PM Abhisit Questions Thaksin's Role As Leader Of 'Class War'

[MaiChai]

Taksins comments about coming back to build trains and subways: He makes it sound like a new subway can be built overnight; like its something only he can solve, and if he commands it will be done? Didn't subway and train building almost dry up under his premiership? Almost like his nose wasn't in that trough and thus he could not cream off much for himself? Its just amazing what he comes out with!

Reality is these subways are very expensive to build and even Thailand cannot finance them. Taksin obviously has not thought about this before shooting his mouth off!

Edited March 21, 2010 by MaiChai

[moresomekl]

Dr. Taksin is quoted in The Nation today, "I apologise to the people of Bangkok for the traffic congestion but it would never ease until the red shirts win and I will return to solve the problem with sufficient subways and trains,"

Clearly this demonstration is not about democracy, rights for the poor, or anythin but returning Taksin to power. There are lots of poor (most working two jobs) in Bankok who are being hurt, needlessly, because of curtailled retail. If it slows down enough, many may be made redundant. They are not getting money handouts to participate in this charade. If the cause truely were democracy and/or rights of the poor, it would be acceptable but it's not.

The red shirts on this forum will tell you it isn't about Thaksin. Does anyone actually believe that? No

Now Thaksin is promising to deliver for the people of Bangkok. Thay tend to be a LOT more sophisticated than his average supporter and surely will not buy into his lies.

In his interview with TV Channel 9 last night, the prime minister said there were several demands from the Thaksin camp. For example, Thaksin's legal adviser Noppadon Pattama said he wanted an amnesty for the former premier.

yeah --- this rally isn't about Thaksin ...... *cough*

It would be interesting to know what the OTHER demands are

[selftaopath]

"Thaksin did not respond directly to Abhisit..."

No big surprise there. What's he going to say to contradict him? Hard to do when Abhisit comes out with facts about the economies of Thailand and the Thaksin clan during his reign. And I'd love to hear Thaksin explain why he's not sleeping outside, eating somtom and crapping in a portapotty to show solidarity with his supporters. And Abhisit is right- what country does not have economic inequality? Even social democracies have it. I guess we could come up with nation's that have had plans to do away with classes - Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Zimbabwe under Mugabe. Yeah, those worked out well.

I think it laughable that toxic claims loving Thailand and Thai people. He is a tax evader. Taxes collected - are "supposed" to improve conditions of said state and hopefully benefit those in need. When he REFUSED to pay his fair share - like so many rich/powerful he deprives the poor masses. This man is mentally ill.

[craigt3365]

The Post has a great article worth reading. Titled "Thaksin, get out!". Definitely worth a read....

[mazeltov]

http://www.plushasia.com/article/1353

Wow...that's an interesting article. Especially this part:

...

and it didn't came to your mind that you may have heard that story before and you don't know that the whole fiction got debunked many month ago?

wow, what an expert ...

[ballpoint]

Obviously she is right...and what are you inferring anyway? What does Issan have to do with this? We just moved here from the US.

Care to post some proof of this statement? If Thaksin's own asset declaration is to be believed, the vast majority of his money was made after becoming PM. However, as your claim is that "Thaksin made his money BEFORE entering parliament", it only needs to be proved that he made any money at all while in parliament for your lie to be exposed.

By the way, have you, or your wife, any idea as to what year he did enter parliament?

[craigt3365]

http://www.plushasia.com/article/1353

Wow...that's an interesting article. Especially this part:

...

and it didn't came to your mind that you may have heard that story before and you don't know that the whole fiction got debunked many month ago?

wow, what an expert ...

What part of the story is wrong? The part where he bought the football team? The part where 76M Baht was frozen here in Thailand? The part where they say he may be based in India? Be more specific...sorry, not being an expert I need some help here...

[craigt3365]

Obviously she is right...and what are you inferring anyway? What does Issan have to do with this? We just moved here from the US.

Care to post some proof of this statement? If Thaksin's own asset declaration is to be believed, the vast majority of his money was made after becoming PM. However, as your claim is that "Thaksin made his money BEFORE entering parliament", it only needs to be proved that he made any money at all while in parliament for your lie to be exposed.

By the way, have you, or your wife, any idea as to what year he did enter parliament?

What? Are you serious? Please, let's keep this civil...maybe if you read this it will help you...

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

Not sure if it is 100% correct, but I have to believe at least some of this is factual?

[ballpoint]

Obviously she is right...and what are you inferring anyway? What does Issan have to do with this? We just moved here from the US.

Care to post some proof of this statement? If Thaksin's own asset declaration is to be believed, the vast majority of his money was made after becoming PM. However, as your claim is that "Thaksin made his money BEFORE entering parliament", it only needs to be proved that he made any money at all while in parliament for your lie to be exposed.

By the way, have you, or your wife, any idea as to what year he did enter parliament?

What? Are you serious? Please, let's keep this civil...maybe if you read this it will help you...

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

Not sure if it is 100% correct, but I have to believe at least some of this is factual?

Yes, I'm aware of the facts. The link only goes to support them: "Thaksin and his wife had declared assets totaling 15.1 billion baht when he took office in 2001". (By the way, the day he took office as PM was not the day he entered parliament, which was back in 1994. I wonder how much he was worth then?) Anyway, as he had 76 billion baht frozen in Thailand alone, plus what was squirreled away offshore, how can anyone honestly say that he made his money before entering parliament? The vast majority of his money was made while PM.

[moresomekl]

quote name='khunjamespittman' post='3431760' date='2010-03-20 12:56:19']Watching the parade in Bangkok now, one get's the idea that the vast part of the Bangkokians support the movement. They seem to be very supportive of the demonstrators. They are waving the hands and cheering the demonstrators on.

Very interesting we were told the Bangkokians would be angry and even in the face of support shown by the Bangkokians for the demonstrators the news media would still have us believe that Bangkokians are against the demonstrators.

Resist believing the media spin. Make up your own mind. It appears that the majority of the Bangkokians are giving their support.

You obviously do not live in the Bangkapi area as nowhere near the majority forget a vast one supported the thugs as they clogged the streets and made traffic even worse than it normally is. Just on our street alone there were many instances of the red shirts stopping their trucks in front of mini marts and food vendors and asking for free food and water to help support their cause it was not met kindly from the vendors that told us they saw a greater than 70% drop in business today over a normal Saturday.

So your view might be your personal experiences but they differ greatly than my wife and I's personal experiences today.

Could be khunjamespittman lives in an area populated by Isan folk Many of the neighbourhoods on the route were chosen because they passed through areas believed to be sympathetic to the reds because of high Isan presence. The area they passed where native Bangkokians live and work, including Chinatown and Asoke, elicited no applause. On my block I heard a man walking down the street with another man refer to the passing rednecks as khwia (water buffalo crossed with water monitor). Most people simply went about their business paying scant attention to the red hordes.

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

It would seem that a growing number of lower and middle class bangkokian are supportive of the red shirts

according to many reports .

The performance of PM Abhasit so far is not very convincing , one step forward , two steps backward .

To prove to the whole nation that he is a statesman and not the servant of the neo-feudals of the PAD

who propose a social class based "a la carte" right to vote , and to stop the deep divisions in the thai society

he should go on state television and declare publicly :

a) That he and his governement is commited to the concept of one man-one vote

That if the red shirts can form a political party dropping their insistance on Thaksin return

and with a genuine program of reform for the poor this new party is welcome in his coalition

c) Inform all that his governement cant interfere with the judicial process and that a pardon

for Thaksin is for HM to decide .

d) That his governement will fight corruption and that offenders will be removed of office .

If the next day Abhisit is no longer in power , then he was never really in power anyway .

Thank you

[way2muchcoffee]

It would seem that a growing number of lower and middle class bangkokian are supportive of the red shirts

according to many reports .

The performance of PM Abhasit so far is not very convincing , one step forward , two steps backward .

To prove to the whole nation that he is a statesman and not the servant of the neo-feudals of the PAD

who propose a social class based "a la carte" right to vote , and to stop the deep divisions in the thai society

he should go on state television and declare publicly :

a) That he and his governement is commited to the concept of one man-one vote

That if the red shirts can form a political party dropping their insistance on Thaksin return

and with a genuine program of reform for the poor this new party is welcome in his coalition

c) Inform all that his governement cant interfere with the judicial process and that a pardon

for Thaksin is for HM to decide .

d) That his governement will fight corruption and that offenders will be removed of office .

If the next day Abhisit is no longer in power , then he was never really in power anyway .

Thank you

1) Growing support? Where do you get that impression?

2) Poor performance? By all measures this government has been successful at addressing the economic situation of the nation

3) Thailand does not have a one man one vote system. That would require a change of constitution. Reverting back to the 1997 constitution wouldn't solve this.

4) Abhisit has already stated reconciliation could occur if they redshirts dropped Thaksin exoneration from their goals. The reds have so far been unwilling to agree to this.

5) Abhisit has already stated that the Thaksin situation is in the hands of the judiciary and the government has no right to interfere in this.

6) He has already shown that his government fights corruption by firing ministers who were accused of corruption.

So. It seems like all of your conditions have already been met. What next?

Edited March 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moresomekl]

It would seem that a growing number of lower and middle class bangkokian are supportive of the red shirts

according to many reports .

The performance of PM Abhasit so far is not very convincing , one step forward , two steps backward .

To prove to the whole nation that he is a statesman and not the servant of the neo-feudals of the PAD

who propose a social class based "a la carte" right to vote , and to stop the deep divisions in the thai society

he should go on state television and declare publicly :

a) That he and his governement is commited to the concept of one man-one vote

That if the red shirts can form a political party dropping their insistance on Thaksin return

and with a genuine program of reform for the poor this new party is welcome in his coalition

c) Inform all that his governement cant interfere with the judicial process and that a pardon

for Thaksin is for HM to decide .

d) That his governement will fight corruption and that offenders will be removed of office .

If the next day Abhisit is no longer in power , then he was never really in power anyway .

Thank you

1) Growing support? Where do you get that impression?

2) Poor performance? By all measures this government has been successful at addressing the economic situation of the nation

3) Thailand does not have a one man one vote system. That would require a change of constitution. Reverting back to the 1997 constitution wouldn't solve this.

4) Abhisit has already stated reconciliation could occur if they redshirts dropped Thaksin exoneration from their goals. The reds have so far been unwilling to agree to this.

5) Abhisit has already stated that the Thaksin situation is in the hands of the judiciary and the government has no right to interfere in this.

6) He has already shown that his government fights corruption by firing ministers who were accused of corruption.

So. It seems like all of your conditions have already been met. What next?

1) The BBC among others and friends now in Bangkok

2) On day he says he wants to meet the red shirts , next days he says he will meet them only if they disperse.

3) Are you in favor of the PAD muppets with their revolting program of having an unequal vote based

on social class ? I meant this in this context . Not that a change of constitution would not be welcome BTW

4) Alright , then no harm to say so again

5) Yes then no harm to say so again

[jdinasia]

It is amusing when our returned members slip up in their use if idiom

3) The Dems have NEVER put forward the change that a some of the PAD proposed. The fact that the system is currently flawed in a way that makes vote-selling so easy (1 man 3 votes) SHOULD be amended. People should vote for the person that really represents where they come from. The system that the PAD proposed did not remover the vote from anyone BUT it did add a section of people that would vote separatly (including farmers.) It was a poor idea and was dropped when concensus could not be met even inside the PAD.

Sadly, nothing will change much as long as Thaksin is pulling the strings of the reds

[moresomekl]

1) Growing support? Where do you get that impression?

2) Poor performance? By all measures this government has been successful at addressing the economic situation of the nation

3) Thailand does not have a one man one vote system. That would require a change of constitution. Reverting back to the 1997 constitution wouldn't solve this.

4) Abhisit has already stated reconciliation could occur if they redshirts dropped Thaksin exoneration from their goals. The reds have so far been unwilling to agree to this.

5) Abhisit has already stated that the Thaksin situation is in the hands of the judiciary and the government has no right to interfere in this.

6) He has already shown that his government fights corruption by firing ministers who were accused of corruption.

So. It seems like all of your conditions have already been met. What next?

Besides whats wrong in your opinion with one man/woman one vote ???

[WAERTH]

Besides whats wrong in your opinion with one man/woman one vote ???

There is nothing wrong with one man one vote but it would require a total rewrite of the constitution and of the Thai electoral system. It has never ever been one person one vote. Study up on the Thai electoral system and you will know.

W

[ballpoint]

Besides whats wrong in your opinion with one man/woman one vote ???

Take "one man, one vote" to its logical conclusion. Everyone who wants to be an MP goes on a national list. Everyone of voting age gets to choose one from that list. The top 480 vote getters enter parliament. The one with the highest number of votes becomes PM, the next highest is deputy PM. But what if one party got the most candidates elected, but the most votes for a single person went to a member of another party? Would it work? MP's from areas with highest population density would probably get most votes, rural areas the least. We'd have a very Bangkok centric parliament. Is this fair? After all, everyones vote was truly equal.

Or should people just vote for a party and not a candidate? No constituencies, all MP's come from the party list. Each party gets a number of MP's in proportion to its number of votes? Or what about doing away with parties totally? Just a list of names without any affiliation. The one with the most votes is PM, the next is deputy PM, the next 20 become the cabinet. How would that work? You espouse a true one man one vote system, let's hear some suggestions from you on how to go about implementing it.

[scorecard]

I may be wrong but wasn't it the Democrats or their supporters that said the votes

from the poor people of Thailand in an election should only be worth half a vote because

they are uneducated. Can't remember the exact wording so don't jump down my throat.

This doesn't sound like equality to me.

Well I will jump down your throat, you post a highly controversial 'statement' then say, maybe, not sure, can't remeber the exact details, etc.

The answer is NO, the dems did dnot make a statement anything like that, not at all, never, it would be totally the opposite of all the all the principles of the party, and totally the opposite to all the guidance that Chuan Leek Pai and others have given the Dems over decades.

[craigt3365]

Yes, I'm aware of the facts. The link only goes to support them: "Thaksin and his wife had declared assets totaling 15.1 billion baht when he took office in 2001". (By the way, the day he took office as PM was not the day he entered parliament, which was back in 1994. I wonder how much he was worth then?) Anyway, as he had 76 billion baht frozen in Thailand alone, plus what was squirreled away offshore, how can anyone honestly say that he made his money before entering parliament? The vast majority of his money was made while PM.

Absolutely agree...he made most of his money while PM, and probably while in parliment. But not sure his asset declaration was 100% accurate...same with my US tax return!

I believe this was questioned during the recent court case? From reading that article, and others, seems he failed in several business ventures, but really killed it when he entered politics. Makes sense...especially here in Thailand where corruption is so rampant. I think the question of how much he had and how much he currently HAS is one many wonder about!

Besides whats wrong in your opinion with one man/woman one vote ???

Take "one man, one vote" to its logical conclusion. Everyone who wants to be an MP goes on a national list. Everyone of voting age gets to choose one from that list. The top 480 vote getters enter parliament. The one with the highest number of votes becomes PM, the next highest is deputy PM. But what if one party got the most candidates elected, but the most votes for a single person went to a member of another party? Would it work? MP's from areas with highest population density would probably get most votes, rural areas the least. We'd have a very Bangkok centric parliament. Is this fair? After all, everyones vote was truly equal.

Or should people just vote for a party and not a candidate? No constituencies, all MP's come from the party list. Each party gets a number of MP's in proportion to its number of votes? Or what about doing away with parties totally? Just a list of names without any affiliation. The one with the most votes is PM, the next is deputy PM, the next 20 become the cabinet. How would that work? You espouse a true one man one vote system, let's hear some suggestions from you on how to go about implementing it.

What you talk about are the same issues the US deals with regarding the House of Representatives. There are 435 members. Allocated according to population...which is a HOTLY debated issue. Each member comes from a specific geography. How those lines are drawn is another HOTLY debated issue. But it is kinda good, in that each area votes for their own rep. Democrat or Republican or independent...and then whoever gets the most, controls the house. The Senate has 100 members. 2 from each state. These two institutions pretty much run the country as far as legislation goes.

The system, for all it's flaws, is fairly good. Elections every 4 years, no issues with dissolution of the government before then. Unless the Pres gets caught with a cigar and a young girl!!!

If you don't like George W. Bush, you have to wait 4 years to get rid of him (actually was 8...what a bummer). But, it is a different system...and has it's issues. I guess all forms of government do.

But the root problem here is corruption. It has to be dealt with, otherwise it just doesn't matter what you do. If the villagers are still voting based on who gave them money...forget it. And like we have found out in the US, most folks have no idea what is going on. Like Sarah Palin's references to the "country" of Africa.

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds...luckily...it has been relatively free of violence. Let's hope that continues.

P.S. I really enjoy what everybody has to say (well, mostly ). These discussions are fun and very educational...good for us retired folks.

[rixalex]

^ Craig you need to correct what you have quoted - it's attributed to the wrong person.

[craigt3365]

^ Craig you need to correct what you have quoted - it's attributed to the wrong person.

Sorry! This was my first try at using the multiquote option. Obviously, I have some learning to do...

[moresomekl]

Besides whats wrong in your opinion with one man/woman one vote ???

There is nothing wrong with one man one vote but it would require a total rewrite of the constitution and of the Thai electoral system. It has never ever been one person one vote. Study up on the Thai electoral system and you will know.

W

I know the thai electoral system and i say its not working as everyone can see

for last few years .

Actually the whole democratic process is not working in Thailand , Why ? .

A caretaker PM is removed by a coup shortly before new general elections as otherwise

he might win them .

The current prime minister Abhasit is installed by a parliamentary fix not

by an election meaning a fix that it not sanctioned by a general election

Not to mention the story of an elected PM on the side of Mr T that is removed

for participating in .... a cooking show and getting some money there .

He was not even employed full time .

The party Mr T party is dissolved

No wonder ppl are in the street , sounds a bit one sided dont you think ?

If you dont perhaps its you that should study a bit on democracy in other countries

How its done . And also how coalitions come to power in a democratic system

That could be very educative .

PS : i am not on the side of Mr T himself , does not mean i am blind to what the other side

did . Unlike many here

[moresomekl]

Besides whats wrong in your opinion with one man/woman one vote ???

Take "one man, one vote" to its logical conclusion. Everyone who wants to be an MP goes on a national list. Everyone of voting age gets to choose one from that list. The top 480 vote getters enter parliament. The one with the highest number of votes becomes PM, the next highest is deputy PM. But what if one party got the most candidates elected, but the most votes for a single person went to a member of another party? Would it work? MP's from areas with highest population density would probably get most votes, rural areas the least. We'd have a very Bangkok centric parliament. Is this fair? After all, everyones vote was truly equal.

Or should people just vote for a party and not a candidate? No constituencies, all MP's come from the party list. Each party gets a number of MP's in proportion to its number of votes? Or what about doing away with parties totally? Just a list of names without any affiliation. The one with the most votes is PM, the next is deputy PM, the next 20 become the cabinet. How would that work? You espouse a true one man one vote system, let's hear some suggestions from you on how to go about implementing it.

What you talk about are the same issues the US deals with regarding the House of Representatives. There are 435 members. Allocated according to population...which is a HOTLY debated issue. Each member comes from a specific geography. How those lines are drawn is another HOTLY debated issue. But it is kinda good, in that each area votes for their own rep. Democrat or Republican or independent...and then whoever gets the most, controls the house. The Senate has 100 members. 2 from each state. These two institutions pretty much run the country as far as legislation goes.

The system, for all it's flaws, is fairly good. Elections every 4 years, no issues with dissolution of the government before then. Unless the Pres gets caught with a cigar and a young girl!!!

If you don't like George W. Bush, you have to wait 4 years to get rid of him (actually was 8...what a bummer). But, it is a different system...and has it's issues. I guess all forms of government do.

But the root problem here is corruption. It has to be dealt with, otherwise it just doesn't matter what you do. If the villagers are still voting based on who gave them money...forget it. And like we have found out in the US, most folks have no idea what is going on. Like Sarah Palin's references to the "country" of Africa.

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds...luckily...it has been relatively free of violence. Let's hope that continues.

P.S. I really enjoy what everybody has to say (well, mostly ). These discussions are fun and very educational...good for us retired folks.

Ok let me explain . I am sure you know the difference between excecutive branch and legislative branch (judiciary branch i leave aside for now) .

Executive branch :

The PM is elected by the whole nation one man one vote he is the leader of a party but its him that is elected . If he is known as corrupt , power abuser , he wont get elected . If "A" dont get >50% he has to form a coalition with another candidate say "C" behind him who will ask his voters to vote at a secund round election for "A" (generaly a week after the first round) .

"A" having 50% + is the PM . "A" names a governement and run the country for the duration of his mandate can be 3 or 4 years or whatever . "A" can not be elected more then two times .

Legislative branch

MPs are elected in parliementary election at a different time then the PM . Totally different election . More or less similar as THailand with its system of parties . The parliament votes the laws but have no executive power , however they have censorship power of the governement . If they belong to the opposition to the PM , or exert censorship , the PM must name his ministers from their party not his . F.e say a conservative PM having all his ministers from labour party because the parliament has a labour majority . The PM can disolve the parliament only once if he get censored and call for new election , and has to abide by the result of that election

Judiciary branch

the supreme court rules on the constitution and can decide or not to sack the PM if the overwhelming majority of MPs voted for it . Say if the PM commits gross misconduct .

As you can see we have here a proper check of system and balance

Problem is that while in US (or France or UK) , even though you dont like Bush , you will accept the result of elections for 4 years and dont shout in the street your dislike . Thais are not like that they protest . The idea of one man one vote is to make the PM position more acceptable to all sides . But because of the unruly tradition in Thailand , I am not sure it would work however .

Edited March 21, 2010 by moresomekl

[moresomekl]

Yes, I'm aware of the facts. The link only goes to support them: "Thaksin and his wife had declared assets totaling 15.1 billion baht when he took office in 2001". (By the way, the day he took office as PM was not the day he entered parliament, which was back in 1994. I wonder how much he was worth then?) Anyway, as he had 76 billion baht frozen in Thailand alone, plus what was squirreled away offshore, how can anyone honestly say that he made his money before entering parliament? The vast majority of his money was made while PM.

Absolutely agree...he made most of his money while PM, and probably while in parliment. But not sure his asset declaration was 100% accurate...same with my US tax return!

I believe this was questioned during the recent court case? From reading that article, and others, seems he failed in several business ventures, but really killed it when he entered politics. Makes sense...especially here in Thailand where corruption is so rampant. I think the question of how much he had and how much he currently HAS is one many wonder about!

Besides whats wrong in your opinion with one man/woman one vote ???

Take "one man, one vote" to its logical conclusion. Everyone who wants to be an MP goes on a national list. Everyone of voting age gets to choose one from that list. The top 480 vote getters enter parliament. The one with the highest number of votes becomes PM, the next highest is deputy PM. But what if one party got the most candidates elected, but the most votes for a single person went to a member of another party? Would it work? MP's from areas with highest population density would probably get most votes, rural areas the least. We'd have a very Bangkok centric parliament. Is this fair? After all, everyones vote was truly equal.

Or should people just vote for a party and not a candidate? No constituencies, all MP's come from the party list. Each party gets a number of MP's in proportion to its number of votes? Or what about doing away with parties totally? Just a list of names without any affiliation. The one with the most votes is PM, the next is deputy PM, the next 20 become the cabinet. How would that work? You espouse a true one man one vote system, let's hear some suggestions from you on how to go about implementing it.

What you talk about are the same issues the US deals with regarding the House of Representatives. There are 435 members. Allocated according to population...which is a HOTLY debated issue. Each member comes from a specific geography. How those lines are drawn is another HOTLY debated issue. But it is kinda good, in that each area votes for their own rep. Democrat or Republican or independent...and then whoever gets the most, controls the house. The Senate has 100 members. 2 from each state. These two institutions pretty much run the country as far as legislation goes.

The system, for all it's flaws, is fairly good. Elections every 4 years, no issues with dissolution of the government before then. Unless the Pres gets caught with a cigar and a young girl!!!

If you don't like George W. Bush, you have to wait 4 years to get rid of him (actually was 8...what a bummer). But, it is a different system...and has it's issues. I guess all forms of government do.

But the root problem here is corruption. It has to be dealt with, otherwise it just doesn't matter what you do. If the villagers are still voting based on who gave them money...forget it. And like we have found out in the US, most folks have no idea what is going on. Like Sarah Palin's references to the "country" of Africa.

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds...luckily...it has been relatively free of violence. Let's hope that continues.

P.S. I really enjoy what everybody has to say (well, mostly ). These discussions are fun and very educational...good for us retired folks.

Corruption in politics is a great problem in Thailand , yes , and all the neighbouring countries (except Singapore perhaps) . I lived in the Philippines i can tell you , by comparison thais are boys scout . Not an excuse i agree .

To solve it maybe one way is like they did in Singapore , pay ministers and MPs very well , like senior executive in private multinationals . Which in a sense is deserved . That is the carrot .

The stick would be that if any is found guilty of corruption then his political life would be ruined and he has to go to jail .

With Thaksin misfortune as reference perhaps things are starting to change in THailand . What i say above might encourage the process .

Edited March 21, 2010 by moresomekl

[Thanh-BKK]

Not to mention the story of an elected PM on the side of Mr T that is removed

for participating in .... a cooking show and getting some money there .

He was not even employed full time .

The party Mr T party is dissolved

Hi.

The problem was not his cooking show. The problem was that he got a salary for that - and that was illegal.

So far so good, all he would have to do was to admit his mistake and simply stop doing it (the cooking show, or getting paid for it). But no, the greed was stronger - he LIED about being paid (stating he did NOT receive a salary) and even went as far as forging documents to "verify" his claim.

This failed miserably as we know.

Now what to think about a guy who's holding the highest available political position, who's main (and supposedly only) job is to run the country, forging documents and lying before a court?? Right - he deserves to be fired.

And after he was fired (he was NOT banned!) his party could have re-instated him immediately - he would have been without his PM post for less than one single day. However PPP chose Mr. Somchai instead - Thaksin's brother-in-law who apparently was the better guy to work on their only goal - to bring Thaksin back (i guess Samak was actually thinking of running the country, something that was quite unacceptable for PPP......)

And PPP was disbanded for their blatant vote-buying which had been observed by more than enough people. It really IS easy to win an election if you simply pay everyone to vote for you - the only problem, this is illegal (and not very democratic either). In The West disbanding a political party that commits electoral fraud in such a manner would take mere DAYS - here in Thailand it took months. And PPP was in the process to amend the constitution in such a way that their own vote-buying would have become legal - thus erasing their own criminal record (i can imagine it is fun to be a criminal if you can change the laws to forgive yourself....). All the activities of the yellow shirts (besieging government house, mass protests, finally besieging the airports) was to keep the government (read: PPP) busy so they could not concentrate on their constitution rigging - long enough for the court to come to it's verdict.

Thaksin, his first party (TRT) and his second party (PPP) as well as his direct proxies (Samak, Somchai) were so busy shooting themselves into their own feet that they had not possibilities to care for country and people..... and right now they don't, either. All the money that Thaksin is wasting now to finance the red shirts' movement and protests would gain him a huge (and legal!) advantage if he would use it to do good in the regions he claims to care so much for - the northern and north-eastern parts of Thailand. But then again - the country and it's people is not something he cares for, all Thaksin cares for is - Thaksin.

Best regards.....

Thanh

[thaiphoon]

1 post containing flame and response deleted.

[moresomekl]

It would seem that a growing number of lower and middle class bangkokian are supportive of the red shirts

according to many reports .

The performance of PM Abhasit so far is not very convincing , one step forward , two steps backward .

To prove to the whole nation that he is a statesman and not the servant of the neo-feudals of the PAD

who propose a social class based "a la carte" right to vote , and to stop the deep divisions in the thai society

he should go on state television and declare publicly :

a) That he and his governement is commited to the concept of one man-one vote

That if the red shirts can form a political party dropping their insistance on Thaksin return

and with a genuine program of reform for the poor this new party is welcome in his coalition

c) Inform all that his governement cant interfere with the judicial process and that a pardon

for Thaksin is for HM to decide .

d) That his governement will fight corruption and that offenders will be removed of office .

If the next day Abhisit is no longer in power , then he was never really in power anyway .

Thank you

1) Growing support? Where do you get that impression?

2) Poor performance? By all measures this government has been successful at addressing the economic situation of the nation

3) Thailand does not have a one man one vote system. That would require a change of constitution. Reverting back to the 1997 constitution wouldn't solve this.

4) Abhisit has already stated reconciliation could occur if they redshirts dropped Thaksin exoneration from their goals. The reds have so far been unwilling to agree to this.

5) Abhisit has already stated that the Thaksin situation is in the hands of the judiciary and the government has no right to interfere in this.

6) He has already shown that his government fights corruption by firing ministers who were accused of corruption.

So. It seems like all of your conditions have already been met. What next?

Forgot one . Next is that Abhisit has been elected because of some MPS from pro MrT party defecting to his coalition .

Lets take the UK example conservative are elected in a coalition with liberals . All the sudden the liberal party defects to the labor

party as a result the labour comes to power . Do you think they should go for elections to validate the new coalition or not ?

Well i think they should ... and in the UK example they would , else is very strange democraty

Is like you go in a bar orders a cheese burger and get a hot dog . Both have buns , both have cheese BUT one has beef

the other one has a saussage . If the waiter got you approval for the change BEFORE then OK , else not ok .

You can choose to say that Abhisit is legally the PM but its rather flimsy .

[anotherpeter]

I know the thai electoral system and i say its not working as everyone can see

for last few years .

Actually the whole democratic process is not working in Thailand , Why ? .

A caretaker PM is removed by a coup shortly before new general elections as otherwise

he might win them .

The current prime minister Abhasit is installed by a parliamentary fix not

by an election meaning a fix that it not sanctioned by a general election

The PPP were put into government by the same "parliamentary fix" that the Democrats used. That is, a coalition.

Not to mention the story of an elected PM on the side of Mr T that is removed

for participating in .... a cooking show and getting some money there .

He was not even employed full time .

He's PM. He should be doing his PM job full time. Sure, politicians go on television all the time, but they don't get paid to do it.

The party Mr T party is dissolved

The PPP party EXECUTIVE was involved in electoral fraud. Evidence found. Case proven. Individual MPs from most parties were also banned. And so they should be.

No wonder ppl are in the street , sounds a bit one sided dont you think ?

If you dont perhaps its you that should study a bit on democracy in other countries

How its done . And also how coalitions come to power in a democratic system

<snip>

A lot of people are wondering why the reds are protesting. It seems to be about bringing back Thaksin.

How do coalitions come to power in a democratic system? The smaller parties usually decide which major party best suits the interests of their electorate. Sometimes coalitions fall apart and new coalitions are formed.

Why is there always talk by the Thaksin supporters of the Democrats buying the smaller parties? Are you suggesting that the TRT and PPP never bought them? Thaksin's "double standards" again? He's allowed to be corrupt because all politicians are corrupt. The TRT and PPP buy small party support, but it's bad if the Democrats do it.

[anotherpeter]

Forgot one . Next is that Abhisit has been elected because of some MPS from pro MrT party defecting to his coalition .

Lets take the UK example conservative are elected in a coalition with liberals . All the sudden the liberal party defects to the labor

party as a result the labour comes to power . Do you think they should go for elections to validate the new coalition or not ?

Well i think they should ... and in the UK example they would , else is very strange democraty

Is like you go in a bar orders a cheese burger and get a hot dog . Both have buns , both have cheese BUT one has beef

the other one has a saussage . If the waiter got you approval for the change BEFORE then OK , else not ok .

You can choose to say that Abhisit is legally the PM but its rather flimsy .

You can't compare a two party system like Britain with Thailand that has many parties to vote for.

People elect politicians to be their representatives. If they people wanted PPP they should vote PPP.

If the people vote for an MP from a smaller party, then they have to accept which side their representatives decide to go with.

This isn't a case of voting for a PPP MP who changes sides. This is voting for a smaller party who decide that one party isn't doing what their electorate want, so they decide to support another party.

[moresomekl]

Not to mention the story of an elected PM on the side of Mr T that is removed

for participating in .... a cooking show and getting some money there .

He was not even employed full time .

The party Mr T party is dissolved

Hi.

The problem was not his cooking show. The problem was that he got a salary for that - and that was illegal.

So far so good, all he would have to do was to admit his mistake and simply stop doing it (the cooking show, or getting paid for it). But no, the greed was stronger - he LIED about being paid (stating he did NOT receive a salary) and even went as far as forging documents to "verify" his claim.

This failed miserably as we know.

Now what to think about a guy who's holding the highest available political position, who's main (and supposedly only) job is to run the country, forging documents and lying before a court?? Right - he deserves to be fired.

And after he was fired (he was NOT banned!) his party could have re-instated him immediately - he would have been without his PM post for less than one single day. However PPP chose Mr. Somchai instead - Thaksin's brother-in-law who apparently was the better guy to work on their only goal - to bring Thaksin back (i guess Samak was actually thinking of running the country, something that was quite unacceptable for PPP......)

And PPP was disbanded for their blatant vote-buying which had been observed by more than enough people. It really IS easy to win an election if you simply pay everyone to vote for you - the only problem, this is illegal (and not very democratic either). In The West™ disbanding a political party that commits electoral fraud in such a manner would take mere DAYS - here in Thailand it took months. And PPP was in the process to amend the constitution in such a way that their own vote-buying would have become legal - thus erasing their own criminal record (i can imagine it is fun to be a criminal if you can change the laws to forgive yourself....). All the activities of the yellow shirts (besieging government house, mass protests, finally besieging the airports) was to keep the government (read: PPP) busy so they could not concentrate on their constitution rigging - long enough for the court to come to it's verdict.

Thaksin, his first party (TRT) and his second party (PPP) as well as his direct proxies (Samak, Somchai) were so busy shooting themselves into their own feet that they had not possibilities to care for country and people..... and right now they don't, either. All the money that Thaksin is wasting now to finance the red shirts' movement and protests would gain him a huge (and legal!) advantage if he would use it to do good in the regions he claims to care so much for - the northern and north-eastern parts of Thailand. But then again - the country and it's people is not something he cares for, all Thaksin cares for is - Thaksin.

Best regards.....

Thanh

Yes he got a remuneration , he was not employed full time by the TV company . I am not sure what the law says exactly

The main problem is accumulation

PM in exercise is removed in a coup

after a pause by a retired general that wrecks the economy by the way within a year PPP is elected meaning pro Thaksin

thais like his policies dont yu think ?

That PM of PPP is removed because cooking show

Then replaced by that other PM who is removed because vote buying , as if this happens in Thailand first time

PPP disbanded .

Then Abhisit get in power , no election , by some defection in parliament .

NO ELECTION . WHY ?

End result voters voted PPP last time they got consulted , and the end result from a totally different party is Abhisit .

You talk about abuse of power by Mr T , well i see some of the same here

I am sorry you cant convince me

Edited March 21, 2010 by moresomekl

[anotherpeter]

Yes he got a remuneration , he was not employed full time by the TV company . I am not sure what the law says exactly

The main problem is accumulation

PM in exercise is removed in a coup

after a pause by a retired general that wrecks the economy by the way within a year PPP is elected meaning pro Thaksin

thais like his policies dont yu think ?

That PM of PPP is removed because cooking show

Then replaced by that other PM who is removed because vote buying , as if this happens in Thailand first time

PPP disbanded .

Then Abhisit get in power , no election , by some defection in parliament .

NO ELECTION . WHY ?

End result voters voted PPP last time they got consulted , and the end result from a totally different party is Abhisit .

You talk about abuse of power by Mr T , well i see some of the same here

I am sorry you cant convince me

The caretaker PM was removed by a coup. Not excusing the coup. But pointing out that at the time HE WAS NOT THE ELECTED PM.

That's a new one. Did he wreck the economy?

The law says that he can't get renumeration from anywhere except being PM.

So every one does it, so it's OK??

Not a defection. All legit.