparent poverty reduction. We have debated the rights and wrongs and successes and failures of his OTOP, Imn Baht and 30 baht health schemes, but to believe that the only reason that all these rural people voted for him was 200 baht, when he was also offering them all these added policies aimed specifically at them is delusional and underestimates the effect that Thaksin had on the political landscape of Thailand.

Not everyone who lives north of Bangkok is brain dead.

[animatic]

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 I loath the party list system. Organized corruption of the highest water IMHO.

If a party leader can't win his constituent election himself,

he doesn't deserve to then be voted PM.

But they are still elected as 'party list MPs'. and so ARE elected as MPs.

And no,

Cabinet Members are not required to be elected MPs.

Which is the same in USA for example.

But the must be nominated by the elected head of state

and then vetted by a Senate committee and then passed by the full senate.

None of this makes TW's points any more valuble in the big picture.

Old school socialist, with little regard to how history has discredited the

hardercore versions of that monetary/social juxtaposition.

I am not in any way anti-social safety net or services,

but the basic concept of wealth re-distribution has ruined more

economies in the long term than the few it has helped in the short term.

Proven poor track record, but some can't let Marxism die a quiet death.

Edited March 9, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

This argument's not hardly about obfuscating your true feelings,

but about obfuscating, actual truths because of those feelings.

Different kettle of squid for sure.

If you leave out, or ignore, true and pertinent facts to make your arguments,

it IS obfuscation and does NOT WIN, nor ever has, WON YOU THE ARGUMENT.

This is a clear pattern and try as you might to refute it, the posted past proves this so.

Edited March 9, 2010 by animatic

[tonywebster]

This argument's not hardly about obfuscating your true feelings,

but about obfuscating, actual truths because of those feelings.

Different kettle of squid for sure.

If you leave out, or ignore, true and pertinent facts to make your arguments,

it IS obfuscation and does NOT WIN, nor ever has, WON YOU THE ARGUMENT.

This is a clear pattern and try as you might to refute it, the posted past proves this so.

I refer you to pot/kettle/black/JD

[cdnvic]

Take your silly handbag fight to PM. It won't be tolerated within the thread anymore.

[Samuian]

No I actually read this one, pointless as it was.

When you have proof of these things the it will be ok to write them, but writing pure speculation like you did that the PPP would have got less than 10% of the votes and then say EVERY vote the got was bought for 200 Baht then quite rightly I can not take any of your vote seriously. It must be an amazing village you live in to be able to judge the whole of Thailand on this one little place. I live in a village in Bangkok, nobody offered my wife any money to vote for either side, in fact nobody seemed to enter the village. She voted PPP as that is her right and she voted for them on her own principles. She is not a fool or a poor person, she has a good career as do the rest of her family members (some professional, some not) and I am sure they also made their own choices with no payment received.

I don't dispute that some votes were bought, I do however dispute that EVERY vote was bought, in fact I think to even suggest that is an insult to those people that voted for the PPP because they thought that was the right thing to do, and still do believe this. next elections she will vote the same way, not because of Thaksin, but because in her educated mind she believes in the ideologies of the PPP and not the dems. Pure and simple.

Just a side note, did the dems not offer money in your village, some of their MPs were kicked out for this, can I assume from this that EVERY dem vote was bought for 250 Baht? Or should I be intelligent and see this allegation for the garbage it is?

Indeed, to believe that every vote was paid for, beside being rather delusional, helps to dismiss the idea that there was any possible reason why the rural poor did as a general rule vote to TRT/PPP (or whatever other initials Thaksin's parties went under).

We all know that his manifesto (first ever in Thai political history) was very much aimed at rural issues and apparent poverty reduction. We have debated the rights and wrongs and successes and failures of his OTOP, Imn Baht and 30 baht health schemes, but to believe that the only reason that all these rural people voted for him was 200 baht, when he was also offering them all these added policies aimed specifically at them is delusional and underestimates the effect that Thaksin had on the political landscape of Thailand.

Not everyone who lives north of Bangkok is brain dead.

Who said this?

No, not "brain dead" sir, but it's a well known habit of many people roaming the planet that if they are pampered,

with a little money, and truck loads of promises of prosperity - especially vulnerable are those who have none or close to nothing, they tend to sign and give anod to

almost anything!

October revolution, Germany in 1933/45, north Korea, Cuba, PRC, Zimbabwe, Marcos, Suharto Clan, Chavez, Berlusconi, well there are many, many fine examples of highly questionable "peoples leaders" - to judge right or wrong, the defense of being "democratically elected leadership" isn't simply enough for a random vindication of massive corruption in office and fortification of power whilst buying, bribing and supporting cronyism to levels never seen before, creating a stage a political environment where nobody can topple, question nor censure the established powerbase of a government by democratic-parlamentary means!

This fact does disappear in many discussion about Thaksins and his cronies demise to be use in favor of the defendant and this is simply wrong!

Cause the whole, the entire picture only tells the whole story, not a few handpicked blunt excuses which in turn are used to defend high crimes!

Not to mention rampant abuse of power, bullying of media, of critics, this isn't democratic either, but the very same people who insist that they have been "democratically elected, empowered by the poeple", have been using these very "undemocratically means to consolidate their power!

If then all Institutions, from the Police force to the Judiciary, all the way into Parliament is infiltrated by cronies and corrupted individuals, to topple and untie such "ruthless rule and abuse of power" does then need what?

The Army!

Mind that the PAD wasn't just a "bunch of radicals who have been rioting for ONE SINGLE Individuals means!"

Never lit any vehicles, didn't attack the PM car, didn't attack the FM, didn't shoot people.... didn't threaten to explode Gastanktrucks in the middle of Bangkok!

Didn't run Websites which carry the Names of 53 Politicians and other public personalities mentioning that they have been "marked on the forehead"

Didn't call for armed uprising!

Now I would like to know how could this be coined: "genuine democratic"...?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Samuian

[Thai at Heart]

Who said this?

No, not "brain dead" sir, but it's a well known habit of many people roaming the planet that if they are pampered,

with a little money, and truck loads of promises of prosperity - especially vulnerable are those who have none or close to nothing, they tend to sign and give anod to

almost anything!

October revolution, Germany in 1933/45, north Korea, Cuba, PRC, Zimbabwe, Marcos, Suharto Clan, Chavez, Berlusconi, well there are many, many fine examples of highly questionable "peoples leaders" - to judge right or wrong, the defense of being "democratically elected leadership" isn't simply enough for a random vindication of massive corruption in office and fortification of power whilst buying, bribing and supporting cronyism to levels never seen before, creating a stage a political environment where nobody can topple, question nor censure the established powerbase of a government by democratic-parlamentary means!

This fact does disappear in many discussion about Thaksins and his cronies demise to be use in favor of the defendant and this is simply wrong!

Cause the whole, the entire picture only tells the whole story, not a few handpicked blunt excuses which in turn are used to defend high crimes!

Not to mention rampant abuse of power, bullying of media, of critics, this isn't democratic either, but the very same people who insist that they have been "democratically elected, empowered by the poeple", have been using these very "undemocratically means to consolidate their power!

If then all Institutions, from the Police force to the Judiciary, all the way into Parliament is infiltrated by cronies and corrupted individuals, to topple and untie such "ruthless rule and abuse of power" does then need what?

The Army!

Mind that the PAD wasn't just a "bunch of radicals who have been rioting for ONE SINGLE Individuals means!"

Never lit any vehicles, didn't attack the PM car, didn't attack the FM, didn't shoot people.... didn't threaten to explode Gastanktrucks in the middle of Bangkok!

Didn't run Websites which carry the Names of 53 Politicians and other public personalities mentioning that they have been "marked on the forehead"

Didn't call for armed uprising!

Now I would like to know how could this be coined: "genuine democratic"...?

In no way have I ever that Thaksin wasn't corrupt or that the Reds are a peaceful bunch (but then neither were the yellows in my opinion). I don't believe the red struggle to be particularly democratic either.

However, what I do believe is that Thaksin appealed to the poor (with more than 200 baht) and they liked it and it would be to the general good of politics in Thailand if the politicians realised this (which Abhisit appears to have done) and in my opinion woe betide any future government that doesn't address the needs of the poor as a major priority in their manifestos.

If this protest triggers events that lead to an election, all well and good I say. Not because mob rule is a good thing, but I would prefer it triggers an election than a coup. The election will come one day anyway, all that would mean is moving it forward. It wouldn't be a perfect political outcome for Abhisit, but if it goes someway to calming the whole situation down, all well and good i say.

Of the three possible outcomes

a. Dems and BhumjaiThai continue as status quo

b. Election are held

c. Coup

I take B as the best outcome for the country. A. doesn't handle the fact that a lot of people appear to think their vote has been hoodwinked (It doesn't matter what we sit around and say on here, if people feel aggrieved they feel aggrieved). C. Is the worst outcome of all.

I am not saying that the reds are good, Thaksin is a saint, he should be forgiven. Thailand is slipping close to the edge where a coup could occur. If for no other reason than to stop a coup, Abhisit should call an election and dare the army to take over.

Yes some people are sheeple, that happens the world over. However, having seen the lot of Thai farmers up close and personal for donkeys years, I can tend to agree that it wouldn't be too hard to win their votes without giving them 200 baht also. Just giving them hope is enough.

[Ricardo]

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.

Apology Accepted.

A few years back, it used to be easier to put your own comments in response, on several different points in a long post, by using a different colour for example. But the rules were tightened-up.

[lovelomsak]

Abhisit is being proactive. That is smart. The rule of the mad mob has got to stop. Why not now?

If I understand you correctly you donot care how he got to be prime misister just that he stops democracy from coming to thailand as the masses wish.

Let me ask you a question. If I went to your country got a bunch of rich powerful people together . We throw out your government through seizing parliaments and airports. We refuse to accept the poeple who replace the ones we threw out. We set up our own leaders and run the government. Now if you wish to use your democratic rights we simply bring in marshal law to suppress you.Would then say good on me I am doing the right thing.

[anotherpeter]

Abhisit is being proactive. That is smart. The rule of the mad mob has got to stop. Why not now?

If I understand you correctly you donot care how he got to be prime misister just that he stops democracy from coming to thailand as the masses wish.

Let me ask you a question. If I went to your country got a bunch of rich powerful people together . We throw out your government through seizing parliaments and airports. We refuse to accept the poeple who replace the ones we threw out. We set up our own leaders and run the government. Now if you wish to use your democratic rights we simply bring in marshal law to suppress you.Would then say good on me I am doing the right thing.

I am trying to find out why people think the current government is not legitimate. I have tried this in other threads after someone says that the government is not legitimate, but no one can explain why they aren't.

From what I understand, here is the time line:

- Thaksin was the *Caretaker* PM because he couldn't form a government. He was removed from power by a coup (which is NOT democratic) partly because he was trying to change the laws so he could become (full) PM without having new elections.

- After the coup there was another election.

- The PPP got the most votes (or MPs) but not a majority. They had to form a coalition with smaller parties (some of which had campaigned saying that they would not form coalition with the PPP, but did anyway - some people suggest payment, but I don't know).

- The PPP got disbanded because the executives were convicted by the *courts* of election fraud in relation to buying votes. This was at the same time the the "yellow shirts" blockaded the airports. The "yellow shirts" did not bring down the PPP government.

- The Democrats then formed a coalition with the smaller parties to form government.

- There are some outstanding court cases in relation to *some* elected Democrat MPs, but not the executives or the party as a whole.

- There are scheduled to be elections towards the end of 2011.

(see my signature)

[holidaze]

I'm guessing that this will mostly affect Bangkok and those of us outside Bangkok will just see a few extra road blocks.

I can only imagine that the police themselves won't be too keen to implement this in pro-Taksin areas such as Chiang Mai and Issan.

I wonder if this will prompt foreign countries to again recommend their citizens to avoid Thailand

My husband and I have been looking forward to our Phuket/ Bangkok holiday but now with all of the goings on, I'm not too sure we will keep to the Bangkok leg of our holiday.

What the hel_l??? Can't you all just go along to get along?

[frodo]

Cabinet approves ISA enforcement for red-shirt rally

The Cabinet on Tuesday approved the enforcement of the internal security law on March 11-to-23 in the face of the red-shirt rally.

Bangkok and Nonthaburi will be placed under the ISA.

The other six provinces are under partial enforcement covering gateways to the capital. The six are Samut Prakan, Chachoensao, Ayutthaya, Pathum Thani, Nakhon Pathom and Samut Sakhon.

The Cabinet also gave the green light to the enforcement of several special laws in conjunction with the ISA. The added legal measures, such as disaster relief, civil defence and emergency medical services, are designed to deal with any emergency situation that may arise.

Oh dear! My neck of the woods is under partial ISA. Much like last time, life will go on as normal...no rights taken away, people free to go wherever; unless, they opt for Bangkok where the UDD will attempt to forbid non-participants of their "rally" from moving without a feeling of being threatened, travel out of the city, or being "held hostage" as Jatuporn et al., eloquently put it last week.. Sitting here thinking, which is actually worse?

The Nation

[alimike]

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.

Yesterday at about 8am there were 2 A10,s flying over Ban Luam. Followed by 3 Large troop carriers.

I did,nt say Thailand had A10,s I merely mentioned that they were in flight.

[tonywebster]

Peter I am not sure if people are saying they are illegitimate, I am certainly not saying that. under Thai law they in power. What people are saying is that they are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate by the people, they were put into power by buying coalitions. I have mentioned the buying part a few times and even the most ardent dem supporters have not questioned this.

In my mind a democratic government should be voted into power by the public, not placed into power by the courts or after buying coalition partners. In this respect I can sympathise with the reds, they voted, their party formed coalitions and got into power, just as they had in the previous two elections. Now we have in power a government that could not win the last three elections yet they have power.

All I am advocating is to have an election, if the dems win that then they deserve to be in power as it is what the public want, if they lose then the public have spoken again. When the previous government was disbanded an election would have been the best way forward, put a caretaker in place and then put it to the country again, until there is an election and an elected government I can't see how this can be healed.

[lovelomsak]

Abhisit is being proactive. That is smart. The rule of the mad mob has got to stop. Why not now?

If I understand you correctly you donot care how he got to be prime misister just that he stops democracy from coming to thailand as the masses wish.

Let me ask you a question. If I went to your country got a bunch of rich powerful people together . We throw out your government through seizing parliaments and airports. We refuse to accept the poeple who replace the ones we threw out. We set up our own leaders and run the government. Now if you wish to use your democratic rights we simply bring in marshal law to suppress you.Would then say good on me I am doing the right thing.

I am trying to find out why people think the current government is not legitimate. I have tried this in other threads after someone says that the government is not legitimate, but no one can explain why they aren't.

From what I understand, here is the time line:

- Thaksin was the *Caretaker* PM because he couldn't form a government. He was removed from power by a coup (which is NOT democratic) partly because he was trying to change the laws so he could become (full) PM without having new elections.

- After the coup there was another election.

- The PPP got the most votes (or MPs) but not a majority. They had to form a coalition with smaller parties (some of which had campaigned saying that they would not form coalition with the PPP, but did anyway - some people suggest payment, but I don't know).

- The PPP got disbanded because the executives were convicted by the *courts* of election fraud in relation to buying votes. This was at the same time the the "yellow shirts" blockaded the airports. The "yellow shirts" did not bring down the PPP government.

- The Democrats then formed a coalition with the smaller parties to form government.

- There are some outstanding court cases in relation to *some* elected Democrat MPs, but not the executives or the party as a whole.

- There are scheduled to be elections towards the end of 2011.

(see my signature)

another peter you sound like a politician yourself . Words cannot change the truth . Say what you wish wash it anyway you like I call a spade a spade .

[anotherpeter]

Peter I am not sure if people are saying they are illegitimate, I am certainly not saying that. under Thai law they in power. What people are saying is that they are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate by the people, they were put into power by buying coalitions. I have mentioned the buying part a few times and even the most ardent dem supporters have not questioned this.

In my mind a democratic government should be voted into power by the public, not placed into power by the courts or after buying coalition partners. In this respect I can sympathise with the reds, they voted, their party formed coalitions and got into power, just as they had in the previous two elections. Now we have in power a government that could not win the last three elections yet they have power.

All I am advocating is to have an election, if the dems win that then they deserve to be in power as it is what the public want, if they lose then the public have spoken again. When the previous government was disbanded an election would have been the best way forward, put a caretaker in place and then put it to the country again, until there is an election and an elected government I can't see how this can be healed.

But wasn't the PPP government a coalition too? The PPP formed a coalition with smaller parties that, during election campaigning, stated that they wouldn't form a coalition with the PPP. But they changed their minds ... any money involved in that??

[anotherpeter]

Abhisit is being proactive. That is smart. The rule of the mad mob has got to stop. Why not now?

If I understand you correctly you donot care how he got to be prime misister just that he stops democracy from coming to thailand as the masses wish.

Let me ask you a question. If I went to your country got a bunch of rich powerful people together . We throw out your government through seizing parliaments and airports. We refuse to accept the poeple who replace the ones we threw out. We set up our own leaders and run the government. Now if you wish to use your democratic rights we simply bring in marshal law to suppress you.Would then say good on me I am doing the right thing.

I am trying to find out why people think the current government is not legitimate. I have tried this in other threads after someone says that the government is not legitimate, but no one can explain why they aren't.

From what I understand, here is the time line:

- Thaksin was the *Caretaker* PM because he couldn't form a government. He was removed from power by a coup (which is NOT democratic) partly because he was trying to change the laws so he could become (full) PM without having new elections.

- After the coup there was another election.

- The PPP got the most votes (or MPs) but not a majority. They had to form a coalition with smaller parties (some of which had campaigned saying that they would not form coalition with the PPP, but did anyway - some people suggest payment, but I don't know).

- The PPP got disbanded because the executives were convicted by the *courts* of election fraud in relation to buying votes. This was at the same time the the "yellow shirts" blockaded the airports. The "yellow shirts" did not bring down the PPP government.

- The Democrats then formed a coalition with the smaller parties to form government.

- There are some outstanding court cases in relation to *some* elected Democrat MPs, but not the executives or the party as a whole.

- There are scheduled to be elections towards the end of 2011.

(see my signature)

another peter you sound like a politician yourself . Words cannot change the truth . Say what you wish wash it anyway you like I call a spade a spade .

If the facts aren't the truth, then what is?

And I'm not a politician ... I'm not a good enough liar.

Edited March 9, 2010 by anotherpeter

[tonywebster]

Peter I am not sure if people are saying they are illegitimate, I am certainly not saying that. under Thai law they in power. What people are saying is that they are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate by the people, they were put into power by buying coalitions. I have mentioned the buying part a few times and even the most ardent dem supporters have not questioned this.

In my mind a democratic government should be voted into power by the public, not placed into power by the courts or after buying coalition partners. In this respect I can sympathise with the reds, they voted, their party formed coalitions and got into power, just as they had in the previous two elections. Now we have in power a government that could not win the last three elections yet they have power.

All I am advocating is to have an election, if the dems win that then they deserve to be in power as it is what the public want, if they lose then the public have spoken again. When the previous government was disbanded an election would have been the best way forward, put a caretaker in place and then put it to the country again, until there is an election and an elected government I can't see how this can be healed.

But wasn't the PPP government a coalition too? The PPP formed a coalition with smaller parties that, during election campaigning, stated that they wouldn't form a coalition with the PPP. But they changed their minds ... any money involved in that??

Yes Peter, the PPP did form coalitions, but they still had the most seats out of all the parties so forming coalitions was easier for them, I am sure if the dems had the most seats at that time the smaller parties would have gone to them and they would have had power.

As for the PPP buying coalitions, I have no evidence on that and I don't recall any reports on that. I am sure the smaller parties leaders were offered cabinet posts to join the PPP, just as the dems coalition offered cabinet posts, but the reports at the time was that the dems also paid a lot of money to these smaller parties to join them, I don't recall this being the case when the smaller parties joined with the PPP. (I am not saying it didn't happen, I just have no proof either way and I don't recall any reports on this, I stand to be corrected).

[animatic]

It seems the concerted effort to bury the truth in innuendo and lies. ie a PROPAGANDA campaign, is in full swing.

Similar blanant diversions from reality happen just before or during red rallies or street chaos.

See we can do this because yada yada yada. You can almot predict how badly things will go by

the intensity of the pre-event PR gambit... such as we are witnessing right now on TVF news.

Propaganda and disinformation aimed at changing the arguments to anything but RED trouble making.

Thing is this has only worked to change the minds of a few gullible or inattentive souls who really

spend little time reading this stuff. Pop in read a few paragraphs and head off with an 'impression' of the subject.

But then again they might come back 6 months later, with faulty memories and pipe in again.

That is the long term aim of propaganda, slowly change minds till they believe the lies or half truths

that support the propagandist vision. This has been an long term effort in Issane that bore fruit,

and now it's aimed at changing the farang husbands from being a counter logic to the wives being

indoctrinated, and the neighborhoods being indoctrinated without an alternate opinion heard...

Make no mistake they ARE aimed at YOU to change your mindset.

Really saddening to see this in this day and age too.

[webfact]

Thailand clamps security law on Bangkok for protests

BANGKOK (AFP) -- Thailand's government Tuesday agreed to impose a tough security law ahead of protests this weekend, vowing to use "all means" to stop violence by backers of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

The Internal Security Act allows authorities to deploy troops on the streets during mass anti-government rallies in Bangkok by the so-called "Red Shirts" and also to impose curfews and ban gatherings.

Under the law, to be in force between March 11 and 23, the government also banned farm vehicles from the capital in an apparent move to block the movement of protesters from Thaksin's heartland in the rural north.

"The cabinet has approved the imposition of the Internal Security Act and the prime minister has assigned each ministry certain responsibilities," said Satit Wongnongtaey, a minister attached to premier Abhisit Vejjajiva's office.

Organisers say they expect up to 600,000 Red Shirts to start gathering in Bangkok from Friday for the main day of protests on Sunday against a court ruling that confiscated 1.4 billion dollars of Thaksin's fortune.

Satit said the transport ministry would ban improvised farm trucks -- open-sided vehicles that drive on tractor engines -- from entering Bangkok as they could be used to ferry large numbers of protesters from the countryside.

A government spokesman said unarmed soldiers would be deployed on Friday.

Thaksin has been egging on his supporters from self-imposed exile in Dubai, where he is living to avoid a jail term for graft.

Thai Finance minister Korn Chatikavanij, in remarks videocast Monday to a Washington meeting of the American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand, said the government would take all means within the law to prevent violence.

Korn said Abhisit respected the right to peaceful protest but added that the government also fully intended to "use all means within its powers, within the laws of the country, to make sure that the property and safety of its citizens are protected".

The country remains deeply divided between supporters of Thaksin, who was deposed in a coup in 2006, and those among the elites who view him as corrupt.

-- ©Copyright AFP 2010-03-09

Published with written approval from AFP.

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[frodo]

Thailand clamps security law on Bangkok for protests

Organisers say they expect up to 600,000 Red Shirts to start gathering in Bangkok from Friday for the main day of protests on Sunday against a court ruling that confiscated 1.4 billion dollars of Thaksin's fortune.

-- ©Copyright AFP 2010-03-09

Published with written approval from AFP.

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

It seems the numbers go down as the "event" approaches. First is was a guaranteed 100 Million, not including 20,000 monks. Now it's up to 600,000, while other media are saying even less.

I've heard the numbers for years, and it is nowhere close to what organizers say it is. I'm starting to believe this event will be much like the past...a huge fizzle. I hope I'm right.

Also interesting to note, is that the word "DEMOCRACY" is not found. This "rally" has nothing to do with democracy, it's against a court ruling with the aim to get Thaksin's money back. Thaksin should be very thankful these folks who surround him are uneducated.

Edited March 9, 2010 by frodo

[jdinasia]

I am trying to find out why people think the current government is not legitimate. I have tried this in other threads after someone says that the government is not legitimate, but no one can explain why they aren't.

From what I understand, here is the time line:

- Thaksin was the *Caretaker* PM because he couldn't form a government. He was removed from power by a coup (which is NOT democratic) partly because he was trying to change the laws so he could become (full) PM without having new elections.

- After the coup there was another election.

- The PPP got the most votes (or MPs) but not a majority. They had to form a coalition with smaller parties (some of which had campaigned saying that they would not form coalition with the PPP, but did anyway - some people suggest payment, but I don't know).

- The PPP got disbanded because the executives were convicted by the *courts* of election fraud in relation to buying votes. This was at the same time the the "yellow shirts" blockaded the airports. The "yellow shirts" did not bring down the PPP government.

- The Democrats then formed a coalition with the smaller parties to form government.

- There are some outstanding court cases in relation to *some* elected Democrat MPs, but not the executives or the party as a whole.

- There are scheduled to be elections towards the end of 2011.

(see my signature)

another peter you sound like a politician yourself . Words cannot change the truth . Say what you wish wash it anyway you like I call a spade a spade .

What you are saying Lomsak is that you do not understand parliamentary democracy. If Samak and Somchai were elected and the elections were valid then the same MUST be said about Abhisit.

Tony knows the truth but just fights it. No party had 50%+ after the last elections and that allows for whoever can form a government to do so. PPP got TWO bites at that apple before they were disbanded. They COULD have dissolved parliament before they were knocked out of office but they didn't. Perhaps because so much of this mess was caused by Thaksin dissolving parliament early to try and save himself and TRT.

Rumors (that Tony hates elsewhere) of a payment to Newin or others have proven to be just that. Rumors. What wasn't a rumor was PPP getting caught violating election law at the party level and thus being disbanded. What isn't a rumor is that small parties that formed a coalition with PPP had promised publicly not to. There was no law preventing them from doing it even though they lied to their constituency. There is also no law preventing them from going back to what they had originally stated. It really doesn't matter though! They could abandon the Democrats anytime and create a situation that puts themselves in the driver's seat or forces a new election. They don't.

Really, if you want to be mad you red's should be mad at Newin and company

[toptuan]

Anyone know what time the curfew will be? I'm planning to entertain foreign friends the 12th-17th, and it'd be nice to know in what areas and and at what times there would be restrictions. Sorry, if this has already been asked in this long 15-page thread!

[thaihome]

the pure existence of point 10 in that ISA list makes Thailand to a failed state if the government really need such a law. if they will actually practise point 10 its over.

Then I guess you think that both Singapore and Malaysia are failed states as well. They both have far more severe ISA's have both used them far more then Thailand ever has.

TH

[BlackJack]

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,

looks like youre leading the way

har har

[Thai at Heart]

the pure existence of point 10 in that ISA list makes Thailand to a failed state if the government really need such a law. if they will actually practise point 10 its over.

Then I guess you think that both Singapore and Malaysia are failed states as well. They both have far more severe ISA's have both used them far more then Thailand ever has.

TH

China, Burma and North Korea have such laws too, it doesn't mean Thailand should have to rely on it though.