Red Shirts To March On Bangkok Streets Again

[stingray]

Bring me any red shirt able to prove he/she knows Exim is not an exotic dish and Temasek a DIY brand and I will start to listen to him/her.

Until then, I just see them as manipulated folks serving the cause of a greedy, dictator-to-be billionaire on the run. They simply do not understand the game they are used for.

My factory staff is tuned all day long on a red shirts radio. Speechs would make you feel like you were listening to a Rwandese radio days before it went ugly.

I would like to know how many of those "reds" have a real job? I'm a foreigner and a employeer and i personaly would not hire some locals who supports a former PM, who was or is against foreigners.

[frodo]

DAAD Leader Jatuporn Prompan has come out to bash the government for installing barbed wire around the Parliament compound. He says the administration is trying to provoke the protesters into causing violence.

Security measures have been raised as the government is set to attend tomorrow's Parliament session.

Decreasing the risk of an attack by putting up barbed wire around Parliament is now called provoking?

This man has clearly lost all his marbles. How can anyone in their right mind honestly believe anything this guy says. WHACKO!

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3439224

Edited March 23, 2010 by frodo

[moresomekl]

As an external and neutral foreign observer , in my views the only way to resolve the crisis present and future is for Mr Abhisit to call for early elections and for the red shirts to drop their intransigeance about the return of Mr Thaksin as PM

Here is why

1) Mr Abhisit in legal terms today is the PM of Thailand as he was voted in by the majority of the parliament which is valid under the thai constitution . However one must be blind not to see that the whole process was flawed by the dissolution of PPP by a court (for electoral fraud) ,subsequently replaced by the PTP . Then my question is : If no electoral fraud can one safely assume that PPP would not have won the majority , nobody can say that for sure , nor its contrary . That is why an early election is required . Otherwise the thai voters which were called for an election and gave majority to the PPP have now a PM opposed to the PPP (or its successor the PTP) and unless there is an election that is undemocratic . More to the point that is dividing thais and create continuous disturbance

2) The reds are correct when they say that Mr Thaksin was ousted illegally by a coup . Mr Thaksin was then legally the PM of Thailand even if caretaker . If he was not then who was ? However what would mean the return of Mr Thaksin as PM ? Dividing thais and create continuous disturbance in the street . Make the country ungovernable . Do thais want that ?

It is not for me to judge of course but from where i sit , if both Mr Abhisit and the leaders of the red shirts persist in their intransigeance nothing good for thais will result . Both parties should show that they are patriots and want the best for their country

1) An early election isn't "required". The PPP did not have a majority. They needed to form a coalition to get into government. Some MPs were caught buying votes. Legal and democratic processes followed.

2) Yes. Clearly the coup was illegal. If Thaksin returned and became PM, then there WOULD be a million people protesting.

Thailand has moved on from the coup and had elections.

A few thousand people protesting about ... whatever they are protesting about ... is not dividing Thais. Thaksin is dividing Thais.

The protestors main valid gripe about the plight of the poor is starting to be addressed. The government have heard, and now they need to do something about it. They have already done some things (before the protests).

The protestors aim of bringing down the government and forcing new elections is not democracy.

The protestors aim of bringing back Thaksin and giving him his money back is unacceptable to a majority of Thais.

I meant majority within a coalition . The PPP was the single largest party in the 2007 elections with 36.6% of the vote and 199 seats . If such a party is dissolved by the judiciary or killed in plane accident whatever there must be a general election for the new PM to be decided in any DEMOCRATIC system , parlementiary or other . Today PTP is the single largest party by number of seats by the way . How long will Mr Abhisit governement will avoid general elections ?

We are agreed on the return of Mr Thaksin and is consequences . I am not defending him . Personally I think he himself should give up on his political ambition to become PM again . Whether he wants to challenge the courts on his money in a legal way is up to him and a different matter

[anotherpeter]

I meant majority within a coalition . The PPP was the single largest party in the 2007 elections with 36.6% of the vote and 199 seats . If such a party is dissolved by the judiciary or killed in plane accident whatever there must be a general election for the new PM to be decided in any DEMOCRATIC system , parlementiary or other . Today PTP is the single largest party by number of seats by the way . How long will Mr Abhisit governement will avoid general elections ?

We are agreed on the return of Mr Thaksin and is consequences . I am not defending him . Personally I think he himself should give up on his political ambition to become PM again . Whether he wants to challenge the courts on his money in a legal way is up to him and a different matter

Actually, in cases where MPs are banned "by the judiciary" or die while in government, then by-elections take place. The people of those electorates get to vote again.

By-elections were held in all electorates where the MP was banned.

That's what happens in most (all?) democratic systems.

[moresomekl]

2) The reds are correct when they say that Mr Thaksin was ousted illegally by a coup . Mr Thaksin was then legally the PM of Thailand even if caretaker . If he was not then who was ? However what would mean the return of Mr Thaksin as PM ? Dividing thais and create continuous disturbance in the street . Make the country ungovernable . Do thais want that ?

Well he was a caretaker PM, he had dissolved parliament putting him pretty much in total power, he was required to call new elections within 6mths, and 12mths later he had not done so (i maybe off slightly on the time frames) and was trying to amend the constitution to allow him to remain in power, sole power. Whilst Coup's are fundamentally illegal (they are only illegal if they fail right? ) he was trying to install himself as a Dictator, in loose terms. So the Military did have justification for removing him. They did do the right thing by scheduling elections relatively quickly... maybe not quickly enough for some (myself included)

So bottom line, and according to the Constitution at the time (and your interpretation of it), he was an Illegal PM, with regard to him failing to schedule elections within the allotted time frame. I read one analysis piece (i don't remember the source however) that suggested he should have returned to HR to declare his failure and seek his guidance on what to do next.

This is how i understand it... which of course could be wrong.

I trust that your figures on time frame are correct and on the substance i agree . But then if Thaksin was not legally the PM , who was ? Why was he not arrested by the police after 6 months and gently sent home ? Anyway , past is past

Yes it took the military almost a year or so to organise election , they did not do much better then Thaksin who was organising them ... finally .... i might add .

Anyway no one can defend a power abuser . One can only seek ways to modify the system or the constitution to avoid such thing from happening again .

The point remain that the red shirts should drop their insistance on the return of Thaksin as PM . I think we agree .

[Wolfie]

The point remain that the red shirts should drop their insistance on the return of Thaksin as PM . I think we agree .

Definitely

[moresomekl]

I meant majority within a coalition . The PPP was the single largest party in the 2007 elections with 36.6% of the vote and 199 seats . If such a party is dissolved by the judiciary or killed in plane accident whatever there must be a general election for the new PM to be decided in any DEMOCRATIC system , parlementiary or other . Today PTP is the single largest party by number of seats by the way . How long will Mr Abhisit governement will avoid general elections ?

We are agreed on the return of Mr Thaksin and is consequences . I am not defending him . Personally I think he himself should give up on his political ambition to become PM again . Whether he wants to challenge the courts on his money in a legal way is up to him and a different matter

Actually, in cases where MPs are banned "by the judiciary" or die while in government, then by-elections take place. The people of those electorates get to vote again.

By-elections were held in all electorates where the MP was banned.

That's what happens in most (all?) democratic systems.

I am sorry to disagree . yes bi elections is the procedure only in the case of one or two MPs impeached or deceased . Not the whole party as such , let alone a whole party in power (with or whitout a coalition) . If in UK tomorrow the labour party is disolved ,a new party is formed , do you think the conservative would rule without an election ? If they do , everyone would be rightly in the street protesting .

[moresomekl]

Just make fresh elections, we'll see.

Fresh elections would require a few things.

1) Agreements to cease all vote-buying efforts by all parties - punishments are already proscribed by law

2) All candidates must be able to campaign freely in every area without fear of harassment or violence. It will be up to the redshirts to guarantee this in their regions. Previous groups entering their strongholds have been victims of death threats, pelting with fermented fish, and machete attacks. This is a huge condition that must be met before any election can be scheduled.

3) Then there is the Thaksin question. There must be iron-clad agreements to cease all political attempts to exonerate Thaksin. The courts have authority in this and political meddling is unacceptable. This is probably the deal breaker for both sides. The reds won't do it. The Dems, military, and most educated society won't tolerate a Thaksin whitewash. Stalemate.

4) Not necessary or likely, but it would be good to have international observers at the next election to guarantee against electoral fraud.

If these conditions could be met elections would likely go forward in a matter of months.

What you say sounds to me fair , reasonable and balanced . If agreed between red shirts and the government , then election should proceed as soon as possible and meanwhile the red shirts go back home .

Perhaps Abhisit should propose that to the red shirts ? As honest thais in their majority i think , for sure they cannot fail to see the stalemate and the damage it does .

Can you honestly see the Thai Politicians allowing international observers at the next election? I can't for 2 reasons, They couldn't cheat and they would see it as loss of face.

Yes our friend said "not likely" . You are right .

[anotherpeter]

I meant majority within a coalition . The PPP was the single largest party in the 2007 elections with 36.6% of the vote and 199 seats . If such a party is dissolved by the judiciary or killed in plane accident whatever there must be a general election for the new PM to be decided in any DEMOCRATIC system , parlementiary or other . Today PTP is the single largest party by number of seats by the way . How long will Mr Abhisit governement will avoid general elections ?

We are agreed on the return of Mr Thaksin and is consequences . I am not defending him . Personally I think he himself should give up on his political ambition to become PM again . Whether he wants to challenge the courts on his money in a legal way is up to him and a different matter

Actually, in cases where MPs are banned "by the judiciary" or die while in government, then by-elections take place. The people of those electorates get to vote again.

By-elections were held in all electorates where the MP was banned.

That's what happens in most (all?) democratic systems.

I am sorry to disagree . yes bi elections is the procedure only in the case of one or two MPs impeached or deceased . Not the whole party as such , let alone a whole party in power (with or whitout a coalition) . If in UK tomorrow the labour party is disolved ,a new party is formed , do you think the conservative would rule without an election ? If they do , everyone would be rightly in the street protesting .

You have to remember that not all the PPP MPs were banned. 3 were banned soon after the 2007 elections (early 2008), and the executive were banned in late 2008 (not sure how many). The rest moved to different parties (mostly Peau Thai), so they probably still had the numbers to form a coalition government.

No one is saying the correct processes were not followed. (except you)

The red shirts are protesting because their party lost government, and they think the courts were biased and corrupt. They are not protesting because the correct processes were not followed.

[animatic]

As an external and neutral foreign observer , in my views the only way to resolve the crisis present and future is for Mr Abhisit to call for early elections and for the red shirts to drop their intransigeance about the return of Mr Thaksin as PM

Here is why

1) Mr Abhisit in legal terms today is the PM of Thailand as he was voted in by the majority of the parliament which is valid under the thai constitution . However one must be blind not to see that the whole process was flawed by the dissolution of PPP by a court (for electoral fraud) ,subsequently replaced by the PTP . Then my question is : If no electoral fraud can one safely assume that PPP would not have won the majority , nobody can say that for sure , nor its contrary . That is why an early election is required . Otherwise the thai voters which were called for an election and gave majority to the PPP have now a PM opposed to the PPP (or its successor the PTP) and unless there is an election that is undemocratic . More to the point that is dividing thais and create continuous disturbance

2) The reds are correct when they say that Mr Thaksin was ousted illegally by a coup . Mr Thaksin was then legally the PM of Thailand even if caretaker . If he was not then who was ? However what would mean the return of Mr Thaksin as PM ? Dividing thais and create continuous disturbance in the street . Make the country ungovernable . Do thais want that ?

It is not for me to judge of course but from where i sit , if both Mr Abhisit and the leaders of the red shirts persist in their intransigeance nothing good for thais will result . Both parties should show that they are patriots and want the best for their country

PPP and TRT were BOTH dissolved because of their OWN

misanthropic and ill considered actions in electioneering.

It therefore is not the problem for the parties that put a coalition together

AFTER, the PPPs actions caused their demise. Because they did it with elected MPs.

The election was held, PPP screwed up during that election;

PPP AFTER that election ceased to exist,

but ALL the MPs from that election, except for banned PPP leaders, are STILL IN PARLIAMENT.

and the banned ones were replaced by localized by elections

And there's the rub in the PTP argument,

all MP's are duly elected by the people and are thus totally legitimate.

Party names are irrelevant if the seated MPS are legitimate, and all MPs are legitimate.

[moresomekl]

2) The reds are correct when they say that Mr Thaksin was ousted illegally by a coup . Mr Thaksin was then legally the PM of Thailand even if caretaker . If he was not then who was ? However what would mean the return of Mr Thaksin as PM ? Dividing thais and create continuous disturbance in the street . Make the country ungovernable . Do thais want that ?

Well he was a caretaker PM, he had dissolved parliament putting him pretty much in total power, he was required to call new elections within 6mths, and 12mths later he had not done so (i maybe off slightly on the time frames) and was trying to amend the constitution to allow him to remain in power, sole power. Whilst Coup's are fundamentally illegal (they are only illegal if they fail right? ) he was trying to install himself as a Dictator, in loose terms. So the Military did have justification for removing him. They did do the right thing by scheduling elections relatively quickly... maybe not quickly enough for some (myself included)

So bottom line, and according to the Constitution at the time (and your interpretation of it), he was an Illegal PM, with regard to him failing to schedule elections within the allotted time frame. I read one analysis piece (i don't remember the source however) that suggested he should have returned to HR to declare his failure and seek his guidance on what to do next.

This is how i understand it... which of course could be wrong.

I trust that your figures on time frame are correct and on the substance i agree . But then if Thaksin was not legally the PM , who was ? Why was he not arrested by the police after 6 months and gently sent home ? Anyway , past is past

Yes it took the military almost a year or so to organise election , they did not do much better then Thaksin who was organising them ... finally .... i might add .

Anyway no one can defend a power abuser . One can only seek ways to modify the system or the constitution to avoid such thing from happening again .

The point remain that the red shirts should drop their insistance on the return of Thaksin as PM . I think we agree .

Sorry it was 223 seats for PPP in the elections of 2007 , not 199 . Next party the democrat party won 165 seats . Absoute majority is 240 seats if am not mistaken

[moresomekl]

I meant majority within a coalition . The PPP was the single largest party in the 2007 elections with 36.6% of the vote and 199 seats . If such a party is dissolved by the judiciary or killed in plane accident whatever there must be a general election for the new PM to be decided in any DEMOCRATIC system , parlementiary or other . Today PTP is the single largest party by number of seats by the way . How long will Mr Abhisit governement will avoid general elections ?

We are agreed on the return of Mr Thaksin and is consequences . I am not defending him . Personally I think he himself should give up on his political ambition to become PM again . Whether he wants to challenge the courts on his money in a legal way is up to him and a different matter

Actually, in cases where MPs are banned "by the judiciary" or die while in government, then by-elections take place. The people of those electorates get to vote again.

By-elections were held in all electorates where the MP was banned.

That's what happens in most (all?) democratic systems.

I am sorry to disagree . yes bi elections is the procedure only in the case of one or two MPs impeached or deceased . Not the whole party as such , let alone a whole party in power (with or whitout a coalition) . If in UK tomorrow the labour party is disolved ,a new party is formed , do you think the conservative would rule without an election ? If they do , everyone would be rightly in the street protesting .

You have to remember that not all the PPP MPs were banned. 3 were banned soon after the 2007 elections (early 2008), and the executive were banned in late 2008 (not sure how many). The rest moved to different parties (mostly Peau Thai), so they probably still had the numbers to form a coalition government.

No one is saying the correct processes were not followed. (except you)

The red shirts are protesting because their party lost government, and they think the courts were biased and corrupt. They are not protesting because the correct processes were not followed.

In case of a shake up as to disband an entire party , say late 2008 in this case , there has to be fresh election in a democratic system .

In UK there would be , same in France . I could find a few posters in other forums that says the same as i do so dont say nobody says that .

Whatever the red shirts are protesting for is not really relevant to my opinion . Yes the root cause of their protest is that they have been neglected and feel that Thaksin did changed that , right or wrong and they feel cheated by the coup and subsequent events as the courts ruling . They are really pissed .

[animatic]

I meant majority within a coalition . The PPP was the single largest party in the 2007 elections with 36.6% of the vote and 199 seats . If such a party is dissolved by the judiciary or killed in plane accident whatever there must be a general election for the new PM to be decided in any DEMOCRATIC system , parlementiary or other . Today PTP is the single largest party by number of seats by the way . How long will Mr Abhisit governement will avoid general elections ?

We are agreed on the return of Mr Thaksin and is consequences . I am not defending him . Personally I think he himself should give up on his political ambition to become PM again . Whether he wants to challenge the courts on his money in a legal way is up to him and a different matter

Actually, in cases where MPs are banned "by the judiciary" or die while in government, then by-elections take place. The people of those electorates get to vote again.

By-elections were held in all electorates where the MP was banned.

That's what happens in most (all?) democratic systems.

I am sorry to disagree . yes bi elections is the procedure only in the case of one or two MPs impeached or deceased . Not the whole party as such , let alone a whole party in power (with or whitout a coalition) . If in UK tomorrow the labour party is disolved ,a new party is formed , do you think the conservative would rule without an election ? If they do , everyone would be rightly in the street protesting .

You have to remember that not all the PPP MPs were banned. 3 were banned soon after the 2007 elections (early 2008), and the executive were banned in late 2008 (not sure how many). The rest moved to different parties (mostly Peau Thai), so they probably still had the numbers to form a coalition government.

No one is saying the correct processes were not followed. (except you)

The red shirts are protesting because their party lost government, and they think the courts were biased and corrupt. They are not protesting because the correct processes were not followed.

The process was followed and PPP and the PTP follow on party have

FILED no case in court, because they KNOW they HAVE NO CASE if brought to court.

So they are attempting, with their usual arrogance, to manipulate the court of public opinion,

mostly with obvious lies and half truths in the hopes of a anger based game changing mistake

by one side or another, that would cause some un precidented galvanization of the body politic,

behind their aims of controlling the national coffers.

It seems these people are not bright enough to just try and show a GREAT opposition party,

that has BETTER plans and BETTER critique of the government... seems they can NOT show that,

and so must resort to their street branch, and intimidation, and blatent lying in parliament by

the likes of Chalerm and Jatuporn.

All in all a pathetic bunch wishing to control the nation, regardless of their followers ALEGED numbers.

They seem to equate popularity with competence and those are different animals entirely.

[anotherpeter]

In case of a shake up as to disband an entire party , say late 2008 in this case , there has to be fresh election in a democratic system .

In UK there would be , same in France . I could find a few posters in other forums that says the same as i do so dont say nobody says that .

Whatever the red shirts are protesting for is not really relevant to my opinion . Yes the root cause of their protest is that they have been neglected and feel that Thaksin did changed that , right or wrong and they feel cheated by the coup and subsequent events as the courts ruling . They are really pissed .

The thing is, there doesn't HAVE to be. The MPs are still there. By-elections are held for the MPs that are banned. The parties don't really make a difference.

And you can't say that there would be in the UK and France, since nothing like that has ever happened there (or not that I know of anyway - please give me examples if it has).

The root cause of the protests is that Thaksin's puppets are no longer in power.

[yoshiwara]

In case of a shake up as to disband an entire party , say late 2008 in this case , there has to be fresh election in a democratic system .

In UK there would be , same in France . I could find a few posters in other forums that says the same as i do so dont say nobody says that .

Whatever the red shirts are protesting for is not really relevant to my opinion . Yes the root cause of their protest is that they have been neglected and feel that Thaksin did changed that , right or wrong and they feel cheated by the coup and subsequent events as the courts ruling . They are really pissed .

All this red apologist wittering on about the people being 'neglected' is intellectually dishonest at best.

There are, of course, no class economic demands made by the reds, because there aren't any.

There can't be.

If there were, the economic demands would present a threat to Thaksin himself and his allies with their own vested interests.

Can't have that.

So let's just have the red apologist fellow-travellers make endless wishy-washy remarks about 'neglect'.

However, there are three clear objectives set out by Thaksin and underpinning everything the reds do.

These are the ones he pays for:

Break the rule of law, pardon Thaksin and restore Thaksin to power and patronage.

The apologists know it.

[moresomekl]

As an external and neutral foreign observer , in my views the only way to resolve the crisis present and future is for Mr Abhisit to call for early elections and for the red shirts to drop their intransigeance about the return of Mr Thaksin as PM

Here is why

1) Mr Abhisit in legal terms today is the PM of Thailand as he was voted in by the majority of the parliament which is valid under the thai constitution . However one must be blind not to see that the whole process was flawed by the dissolution of PPP by a court (for electoral fraud) ,subsequently replaced by the PTP . Then my question is : If no electoral fraud can one safely assume that PPP would not have won the majority , nobody can say that for sure , nor its contrary . That is why an early election is required . Otherwise the thai voters which were called for an election and gave majority to the PPP have now a PM opposed to the PPP (or its successor the PTP) and unless there is an election that is undemocratic . More to the point that is dividing thais and create continuous disturbance

2) The reds are correct when they say that Mr Thaksin was ousted illegally by a coup . Mr Thaksin was then legally the PM of Thailand even if caretaker . If he was not then who was ? However what would mean the return of Mr Thaksin as PM ? Dividing thais and create continuous disturbance in the street . Make the country ungovernable . Do thais want that ?

It is not for me to judge of course but from where i sit , if both Mr Abhisit and the leaders of the red shirts persist in their intransigeance nothing good for thais will result . Both parties should show that they are patriots and want the best for their country

PPP and TRT were BOTH dissolved because of their OWN

misanthropic and ill considered actions in electioneering.

It therefore is not the problem for the parties that put a coalition together

AFTER, the PPPs actions caused their demise. Because they did it with elected MPs.

The election was held, PPP screwed up during that election;

PPP AFTER that election ceased to exist,

but ALL the MPs from that election, except for banned PPP leaders, are STILL IN PARLIAMENT.

and the banned ones were replaced by localized by elections

And there's the rub in the PTP argument,

all MP's are duly elected by the people and are thus totally legitimate.

Party names are irrelevant if the seated MPS are legitimate, and all MPs are legitimate.

I dont dispute the right or wrong of TRT or PPP beeing disbanded .

I can not concurr in the fact that if a party in power through elections all the sudden finds itself

or its successor in the opposition by some parliementary trick rather then by an election

its undemocratic

I also dispute the fact that if a MP defect to another party he should not stand

for election .

For example

If i am a MP in a pro-abortion party , elected for my beliefs and i defect to a party

anti-abortion are my voters cheated or not ? Of course they are . the more so if because

of my defection the anti-abortion party comes in power , but in any events anyway .

[anotherpeter]

I dont dispute the right or wrong of TRT or PPP beeing disbanded .

I can not concurr in the fact that if a party in power through elections all the sudden finds itself

or its successor in the opposition by some parliementary trick rather then by an election

its undemocratic

I also dispute the fact that if a MP defect to another party he should not stand

for election .

For example

If i am a MP in a pro-abortion party , elected for my beliefs and i defect to a party

anti-abortion are my voters cheated or not ? Of course they are . the more so if because

of my defection the anti-abortion party comes in power , but in any events anyway .

Sometimes you vote for politicians (and their party) because they say they are going to do something.

And (shock ... horror) they lied.

Nothing you can do about it, except not vote for them in the next election.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean they have to call a new election.

[Insight]

Was Chavalit snubbed? Have the reds crossed the point of no return? Is that what the little vigil is about today?

[moresomekl]

In case of a shake up as to disband an entire party , say late 2008 in this case , there has to be fresh election in a democratic system .

In UK there would be , same in France . I could find a few posters in other forums that says the same as i do so dont say nobody says that .

Whatever the red shirts are protesting for is not really relevant to my opinion . Yes the root cause of their protest is that they have been neglected and feel that Thaksin did changed that , right or wrong and they feel cheated by the coup and subsequent events as the courts ruling . They are really pissed .

The thing is, there doesn't HAVE to be. The MPs are still there. By-elections are held for the MPs that are banned. The parties don't really make a difference.

And you can't say that there would be in the UK and France, since nothing like that has ever happened there (or not that I know of anyway - please give me examples if it has).

The root cause of the protests is that Thaksin's puppets are no longer in power.

There are numerous example of british PMs (Churchill among others) and even french presidents

(disolving the parliament then on their side) that called for EARLY elections just to make sure that they

have a clear mandate from the people .

The root cause of the protests is that Thaksin puppet are no longer in power

Yes true . But why is that ? Has he hypnotised them ? Must be black magic

The why is always important .

[way2muchcoffee]

In case of a shake up as to disband an entire party , say late 2008 in this case , there has to be fresh election in a democratic system .

In UK there would be , same in France . I could find a few posters in other forums that says the same as i do so dont say nobody says that .

Whatever the red shirts are protesting for is not really relevant to my opinion . Yes the root cause of their protest is that they have been neglected and feel that Thaksin did changed that , right or wrong and they feel cheated by the coup and subsequent events as the courts ruling . They are really pissed .

I agree they are pissed. But their anger is misdirected. If I voted for my favorite candidate and my favorite party and they were later found to have been guilty of massive electoral fraud I would not be angry at the courts or the opposition. I would be angry at my own party whose leaders subverted the democratic process and engaged in criminal actions. But you don't see any of that kind of reaction from any redshirt. There have been no calls by redshirts to clean up their own act and engage in honest campaigning or governance.

An another point, you mention how new elections should have been held. But again there was no constitutional requirement for this. You are calling for new elections but your arguments revolve around amending the constitution. These are not the same thing. I would argue that disbanding the current legal government at this point, due to mobs on the streets, would subvert the cause of democracy just as surely as the coup did.

One last point. The rhetoric from the protest leaders is for class war. They have deliberately downplayed the Thaksin situation. But at the same time he is making nightly phone ins and funding the demonstrations. Don't you find it interesting that after having been fairly quiet for several months with regards to house dissolution that immediately after the Thaksin assets verdict came in they decided to throw all their efforts into a final push? What do they represent? Why are they really here? Do the footsoldiers even know? Do the leaders even know? The leaders have changed tactics in just the last week when they saw that they weren't having the kind of impact they hoped for.

Edited March 23, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moresomekl]

I dont dispute the right or wrong of TRT or PPP beeing disbanded .

I can not concurr in the fact that if a party in power through elections all the sudden finds itself

or its successor in the opposition by some parliementary trick rather then by an election

its undemocratic

I also dispute the fact that if a MP defect to another party he should not stand

for election .

For example

If i am a MP in a pro-abortion party , elected for my beliefs and i defect to a party

anti-abortion are my voters cheated or not ? Of course they are . the more so if because

of my defection the anti-abortion party comes in power , but in any events anyway .

Sometimes you vote for politicians (and their party) because they say they are going to do something.

And (shock ... horror) they lied.

Nothing you can do about it, except not vote for them in the next election.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean they have to call a new election.

Its not about lying its about defecting to the opposite side .

Does not mean they have to call for a new election ?

Of course not , but that is not an argument

[anotherpeter]

In case of a shake up as to disband an entire party , say late 2008 in this case , there has to be fresh election in a democratic system .

In UK there would be , same in France . I could find a few posters in other forums that says the same as i do so dont say nobody says that .

Whatever the red shirts are protesting for is not really relevant to my opinion . Yes the root cause of their protest is that they have been neglected and feel that Thaksin did changed that , right or wrong and they feel cheated by the coup and subsequent events as the courts ruling . They are really pissed .

The thing is, there doesn't HAVE to be. The MPs are still there. By-elections are held for the MPs that are banned. The parties don't really make a difference.

And you can't say that there would be in the UK and France, since nothing like that has ever happened there (or not that I know of anyway - please give me examples if it has).

The root cause of the protests is that Thaksin's puppets are no longer in power.

There are numerous example of british PMs (Churchill among others) and even french presidents

(disolving the parliament then on their side) that called for EARLY elections just to make sure that they

have a clear mandate from the people .

The root cause of the protests is that Thaksin puppet are no longer in power

Yes true . But why is that ? Has he hypnotised them ? Must be black magic

The why is always important .

Your key sentence is "disolving the parliament then on their side".

They chose to dissolve parliament. Just the same as Thaksin choosing to dissolve parliament to get a mandate in the 2006 elections here. The party in power chooses to dissolve parliament because it suits them.

The PPP did not dissolve parliament. I am assuming that they didn't because they didn't have the numbers (they no longer had the coalition). So the Democrats were able to form a new coalition government. No elections required.

[animatic]

Where there is shouting, there is no true knowledge.

Leonardo da Vinci

[Thai at Heart]

Was Chavalit snubbed? Have the reds crossed the point of no return? Is that what the little vigil is about today?

Snubbed? Appears so.

[moresomekl]

In case of a shake up as to disband an entire party , say late 2008 in this case , there has to be fresh election in a democratic system .

In UK there would be , same in France . I could find a few posters in other forums that says the same as i do so dont say nobody says that .

Whatever the red shirts are protesting for is not really relevant to my opinion . Yes the root cause of their protest is that they have been neglected and feel that Thaksin did changed that , right or wrong and they feel cheated by the coup and subsequent events as the courts ruling . They are really pissed .

I agree they are pissed. But their anger is misdirected. If I voted for my favorite candidate and my favorite party and they were later found to have been guilty of massive electoral fraud I would not be angry at the courts or the opposition. I would be angry at my own party whose leaders subverted the democratic process and engaged in criminal actions. But you don't see any of that kind of reaction from any redshirt. There have been no calls by redshirts to clean up their own act and engage in honest campaigning or governance.

An another point, you mention how new elections should have been held. But again there was no constitutional requirement for this. You are calling for new elections but your arguments revolve around amending the constitution. These are not the same thing. I would argue that disbanding the current legal government at this point, due to mobs on the streets, would subvert the cause of democracy just as surely as the coup did.

I think its because , as some of our friends here, they are too partisan . They believe the courts were biased . I have no judgement one way or another on that as i am simply not informed enough on that .

Oh yes of course , not call for early elections NOW ... While ppl are on the street . I fully agree

[anotherpeter]

Sometimes you vote for politicians (and their party) because they say they are going to do something.

And (shock ... horror) they lied.

Nothing you can do about it, except not vote for them in the next election.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean they have to call a new election.

Its not about lying its about defecting to the opposite side .

Does not mean they have to call for a new election ?

Of course not , but that is not an argument

Lying is exactly what it's about. They get elected because they say they are with one party and they move to another party. THEY LIED.

"Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean they have to call a new election." - that's not an argument, it's a statement. All your other arguements are wrong.

There might be 100 valid reasons for a politician to change political parties. But the point is, it's allowed, and new elections are not required.

And since we are generally discussing parties changing coalition, that is allowed, very common and, once again, doesn't require new elections.

[Samuian]

Was Chavalit snubbed? Have the reds crossed the point of no return? Is that what the little vigil is about today?

Well, as of the reporting of one news paper which can't be quoted here, Yongyut and Chavalit are calling for dissolution of the Parliament!

Chavalit said he will go and lobby other veteran politicians to go for a dissolution of Parliament and snap elections - the last resort - will they follow?

If so, troubled times lay ahead!

No, "peaceful" re-union!

oh'oh.... if so it will be terrible, all the wrestling and wrangling will start anew!

Edited March 23, 2010 by Samuian

[way2muchcoffee]

Well anyway. It is one great big show for now. It ranges from tedious to titillating on a daily basis. We are all just observers, but following events makes an interesting diversion. Thais will sort it out in the Thai way. Hopefully it doesn't get too violent.

[hammered]

To get elections they will have to exert all osrts of pressure while negotiatiting for them or they wont happen. Be interesting to see what fireworks are in store to back up the big push

Thaksin needs something to happen now he is pulling in all the favours etc

[moresomekl]

In case of a shake up as to disband an entire party , say late 2008 in this case , there has to be fresh election in a democratic system .

In UK there would be , same in France . I could find a few posters in other forums that says the same as i do so dont say nobody says that .

Whatever the red shirts are protesting for is not really relevant to my opinion . Yes the root cause of their protest is that they have been neglected and feel that Thaksin did changed that , right or wrong and they feel cheated by the coup and subsequent events as the courts ruling . They are really pissed .

The thing is, there doesn't HAVE to be. The MPs are still there. By-elections are held for the MPs that are banned. The parties don't really make a difference.

And you can't say that there would be in the UK and France, since nothing like that has ever happened there (or not that I know of anyway - please give me examples if it has).

The root cause of the protests is that Thaksin's puppets are no longer in power.

There are numerous example of british PMs (Churchill among others) and even french presidents

(disolving the parliament then on their side) that called for EARLY elections just to make sure that they

have a clear mandate from the people .

The root cause of the protests is that Thaksin puppet are no longer in power

Yes true . But why is that ? Has he hypnotised them ? Must be black magic

The why is always important .

Your key sentence is "disolving the parliament then on their side".

They chose to dissolve parliament. Just the same as Thaksin choosing to dissolve parliament to get a mandate in the 2006 elections here. The party in power chooses to dissolve parliament because it suits them.

The PPP did not dissolve parliament. I am assuming that they didn't because they didn't have the numbers (they no longer had the coalition). So the Democrats were able to form a new coalition government. No elections required.

Yes about the french presidents only whose mandate do not depend on the parliament flavour , but no in the UK its too risky , so i assume that when Churchill f.e called for early election in 1945 it was a genuine democratic act ... and he lost . Usually in UK or France when they do that they loose , history has shown . But in Thailand its really a big shake up to disolve a party with nearly the absolute majority , nearly all foreign press agree that Mr Abhasit came in power by some parliament trick rather then by an election .