Red Shirts Plan Intensified Protest In Bangkok : Saturday

[anotherpeter]

Do you know who they were shooting at and why? Were they provoked?

But I don't think I said they were peaceful or excusing what they did. (Although their take over of the airport was peaceful.) I was just pointing out that they weren't threatening civil war, or threatening to blow up a gas tanker in a residential area, or threatening to burn down Bangkok.

The yellows were protesting against the government, not threatening war against the people of Bangkok.

EDIT: And going back to the very original discussion, pointing out why Abhisit needs protection from the threats of the red protestors.

You are saying that the RED can also take the airport, as long as they take it peacefully, just like the YELLOW. Please confirm my understanding.

It is pretty clear that I said I am NOT excusing what the yellow's did. All I said was that it was peaceful.

Don't you think it would be Double Standards if the reds took over the airport, after all their complaining about the yellows doing it?

[maxpower]

I really don’t understand how you can continue to discuss a political situation in an environment where many important issues are censored. This discussion is beginning to sound like a scratched record stuck on the “Thakin’s a bad man” track.

Get yourselves into one of the free speech arenas where the red shirt supporters have much heavier artillery.

[way2muchcoffee]

You are saying that the RED can also take the airport, as long as they take it peacefully, just like the YELLOW. Please confirm my understanding.

I'd like to see them give it a shot. Unfortunately I don't believe they are as stupid as their yellow predecessors on this particular plan of action. They have their own unique brand of stupidity though with blood rites and the like.

Edited March 26, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[way2muchcoffee]

I really don’t understand how you can continue to discuss a political situation in an environment where many important issues are censored. This discussion is beginning to sound like a scratched record stuck on the “Thakin’s a bad man” track.

Get yourselves into one of the free speech arenas where the red shirt supporters have much heavier artillery.

What trick is this? Jatuporn this morning indicated (indirectly) that one of the primary aims of the redshirt movement is to exonerate Thaksin. That they do this while clamoring for democracy is the ultimate double standard.

Edited March 26, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[TAWP]

Get yourselves into one of the free speech arenas where the red shirt supporters have much heavier artillery.

Nonsense, the only thing you will see there is republican and revolutionary wishes, neither which are 'heavier artillery' in terms of great arguments for their cause.

If you wish to prove me wrong, you are welcome to PM me some arguments that for some very odd reason cannot be publicly written here.

[yoshiwara]

I really don’t understand how you can continue to discuss a political situation in an environment where many important issues are censored. This discussion is beginning to sound like a scratched record stuck on the “Thakin’s a bad man” track.

Get yourselves into one of the free speech arenas where the red shirt supporters have much heavier artillery.

The only heavy artillery Thaksin's reds have in mind presently is to cut off each other's hair.

Going bald is the new class war.

[Flatouthruthefog]

I really don't understand how you can continue to discuss a political situation in an environment where many important issues are censored. This discussion is beginning to sound like a scratched record stuck on the "Thakin's a bad man" track.

Get yourselves into one of the free speech arenas where the red shirt supporters have much heavier artillery.

The only heavy artillery Thaksin's reds have in mind presently is to cut off each other's hair.

Going bald is the new class war.

First blood, now hair.

What can we hope for next?

Throats........??!!

No bias in this, of course...........

[mazeltov]

There was by-elections after the court decision. If PPP had the peoples mandate they would not have LOST their MP seats in SEVERAL of the by-elections. PPP COULD have still had the EQUAL number of MPs or MORE if they indeed had such a huge support from the people.

Why did that not happen?

with a by-election only the parliament seats from the Constituency voting get "refilled".

if a MP from a party list leave the parliament (for whatever reason) the next candidate on the party list will get the seat.

in case that the party was dissolved, for the leaving MP exist not such a party list anymore, the seat will left empty.

proportional seats of banned members from dissolved party lists are lost. so much to the "equal" number of MPs.

parliamentary work and keep in contact with your constituency and your party buddies and your party line will become difficult if your party got dissolved and all its executives banned now and then by a court, because one other party member from some other province, far away from your own constituency did something wrong.

a MP who had just lost 'his' party with the dissolution but didn't get banned, must join a new party. that isn't such an easy task because the heads of your old party just got banned, other factions other persons now have more influence on the polices of a new party. parties and its members aren't a homogenous block, generic, interchangeable.

for by-elections your need people, candidates who do the job and are good and qualified for it. these candidates don't have the old party name as back up anymore. their face isn't so popular like that of the banned MP they aim to replace.

party dissolution is pretty much a big hammer and a knock out.

the team lost the goalkeeper, the best striker , the experienced midfielder and playmaker and the coach too because some other dude of the team is doped.

okay, it is the rules, and the referee is always right, but is it fair and sportsmanlike?

the dissolution of three parties of a coalition government, the executive banned, isn't parliamentary daily routine but a worst case. IMHO, holding a new election would be appropriate, especially since Abihist told the press the same thing shortly after the court decision.

[way2muchcoffee]

with a by-election only the parliament seats from the Constituency voting get "refilled".

if a MP from a party list leave the parliament (for whatever reason) the next candidate on the party list will get the seat.

in case that the party was dissolved, for the leaving MP exist not such a party list anymore, the seat will left empty.

proportional seats of banned members from dissolved party lists are lost. so much to the "equal" number of MPs.

Is this true? I haven't read this, but it sounds plausible. If so it does provide some credibility to the arguments of a judicial coup.

At the same time the PPP executives did break the law. There must be consequences, and if dissolving the party is one of those consequences then they only have themselves to blame.

[way2muchcoffee]

the dissolution of three parties of a coalition government, the executive banned, isn't parliamentary daily routine but a worst case. IMHO, holding a new election would be appropriate, especially since Abihist told the press the same thing shortly after the court decision.

Given the levels of corruption amongst MPs and their party leaders I think party dissolution is not inappropriate. There must be consequences when a party conspires to fix an election.

[mazeltov]

with a by-election only the parliament seats from the Constituency voting get "refilled".

if a MP from a party list leave the parliament (for whatever reason) the next candidate on the party list will get the seat.

in case that the party was dissolved, for the leaving MP exist not such a party list anymore, the seat will left empty.

proportional seats of banned members from dissolved party lists are lost. so much to the "equal" number of MPs.

Is this true? I haven't read this, but it sounds plausible. If so it does provide some credibility to the arguments of a judicial coup.

At the same time the PPP executives did break the law. There must be consequences, and if dissolving the party is one of those consequences then they only have themselves to blame.

Q5. Will the vacant seats in the House of Representatives be refilled?

• According to Section 109 of the Constitution, what happens when the seat of a member of the House of Representatives becomes vacant for any reason other than the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House is that:

- If the vacant seat is that of the representative elected on a constituency basis, an election shall be held to refill that seat within 45 days as from the date of the vacancy unless the remainder of the term of the House of Representatives is less than 180 days.

- If the vacant seat is that of the representative elected on a proportional basis, the President of the House of Representatives shall elevate the person from the same political party, whose name is placed in the next order on the list of the political party concerned to fill the vacant seat by publishing the replacement name in the Government Gazette. However, where there is no person to be elevated – as happens in this case of party-list-based seats becoming vacant because of the political party that occupies them is dissolved – the House of Representatives shall consist of the remaining members.

http://www.thaiembassy.sg/press_media/news...tion-of-3-polit

[way2muchcoffee]

• According to Section 109 of the Constitution, what happens when the seat of a member of the House of Representatives becomes vacant for any reason other than the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House is that:

- If the vacant seat is that of the representative elected on a constituency basis, an election shall be held to refill that seat within 45 days as from the date of the vacancy unless the remainder of the term of the House of Representatives is less than 180 days.

- If the vacant seat is that of the representative elected on a proportional basis, the President of the House of Representatives shall elevate the person from the same political party, whose name is placed in the next order on the list of the political party concerned to fill the vacant seat by publishing the replacement name in the Government Gazette. However, where there is no person to be elevated – as happens in this case of party-list-based seats becoming vacant because of the political party that occupies them is dissolved – the House of Representatives shall consist of the remaining members.

http://www.thaiembassy.sg/press_media/news...tion-of-3-polit[/indent]

I don't understand. What you have posted seems to indicate that all constituency MPs should stand by-election in order to retain their seat. This isn't what happened for constituency MPs. All constituency MPs who were not banned shifted from PPP to PTP and retained their seats. Either something is amiss with what you posted or I'm just a little thick this evening.

Regarding the proportional vote MPs, it appears that what you say is correct. According to your post the proportional MPs are simply removed and not replaced until the next election.

While the PPP seems to have lost their proportional MPs it seems not unreasonable that this is the consequence of the party itself trying to rig an election. Should they be able to keep their unelected MPs in this case? (Remember that the only directly elected MPs are from the constituency vote).

I haven't fully thought this through as I now have new information that I haven't fully processed. Thanks for that Mazeltov.

Edited March 26, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Nuchanart]

This is another good one. However it is in Thai.

[Cayenne]

I really don't understand how you can continue to discuss a political situation in an environment where many important issues are censored. This discussion is beginning to sound like a scratched record stuck on the "Thakin's a bad man" track.

Get yourselves into one of the free speech arenas where the red shirt supporters have much heavier artillery.

The only heavy artillery Thaksin's reds have in mind presently is to cut off each other's hair.

Going bald is the new class war.

First blood, now hair.

What can we hope for next?

Throats........??!!

No bias in this, of course...........

I was going to say heads...

[bulmercke]

I really don’t understand how you can continue to discuss a political situation in an environment where many important issues are censored. This discussion is beginning to sound like a scratched record stuck on the “Thakin’s a bad man” track.

Get yourselves into one of the free speech arenas where the red shirt supporters have much heavier artillery.

The only heavy artillery Thaksin's reds have in mind presently is to cut off each other's hair.

Going bald is the new class war.

Good for them. This a demonstration of solidarity and support even though you obviously don't agree.

Up the Reds!

[animatic]

There was by-elections after the court decision. If PPP had the peoples mandate they would not have LOST their MP seats in SEVERAL of the by-elections. PPP COULD have still had the EQUAL number of MPs or MORE if they indeed had such a huge support from the people.

Why did that not happen?

with a by-election only the parliament seats from the Constituency voting get "refilled".

if a MP from a party list leave the parliament (for whatever reason) the next candidate on the party list will get the seat.

in case that the party was dissolved, for the leaving MP exist not such a party list anymore, the seat will left empty.

proportional seats of banned members from dissolved party lists are lost. so much to the "equal" number of MPs.

parliamentary work and keep in contact with your constituency and your party buddies and your party line will become difficult if your party got dissolved and all its executives banned now and then by a court, because one other party member from some other province, far away from your own constituency did something wrong.

a MP who had just lost 'his' party with the dissolution but didn't get banned, must join a new party. that isn't such an easy task because the heads of your old party just got banned, other factions other persons now have more influence on the polices of a new party. parties and its members aren't a homogenous block, generic, interchangeable.

for by-elections your need people, candidates who do the job and are good and qualified for it. these candidates don't have the old party name as back up anymore. their face isn't so popular like that of the banned MP they aim to replace.

party dissolution is pretty much a big hammer and a knock out.

the team lost the goalkeeper, the best striker , the experienced midfielder and playmaker and the coach too because some other dude of the team is doped.

okay, it is the rules, and the referee is always right, but is it fair and sportsmanlike?

the dissolution of three parties of a coalition government, the executive banned, isn't parliamentary daily routine but a worst case. IMHO, holding a new election would be appropriate, especially since Abihist told the press the same thing shortly after the court decision.

Well then slmazeltop it was a horrible injustice to the PartyList MPs,

that the LEADERSHIP allowed them selves to be caught egrgiously cheating. Wasn't it?

Somchai had time to call a dissolution and transfer the majority of PPP to PTP,

and then re-up their party list players before PPP went tits up.

He did NOT do that....

No the little dude didn't do it... Maybe Thaksin said jigger the constitution NOW,

and they never pulled it off.

Or as is likely;

There was noticeable dissent after Samak's departure

and they dared NOT try a transfer to PTP and hasten those departures and loss of seats

BEFORE getting charter change and Thaksin absolution through...

Cept it all unraveled.

After Oct 7th perceptions changed because of the PPP's gross miscalculations

and PAD was mad and made MUCH more militant.

Then, Sae Daeng is the likely loose cannon in this, he announced grenade attacks

and then they arrived... end result PAD does NOT go home with tail between legs,

but gets even MORE militant and marches on bigger targets.

Regardless of PAD being good, bad, or indifferent,

the attempts at manipulating or maneuvering PAD ALL back fired one by one.

A game changing set of PPP lead screw ups... major league screw ups.

and then they were no more.

PM Somchai had ever chance to pull off a successful transfer, and rejuvenated party list,

and run a new election...

why didn't he? PADS whining.. doubtful.

Why? Defections? Why?

Thaksin wouldn't let him? Why?

Yes Party dissolution SHOULD be a big hammer to stop corruption in ALL parties...

It's easy to catch the stupidly arrogant ones first.

Edited March 26, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

So...

how can shaving your head show greater solidarity and support

than giving your blood for a Brahman ritual.

This is just some sort of combined rally the troupes flagging spirits

and another thing the press might by up... and maybe print.

Why not go full Yakuzza and start into Pinky joints next week.

Or is giving your first born to the Red Academies indoctrination squads a more patriotic act.

[monkfish]

There was by-elections after the court decision. If PPP had the peoples mandate they would not have LOST their MP seats in SEVERAL of the by-elections. PPP COULD have still had the EQUAL number of MPs or MORE if they indeed had such a huge support from the people.

Why did that not happen?

with a by-election only the parliament seats from the Constituency voting get "refilled".

if a MP from a party list leave the parliament (for whatever reason) the next candidate on the party list will get the seat.

in case that the party was dissolved, for the leaving MP exist not such a party list anymore, the seat will left empty.

proportional seats of banned members from dissolved party lists are lost. so much to the "equal" number of MPs.

parliamentary work and keep in contact with your constituency and your party buddies and your party line will become difficult if your party got dissolved and all its executives banned now and then by a court, because one other party member from some other province, far away from your own constituency did something wrong.

a MP who had just lost 'his' party with the dissolution but didn't get banned, must join a new party. that isn't such an easy task because the heads of your old party just got banned, other factions other persons now have more influence on the polices of a new party. parties and its members aren't a homogenous block, generic, interchangeable.

for by-elections your need people, candidates who do the job and are good and qualified for it. these candidates don't have the old party name as back up anymore. their face isn't so popular like that of the banned MP they aim to replace.

party dissolution is pretty much a big hammer and a knock out.

the team lost the goalkeeper, the best striker , the experienced midfielder and playmaker and the coach too because some other dude of the team is doped.

okay, it is the rules, and the referee is always right, but is it fair and sportsmanlike?

the dissolution of three parties of a coalition government, the executive banned, isn't parliamentary daily routine but a worst case. IMHO, holding a new election would be appropriate, especially since Abihist told the press the same thing shortly after the court decision.

Well then slmazeltop it was a horrible injustice to the PartyList MPs,

that the LEADERSHIP allowed them selves to be caught egrgiously cheating. Wasn't it?

Somchai had time to call a dissolution and transfer the majority of PPP to PTP,

and then re-up their party list players before PPP went tits up.

He did NOT do that....

No the little dude didn't do it... Maybe Thaksin said jigger the constitution NOW,

and they never pulled it off.

Or as is likely;

There was noticeable dissent after Samak's departure

and they dared NOT try a transfer to PTP and hasten those departures and loss of seats

BEFORE getting charter change and Thaksin absolution through...

Cept it all unraveled.

After Oct 7th perceptions changed because of the PPP's gross miscalculations

and PAD was mad and made MUCH more militant.

Then, Sae Daeng is the likely loose cannon in this, he announced grenade attacks

and then they arrived... end result PAD does NOT go home with tail between legs,

but gets even MORE militant and marches on bigger targets.

Regardless of PAD being good, bad, or indifferent,

the attempts at manipulating or maneuvering PAD ALL back fired one by one.

A game changing set of PPP lead screw ups... major league screw ups.

and then they were no more.

PM Somchai had ever chance to pull off a successful transfer, and rejuvenated party list,

and run a new election...

why didn't he? PADS whining.. doubtful.

Why? Defections? Why?

Thaksin wouldn't let him? Why?

Yes Party dissolution SHOULD be a big hammer to stop corruption in ALL parties...

It's easy to catch the stupidly arrogant ones first.

Where do you come from Animatic?

I never seem to understand a word you are talking about.

[Netfan]

Red checklist: Draw one million people to rally = nope. Bring 20,000 monks to rally = nope. Abhisit resign= nope. Dissolve parliament = nope. Bring Thaksin back = nope. Get new elections scheduled= nope. Start a class war = nope. All PTP MP's boycott parliament sessions = nope. Hmmm. What have they accomplished? Drawn international attention to their cause. Well, if that's embarrassed Thailand on international scale by having voodoo blood rites at Government House= check. Shaved a few heads = check. Proved to everyone they have no plan for anything other than bringing back Thaksin = check.

Most productive. Very successful.

[mazeltov]

• According to Section 109 of the Constitution, what happens when the seat of a member of the House of Representatives becomes vacant for any reason other than the expiration of the term or the dissolution of the House is that:

- If the vacant seat is that of the representative elected on a constituency basis, an election shall be held to refill that seat within 45 days as from the date of the vacancy unless the remainder of the term of the House of Representatives is less than 180 days.

- If the vacant seat is that of the representative elected on a proportional basis, the President of the House of Representatives shall elevate the person from the same political party, whose name is placed in the next order on the list of the political party concerned to fill the vacant seat by publishing the replacement name in the Government Gazette. However, where there is no person to be elevated – as happens in this case of party-list-based seats becoming vacant because of the political party that occupies them is dissolved – the House of Representatives shall consist of the remaining members.

http://www.thaiembassy.sg/press_media/news...tion-of-3-polit[/indent]

I don't understand. What you have posted seems to indicate that all constituency MPs should stand by-election in order to retain their seat. This isn't what happened for constituency MPs. All constituency MPs who were not banned shifted from PPP to PTP and retained their seats. Either something is amiss with what you posted or I'm just a little thick this evening.

Regarding the proportional vote MPs, it appears that what you say is correct. According to your post the proportional MPs are simply removed and not replaced until the next election.

While the PPP seems to have lost their proportional MPs it seems not unreasonable that this is the consequence of the party itself trying to rig an election. Should they be able to keep their unelected MPs in this case? (Remember that the only directly elected MPs are from the constituency vote).

I haven't fully thought this through as I now have new information that I haven't fully processed. Thanks for that Mazeltov.

party dissolution don't mean all MP of that party were banned. only party executives where banned from politics, not every party member. so there was a big load of MPs in the parliament left without any party membership. they had to join other/new parties because party membership is a constitutional must for a MP. and it is up to the MP in which new party he joins. it isn't a must to return to something that represents somehow the old mother-ship (which was maybe a loose bunch of various faction and not a strong alliance)

if a banned party party executive was also a MP he left an empty seat in the parliament.

empty seats of a constituency vote MP got refilled with by-elections.

'proportional vote seats' not. 10 or 11 seats (of the total 80 proportional seats) are now empty. Somchai Wongsawat, for example, had such party list seat. so currently the parliament has only 469/470 members instead of the original 480.

follow that link, its a 'big dissolution FAQ'. that will explain you a few more details and tells you that you ask an interesting question.

"Nevertheless, there are reportedly different legal opinions regarding such issues as the status of members of a dissolved party who are members the House of Representatives on the proportional (party-list) basis from that party and have to move to other parties. Issues like these, if remaining unresolved, may have to be submitted for consideration by the Constitutional Court."

anyway, that are the rules. but do you know the actual case, the details of the offence that gave the court the reason for the dissolution? this is the real funny part of the whole story.

[Bagwan]

Now they are all going to shave their heads!

I have never taken this as a sign of greater intelligence. Next stop - get a tattoo or six?

[thailien8]

Now they are all going to shave their heads!

I have never taken this as a sign of greater intelligence. Next stop - get a tattoo or six?

How about a pubic hair sacrifice for Thaksin?

[bangon04]

I really do understand your feelings having been victim to this sort of thing in the past. But I try to look at the bigger picture, the yellows I was not happy about as they were illegally occupying government house, the reds however are legally protesting without trespass. ultimately if it gets us back to an elected government and the country can move on a little inconvenience is not a bad thing.

Which MPs in the government weren't elected?

All the MPs were elected, however the dems were not the elected government, if they were we would not have this situation now. You lnow this full well my friend and you know full well what I am talking about without even asking the question.

I cleary state 'elected government' in my post, the dems are not the elected government, they were not given the mandate to govern by the people at the last election. hardly rocket science is it?

Even in a so-called "mature" democracy such as the UK, if the leader of the ruling party is unable to maintain a working majority in Parliament, the (any) leader of the opposition party has the right to ask the Head of State for permission to form a minority or coalition government without the dissolution of Parliament, assuming they have sufficient MP votes from any or all parties sitting within the Parliament.

In the case of the UK, it would be bad form for the Head of State to refuse this request, and the Head of State may be overruled by the will of Parliament.

[anotherpeter]

I really don't understand how you can continue to discuss a political situation in an environment where many important issues are censored. This discussion is beginning to sound like a scratched record stuck on the "Thakin's a bad man" track.

Get yourselves into one of the free speech arenas where the red shirt supporters have much heavier artillery.

The only heavy artillery Thaksin's reds have in mind presently is to cut off each other's hair.

Going bald is the new class war.

Good for them. This a demonstration of solidarity and support even though you obviously don't agree.

Up the Reds!

There isn't much solidarity ... the leaders can't agree on anything.

There isn't much support ... after such a "successful" rally last week, they have cancelled today because they are worried how "successful" it would be.

[shawndoc]

So are the red shirts offering to refund Guinness for flying out to certify the size of the protest?

[anotherpeter]

So are the red shirts offering to refund Guinness for flying out to certify the size of the protest?

No. The Guinness people are here.

The reds are going for the record for the number of changed plans in a protest movement.

[otherstuff1957]

if a banned party party executive was also a MP he left an empty seat in the parliament.

empty seats of a constituency vote MP got refilled with by-elections.

'proportional vote seats' not. 10 or 11 seats (of the total 80 proportional seats) are now empty. Somchai Wongsawat, for example, had such party list seat. so currently the parliament has only 469/470 members instead of the original 480.

According to the Thai Parliament Website, there are currently 475 MPs.

[anotherpeter]

if a banned party party executive was also a MP he left an empty seat in the parliament.

empty seats of a constituency vote MP got refilled with by-elections.

'proportional vote seats' not. 10 or 11 seats (of the total 80 proportional seats) are now empty. Somchai Wongsawat, for example, had such party list seat. so currently the parliament has only 469/470 members instead of the original 480.

According to the Thai Parliament Website, there are currently 475 MPs.

So that implies that 5 List MPs have been banned and haven't been replaced.

[ballpoint]

Hmm, yesterday they had a mass head shaving. And today, according to the news updates:

BANGKOK: -- Red-shirts to use monks to lead procession to force soldiers to return to barracks at 5-6 key locations;incl Nang Leng race track, Wat Kae Nang Leng, Wat Bovornniwet, Wat Tri Tossathep, Wat Makut, Wat Sommanat Viharn, Panich Phra Nakhon University and Dusit Zoo.

I wonder how many orange robes were bought recently?

[Who, me ?]

Hmm, yesterday they had a mass head shaving. And today, according to the news updates:

BANGKOK: -- Red-shirts to use monks to lead procession to force soldiers to return to barracks at 5-6 key locations;incl Nang Leng race track, Wat Kae Nang Leng, Wat Bovornniwet, Wat Tri Tossathep, Wat Makut, Wat Sommanat Viharn, Panich Phra Nakhon University and Dusit Zoo.

I wonder how many orange robes were bought recently?

Now this is really going to be madness......I am afraid that things will soon get out of hands.....