Thai Pm Rejects Protesters' Demand Amid March On Barracks

[animatic]

The latest outpouring from Natthawut Saikua, core Red Shirt leader around 14-00: hrs today

He ( Natthawut Saikua ) threatens to pour 1 million c.c. of blood from 100.000 Red Shirt protesters around Government House.

What a farce the Red Shirt leadership is, do they really consider themselves leadership material ? Thaksins acolytes now want to bleed the supporters dry of their own blood.

Indeed ''A Comedy of Errors''

Acolytes is the perfect word for this. Acolytes following and worshiping their godhead,

and giving blood offerings for his return to power. Thaksin The Great Savior.

This blood think is purely entrained group mental illness.

Every hear of AIDS folks, splattering all this blood around.

How many will share knives?

Got a blood bank of nurses to collect this?

Or will the same idiots collecting feces to throw, collect this blood...

Washing your hands in between are we?

Dare we say 'Jim Jones' here... yes.

Is this the rational heartfelt gestures of people with the best interests of ALL in their hearts...

Not hardly.

Edited March 15, 2010 by animatic

[doctormann]

1,000,000 cc of blood from 100,000 people.

Thats going to be a logistical nightmare. That volume of blood equates to roughly 260 US gallons or, to put it into perspective, rather more than 6 of those large drums that oil tends to come in and will have a mass of roughly 1 metric tonne.

I don't somehow think that this is actually going to happen! TiT though so it just might!

DM

[animatic]

If true, completely predictable. They are baiting for the army to use excessive force. That was probably their game from the beginning.

I think so, and makes the discovery of those grenade launchers very relevant. I am still hoping for a peaceful outcome, but it seems that the redshirts are the first to resort to violence (once again). I am sure their supporters here will still defend them, just democracy in action via grenade launchers...

Yes this makes sense.

And the million CCs of blood to save face with.

666 1.5 litre bottles all filled with dirty hands.

666: Mark of the devil is in the details.

Once the loaded up this social engine of destruction, it was a forgone conclusion they would

HAVE to do SOMETHING with it... Looks like they are improvising now.

Edited March 15, 2010 by animatic

[yoshiwara]

They're probably going to raid all the Bangkok KFCs and liberate the tomato sauce sachets.

[Jingthing]

They're probably going to raid all the Bangkok KFCs and liberate the tomato sauce sachets.

That's a good point. They might fake the blood. I hope they do. Easier to clean up. When you are throwing 750 large water bottles of red liquid at your government, after all, its the THOUGHT that counts, doesn't it?

[Garry9999]

Protesters march on Thai army barracks

By Conor Duffy and wires

Updated 3 hours 10 minutes ago

Ultimatum rejected: Red Shirt protesters gather outside the Bangkok army base (Reuters: Sukree Sukplang )

RELATED STORY: Thailand's red shirts deliver ultimatum

Thailand's Prime Minister rejected an ultimatum by tens of thousands of protesters to resign, before flying out of a besieged Bangkok army barracks in a military Black Hawk helicopter.

Speaking for the first time since the so-called Red Shirt protesters demanded his resignation, Abhisit Vejjajiva said the cabinet had decided they would not call a snap election.

He then took the helicopter ride out of the capital's 11th Infantry Barracks as thousands of Red Shirts gathered outside.

The Red Shirt protesters, supporters of ousted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, have been calling for Mr Abhisit to stand down.

Thousands of them massed outside the barracks, lining up outside the perimeter fence.

The army has sealed the front of the barracks, setting up razor-wire barricades lined with hundreds of soldiers armed with riot shields and batons.

Mr Abhisit cancelled a weekend trip to Australia as the rally approached.

Earlier, deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban, in charge of the country's security, said the protesters would be permitted to approach the base but not trespass on it.

He said it was too early to say if emergency rule would be invoked to crack down on the rally.

The red shirts are loyal to former prime minister Thaksin, who was ousted in a coup in 2006 and is living abroad, mostly in Dubai, to avoid a jail term for corruption.

Thaksin, who was twice elected, remains popular for his anti-poverty policies after coming to power in 2001.

However, he is loathed by Bangkok's establishment, which accuses him of corruption and disloyalty to the revered royal family.

Last month Thailand's top court confiscated $US 1.4 billion of the telecom tycoon's wealth.

Since the coup in 2006, Thailand has been wracked by a string of protests by the red shirts and their rival yellow shirts, whose campaign in 2008 led to a crippling nine-day blockade of the country's airports.

This rally is the largest in Bangkok since the red shirts rioted in April last year, leaving two dead and scores injured.

- ABC/AFP

[FM505]

Of Course he turns down the demand, for his teammates are still haven't had their fill of wealth and power. Politicians, regardles of political camp seems to be power addict. Once he is up there he cannot see plights of the people. Four years in power is too long for any Thai government.

Yes ... look what happened to Thaksin. He was there for 5 years.

Lets have elections every year. That's a great way to improve the economy.

Completely wrong... as well as repugnant and exceedingly ignorant.

Political stability is the route to economic recovery. This inspires confidence in those who take risks with their assets in capital ventures.

Then conventional aspects to society can prosper... understand conventional? This means tried and true over the course of history. What works for people who organize themselves in communities and societies is reliability.

"Let's have elections..." Let's?

Bottom line in life is that everything costs money... who pays for your "Let's have elections every year" arousal...?

If you're looking at the public trough to sooth societal woes then your snout is seriously misshapen.

Elections have consequences. Meditate on that for a moment...

It is vital for political cycles to be allowed to play out in a civilized society. When we don't like election outcomes then we get busy preparing for the next cycle... not bringing out the rocks, or the tanks.

The arena of ideas is a fascinating place to dwell... When a party or group loses an election, they must get their message together and retool to deliver a more concise message and a workable plan to defend their assertions (ideas).

You want to pay for elections every year.... out of your own pocket? This will rapidly grow tiresome...

Jump up from your armchair once in awhile... reality doesn't suck...

Who pays? Someone else...? Easy answer... faceless people?

****

Good ideas will win the day. (Here's a good one... you earn money, you get to keep it... you decide where to spend or invest. All gov't taxes, fees, penalties, etc. are arbitrarily assigned. This cannot be argued).

When personal liberties are defended and people are in charge of their own decisions, then an orderly society can prosper.

Those who oppose these ideas are lusting for power - and thrill of thrills... other people's money.

Gov't is not the solution to societies problems. The less gov't the better and the fewer election cycles the more stabilizing any economy will be...

[dude007]

he better face his luxery 2 year jail at home sentence

i am sure they can figure something out...

this sxxx will never end... red not happy... yellow not happy...

in the meantime, the economy goes further in the drain...

Just not... The economy is in recovery! Even better than the Government even had expected. Proof that the Democrats are on track with their economical recovery policy but probably each of them individually sticks to the same old principles of pocketting just like the previous TOXIN administration.

THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN HAPPEN NOW IS EXTREME VIOLENCE (I am afraid for), in the light of the poor numbers "red supporters" and frustrating deceit of their goal. And once the moderates (light reds) will be home, a group of hard-core (dark reds) will remain and cause hamoc, rather than losing face!

With TOXIN as the pianist, it was a dead end right from the start! Even his family fled the scene...

[moresomekl]

The people do have the right to elections, whatever Abhisit may claim. Comparing the UK system of government with that in Thailand is an insult to the people of the Great Britain. True Brown was not elected either, but his party members were and never switched party under pressure of the elite

******************************************************

You are right mythbuster

Yet in order to elect the PM by popular vote rather then by the parliement with its swinging coalitions , the thai constiution would have to be changed . Double benefit i reckon . But for now it is the primary reason for instability ... and discontent by one camp or the other accusing the opposite side of not being legally in power . What a mess .....

[TAWP]

According the BBC which I trust significantly more than the Thai media or police the numbers were far greater. The greatest gathering in 30 years. It is is quite bizarre that Abhisit is lecturing Thai people about the way elections should be held. He is not elected at all and refuses to let the people decide if he is suitable as a PM. The people are angry because they voted for PPP and not for the DP or Bhumjaithai. The votes were simply stolen under pressure of the military.

Since I cannot report posts, I would like to highlight this post as breaking the rules in posting information the poster knowingly or reasonable should know are incorrect.

100k is not by far the greatest gathering in 30 years. Not even in 1 year.

The PM is legally elected.

People [in general] did not vote for PPP, no party received a majority.

[TAWP]

Does anyone really thinks, the RED Shirts Thugs can oust the PM

The yellow shirt thugs managed it by blocking the airport for 9 days!

Well, no, they did not.

They managed to confuse an inept PM and his incompetent cabinet so they couldn't get the vote organized in time to white-wash Thaksin and his crimes before the courts ruled that their party was guilty of election fraud.

[anotherpeter]

Of Course he turns down the demand, for his teammates are still haven't had their fill of wealth and power. Politicians, regardles of political camp seems to be power addict. Once he is up there he cannot see plights of the people. Four years in power is too long for any Thai government.

Yes ... look what happened to Thaksin. He was there for 5 years.

Lets have elections every year. That's a great way to improve the economy.

Completely wrong... as well as repugnant and exceedingly ignorant.

Political stability is the route to economic recovery. This inspires confidence in those who take risks with their assets in capital ventures.

Then conventional aspects to society can prosper... understand conventional? This means tried and true over the course of history. What works for people who organize themselves in communities and societies is reliability.

"Let's have elections..." Let's?

Bottom line in life is that everything costs money... who pays for your "Let's have elections every year" arousal...?

If you're looking at the public trough to sooth societal woes then your snout is seriously misshapen.

Elections have consequences. Meditate on that for a moment...

It is vital for political cycles to be allowed to play out in a civilized society. When we don't like election outcomes then we get busy preparing for the next cycle... not bringing out the rocks, or the tanks.

The arena of ideas is a fascinating place to dwell... When a party or group loses an election, they must get their message together and retool to deliver a more concise message and a workable plan to defend their assertions (ideas).

You want to pay for elections every year.... out of your own pocket? This will rapidly grow tiresome...

Jump up from your armchair once in awhile... reality doesn't suck...

Who pays? Someone else...? Easy answer... faceless people?

****

Good ideas will win the day. (Here's a good one... you earn money, you get to keep it... you decide where to spend or invest. All gov't taxes, fees, penalties, etc. are arbitrarily assigned. This cannot be argued).

When personal liberties are defended and people are in charge of their own decisions, then an orderly society can prosper.

Those who oppose these ideas are lusting for power - and thrill of thrills... other people's money.

Gov't is not the solution to societies problems. The less gov't the better and the fewer election cycles the more stabilizing any economy will be...

I was being sarcastic ... sorry you didn't see it. Good post though.

[anotherpeter]

The people do have the right to elections, whatever Abhisit may claim. Comparing the UK system of government with that in Thailand is an insult to the people of the Great Britain. True Brown was not elected either, but his party members were and never switched party under pressure of the elite

******************************************************

You are right mythbuster

Yet in order to elect the PM by popular vote rather then by the parliement with its swinging coalitions , the thai constiution would have to be changed . Double benefit i reckon . But for now it is the primary reason for instability ... and discontent by one camp or the other accusing the opposite side of not being legally in power . What a mess .....

The only MPs that switched parties were the MPs of the PPP after the PPP was banned. The smaller parties switched alegience from the PPP to the Democrats. Most of those parties had campaigned that they *wouldn't* form a coalition with the PPP anyway.

There are plenty of countries where MPs switch parties, and plenty of places where parties stop supporting the major parties in a coalition. They do it because the party that they move from isn't doing what they're (the minor parties) constituents want. And it's legal. Once they are elected, the MPs can do what they want. If the people that voted for them don't like it, then they won't be voted in at the next election. That's how democracy works.

Electing the PM by popular vote is a completely different system than the one in use here, and I'm sure it has it's own inherent problems. It is not in use in most western countries. Why should it be used in Thailand?

[ballpoint]

There are plenty of countries where MPs switch parties, and plenty of places where parties stop supporting the major parties in a coalition.

Indeed, Thaksin himself did it back in 1996. He, along with 4 other PDP MP's, pulled out of the Banharn government, resigning his position as Deputy PM in charge of Bangkok traffic, yet kept their seats as MP's.

[Jirapa]

did anybody really think Abhisit would give into the demands of these people? It will all go away when a more aggressive campaign as to the real nature of the fugitive they are supporting comes to light. To me it's just so weird that they let this cowardly behavior continue from abroad and just a simple campaign with education as the focus might be the best defense. Butwho knows,, everything i thought was normal is, just not here.

I suppose in your eyes the Orange revolution was just a bunch of anti-government fools taking to the streets to defend their constitutional right to demonstrate much as the Redshirts are doing. The British protested against the introduction of the Poll Tax which was Margret Thatchers downfall as she was forced by her own party to step down due to huge public unrest.

Pro Red, anti Red or simply don't care people in numbers bring about change with or without violence. I'll bet most on this forum support the Iranian Greenshirts for standing up for their belief that the government was re-elected "possibly?" illegally and many supporters of that movement are the elite and well educated students, doctors, teachers, professors, etc....

Anyone who thinks the voice of the rural majority is of less significance than the more privilledged members of Thai society should move to Zimbabwe and see how you get on over there?

Credit to Thailand and the Abhisit government as the protest has been allowed to go ahead and non of the emergency security measures have been imposed as of yet! So long as peace prevails let their voice be heard as the majority of the rural north are peace loving friendly people and using the excuse of a few trouble makers to fire tear gas into a crowd of old men women and children would be a bad move.

One things for sure in the UK, France, Germany, etc..., a large demo like that in the capital city would have gone violent by now probably due to the riot police being moved in to break it up so both sides here deserve a round of applause for tollerance and restraint.

Long live Thailand!

Edited March 15, 2010 by Jirapa

[FM505]

Of Course he turns down the demand, for his teammates are still haven't had their fill of wealth and power. Politicians, regardles of political camp seems to be power addict. Once he is up there he cannot see plights of the people. Four years in power is too long for any Thai government.

Yes ... look what happened to Thaksin. He was there for 5 years.

Lets have elections every year. That's a great way to improve the economy.

Completely wrong... as well as repugnant and exceedingly ignorant.

Political stability is the route to economic recovery. This inspires confidence in those who take risks with their assets in capital ventures.

Then conventional aspects to society can prosper... understand conventional? This means tried and true over the course of history. What works for people who organize themselves in communities and societies is reliability.

"Let's have elections..." Let's?

Bottom line in life is that everything costs money... who pays for your "Let's have elections every year" arousal...?

If you're looking at the public trough to sooth societal woes then your snout is seriously misshapen.

Elections have consequences. Meditate on that for a moment...

It is vital for political cycles to be allowed to play out in a civilized society. When we don't like election outcomes then we get busy preparing for the next cycle... not bringing out the rocks, or the tanks.

The arena of ideas is a fascinating place to dwell... When a party or group loses an election, they must get their message together and retool to deliver a more concise message and a workable plan to defend their assertions (ideas).

You want to pay for elections every year.... out of your own pocket? This will rapidly grow tiresome...

Jump up from your armchair once in awhile... reality doesn't suck...

Who pays? Someone else...? Easy answer... faceless people?

****

Good ideas will win the day. (Here's a good one... you earn money, you get to keep it... you decide where to spend or invest. All gov't taxes, fees, penalties, etc. are arbitrarily assigned. This cannot be argued).

When personal liberties are defended and people are in charge of their own decisions, then an orderly society can prosper.

Those who oppose these ideas are lusting for power - and thrill of thrills... other people's money.

Gov't is not the solution to societies problems. The less gov't the better and the fewer election cycles the more stabilizing any economy will be...

I was being sarcastic ... sorry you didn't see it. Good post though.

Thanks, though I should have seen it... a bit jumpy perhaps... passionate for finding the balance as 'we' (all) work to move forward in a civilized capacity. Will pay better attention... Regards.

[miksguevara]

The one thing I have to say as an American observer of Thai politics is that Thailand needs to learn that in a democracy, if things don't go your way, you have to wait until the next election to fix it.

Democrats didn't tear up the US when the Republicans won, and likewise, Republicans didn't do it either when the Democrats won.

yeah great lets all have an american style ' democracy ' where the politicians are just pawns / puppets of big business lol... oh hang on a minute thats pretty much what they are in the uk as well..dam_n

[ding]

The one thing I have to say as an American observer of Thai politics is that Thailand needs to learn that in a democracy, if things don't go your way, you have to wait until the next election to fix it.

Democrats didn't tear up the US when the Republicans won, and likewise, Republicans didn't do it either when the Democrats won.

yeah great lets all have an american style ' democracy ' where the politicians are just pawns / puppets of big business lol... oh hang on a minute thats pretty much what they are in the uk as well..dam_n

I gotta hand it to Thais, not for closing airports but for standing up for their beliefs. Bush and company cheated elections TWICE and Americans sat on the couch. Thaksin is a noob in comparison to that machine. Although Americans who did stand up were caged in temporary pens called "Free Speech Zones". Land of the free?

Long live the King.

[britmaveric]

^

[ding]

^

?

[personchester]

did anybody really think Abhisit would give into the demands of these people? It will all go away when a more aggressive campaign as to the real nature of the fugitive they are supporting comes to light. To me it's just so weird that they let this cowardly behavior continue from abroad and just a simple campaign with education as the focus might be the best defense. Butwho knows,, everything i thought was normal is, just not here.

I could not see him doing that, and I am glad he stood his ground.

Does anyone really thinks, the RED Shirts Thugs can oust the PM

To refer to the R/Shirts as "Tugs" is wrong, they are Thai nationals and they have the right to take part in street protests against their political leaders activity if they feel neglected as a social group, which they obviously do, that is democracy old boy, similar street protests are currently taking place in several Western countries, (not to mention globally) and nobody will refer to them as tugs, such remarks would only be made by political leaders of a dictatorship, or a one party state.

The duty of the PM (and his cabinet) is to manage the country, thus it is his job to defuse the current street protests and this can not / will not take place by simply refusing to resign, he should ask them why they want him to resign, ask for details and proof of their objections, and then begin to make clarifications about his political visions regarding Thailand, the benefits of which would reflect to the advantage of all Thais, no matter their background or social class.

This, and only this will result into a positive solution of the current problem.

[animatic]

thug –noun

1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.

2.(sometimes initial capital letter) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.

Origin: 1800–10; < Hindi thag lit., rogue, cheat

—Related forms

thug·ger·y  /ˈθʌgəri/ Show Spelled[thuhg-uh-ree] Show IPA, noun

thuggish, adjective

© Random House, Inc. 2010.

-----------------------------------

thug

1810, "member of a gang of murderers and robbers in India who strangled their victims,"

from Marathi thag, thak "cheat, swindler," Hindi thag,

perhaps from Skt. sthaga-s "cunning, fraudulent,"

possibly from sthagayati "(he) covers, conceals," from PIE base *(s)teg- "cover" (see stegosaurus).

Transferred sense of "ruffian, cutthroat" first recorded 1839.

The more correct Indian name is phanseegur, and the activity was described in Eng. as far back as c.1665. Rigorously prosecuted by the British from 1831, they were driven from existence,

but the process extended over the rest of the 19c.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

------------------------------------------------------------

Encyclopedia Thug

member of a well-organized confederacy of professional assassins who traveled in gangs throughout India for several hundred years. (The earliest authenticated mention of the thugs is found in Ziya'-ud-Din Barani, History of Firuz Shah, dated about 1356.) The thugs would insinuate themselves into the confidence of wayfarers and, when a favourable opportunity presented itself, strangle them by throwing a handkerchief or noose around their necks. They then plundered and buried them. All this was done according to certain ancient and rigidly prescribed forms and after the performance of special religious rites, in which the consecration of the pickax and the sacrifice of sugar formed a prominent part. Although the thugs traced their origin to seven Muslim tribes, Hindus appear to have been associated with them at an early period; at any rate, their religious creed and practices as worshipers of Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction, showed no influence of Islam. The fraternity possessed a jargon of its own (Ramasi) and signs by which its members recognized each other

Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008.

We have since the Samak SoE seen a portion of the Red Shirts as vicious ruffians, cunning and fraudulent.

And their group need for special rites and sacrifices are similar.

I would go for duplicitous leaders controling brainwashed zealots,

well before Thugs as a description.

[moresomekl]

******************************************************

You are right mythbuster

Yet in order to elect the PM by popular vote rather then by the parliement with its swinging coalitions , the thai constiution would have to be changed . Double benefit i reckon . But for now it is the primary reason for instability ... and discontent by one camp or the other accusing the opposite side of not being legally in power . What a mess .....

The only MPs that switched parties were the MPs of the PPP after the PPP was banned. The smaller parties switched alegience from the PPP to the Democrats. Most of those parties had campaigned that they *wouldn't* form a coalition with the PPP anyway.

There are plenty of countries where MPs switch parties, and plenty of places where parties stop supporting the major parties in a coalition. They do it because the party that they move from isn't doing what they're (the minor parties) constituents want. And it's legal. Once they are elected, the MPs can do what they want. If the people that voted for them don't like it, then they won't be voted in at the next election. That's how democracy works.

Electing the PM by popular vote is a completely different system than the one in use here, and I'm sure it has it's own inherent problems. It is not in use in most western countries. Why should it be used in Thailand?

*************************************************************************

I do know indeed that electing the PM by popular vote is a completely different system that the one in use in Thailand but that does not mean its a good thing . I am not denying the fact that Thailand system is democratic in its own way , i am questioning the fact that it is blatantly inneficient by not allowing the PM the moral authority , duration , and above all governement predictability necessary to do do a good a efficient job for the people of Thailand . I am questioning the fact that if tomorrow one of the party removes itself from Abhasit coalition the PM is no longer legally in power and then what happen to the tens of thousands of army and police personel in the street of Bangkok , whom they obey ? Or is there need for another coup ? I am questioning the fact that if a PM wants anything done , beyond mere words , then he might have to play dirty tricks to keep its coalition running together because he lacks a popular mandate . I am questioning the fact that if the PM was elected by popular vote there would be little argument about who is legally in power . The facts since 2006 are here to proove that Thailand is an unstable country in the political sense , and arguably , 5% of the thai population are die hard yellow , 10% are die hard red (in the north eastern province) and then who speaks for the 85% ? What are thai so afraid of , that the PM if elected by popular vote will become a dictator ? They are plenty of safeguards that can be added in the constitution to garantee that from not happening . HM the King of Thailand is also a safeguard .

There are plenty of countries like the UK or others in Northern Europe that have a constitutional monarchy with a popularly elected PM and the system works . Nobody is the street there , are contesting the legality of the governement albeit they may protest for other things . Democracy is not chaos , & free will of the people is not anarchy . Many protest have taken place in popular democracy , and yes some of them , have been dispersed by the police using tear gas and water cannon but in the immense majority of case there has been no killing unlike what has happened in Thailand very recent past .

I can not subscribe to the idea that just because the current system in Thailand is in place its the best there is , in my opinion its not , at least in the thai contest as event have prooven . May work in Japan . But then again not beeing a thai , i can only comment , and it is for the thai people to decide . Just that they dont block foreign visitors at the airport regarless of their shirt color while the "governement" in place cant do anything about it .

Thank you ...

[moresomekl]

There are plenty of countries where MPs switch parties, and plenty of places where parties stop supporting the major parties in a coalition. They do it because the party that they move from isn't doing what they're (the minor parties) constituents want. And it's legal. Once they are elected, the MPs can do what they want. If the people that voted for them don't like it, then they won't be voted in at the next election. That's how democracy works.

Electing the PM by popular vote is a completely different system than the one in use here, and I'm sure it has it's own inherent problems. It is not in use in most western countries. Why should it be used in Thailand?

********************************************************************************

***********************

Electing the PM by popular vote every N year (N depending on country) IS in use in all major western countries . In some (France, USA) the top executive is not called the PM but the President , just a change of name in fact , as both , call it PM , or call it President have top executive power with some variation . In France , the president can not be removed by the parliament , only by the constitutional court (in case of gross misconduct) , but his governement which he has nominated can be removed by the parliament f.e if parliament opposite party of the president party , then the president can either name all ministers in his opposite side or call for parlementary elections one time only , then if the new parliement from the election is still in the oposite side of the president political party , the president must name a governement that belongs to the opposite side of his party . In Thailand it would mean for example a yellow shirt PM with all red shirt ministers or vice versa to simplify (soory i get confused with all thai parties acronym ) . It is very democratic you know , yet at every moment there is someone legally in charge until the next general election

But then France is not a constitutional monarchy , so UK system would be perhaps more relevant to Thailand hypothetically that is . I am not so sure of the UK system , sorry for that .

Before 1960 , France had a same system as Thailand , but it was found to be very unstable with governements changing sometimes every 6 months . THey cant do a good job

[miksguevara]

The one thing I have to say as an American observer of Thai politics is that Thailand needs to learn that in a democracy, if things don't go your way, you have to wait until the next election to fix it.

Democrats didn't tear up the US when the Republicans won, and likewise, Republicans didn't do it either when the Democrats won.

yeah great lets all have an american style ' democracy ' where the politicians are just pawns / puppets of big business lol... oh hang on a minute thats pretty much what they are in the uk as well..dam_n

I gotta hand it to Thais, not for closing airports but for standing up for their beliefs. Bush and company cheated elections TWICE and Americans sat on the couch. Thaksin is a noob in comparison to that machine. Although Americans who did stand up were caged in temporary pens called "Free Speech Zones". Land of the free?

Long live the King.

It does make me laff when people get so self righteous about democracy when it is actually debatable whether true democracy exists anywhere? yeah you get to vote in the west but if you are voting in another person from a small group of elites who are controlled by the lobbying of corporate interests..is it really democracy...hmmmm ? By the way I'm not anti american .  

[anotherpeter]

There are plenty of countries where MPs switch parties, and plenty of places where parties stop supporting the major parties in a coalition. They do it because the party that they move from isn't doing what they're (the minor parties) constituents want. And it's legal. Once they are elected, the MPs can do what they want. If the people that voted for them don't like it, then they won't be voted in at the next election. That's how democracy works.

Electing the PM by popular vote is a completely different system than the one in use here, and I'm sure it has it's own inherent problems. It is not in use in most western countries. Why should it be used in Thailand?

********************************************************************************

***********************

Electing the PM by popular vote every N year (N depending on country) IS in use in all major western countries . In some (France, USA) the top executive is not called the PM but the President , just a change of name in fact , as both , call it PM , or call it President have top executive power with some variation . In France , the president can not be removed by the parliament , only by the constitutional court (in case of gross misconduct) , but his governement which he has nominated can be removed by the parliament f.e if parliament opposite party of the president party , then the president can either name all ministers in his opposite side or call for parlementary elections one time only , then if the new parliement from the election is still in the oposite side of the president political party , the president must name a governement that belongs to the opposite side of his party . In Thailand it would mean for example a yellow shirt PM with all red shirt ministers or vice versa to simplify (soory i get confused with all thai parties acronym ) . It is very democratic you know , yet at every moment there is someone legally in charge until the next general election

But then France is not a constitutional monarchy , so UK system would be perhaps more relevant to Thailand hypothetically that is . I am not so sure of the UK system , sorry for that .

Before 1960 , France had a same system as Thailand , but it was found to be very unstable with governements changing sometimes every 6 months . THey cant do a good job

(please learn how to use quotes, so we can read your posts)

Electing the leader (PM, President, whatever) by popular vote is not in use in the USA. I don't know the exact details, but basically, people in each state vote for a party. Depending on the state (as they can each have their own rules), the party that wins has a number of votes (depending on population) towards voting for the President.

In France, they have a Prime Minister and a President. Not sure how both of them are done.

In the UK and Australia, they have the same system as here.

That's all I know off the top of my head.

No system is perfect.

But they have a system here that works pretty well in a lot of other countries.

[moresomekl]

There are plenty of countries where MPs switch parties, and plenty of places where parties stop supporting the major parties in a coalition. They do it because the party that they move from isn't doing what they're (the minor parties) constituents want. And it's legal. Once they are elected, the MPs can do what they want. If the people that voted for them don't like it, then they won't be voted in at the next election. That's how democracy works.

Electing the PM by popular vote is a completely different system than the one in use here, and I'm sure it has it's own inherent problems. It is not in use in most western countries. Why should it be used in Thailand?

********************************************************************************

***********************

Electing the PM by popular vote every N year (N depending on country) IS in use in all major western countries . In some (France, USA) the top executive is not called the PM but the President , just a change of name in fact , as both , call it PM , or call it President have top executive power with some variation . In France , the president can not be removed by the parliament , only by the constitutional court (in case of gross misconduct) , but his governement which he has nominated can be removed by the parliament f.e if parliament opposite party of the president party , then the president can either name all ministers in his opposite side or call for parlementary elections one time only , then if the new parliement from the election is still in the oposite side of the president political party , the president must name a governement that belongs to the opposite side of his party . In Thailand it would mean for example a yellow shirt PM with all red shirt ministers or vice versa to simplify (soory i get confused with all thai parties acronym ) . It is very democratic you know , yet at every moment there is someone legally in charge until the next general election

But then France is not a constitutional monarchy , so UK system would be perhaps more relevant to Thailand hypothetically that is . I am not so sure of the UK system , sorry for that .

Before 1960 , France had a same system as Thailand , but it was found to be very unstable with governements changing sometimes every 6 months . THey cant do a good job

(please learn how to use quotes, so we can read your posts)

Electing the leader (PM, President, whatever) by popular vote is not in use in the USA. I don't know the exact details, but basically, people in each state vote for a party. Depending on the state (as they can each have their own rules), the party that wins has a number of votes (depending on population) towards voting for the President.

In France, they have a Prime Minister and a President. Not sure how both of them are done.

In the UK and Australia, they have the same system as here.

That's all I know off the top of my head.

No system is perfect.

But they have a system here that works pretty well in a lot of other countries.

With all due respect , i think you are misinformed .

In USA each party nominates his candidate , yes . However during the presidential election one of the choosen candidates is elected as president by the whole of the american people (its the one that has the more vote)

In France the president is elected by the whole of the french people (like in USA) . The prime minister is nominated by the president , who (the PM) then nominates his cabinet . The PM is only one of the minister and unlike the president can be dismissed by the parliament .

In UK the PM is elected by the whole of the british ppl

In Germany the chancellor is elected by the whole of the german nation .

Same principle in all european country .

Thank you

[moresomekl]

The one thing I have to say as an American observer of Thai politics is that Thailand needs to learn that in a democracy, if things don't go your way, you have to wait until the next election to fix it.

Democrats didn't tear up the US when the Republicans won, and likewise, Republicans didn't do it either when the Democrats won.

yeah great lets all have an american style ' democracy ' where the politicians are just pawns / puppets of big business lol... oh hang on a minute thats pretty much what they are in the uk as well..dam_n

The issue here in Thailand is that there is no popular election of the PM (more or less eqv to the US president in executive power ) . The thai PM is choosen by his political friends in the parliament some of them subject to revolving loyalties , bribes , little hairs in the back of the neck , a bad night sleep or an ungifted hooker . Therefore the legitimacy of the thai PM is not directly coming from the people . Which is why you got ppl in the street claiming the PM is not legally in place whichever the PM is .

As for the rest on US i might agree but that is a totally different subject entirely .

[FM505]

The one thing I have to say as an American observer of Thai politics is that Thailand needs to learn that in a democracy, if things don't go your way, you have to wait until the next election to fix it.

Democrats didn't tear up the US when the Republicans won, and likewise, Republicans didn't do it either when the Democrats won.

yeah great lets all have an american style ' democracy ' where the politicians are just pawns / puppets of big business lol... oh hang on a minute thats pretty much what they are in the uk as well..dam_n

I gotta hand it to Thais, not for closing airports but for standing up for their beliefs. Bush and company cheated elections TWICE and Americans sat on the couch. Thaksin is a noob in comparison to that machine. Although Americans who did stand up were caged in temporary pens called "Free Speech Zones". Land of the free?

Long live the King.

It does make me laff when people get so self righteous about democracy when it is actually debatable whether true democracy exists anywhere? yeah you get to vote in the west but if you are voting in another person from a small group of elites who are controlled by the lobbying of corporate interests..is it really democracy...hmmmm ? By the way I'm not anti american .

True Democracy...? Meaning...? majority rule...?

The best model of governing ourselves is a 'Representative' republic, thereby giving a voice to all citizens. This doesn't mean that everyone is heard or every little concern is addressed, it is simply the most feasible method.

A true democracy means - for example: Five people finish dinner. They vote on who will do the dishes... three men vs. two women... guess who is doing the dishes? This is 'pure' democracy and you don't want any part of it...

[ballpoint]

A true democracy means - for example: Five people finish dinner. They vote on who will do the dishes... three men vs. two women... guess who is doing the dishes? This is 'pure' democracy and you don't want any part of it...

I don't know, sounds good to me.

If we're going down that road, any parliamentary system means that up to half of the parliament will be doing its best to hinder the efforts of the governing party/ies. It's definitely not in the opposition's interests if the government does a good job and is hugely popular. This is hardly conducive to the efficient running of the country for the benefit of the people. Benevolent dictatorship anyone?