Thailand's Political Landmark Talks End Without Resolution

[eggomaniac]

Here's my summary of the talks. I posted this on another thread, but it seems more appropriate here.

''''''''''''''

The government also emphasized the point that they must represent the interests of all of the people of Thailand. They are not in a position to unilaterally make agreements to appease one group of Thais at the expense of the others. The government position is that it must consider the needs of all Thais, not just the red shirts, but that it appreciates the red shirt position and is more than happy to allow them to demonstrate as is their constitutional right. It also expressed a strong desire to work jointly with the red shirt leaders for a sensible way out of the current quagmire, through sensible talks and compromise.

''''''''''''''''''''

Okay, I really, really like this kind of talk, whether it is your summary and/or what the Government says and believes.

I was thinking, who is having talks? The 20% who are Reds and the 10% who are Yellows.

What about the 70% of Thais who do NOT consider themselves Reds or Yellows? Who is speaking for the Mute Majority?

Can Abhisit speak, or seem to speak for them?

Maybe some major referendums and some major town hall meetings to find out what all Thais want!!!???

[bacchanal]

I'm wondering how the 3 (Veera, Weng, Jatuporn) were chosen to represent the red side, to the exclusion of the 4th founding member of the organization, Jakrapob.

Also, over the past several weeks, Seh Daeng had announced he was the ultimate leader of the reds with no comments to the contrary from Thaksin who he meets with regularly; so why was he also not included in these talks?

Other key red members like Arisaman and Giles and Suporn and Kwanchai were also not present yesterday, so I was just wondering how it was decided who would sit opposite the PM?

It couldn't just be that these individuals (Jakrapob, Seh Daeng, Arisaman, Giles, Suporn, and Kwanchai) all have current criminal charges they are facing as that would have also excluded Jatuporn and Veera from participating.

Edited March 29, 2010 by bacchanal

[anotherpeter]

Okay, I really, really like this kind of talk, whether it is your summary and/or what the Government says and believes.

I was thinking, who is having talks? The 20% who are Reds and the 10% who are Yellows.

What about the 70% of Thais who do NOT consider themselves Reds or Yellows? Who is speaking for the Mute Majority?

Can Abhisit speak, or seem to speak for them?

Maybe some major referendums and some major town hall meetings to find out what all Thais want!!!???

Is Abhisit a yellow? He has yellows in his government, but that doesn't make him yellow.

Abhisit is at least talking for the 35% or so that voted for the Democrats, and he said he needs to talk to others ... coalition parties that represent another 20%.

It would also be interesting to know how many "red supporters" don't actually want to bring Thaksin back.

[way2muchcoffee]

Overall, it's a good thing the two sides are sitting down at a table and talking. It's a clear indicator of the power of civil discussions and debate - something that is not common within Thai politics. Hopefully, it will lead to televised debates being part of Thai political campaigns.

Abhisit is too nice in my view. He needs to keep in mind the Red's bargaining position - which is weak. The Reds have been showing up in Bangkok, granted. But by their own admission, they're being paid to attend. The most numbers they've shown on any one day is around 100,000, that's about one out of 660,000 Thais, and it's worth repeating: A significant % of those people were paid to attend.

The wind is running out of their sails. Why should the current gov't get spooked by a flagging protest?

Correction. It's about 1 in 660 Thais.

[jhwest]

Well I am never ever in to politics, but let's face it it occurs in every business everywhere. everyday, but the vast majority of Thais IMO are sick and tired of all these rallies. Not even 1 per cent of the population are rallying.

I am not either yellow, red, blue, purple or orange and it seems to me that if one side or another do not get everything there own way, then absolutely no compromise and it does amaze me when people say we will accept the result of the next General Election, whoever gets in and also someone would accept a Court verdict, whatever it is HMMM!!!!

Whenever in the World do the normal politicians help their citizens and any money promised, does not come out of an individual pocket ( and feel some people think this is the case) but out of yours and mine taxes ie from the Government.

There must be compromise on all sides, but how this is going to happen I do not know, as I am no expert.

In other countries the Governments would not tolerate this and look at when there is the G7 meetings and look at how the Authorities deal with it, but look at Greece every year and yes the Western World in general.

The Authorities are told to act with restraint, but when they get petrol bombs continually thrown at them and other items, what are they supposed to do.

Yeah thankfully the main rally has it seemed to have been peaceful so far, but the longer this goes on, then tempers will rise along with the heat and something will have to give. Hopefully things will remain peaceful, but all groups will have to show real leadership, starting with the responsible leaders, otherwise they will be or should be accounted for.

Politicians everywhere are corrupt throughout the whole World and not just here.

[brahmburgers]

I'm wondering how the 3 (Veera, Weng, Jatuporn) were chosen to represent the red side, to the exclusion of the 4th founding member of the organization, Jakrapob. Also, over the past several weeks, Seh Daeng had announced he was the ultimate leader of the reds with no comments to the contrary from Thaksin who he meets with regularly; so why was he also not included in these talks? Other key red members like Arisaman and Giles and Suporn and Kwanchai were also not present yesterday, so I was just wondering how it was decided who would sit opposite the PM? It couldn't just be that these individuals (Jakrapob, Seh Daeng, Arisaman, Giles, Suporn, and Kwanchai) all have current criminal charges they are facing as that would have also excluded Jatuporn and Veera from participating.

Good point. Obviously, the Reds have a lot of liabilities. And big mouth Jakrapob or grenade-tossing Sae Dang are not the least of them. Those two can get the Red crowds worked up with their clownish antics, but no way would the Reds want them sitting at a table in front of a 'live' TV camera. They'd portray the Reds in their true light faster than Thaksin can electronically transfer funds to secret accounts.

As for my paucity of math skills, sorry. Yes it's one in 660.

[Thai at Heart]

If Abhisit concedes and goes to the polls, will that definitely spark a coup?

In which case, isn't it politically better for Abhisit to be ousted by the military than to potentially fail to win another election?

[Ricardo]

Overall, it's a good thing the two sides are sitting down at a table and talking. It's a clear indicator of the power of civil discussions and debate - something that is not common within Thai politics. Hopefully, it will lead to televised debates being part of Thai political campaigns.

<snip for brevity>

Yes, actually having a debate in-the-open, on public TV, is definitely another small step towards democracy, and progress only comes in small steps like this.

[Thai at Heart]

Overall, it's a good thing the two sides are sitting down at a table and talking. It's a clear indicator of the power of civil discussions and debate - something that is not common within Thai politics. Hopefully, it will lead to televised debates being part of Thai political campaigns.

<snip for brevity>

Yes, actually having a debate in-the-open, on public TV, is definitely another small step towards democracy, and progress only comes in small steps like this.

In a way very refreshing to see Thai politicians on TV debating politics. Seems a long time since that happened.

[animatic]

Abhisit had ruled out talks earlier Sunday, but made an about-face later in the day and looked visibly uneasy throughout much of the three-hour meeting with the Red Shirt leaders, held at a Bangkok educational institute.

He did...!?!

I noticed a bit of a smirk when Juttaporn tired to convince us all again Thaksin is not involved, but I wouldn't use the word "uneasy" to describe his expression.

Tired certain, uneasy no. Not even annoyed, he was acting and talking rationally,

and the other side was repeating endlessly a stock set of demands, but not one word,

of quid pro quo or validity for OTHER segments feelings.

I think this was televised, so that the intransigence of the Reds,

versus the reasonable talk, ideas and demeanor of Abhist and assistants,

can be seen and judged by the MASS of the Thai People.

Weng and Jatupron treated this like just another rally speach with lies and innuendo and grand threats.

At least Veera who seemed angry and seemed to realize he was being out classed by Abhisit as a debater.

tried to act like an actual negotiator and discuss issues without as much boilerplate speechifying.

And yes,

that lil SMS incident proves there WAS a fourth chair on the red side,

one trying to have an influence, but not having the cohones to actually show up.

Of course of the Reds don't get their way, they will call their interlocutor insincere.

But these 3 are into rabble rouser mode, not cause negotiator mode,

thei Motus operandi and goals are not to reach a balance, but to win the bet totally.

Their mindset is not one of a negotiator by any means.

Reasonableness and consideration of others is not a hallmark of the Red sides tactics.

Edited March 29, 2010 by animatic

[way2muchcoffee]

Tired certain, uneasy no. Not even annoyed, he was acting and talking rationally,

and the other side was repeating endlessly a stock set of demands, but not one word,

of quid pro quo or validity for OTHER segments feelings.

Given the comments from the stages last night one can only expect the redshirt side to be even more intractable this evening. I hope not, but they have pretty much said they are only coming to hear Abhisit's answer to the 2-week ultimatum. If it is a rejection then the talks are over and there will be no third. That doesn't sound like a sincere desire for discourse with the aim to solve the current problems.

[webfact]

Red Shirts To Call Off Talks If PM Doesn't Show Up

BANGKOK: -- Red shirt leaders have announced that they will call off talks with the government completely if Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva does not show up for a second round of discussions scheduled for 6 P.M. today. The prime minister left early this morning for an official day trip to Brunei and will be back at around 6 P.M. this evening. He had told reporters before he left that his secretary general, Korbsak Sapavasu, would be representing the government in today's talks.

This has sparked speculation that Prime Minister Abhisit might not be attending the discussions himself. The development has caused red shirt leader Dr. Weng Thojirakarn to come out and announce that if the prime minister does not attend the talks, then communication channels between the two sides will shut down completely.

Dr. Weng said if the prime minister's absence will show his insincerity in solving the country's problems. He said that Prime Minister Abhisit said at the end of discussions last night that he would personally attend further talks and if he doesn't, he would be going back on his word.

The red shirt leader said that this would completely destroy the negotiation process and when that happens, the movement will move on with stronger measures to pressure the government.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-29

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[mca]

And yes,

that lil SMS incident proves there WAS a fourth chair on the red side,

one trying to have an influence, but not having the cohones to actually show up.

It would be quite amusing if he was waiting for instructions via SMS and instead kept getting promotions through seeing if he wanted to download the latest K-Pop ringtone for 25 baht.

[animatic]

Stop beating around the bush I think they are afraid to confront with the truth either side. Get straight to the point and stop wasting time. I encourage dissolution. This government is not beneficial to the social economy.

huh?

Social economy?

Is this a phrase you heard and don't understand? try this:

What is the Social Economy?

The Social Economy is a term which has been defined in a number of different ways by a number of different groups and is a common topic of debate. Below we have provided a few general definition by various groups beginning with the definition the student network prefers to use.

Student Network Definition:

The social economy is a broad spectrum of activity which emerged as a third alternative to the private and public sector. The Social Economy is made up of community organizations working for the greater good of local communities and marginalized groups and consists of association-based economic initiatives (i.e. co-operatives, non-profits and mutuals) founded on values of:

1. Service to members of community rather than generating profits;

2. Autonomous Management (not government or market controlled);

3. Democratic decision making; Primacy of persons and work over capital;

4. Based on principles of participation and empowerment.

Canadian Practitioner Definition:

"The Social Economy includes: social assets (housing, childcare, etc.), social enterprises including cooperatives, equity and debt capital for community investment, social purpose businesses, community training and skills development, integrated social and economic planning, and capacity building and community empowerment. The social economy is a continuum that goes from the one end of totally voluntary organizations to the other end where the economic activity (social enterprise) blurs the line with the private sector." - the CCEDNet National Policy Council, Social Economy Roundtable Consultation Briefing Notes, 2005

Canadian Government Definition:

"Separate from the private sector and government, the social economy includes co-operatives, foundations, credit unions, non-profit organizations, the voluntary sector, charities and social economy enterprises. Social economy enterprises are a component of the social economy that are run like businesses, producing goods and services for the market economy, but manage their operations and redirect their surpluses in pursuit of social and environmental goals." - Western Economic Diversification Canada

International Definition:

"Private companies created to meet their members’ needs through the market by producing goods and providing services, insurance and finance, where profit distribution and decision-making are not directly linked to the capital contributed by each member, each of whom has one vote. The social economy also includes non-profit organisations that are private non-market producers, not controlled by government, produce not-for-sale services for specific groups of households and whose main resources come from voluntary contributions by the households as consumers, payments from the government and income from property." - International Center of Research and Information on the Public, Social and Cooperative Economy (CIRIEC), Monzón Campos, 1997

Scholarly Definitions:

"The social economy refers to all initatives that are not a part of the public economy, nor the tradtional private sector,

but where capital and the means of production are collective. The social economy consists of an ensemble of activities

and organisations, emerging from collective enterprises that pursue common principles and shared structural elements."

- Neamtan, "The Social and Solidarity Economy: Towards an 'Alternative' Globalisation," 2002

"The social economy is that spectrum of activity located between the public and private sector (and so driven neither by the logic of capital nor by that of the state) which is a form of economic organisation aimed at addressing the social need. It is economic activity which has a social impact, and as such embodies the principle of placing social viability on a par with economic viability, social sustainability being equal to economic sustainability and the two being interdependent."

- Mullan and Cox, "Social Movements Never Died: Community Politics and the Social Economy in the Irish Republic," 2000

Many other variations on the concept,

but I am at a loss to see how your choice of phrase possibly applies.

[khunjamespittman]

This is not like two different political sides discussing things it is much more like two different nations discussing things such as a truce. When is this ever televised?

When it is rhetoric, stall tactics or other motivations are involved but certainly not one of achieving common ground or an agreement.

Live broadcasting the whole meeting was the best decision the PM could make.This way the red supporters could hear by themself what this is all about and not just get the onesided info they get from their paid leaders.

That's also why I posted in another topic earlier that I had doubts the reds would accept the negotations be broadcasted.

Keep the live broadcast going. Transparency is what is needed. Let's hear the dialogue and everybody make up their based on a common base of knowledge. On both sides people are smart enough to understand when they are being had. Too much BS here, in the media, from the pols now.

Decide who's right, who's wrong, what's best for Thailand, without andy preconceptions. Then hold a new election according to the law and everybody accept the will of the people in the results.

[animatic]

Stop beating around the bush I think they are afraid to confront with the truth either side. Get straight to the point and stop wasting time. I encourage dissolution. This government is not beneficial to the social economy.

The problem for most Thaksin apologists is that if you ask them what economic policies advocated by the reds must be implemented now rather than the scheduled election dates, answer none will come.

Ditto if you ask them which economic policies currently being implemented by the current government are specifically opposed by the reds, again answer none will come.

Only the return of Thaksin is the objective.

Looking at the avatar of the above contributor, he probably thinks that Thaksin is Brad Pitt.

No beating around that bush.

You are right! I have not seen any policies from the reds, but bringing Thaksin back as PM

Yes, who is the Red Shirts economist?...

for that matter who is the economist driving the PTP financial agenda?

Is there anyone putting together fiscal policy in EITHER group

that wants to take over control of Thailand?

[animatic]

I think one thing Thaksin hasn't adequately considered is:

If his class war becomes an actual Civil War,

one of the EARLIEST casualties will be Thaksin himself.

If he causes a shooting war of any size between north and south, he will get removed.

Where ever he is. Simple as that.

Abhisit will not be a part of that,

but there are more than enough talented and motivated actors to do that job....

Thaksin is being utterly foollish in thinking the forebearance show to him so far,

is an endless loop.

Edited March 29, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

IMO the reds, their leaders, and some TV contributors have a very simplistic view of democracy. They have got to "1 person, 1 vote" and "an elected government" and failed to read fine print.

Democracy depends on a separated set of powers; the legislature, the judiciary, enforcement (police and military) and in the US model, the executive. For democracy to work, it is essential that they remain free and independent, and to act as a set of checks and balances on the power and actions of the others. When one branch is able to suborn one or more of the others, the result is usually a dictatorship, and this is exactly where Thailand was headed under Thaksin.

Thaksin was actively suborning the judiciary, and attempting to promote relatively junior cronies to head the military and police, and at the same time passing legislation to enrich himself in both power and money. The military took the necessary action, and did it well; swift, bloodless and returning to civilian rule in a reasonable time frame.

In the talks, the reds have blamed most of their problems on the judiciary disbanding a political party for illegal election actions. Well, that is what they are there for, and good on them! That's how democracy works, and if that's what the reds want, they got it. They say that they want constitutional changes, and my guess is dis-empowering the Electoral Court so that Thaksin can use his wealth to buy votes, and that dog ain't going to hunt.

I will shout it for the hard of hearing. THIS IS HOW DEMOCRACY IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

Hear, hear. I hear you loud and clear.

It is obvious to most that if Thaksin is willing to cause this much social disturbance,

then he is ALSO willing to do most anything to regain power, and use it to suit his moods,

and POWER is easy to misuse and lose your head in.

He was NOT in any way building a better democracy while in office,

but the inverse, he was solidifying power, in advance of a coming change.

And the main beneficiary of that solidification would be Thaksin and his cronies, acolytes and minions,

in the classic old school feudal way. And in that feudal way CRUSH the opposition totally.

Edited March 29, 2010 by animatic

[moresomekl]

Tired certain, uneasy no. Not even annoyed, he was acting and talking rationally,

and the other side was repeating endlessly a stock set of demands, but not one word,

of quid pro quo or validity for OTHER segments feelings.

Given the comments from the stages last night one can only expect the redshirt side to be even more intractable this evening. I hope not, but they have pretty much said they are only coming to hear Abhisit's answer to the 2-week ultimatum. If it is a rejection then the talks are over and there will be no third. That doesn't sound like a sincere desire for discourse with the aim to solve the current problems.

Yes I dont know to which extent Abhisit would be prepared to do a national adress on television along the points that you highighted in a previous thread and let the red shirts masses know by leaflets or any other mean

- Firm comitment by the governement to call for national elections as soon as reds shirt withdraw

- No violence or intimidation of any sort against campaigner regardless of party affiliation or province

- Acceptance by all parties of the result of elections

- Amnesty fot Thaksin not under the power of any governement to decide

We have here a strange situation , two sides which legitimacy is contestable talking to each other .

1) On one hand Abhisit while legally elected , lacks legitimacy as he was elected by a parliament itself lacking legitimacy which composition was influenced by a court rather then decided by the thai people . I do not question the right of a court to impeach MPs or ministers if they break the law but I am very umcomfortable by seeing the change that result beeing permanent without a call for general election . Its more a question of principle rather then just in this case . Usually if the party in power is found guilty of corruption , many ppl will not vote for them and anyway they will loose power .

2) On the other hand are the red shirts really representing the whole of the countryside particularly on insisting for an amnesty for Thaksin , if the governement says that he has been convicted , and gives the proofs ? That really remains to be seen ! They are also misguided in putting an ultimatum to the governement in my view

I think that if Abhisit did such an announcement on national television + leaflets his position would be greatly enhanced . This and a very good campaign of public relation supported by good governance might turn the electorate in his favor at the forthcoming elections .

Of course if the red shirts remain inflexible , then sooner or later police using water canon and tear gas might be called upon . that would be a dangerous situation and i hope it can be avoided

[Jonathanpattaya]

It was certainly an uneasy meeting with Abhisit looking tired and uncomfortable.

Another meeting to be held today. Don't hold your breath!

Edited March 29, 2010 by Jonathanpattaya

[animatic]

Overall, it's a good thing the two sides are sitting down at a table and talking. It's a clear indicator of the power of civil discussions and debate - something that is not common within Thai politics. Hopefully, it will lead to televised debates being part of Thai political campaigns.

<snip for brevity>

Yes, actually having a debate in-the-open, on public TV, is definitely another small step towards democracy, and progress only comes in small steps like this.

Yes it is a good thing.

It lets the players be seen in direct dialog and people can judge

who is actually sincere in what they say,and who is just repeating stock canned lines.

Who is really looking out for the best interests of ALL Thais in a real way,

and who is just locked into a one sided means to an end.

It would be good if this happened in election cycles too,

with ALL channels mandated to play COMPLETE debates,

and not cherry pick their favorite parts to fit editorial slant.

[clausewitz]

I dont understand why Abhist seems reluctant to dissolve parliamnet now, when he was so keen before.

Dispute over whether to dissolve Parliament

By The Nation Published on September 2, 2008

"During the joint sitting of the House and the Senate in Parliament on Sunday, Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Prime Minister Sama

k Sundaravej to dissolve Parliament. Sacrificing MPs would unlock the crisis and return power so voters could decide the outcome again."

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/02/pol...cs_30082196.php

Democrats not being opportunistic by nominating Abhisit as new Thai PM

TNA 12 September 2008

Thailand's opposition Democrat Party denied being opportunistic in nominating its party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as prime minister after the caretaker coalition government failed early Friday to appoint a new government leader due to the lack of a quorum in the House. ...

Thais are now killing each other and there are signs that more will be killed. There should be no more negotiations," Mr. Abhisit affirmed.

Asked about his response if the ruling People Power Party dissolved the House, he said the Democrats had proposed a House dissolution from the beginning. "How to do it depends on the situation."

http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=6233

Abhisit calls for House dissolution

By The Nation Published on December 3, 2008

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Wednesday urged for House dissolution on the ground that a snap election will allow a fresh start to form a viable government to tackle the political and economic woes. ...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30090130

[animatic]

1) On one hand Abhisit while legally elected , lacks legitimacy as he was elected by a parliament itself lacking legitimacy which composition was influenced by a court rather then decided by the thai people .

IN a proper democracy a court can change the composition of a congress or parliament,

because they are separate entities,

BUT

the organizations and individuals that make up the congress or parliament membership,

are STILL subject to the laws and the courts of the land.

A major point you are missing dude.

They are ONLY legitimate MP's if they get there legitimately.

So if your PPP cheated, but get to stay in office via pressure groups

then ALL LAWS and all decisions by said cheating groups MPs

or PM would also be illegitimate...

Once there was a vote by the nation to ratify a constitution and

then an election of MP's that election cycle is complete.

If the courts rule on individuals and entities involved afterwards,

that is THE COURTS jurisdiction under law.

And Political whining doesn't change that LEGAL power.

Samak and Somchai were not necessarily elected legally

because their party broke the law to take power.

They did hold the seats, but under threat of dissolution which was ruled valid.

And since dissaolution was ruled valid, it is a debatable point of law that PPP's

legal decisions might also not be valid as a consequence.

Abhisit was legally elected, and those that voted him in as PM were legally elected,

and those that switched sides were also legally elected. There was a legal quorum.

The court decision didn't change that legal quorum, since only a few leaders were disqualified.

And so the parliament didn't fall only the PPP leadership and Somchai as PM of that moment.

The government was legally elected and is by that very fact legitimate...

Edited March 29, 2010 by animatic

[DoctorD]

Do you wonder how much or how little the discussion on this forum overlaps with the discussion in the Thai media? Any good translated sites? Any good Thai to English online translators for newspapers and TV media?

Long live the internet, The Nation, George and his forum, and everybody participating here. Let's hope that people in The Nation and elsewhere, as well as potential alternative Thai leaders, read this forum.

I don't usually post on threads like this, but I want to say that this discussion is far more civil and informative than much of what I see on Thai Visa. I really appreciate those of you who are offering careful alternative analyses of the situation.

[moresomekl]

I dont understand why Abhist seems reluctant to dissolve parliamnet now, when he was so keen before.

Dispute over whether to dissolve Parliament

By The Nation Published on September 2, 2008

"During the joint sitting of the House and the Senate in Parliament on Sunday, Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Prime Minister Sama

k Sundaravej to dissolve Parliament. Sacrificing MPs would unlock the crisis and return power so voters could decide the outcome again."

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/02/pol...cs_30082196.php

Democrats not being opportunistic by nominating Abhisit as new Thai PM

TNA 12 September 2008

Thailand's opposition Democrat Party denied being opportunistic in nominating its party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as prime minister after the caretaker coalition government failed early Friday to appoint a new government leader due to the lack of a quorum in the House. ...

Thais are now killing each other and there are signs that more will be killed. There should be no more negotiations," Mr. Abhisit affirmed.

Asked about his response if the ruling People Power Party dissolved the House, he said the Democrats had proposed a House dissolution from the beginning. "How to do it depends on the situation."

http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=6233

Abhisit calls for House dissolution

By The Nation Published on December 3, 2008

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Wednesday urged for House dissolution on the ground that a snap election will allow a fresh start to form a viable government to tackle the political and economic woes. ...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30090130

Agree with you . But of course now he is under pressure , what if he calls for house dissolution and the reds still protest . Whats the next move ?

[anotherpeter]

Agree with you . But of course now he is under pressure , what if he calls for house dissolution and the reds still protest . Whats the next move ?

If the reds still protest after getting what they asked for, then they would look more stupid than they already do.

I don't think the government will offer an early dissolution. At best, it would be in a few months.

If they offer a dissolution in 3-6 months, that will leave the reds with a bit of a conundrum. They got what they wanted, but not when they wanted. They will probably continue the protest in that case.

I agree with what Abhisit was saying last night, in that the charter amendments should not be part of the election. Get them sorted out, and agreed to by the people, then don't touch them again.

Have an election on the policies of the parties, and who is best to manage the whole of the country, not just the north and north east.

[lannarebirth]

Do you wonder how much or how little the discussion on this forum overlaps with the discussion in the Thai media? Any good translated sites? Any good Thai to English online translators for newspapers and TV media?

Long live the internet, The Nation, George and his forum, and everybody participating here. Let's hope that people in The Nation and elsewhere, as well as potential alternative Thai leaders, read this forum.

I don't usually post on threads like this, but I want to say that this discussion is far more civil and informative than much of what I see on Thai Visa. I really appreciate those of you who are offering careful alternative analyses of the situation.

Thais are overwhelmingly gushing over Abhisit today on Thai websites. The ones that can read that is.

[jdinasia]

lannarebirth--

It is kind of funny to see what the Thai webboards are saying about the qualities of the participants in the discussion yesterday. They are calling Dr Weng on his lies and Jatuporn on his stubbornness and unreasonable stance, not to mention his manner.

Abhisit clearly increased the strength of the government's position yesterday.

I expect today will be vastly different, that instead of just Dr Weng telling his lies to pander to the mob, I think today it will be all of them but Veera. (Veera did get some positive comments on the Thai webboards)

[webfact]

Related topic:

Thai PM to hold second round of talks with Red Shirts

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thai-PM-Hold...ts-t351332.html

[moresomekl]

Agree with you . But of course now he is under pressure , what if he calls for house dissolution and the reds still protest . Whats the next move ?

If the reds still protest after getting what they asked for, then they would look more stupid than they already do.

I don't think the government will offer an early dissolution. At best, it would be in a few months.

If they offer a dissolution in 3-6 months, that will leave the reds with a bit of a conundrum. They got what they wanted, but not when they wanted. They will probably continue the protest in that case.

I agree with what Abhisit was saying last night, in that the charter amendments should not be part of the election. Get them sorted out, and agreed to by the people, then don't touch them again.

Have an election on the policies of the parties, and who is best to manage the whole of the country, not just the north and north east.

Yes agree with you on 3-6 months if doing it sooner is not practical .

Not sure how it is in Thailand the charter (i.e constitution) amendment must be approved

by the constitutional court ? Or by the whole of the people ? You cant have the house majority

deciding their own rules without check and balance .

Yes of course election are for the whole of the country not just North /North east .

But am sure you know that these provinces have been very neglected in the past

and it would be in the interest of any governement to remidy to that . And free education

fo the whole of the country .

Well if the red shirts continue their protest even after Abhisit commits to disolve the house

in 3-6 months then the country is ungovernable , short of using force .

Edited March 29, 2010 by moresomekl