Thai Govt Likely To Enforce State Of Emergency On Top Of ISA

[Sunderland]

How many of the 60 million chose to vote Abhisit into power?

Results of the one-man-one vote party list election in 2007

Democrats: 14,084,265 39.63%

PTP: 14,071,799 39.60%

13,000 Democrats have died in water fighting since then. Reds will demand a recount.

[Moonrakers]

Ten thousand, one hundred thousand or even one million dose not make a majority in a population of over 60 million.

How many of the 60 million chose to vote Abhisit into power?

More than voted PTP into power. (Although they vote for the party, not the MP/PM)

Edited March 14, 2010 by Moonrakers

[anotherpeter]

Ten thousand, one hundred thousand or even one million dose not make a majority in a population of over 60 million.

How many of the 60 million chose to vote Abhisit into power?

A majority of the MPs that the 60 million voted for got together and chose to vote Abhisit into power. That is how a democracy works.

(actually, not 60 million, less eligible voters, and less that actually voted ... so probably about 30 million voted)

EDIT: It's the same in Aus and UK elections, voters don't actually vote for Kevin Rudd or Gordon Brown. They vote for their local MPs. The elected MPs then vote for the leader who becomes PM.

Edited March 14, 2010 by anotherpeter

[mazeltov]

Agree. Throw all the red and yellow shirt leaders (everyone of them who took to the stage) in jail and throw away the key.

Now we're talking, and it's really that simple.

throw the people that staged the coup in jail and their active supporters. ban the silent supporters of the coup from politics for a couple of years.

give the no-coup activist a democracy award and the respect they deserve.

no-coup is the basic solution and the lesson people have to learn if they wanna have a prosperous future. the current situation is part of that lesson.

[way2muchcoffee]

Agree. Throw all the red and yellow shirt leaders (everyone of them who took to the stage) in jail and throw away the key.

Now we're talking, and it's really that simple.

throw the people that staged the coup in jail and their active supporters. ban the silent supporters of the coup from politics for a couple of years.

give the no-coup activist a democracy award and the respect they deserve.

no-coup is the basic solution and the lesson people have to learn if they wanna have a prosperous future. the current situation is part of that lesson.

You can't be serious. What you describe will surely cause the coup you aim to prevent.

Who do you believe are the active supporters? Who are the silent supporters?

Edited March 14, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[cdnvic]

One post was deleted. Thailand is not a republic, and if Thaksin returned as the elected leader, he would be Prime Minister.

Please watch what you post.

[anotherpeter]

Agree. Throw all the red and yellow shirt leaders (everyone of them who took to the stage) in jail and throw away the key.

Now we're talking, and it's really that simple.

throw the people that staged the coup in jail and their active supporters. ban the silent supporters of the coup from politics for a couple of years.

give the no-coup activist a democracy award and the respect they deserve.

no-coup is the basic solution and the lesson people have to learn if they wanna have a prosperous future. the current situation is part of that lesson.

Agreed. No coup for Thailand. As long as convicted corrupt politicians don't come back to get his power back. Dictatorships, military or Thaksinite are no good for Thailand either.

[Tanaka]

You clearly don't read the news. The red shirted leaders have made it clear they intend to cripple the city of Bangkok INDEFINITELY by blocking major roads. Is that what you call peaceful, disturbing the lives of millions of people, and potentially crippling the entire country? Get real.

QUOTE(from article):"Veera Musikapong, another leader, will address the rally today and deliver an ultimatum for Abhisit to dissolve the House and call a snap election."

And why not? This is not a democratically elected government. I don't support the red shirts - but having said that you must surely have some concerns about how this governemt came to power in the first place.

Further the army acted extra-judicially in their support last April. I.E. Din Daeng.

Actually, Abhisit was democratically elected. Why not a snap election? Is that your idea of democracy that an angry mob can demand an election anytime they fancy? Under threat of basically destroying the economy of the entire country by blocking the capital indefinitely? I won't use the T word, but I want to.

Have to agree with you on this one.

[mazeltov]

Agree. Throw all the red and yellow shirt leaders (everyone of them who took to the stage) in jail and throw away the key.

Now we're talking, and it's really that simple.

throw the people that staged the coup in jail and their active supporters. ban the silent supporters of the coup from politics for a couple of years.

give the no-coup activist a democracy award and the respect they deserve.

no-coup is the basic solution and the lesson people have to learn if they wanna have a prosperous future. the current situation is part of that lesson.

You can't be serious. What you describe will surely cause the coup you aim to prevent.

Who do you believe are the active supporters? Who are the silent supporters?

no it is hypothetical, and well thought in the same way as the other suggestion to put everybody who sport a coloured shirt in jail.

FREE WILLY!

no-coup is still the civil solution. takes years to repair.

in this modern world with all the mass communication, all kind of information on all channels a strong power state for the sake to to have a stabilised system isn't easy to maintain anymore like it was in the last century. you can't control all or guide all with the same brush that easy anymore.

what about this:

leaders who have visions should get free medical care and put into the tingtong hospital.

[mazeltov]

How many of the 60 million chose to vote Abhisit into power?

Results of the one-man-one vote party list election in 2007

Democrats: 14,084,265 39.63%

PTP: 14,071,799 39.60%

you ignoring that fact that the voters had also up to three direct candidates to vote for and that the vote for for the direct candidate has a bigger impact which parties at what strengths will sit in the end in the parliament. (400 seats of 480 seats total)

the proportional 2nd vote (or the 3rd/4th), where your figures are coming from has a lesser impact. (80 seats of 480 seats total).

that vote can be also placed by the voter strategically, for example with the intention to have more balance in the parliament or give one party not to much power, you don't have to give the 2nd vote for the same party of the candidate of your first choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting

it is little bit more complicated than a simple "one man-one vote" system

[hammered]

How many of the 60 million chose to vote Abhisit into power?

Results of the one-man-one vote party list election in 2007

Democrats: 14,084,265 39.63%

PTP: 14,071,799 39.60%

you ignoring that fact that the voters had also up to three direct candidates to vote for and that the vote for for the direct candidate has a bigger impact which parties at what strengths will sit in the end in the parliament. (400 seats of 480 seats total)

the proportional 2nd vote (or the 3rd/4th), where your figures are coming from has a lesser impact. (80 seats of 480 seats total).

that vote can be also placed by the voter strategically, for example with the intention to have more balance in the parliament or give one party not to much power, you don't have to give the 2nd vote for the same party of the candidate of your first choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting

it is little bit more complicated than a simple "one man-one vote" system

All constituency based systems arent strcitly speaking even OMOV either. They are weighted OMOV especially in Thailand. Only a single countrywide constituency proportional vote is real OMOV but few polticians worldwide would like that option.

[yoshiwara]

what about this:

leaders who have visions should get free medical care and put into the tingtong hospital.

...excluding your visionary hero Thaksin no doubt. Rambling again.

[Gobbledoc]

Actually very well written and prob more factual than some of the garbage around.

http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=877

[KAteGoGo]

You clearly don't read the news. The red shirted leaders have made it clear they intend to cripple the city of Bangkok INDEFINITELY by blocking major roads. Is that what you call peaceful, disturbing the lives of millions of people, and potentially crippling the entire country? Get real.

I don't know if I'm doing this right, had to respond to this last comment.

Democracy comes with a price. If the worse thing that happens is a little disruption of traffic, thats pretty cheap. Speaking from an American point of view, I think they have every right to disrupt your life a little to vote on who's running the country. The guy they voted for got pushed out by a gang with guns. Go Red Shirts!

[anotherpeter]

Actually very well written and prob more factual than some of the garbage around.

http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=877

Very good article. It made me laugh with the blunt statements. IMO, the correct view of the state of affairs.

[anotherpeter]

Democracy comes with a price. If the worse thing that happens is a little disruption of traffic, thats pretty cheap. Speaking from an American point of view, I think they have every right to disrupt your life a little to vote on who's running the country. The guy they voted for got pushed out by a gang with guns. Go Red Shirts!

Democracy does come at a price, and it doesn't come slowly. I saw a post earlier about the UK's move to a constitutional monarchy -100 years and 4 civil wars (or something like that).

The problem with this situation is, if the red shirts get what they want, they won't get a democracy, they will get Thaksin.

Edited March 14, 2010 by anotherpeter

[Credo]

I very much doubt that Thaksin will ever be in power, even if they win their struggle. He may avoid jail, but there are a lot of steps to overturning his entire conviction and the constitutional laws that go with it.

If he returns, he may be a power broker, but it's hard to believe he will be PM again.

Regardless of the amount of power that the reds may think they have, there is still is a lot of money, influence and politics that will not be overcome quite as easily as some think.

[mazeltov]

All constituency based systems arent strcitly speaking even OMOV either. They are weighted OMOV especially in Thailand. Only a single countrywide constituency proportional vote is real OMOV but few polticians worldwide would like that option.

i know.

who dragged that "one man-one vote" concept into the debate at all? is that a declared red goal? really as OMOV? maybe some board members and electoral system laymen have developed a traumata from the bush vs. kerry days. idk.

maybe a slogan like: 'each man a vote of equal value' got somehow mis-re-phrased over the time. i am not a native speaker and for me there is some ambivalence in that slogan.

but some others clearly misunderstand something in the thai voting system and make a mistake if they post only the figures of the proportional vote results and trying to make a point with that.

[Cayenne]

You know I'm not sure why all these red shirts are screaming foul over the ISA. After all, their beloved father Thaksin was the one who created the ISA law in the first place. Oh, how delicious the irony is...

[gemini81]

it's hard to say there ever was really even democracy..more of a mix of a lot of unresolved tension...but it takes time. look at england, the USA...so many countries take a while to fully realize a state of peace. the fact that an army can topple a leader when its not within the law books is troubling....many in the years to come..but unfortunately, coup after coup, history keeps repeating itself. Aside from the "rednecks" everything else seems to be stabilizing slowly...er, well..it was...until this again....

[JohnLeech]

I saw a post earlier about the UK's move to a constitutional monarchy -100 years and 4 civil wars (or something like that).

Well, a little bit like that!

The UK's constitutional monarchy dates from the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, and as there is still no single formal written constitution for the UK it could reasonably be argued that it is still evolving nearly nearly 800 years later.

There were actually three official Civil Wars (1642–46, 1648–49 and 1649–51), but these involved pretty well the same protagonists, so they are often referred to as one. Technically they were also only English Civil Wars, although the Irish were on the receiving end of much of the third. It could be argued that the more recent Irish departure from the UK was also the result of a Civil War, although it has never been recognised as one, and even that the "troubles" in Northern Ireland were a form of civil war.

Sorry if this is rather off-topic!

[mazeltov]

You know I'm not sure why all these red shirts are screaming foul over the ISA. After all, their beloved father Thaksin was the one who created the ISA law in the first place. Oh, how delicious the irony is...

That is not true. The ISA is the brainchild of the junta.

[JohnLeech]

..... special reliable units are trained to a higher level of discipline and loyalty for use in the most dangerous and desperate situations.

A little over-imaginative (OK, absolute rubbish to be honest). The selection of units for tasks such as those detailed is based primarily on the loyalty and reliability of the commander concerned, as well as any particular recent specialist training or deployment, for example to the South. Nothing more.

[JohnLeech]

Possibly co-incidence, but there was an armed infantry section patrolling through my sleepy little village this morning at 7.30, dropped off by 6x6 in pairs, plus a pair in front on a cvilian motorbike. Dressed in combats with M16s which were not only loaded (mags fitted) but, more worryingly and unusually, made ready (cocked). The only time I have seen anything like this locally was four years ago.

[Publicus]

..... special reliable units are trained to a higher level of discipline and loyalty for use in the most dangerous and desperate situations.

A little over-imaginative (OK, absolute rubbish to be honest). The selection of units for tasks such as those detailed is based primarily on the loyalty and reliability of the commander concerned, as well as any particular recent specialist training or deployment, for example to the South. Nothing more.

Fiercely loyalist military units are organized, trained and placed in Khorat under absolutely committed commanders. This fact has to do with domestic politics and power plays. Army units and commanders situated in Khorat are kept distant and disconnected from commanders and soldiers in greater Bangkok and thus are more ready and willing to confront occasionally restless soldiers and commanders in the capital who wear the same uniform and mobilize under the same flag.

The Khorat garrisons are apart from military units that are deployed to the South. The Khorat units are known to participate in the annual Cobra Gold exercises and certain ceremonies but have as their primary purpose the defense of the ultimate institution, i.e., the country. (In the US, during the period of pre-nuclear warfare, the Military District of Washington existed for the sole purpose of defending the capital against foreign armies, to include the Confederate one.)

From David K. Wyatt in his "THAILAND: A Short History," cpyrte Silkwom Books, Chiang Mai, 1998:

"[A]n abortive coup in 1981 when a group of Young Turk military officers, critical of the failures of past military governments, seized government centers in Bangkok early on April 1. General [PM] Prem fled the capital in the company of the royal family and established headquarters at the provincial army base at Khorat. Soon a message from Queen Sirikit was read over Khorat Radio in effect supporting Prem's government. Royal support for Prem prevented the rebels, led by General Sant Chitpatima, from mobilizing the allegiance even of all military units in the Bangkok region. On April 3, Prem was able to lead a column [of loyalist troops from Khorat] to retake Bangkok at the cost of only two wounded." (Pp. 306).

This is real stuff.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Publicus

[JohnLeech]

This is real stuff.

Agreed - real nonsense.

All Thai units without exception "have as their primary purpose the defense of the ultimate institution, i.e., the country." That is what the military do.

Your quote from David Wyatt's book does nothing to support your conclusion. While the incident you refer to involved troops from Korat it was a bloodless counter coup responding to a bloodless coup. Once royal support was clear there was no question of their having to be "ready and willing to confront occasionally restless soldiers and commanders in the capital who wear the same uniform and mobilize under the same flag." There was no confrontation. It simply didn't happen, and there was no likelihood of it happening. On the one occasion when a confrontation did occur and gunfire was exchanged, in September 1985, the coup was put down by units from the Supreme Command based in Bangkok directly under the command of the Army's Deputy Commander, not troops from Korat.

Although my knowledge of American history is limited, you appear to have a general problem with your military history. The Military District of Washington dates from 1921, which as far as I can recall is post the Confederacy.

[Publicus]

This is real stuff.

Agreed - real nonsense.

All Thai units without exception "have as their primary purpose the defense of the ultimate institution, i.e., the country." That is what the military do.

Your quote from David Wyatt's book does nothing to support your conclusion. While the incident you refer to involved troops from Korat it was a bloodless counter coup responding to a bloodless coup. Once royal support was clear there was no question of their having to be "ready and willing to confront occasionally restless soldiers and commanders in the capital who wear the same uniform and mobilize under the same flag." There was no confrontation. It simply didn't happen, and there was no likelihood of it happening. On the one occasion when a confrontation did occur and gunfire was exchanged, in September 1985, the coup was put down by units from the Supreme Command based in Bangkok directly under the command of the Army's Deputy Commander, not troops from Korat.

Although my knowledge of American history is limited, you appear to have a general problem with your military history. The Military District of Washington dates from 1921, which as far as I can recall is post the Confederacy.

You overlook the fact that in most instances there are predecessor organizations and institutions. The US Army 3rd Infantry Regiment (Reinforced), the Old Guard, which is the primary land forces element of the present Military District of Washington, gained its duties and responsibilities, and especially its anti bellum monniker "The Old Guard" when Gen Winfield Scott gave it that name in a Victory March through Mexico City after victory in a two year war that yeilded to the United States its southwest area which thereafter became the states of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada and inter alia Colorado.

Scold away as you suit yourself. Then I'll respond appropriately. Meanwhile, I'll try moreso to stay on topic.

[brahmburgers]

I very much doubt that Thaksin will ever be in power, even if they win their struggle. He may avoid jail, but there are a lot of steps to overturning his entire conviction and the constitutional laws that go with it. If he returns, he may be a power broker, but it's hard to believe he will be PM again. Regardless of the amount of power that the reds may think they have, there is still is a lot of money, influence and politics that will not be overcome quite as easily as some think.

It's not hard for me to perceive that Thaksin could be PM again. 20th century Thai history has several instances where a PM comes back to power after an absence - even when there have been interim PM's. Whether or not Thaksin comes back to the power seat (and I think it's very unlikely, but not impossible), the people who would emerge from the Red camp - to fill the top posts - are a senile, corrupt and mean-spirited bunch.

That's a major reason why the Reds are a spent force, they don't have any decent leadership material. They don't have any policies for improving Thailand either, but that's another post.

[Cayenne]

You know I'm not sure why all these red shirts are screaming foul over the ISA. After all, their beloved father Thaksin was the one who created the ISA law in the first place. Oh, how delicious the irony is...

That is not true. The ISA is the brainchild of the junta.

My apologies, I meant the State of Emergency decree. The one that allows soldiers to actively intervene in dispersing protesters. This was the one that Thaksin enacted way back in 2006 to deal with the PAD.

[hardy1943]

What a difference twenty-four hours makes. This time yesterday the total number of red shirts in BKK at each of the six meeting points was reported as being woefully low (well less than 10,000 ).

Now with intelligence reporting that there has been a massive increase in numbers over the last twenty-four hours the government - or sources close to it - are reporting that a state of emergency may be declared sometime tomorrow on top of the ISA.

It's still a peaceful demonstration. Up to now there have been absolutely NO reports of violence.

What are the government scared of? Numbers.

NO, a fair 1 vote per person election

Edited March 15, 2010 by hardy1943