Thailand's Political Landmark Talks End Without Resolution

[anotherpeter]

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)

A lot of posts from red supporters on TV assume that the Thaksin party will romp home if an election was held now or in the near future.

But IMO, although there may be a lot of support for the poor farmers, there is not a lot of support for Thaksin. If the PTP run on a policy of getting Thaksin back to Thailand and returning his money or if they can not separate themselves from that policy, then I don't believe they will get enough support to form government.

They will probably still get a lot of the North and North East regions, but probably not all of it. And they will get very little support elsewhere. Any areas that do not only watch red TV will see that the Democrats are talking about and doing things to support the poor.

The Democrats may not get majority support, but I expect that they will still get support from the minor parties anyway.

[Publicus]

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

We've seen in the two years since that presently neither side will accept the outcome of an election. Consequently, the country needs a sustained period of peace and quiet, at least relatively, before elections can be held. Abhisit took a major step in this direction yesterday when he decided to open a direct dialogue and to do it on national tv live.

Events have left the statements you quote and many other statements made by others immaterial to the ongoing dynamics of sociopolitics.

[moresomekl]

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...

Well "dude" if you say that the judiciary can decide who run the country without

elections then we are definitely in disagreement .

Stop talking about one particular case , its a matter of principle , alright

Its for the people to decide , after all the judiciary could make mistaken or be biased

as you are obviously , and its too opend ended

The people decides who runs the country thru elections , they can make mistakes , and definitely

will be biased but thats democracy

Edited March 29, 2010 by moresomekl

[lannarebirth]

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...

Well "dude" if you say that the judiciary can decide who run the country without

elections then we are definitely in disagreement .

Stop talking about one particular case , its a matter of principle , alright

Its for the people to decide , after all the judiciary could make mistaken or be biased

as you are obviously , and its too opend ended

The people decides who runs the country thru elections , they can make mistakes , and definitely

will be biased but thats democracy

You make the mistaken assumption that it is the people that are the highest power. That is incorrect, it is the constitution, the law that is the highest power. Judges interpret and apply that law. Everyone is subject to it (ideally). Yes, the system could be flawed in a myriad of ways, but what I have described is the way it is intended to work.

[jdinasia]

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...

Well "dude" if you say that the judiciary can decide who run the country without

elections then we are definitely in disagreement .

Stop talking about one particular case , its a matter of principle , alright

Its for the people to decide , after all the judiciary could make mistaken or be biased

as you are obviously , and its too opend ended

The people decides who runs the country thru elections , they can make mistakes , and definitely

will be biased but thats democracy

You are getting WAY off track here. The courts as an independent section of government are there to keep the laws AND to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The courts obviously are empowered to deal with those that violate the laws and no the people do not have the unlimited right to have any given individual lead them if the person is disqualified.

We call this "checks and balances" and it is a pillar of democracy.

To tell people to stop talking about a particular case is kinda silly don't you think?

[anotherpeter]

Well "dude" if you say that the judiciary can decide who run the country without

elections then we are definitely in disagreement .

Stop talking about one particular case , its a matter of principle , alright

Its for the people to decide , after all the judiciary could make mistaken or be biased

as you are obviously , and its too opend ended

The people decides who runs the country thru elections , they can make mistakes , and definitely

will be biased but thats democracy

The judiciary didn't decide who CAN run the country. They decided that some MPs could NOT run the country because they were guilty of electoral fraud.

But, remember, once these MPs were banned, there were by-elections, so the people still had their vote. They still have an MP that represents them.

The majority of the MPs that represent the people (which is how the system works here) decided that they didn't want the PTP to run the government, they wanted the Democrats to run the government.

There are not elections everytime an MP needs to make a decision. The MPs have been elected to make decisions.

The electorate doesn't always agree with the MPs decision, but they voted for that MP, so they have to live with it. At least until the next scheduled election.

[moresomekl]

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...

Well "dude" if you say that the judiciary can decide who run the country without

elections then we are definitely in disagreement .

Stop talking about one particular case , its a matter of principle , alright

Its for the people to decide , after all the judiciary could make mistaken or be biased

as you are obviously , and its too opend ended

The people decides who runs the country thru elections , they can make mistakes , and definitely

will be biased but thats democracy

You are getting WAY off track here. The courts as an independent section of government are there to keep the laws AND to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The courts obviously are empowered to deal with those that violate the laws and no the people do not have the unlimited right to have any given individual lead them if the person is disqualified.

We call this "checks and balances" and it is a pillar of democracy.

To tell people to stop talking about a particular case is kinda silly don't you think?

Did i say a court dont have the right to impeach a PM ,a whole party or a president if

any of those are breaking the law ? Not at all

But once it is done general election must follow

Not its not silly at all , even the Nation found merit on what i say .

Last time i checked the Nation was not particularly pro TRT/PPP/PTP

Edited March 29, 2010 by moresomekl

[anotherpeter]

Did i say a court dont have the right to impeach a PM ,a whole party or a president if

any of those are breaking the law ? Not at all

But once it is done general election must follow

Why MUST a general election follow?

There only needs to be by-elections to replace the banned MPs. Which there was. So everyone in the country is still represented.

[jdinasia]

Well "dude" if you say that the judiciary can decide who run the country without

elections then we are definitely in disagreement .

Stop talking about one particular case , its a matter of principle , alright

Its for the people to decide , after all the judiciary could make mistaken or be biased

as you are obviously , and its too opend ended

The people decides who runs the country thru elections , they can make mistakes , and definitely

will be biased but thats democracy

You are getting WAY off track here. The courts as an independent section of government are there to keep the laws AND to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The courts obviously are empowered to deal with those that violate the laws and no the people do not have the unlimited right to have any given individual lead them if the person is disqualified.

We call this "checks and balances" and it is a pillar of democracy.

To tell people to stop talking about a particular case is kinda silly don't you think?

Did i say a court dont have the right to impeach a PM ,a whole party or a president if

any of those are breaking the law ? Not at all

But once it is done general election must follow

No, a general election does NOT have to follow, by-elections are adequate. To call a new general election would penalize those that did not violate the law.

In this case there were by-elections that did not significantly change the make-up of parliament, the significant change happened when coalition partners and the old political machines went their own way and joined the Dems. The constituency votes of the electorate were respected by the by-elections.

[webfact]

Thaksin: PM Insincere at Talk with DAAD Leaders

BANGKOK: -- About fifteen minutes before 10 PM yesterday, former PM and convict on the run, Thaksin Shinawatra, addressed the red-shirt rally via a video link, in response to the first round of reconciliatory talk between Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and three red-shirt leaders.

Ousted PM in exile, Thaksin Shinawatra said he received many phone calls from his supporters regarding the talk between the government and the Democractic Alliance Against Dictatorship or DAAD.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, alongside his secretary, Korbsak Sabhavasu, and Democrat MP Chamni Sakdiset, held a talk with representatives of the DAAD team, which included Veera Musigaphong, Jatuporn Promphan, and Dr Weng Tojirakarn at the King Prachadhipok Institute.

Thaksin revealed that his extremist supporters suggested stronger action than a peace talk, while the others urged him to remain calm as the interests of Thailand are at stake.

Thaksin said the DAAD leaders explained their reason for demanding a parliamentary dissolution.

They believe Abhisit's administration came into power illegitimately, and that dissolution of parliament will bring reconciliation to the nation.

Thaksin added that Abhisit may be eloquent, but he lacks sincerity. The former PM gathered from the talk that parliamentary dissolution is not an option for Abhisit.

Thaksin added that he will not return to Thailand so long as the aristocrats remain powerful, because he will be assassinated.

He assured that his supporters must trust their leaders, and he urged them to unite and continue in this fight together.

He deemed the current administration a privileged government as it enjoys support from the army, the aristocrats, and certain agencies.

Thaksin said he has a huge debt of gratitude to his supporters and would like to come back to Thailand and return the favor by serving them in any position.

The government and DAAD leaders will continue their talks today, after failing yesterday to come to any agreement to end the ongoing political conflict.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-29

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[moresomekl]

No, a general election does NOT have to follow, by-elections are adequate. To call a new general election would penalize those that did not violate the law.

In this case there were by-elections that did not significantly change the make-up of parliament, the significant change happened when coalition partners and the old political machines went their own way and joined the Dems. The constituency votes of the electorate were respected by the by-elections.

Excellent point , by not calling general election you penalise the voters that did not violate the law either .

Not talking about this case only

[anotherpeter]

"Thaksin said he has a huge debt of gratitude to his supporters and would like to come back to Thailand and return the favor by serving them in any position."

How about serving his jail sentence?

[anotherpeter]

No, a general election does NOT have to follow, by-elections are adequate. To call a new general election would penalize those that did not violate the law.

In this case there were by-elections that did not significantly change the make-up of parliament, the significant change happened when coalition partners and the old political machines went their own way and joined the Dems. The constituency votes of the electorate were respected by the by-elections.

Excellent point , by not calling general election you penalise the voters that did not violate the law either .

Not talking about this case only

First sentence: can you rephrase. It isn't clear.

Second sentence: What other case are you talking about?

Edited March 29, 2010 by anotherpeter

[moresomekl]

"Thaksin said he has a huge debt of gratitude to his supporters and would like to come back to Thailand and return the favor by serving them in any position."

How about serving his jail sentence?

An excellent point LOL .

I am sure the condition of his jail stay , given his fortune would be very different from

that of an ordinary convict .

Warm water , air con , satellite TV , maybe a private study to write his memoirs ?

And it would be much cheaper then Dubai

[jdinasia]

Excellent point , by not calling general election you penalise the voters that did not violate the law either .

Not talking about this case only

Wrong again, the constituency votes get by-elections. The people still get representatives that represent where they are from. This is a constitutional issue.

[bacchanal]

Thaksin added that Abhisit may be eloquent, but he lacks sincerity.

As opposed to himself who is not eloquent AND lacks sincerity.

[moresomekl]

No, a general election does NOT have to follow, by-elections are adequate. To call a new general election would penalize those that did not violate the law.

In this case there were by-elections that did not significantly change the make-up of parliament, the significant change happened when coalition partners and the old political machines went their own way and joined the Dems. The constituency votes of the electorate were respected by the by-elections.

Excellent point , by not calling general election you penalise the voters that did not violate the law either .

Not talking about this case only

First sentence: can you rephrase. It isn't clear.

Second sentence: What other case are you talking about?

Bi elections are fine for one or two offenders not a whole party beeing banned

I think its clear , voters elect a party , if some in that party break the law , let them

beeing punished by the court , and the party by the voters . Voters are not RESPONSIBLE

for the misdeed of their elected representative .

Any other case

[anotherpeter]

No, a general election does NOT have to follow, by-elections are adequate. To call a new general election would penalize those that did not violate the law.

In this case there were by-elections that did not significantly change the make-up of parliament, the significant change happened when coalition partners and the old political machines went their own way and joined the Dems. The constituency votes of the electorate were respected by the by-elections.

Excellent point , by not calling general election you penalise the voters that did not violate the law either .

Not talking about this case only

First sentence: can you rephrase. It isn't clear.

Second sentence: What other case are you talking about?

Bi elections are fine for one or two offenders not a whole party beeing banned

I think its clear , voters elect a party , if some in that party break the law , let them

beeing punished by the court , and the party by the voters . Voters are not RESPONSIBLE

for the misdeed of their elected representative .

Any other case

The whole party didn't get banned. Only a couple of MPs. And by-elections replaced those MPs.

The party got disbanded/dissolved. All the remaining MPs moved to different parties. They still continued to represent their electorate.

The voters vote for an MP. Sure, in their mind they might be voting for a party, but they are actually voting for some ONE to represent them.

The voters may not be responsible, but they voted for them, so they are partly responsible. But lucky for the voters, if their MP gets banned, they get a chance to vote for someone else in the by-election.

Edited March 29, 2010 by anotherpeter

[moresomekl]

Excellent point , by not calling general election you penalise the voters that did not violate the law either .

Not talking about this case only

Wrong again, the constituency votes get by-elections. The people still get representatives that represent where they are from. This is a constitutional issue.

As I said if very limited number of MPs bi election fine not a whole party banned

If this happen in any democratic system let me tell you what happen , the voters

punish the party , in this case the PPP/PTP . They loose the elections .

The result is the same but its democratic .

Like it was done its not

[jdinasia]

Excellent point , by not calling general election you penalise the voters that did not violate the law either .

Not talking about this case only

Wrong again, the constituency votes get by-elections. The people still get representatives that represent where they are from. This is a constitutional issue.

As I said if very limited number of MPs bi election fine not a whole party banned

If this happen in any democratic system let me tell you what happen , the voters

punish the party , in this case the PPP/PTP . They loose the elections .

The result is the same but its democratic .

Like it was done its not

The party is banned -- NOT all the MP's. Your argument is still not holding water. The constituency MP's still represent the people that elected them. The rules that operate here are real AND democratic. Remember the judiciary has the duty to protect the people AND democracy.

[anotherpeter]

As I said if very limited number of MPs bi election fine not a whole party banned

If this happen in any democratic system let me tell you what happen , the voters

punish the party , in this case the PPP/PTP . They loose the elections .

The result is the same but its democratic .

Like it was done its not

Not all the MPs of the party were banned.

And even IF they were, the people who voted for them would still get to vote for a new MP in by-elections.

There is no need for an election to vote for new MPs in electorates where the existing MP was not banned.

If there was a general election, maybe ex-PPP MPs that did not get banned would get dumped because of their association with the PPP, even though they personally did nothing wrong. Would that be fair?

[steveromagnino]

the key issues the red shirts went in with are:

- constitution needs to be changed

- we need house dissolution to solve the country's problems.

their rhetoric seems to focus on how the current govt is the amartaya, there was no election, there is military interference, double standards etc....but the the subtext and what is not stated too often except at their rallies (where is it a major point, occupying up to 100% of the content for a given hour) is:

- a vote for PT is a vote to change the constitution

- a vote for PT is a vote for Thaksin

- a vote for PT is a way to elect a govt who will bring Thaksin back by giving amnesty and

- a vote for PT will win us the next election and enable us to do all of the above

Abhisit had some big cahones to show up yesterday; perhaps his hands were tied but I didn't get any sense of unease. He seemed attentive, ready and they all look tired. Not surprisingly. This for me is a great step in the future of Thai democracy; even with no result it forces future protests and protestors to speak to their adversaries.

If you recall that during the 2006 period, Thaksin for a while refused to give interviews, and never once was even willing to tolerate people speaking to him and disagreeing; even arranged to have security to beat up people who showed up at his events who dared to ask 'the chosen one' anything that made him look negative. Even the airport test run a month prior to actual opening he had his fan club from Udon drive down to cheer him on....speak to your supporters.....but not even willing to speak to someone who disagrees with you. Contrast that with Abhisit.

Abhisit's big benefit of all this was that he got to be speaking to the red shirt supporters directly, courtesy of this negotiation, in clear and simple language. If you have been told time and time again as a red shirter that Abhisit won't talk to us, won't dissolve the house and won't change the constitution, then when Abhisit speaks to your leaders and reminds PT that THEY were the ones who stopped the constitution amendment process in the non partisan discussions last year, and that he IS willing to dissolve the house early, then how can you respond? He is willing to do all three.

Basically, I thought Dr Weng was the most persausive of the red shirts because he had content; however he was the least interesting because he spoke at great length; something a typical Thai person perhaps would not have the patience to listen to; I do because I have a huge tolerance for waffles. Weera and Jatuporn - stop the phone these guys do have manners- who knew.

The red shirt key point of making an election result also a referendum on the constitution was pretty see-through, and I think a lot of voters may be now thinking that party policy vs. what should be a non party-line decisions re constitution reform aren't the same thing. Was Weera suggesting that by voting for the red shirts (PT) is a vote for PT version of constitution reform that therefore only the PT should be involved with writing the constitution if they become govt?

For an informed voter, it is tough to sell the idea that a vote for PT is a vote for constitutional change if all participants are exposed to the idea of decoupling the constitutional reform and a new election; if this linkage breaks, then Thaksin will have great difficulty in getting the changes he needs to get amnesty; his case may be the most important to him, but for the scope of constitutional reform, I think he ranks relatively low even for some of the red shirters - we can expect him to poo-hoo this entire discussion because for pro democracy red shirters; they just got most of what they wanted; now it is just timeframe; for Thaksin this is exactly the result that he doesn't want.

There is zero sense in making the constitution a political policy. It MUST be an ethical moral and non party line decision, developed by not just politicians but others also. To split apart election and constitution reform is obvious, obviously there are only a few stakeholders that wish to grant Thaksin amnesty within any new constitution, and therefore, that is why Thaksin cannot allow the decision to go down this logical direction. But Abhisit has put it on the table; his coalition partners support it; basically this now has put the red shirts in a minority in the house today, and likely in terms of popularity of what should happen next; it is reasonable to now consider a 6 month process; 3 months for a new constitution roadmap; 6 months to an election.

I found it interesting that Abhisit raises the issue of we agree the constitution should be changed, but we don't agree what. Interesting that the major point the red shirts raised is cheating in elections and related punishments.

If it goes to election under this decoupling of the two unrelated issues, we must recall that PT got a large number of their votes from the promise to bring back Thaksin; much of the red shirt propoganda to recruit ties to Thaksin; if this platform is not available in electioneering.....how many votes do you think they can get?!

QUESTION ...

Anybody know why the Taxi drivers seem to all be Red Shits or at least sympathize with them?

The red shirts use the same tactics as TRT; market research and groups to groups; a group of advisors who spread their ideas to a group of leaders who talk to sub leaders who talk to groups of 20-50 people at a time. Motorcycle stands; taxi rental companies; tuk tuk rental; areas of buildings within walking distance of eachother; you will often see a sub leader going person to person to spread their ideas.

In the case of taxis, this has always been a significant group that TRT identified as having massive potential to influence public opinion and so they instigated policies right after being elected to try to encourage these guys to be TRT faithful, and it has worked. At a taxi stand owner level (often 200-1,000 cars each) many are indepted to TRT for being granted the business rights; in some cases like Suwarnabhumi Taxi Company it is alledged that rights to the airport and ownership related back to TRT. In other cases taxi stand owners appreciated some of the initiatives taken by TRT such as programs for fitting gas systems; gas subsidies, etc. For the taxi drivers, given that a large proportion are from Isaan, who support TRT/PT/Red shirts anyhow, then not surprisingly many support them now. There is some element perhaps of peer pressure and also that if all your friends think one way then listening to them you start to think similarly because you hear that side of the story more often.

Pushed, I would say definitely more than 50%, but not sure how much. Of the 20% or so of taxis that are owner operated, my guess is most of the drivers are Bangkokians or have been in Bangkok a long time; this group would tend to be ambivalent or anti red shirt more so that the remainding 80% rentals. But there are plenty of taxis that are anti red shirt; today the driver I spoke to was from Roiet; hates the red shirts and hates the fact that they rally without stating where they are going; he and his mates are annoyed that they have lost money and income for 2 weeks now from this. So that's personal, rather than dislike from a political issue.

To give you an idea, 130,000 cabs approx in Bangkok. 80-90% are used. Most have 2 drivers a day. That's 200,000 drivers. At the rallies you see perhaps 10% of them - so it's hardly all of them - a fair number are sympathetic to be sure.

Re. Jakapop Penkair

Red shirts have distanced themselves from Jakapop and Da Torpedo after the idea of being anti royal was seen to be both politically unpopular and also against the law. Jakapop is a fugitive like Thaksin, facing trial. He has no future role one suspects in anything to do with Thailand at this moment. Preaching violent overthrow and revolution is not so popular on the red stages at the moment; that time came and went right at the start of the Samak administration.

He's also definitely a 'see muang tao nun' advisor, so perhaps Herr Thaksin and his merry band don't want to associate themselves with non manly types like Jakapop, Mingkwan et al anymore. After all, Thaksin believes that gays cannot control their emotions and thus make poor advisors; would you want to waste your time with such a negotiator???

At the end of the day, the red shirt version of democracy seems to be that if a person or party is popular enough, then they should not be judged by the rule of the law, they should be judged by popularity. Thaksin was popular, so therefore he should be not guilty. TRT and PPP both cheated in elections, but since they were popular, then they should be judged by the majority of the people (popularity) not by some elite judges. Samak is not allowed to do the cooking show and earn money outside of what should be a full time job as PM, but if he is popular enough (got almost 40% of the vote as leader of PPP) then surely that is enough for him to do what he wants.

One wonders, whether perhaps judges in future under a PT government with a PT constitution could perhaps be elected in a hot faces/hot bodies type reality TV show. It's a good mandate. A Gibzy girly berry supreme court justice. Now that's food for thought that appeals across party, er, panty, er party lines.

As for punishment for cheats, if i was writing the constitution, cheating by a politician to become elected should be a lot more severe than a 5 year ban. Given the rampant cheating that has occurred in the past, it would seem that more, not less, measures are needed to keep 'honest people honest'.

Edited March 29, 2010 by steveromagnino

[mazeltov]

if a banned-from-politics MP (banned because he is an executive head of the party) got his seat in the parliament with the proportional vote, was chosen from the party list, there will be no by-election for this seat. if just the MP were banned the runner up, the next candidate from the party list would take this seat, but in case the party got banned, dissolved, there is no valid party list with a runner up anymore.

that means voters lost their proportional vote this way.

[peter48]

A speedy resolution is needed western markets open soon and Thai shares will begin to dive if this is not cleared up soon. moreover violence in BKK and soldiers retreating carries all the overtones of what happened two years ago. What a pity the baht doing fine, international confidence in Thai economy high and now along comes this trouble inspired by a former leader from abroad.

[jdinasia]

A speedy resolution is needed western markets open soon and Thai shares will begin to dive if this is not cleared up soon. moreover violence in BKK and soldiers retreating carries all the overtones of what happened two years ago. What a pity the baht doing fine, international confidence in Thai economy high and now along comes this trouble inspired by a former leader from abroad.

Ummm sorry but over this time period the markets have not done what you seem to be predicting. Many people have predicted a crash in the SET or the Baht and so far all have been disappointed.

[moresomekl]

the key issues the red shirts went in with are:

- constitution needs to be changed

- we need house dissolution to solve the country's problems.

their rhetoric seems to focus on how the current govt is the amartaya, there was no election, there is military interference, double standards etc....but the the subtext and what is not stated too often except at their rallies (where is it a major point, occupying up to 100% of the content for a given hour) is:

- a vote for PT is a vote to change the constitution

- a vote for PT is a vote for Thaksin

- a vote for PT is a way to elect a govt who will bring Thaksin back by giving amnesty and

- a vote for PT will win us the next election and enable us to do all of the above

Abhisit had some big cahones to show up yesterday; perhaps his hands were tied but I didn't get any sense of unease. He seemed attentive, ready and they all look tired. Not surprisingly. This for me is a great step in the future of Thai democracy; even with no result it forces future protests and protestors to speak to their adversaries.

If you recall that during the 2006 period, Thaksin for a while refused to give interviews, and never once was even willing to tolerate people speaking to him and disagreeing; even arranged to have security to beat up people who showed up at his events who dared to ask 'the chosen one' anything that made him look negative. Even the airport test run a month prior to actual opening he had his fan club from Udon drive down to cheer him on....speak to your supporters.....but not even willing to speak to someone who disagrees with you. Contrast that with Abhisit.

Abhisit's big benefit of all this was that he got to be speaking to the red shirt supporters directly, courtesy of this negotiation, in clear and simple language. If you have been told time and time again as a red shirter that Abhisit won't talk to us, won't dissolve the house and won't change the constitution, then when Abhisit speaks to your leaders and reminds PT that THEY were the ones who stopped the constitution amendment process in the non partisan discussions last year, and that he IS willing to dissolve the house early, then how can you respond? He is willing to do all three.

Basically, I thought Dr Weng was the most persausive of the red shirts because he had content; however he was the least interesting because he spoke at great length; something a typical Thai person perhaps would not have the patience to listen to; I do because I have a huge tolerance for waffles. Weera and Jatuporn - stop the phone these guys do have manners- who knew.

The red shirt key point of making an election result also a referendum on the constitution was pretty see-through, and I think a lot of voters may be now thinking that party policy vs. what should be a non party-line decisions re constitution reform aren't the same thing. Was Weera suggesting that by voting for the red shirts (PT) is a vote for PT version of constitution reform that therefore only the PT should be involved with writing the constitution if they become govt? That's hilarious....given that the 1997 People's Constitution that TRT ignored and now PT wish to reinstate was led by the 'Amartaya' (Anand, Privvy Councillor) that they despise. For an informed voter, it is tough to sell the idea that a vote for PT is a vote for constitutional change if all participants are exposed to the idea of decoupling the constitutional reform and a new election; if this linkage breaks, then Thaksin will have great difficulty in getting the changes he needs to get amnesty; his case may be the most important to him, but for the scope of constitutional reform, I think he ranks relatively low even for some of the red shirters - we can expect him to poo-hoo this entire discussion because for pro democracy red shirters; they just got most of what they wanted; now it is just timeframe; for Thaksin this is exactly the result that he doesn't want.

There is zero sense in making the constitution a political policy. It MUST be an ethical moral and non party line decision, developed by not just politicians but others also. To split apart election and constitution reform is obvious, obviously there are only a few stakeholders that wish to grant Thaksin amnesty within any new constitution, and therefore, that is why Thaksin cannot allow the decision to go down this logical direction. But Abhisit has put it on the table; his coalition partners support it; basically this now has put the red shirts in a minority in the house today, and likely in terms of popularity of what should happen next; it is reasonable to now consider a 6 month process; 3 months for a new constitution roadmap; 6 months to an election.

I found it interesting that Abhisit raises the issue of we agree the constitution should be changed, but we don't agree what. Interesting that the major point the red shirts raised is cheating in elections and related punishments.

If it goes to election under this decoupling of the two unrelated issues, we must recall that PT got a large number of their votes from the promise to bring back Thaksin; much of the red shirt propoganda to recruit ties to Thaksin; if this platform is not available in electioneering.....how many votes do you think they can get?!

QUESTION ...

Anybody know why the Taxi drivers seem to all be Red Shits or at least sympathize with them?

The red shirts use the same tactics as TRT; market research and groups to groups; a group of advisors who spread their ideas to a group of leaders who talk to sub leaders who talk to groups of 20-50 people at a time. Motorcycle stands; taxi rental companies; tuk tuk rental; areas of buildings within walking distance of eachother; you will often see a sub leader going person to person to spread their ideas.

In the case of taxis, this has always been a significant group that TRT identified as having massive potential to influence public opinion and so they instigated policies right after being elected to try to encourage these guys to be TRT faithful, and it has worked. At a taxi stand owner level (often 200-1,000 cars each) many are indepted to TRT for being granted the business rights; in some cases like Suwarnabhumi Taxi Company it is alledged that rights to the airport and ownership related back to TRT. In other cases taxi stand owners appreciated some of the initiatives taken by TRT such as programs for fitting gas systems; gas subsidies, etc. For the taxi drivers, given that a large proportion are from Isaan, who support TRT/PT/Red shirts anyhow, then not surprisingly many support them now. There is some element perhaps of peer pressure and also that if all your friends think one way then listening to them you start to think similarly because you hear that side of the story more often.

Pushed, I would say definitely more than 50%, but not sure how much. Of the 20% or so of taxis that are owner operated, my guess is most of the drivers are Bangkokians or have been in Bangkok a long time; this group would tend to be ambivalent or anti red shirt more so that the remainding 80% rentals. But there are plenty of taxis that are anti red shirt; today the driver I spoke to was from Roiet; hates the red shirts and hates the fact that they rally without stating where they are going; he and his mates are annoyed that they have lost money and income for 2 weeks now from this. So that's personal, rather than dislike from a political issue.

To give you an idea, 130,000 cabs approx in Bangkok. 80-90% are used. Most have 2 drivers a day. That's 200,000 drivers. At the rallies you see perhaps 10% of them - so it's hardly all of them - a fair number are sympathetic to be sure.

Re. Jakapop Penkair

Red shirts have distanced themselves from Jakapop and Da Torpedo after the idea of being anti royal was seen to be both politically unpopular and also against the law. Jakapop is a fugitive like Thaksin, facing trial. He has no future role one suspects in anything to do with Thailand at this moment. Preaching violent overthrow and revolution is not so popular on the red stages at the moment; that time came and went right at the start of the Samak administration.

He's also definitely a 'see muang tao nun' advisor, so perhaps Herr Thaksin and his merry band don't want to associate themselves with non manly types like Jakapop, Mingkwan et al anymore. After all, Thaksin believes that gays cannot control their emotions and thus make poor advisors; would you want to waste your time with such a negotiator???

At the end of the day, the red shirt version of democracy seems to be that if a person or party is popular enough, then they should not be judged by the rule of the law, they should be judged by popularity. Thaksin was popular, so therefore he should be not guilty. TRT and PPP both cheated in elections, but since they were popular, then they should be judged by the majority of the people (popularity) not by some elite judges. Samak is not allowed to do the cooking show and earn money outside of what should be a full time job as PM, but if he is popular enough (got almost 40% of the vote as leader of PPP) then surely that is enough for him to do what he wants.

One wonders, whether perhaps judges in future under a PT government with a PT constitution could perhaps be elected in a hot faces/hot bodies type reality TV show. It's a good mandate. A Gibzy girly berry supreme court justice. Now that's food for thought that appeals across party, er, panty, er party lines.

I do think that the constitution need to be changed but not along the way the redshirts wants .

1) The PM should be given a clear mandate by the people , less subject to machinations in the house , so that he can implement the policies he has been voted in for .

2) The PM would have to name his ministers according to the majority prevailing in the house that votes the laws . Else laws can never be passed . So still a parlementary democracy

3) A good system of check and balances to prevent immoral ppl from holding power long . Like Thaksin did . Else the only choice are military coup or undemocratic means . The current problems are largely related to that

4) A crakdown and very stiff laws on corruption in politics combined maybe with better remuneration and prospects for those who choose public service .

With this in place , someone honest , maybe Abhisit ? , can implement good policies for the country .

Very personal opinion of course

[Irene]

A speedy resolution is needed western markets open soon and Thai shares will begin to dive if this is not cleared up soon. moreover violence in BKK and soldiers retreating carries all the overtones of what happened two years ago. What a pity the baht doing fine, international confidence in Thai economy high and now along comes this trouble inspired by a former leader from abroad.

Ummm sorry but over this time period the markets have not done what you seem to be predicting. Many people have predicted a crash in the SET or the Baht and so far all have been disappointed.

You can say that again. This morning, a decline by a few points in a level of concern but not panick and may rise in the afternoon.

[moresomekl]

As I said if very limited number of MPs bi election fine not a whole party banned

If this happen in any democratic system let me tell you what happen , the voters

punish the party , in this case the PPP/PTP . They loose the elections .

The result is the same but its democratic .

Like it was done its not

Not all the MPs of the party were banned.

And even IF they were, the people who voted for them would still get to vote for a new MP in by-elections.

There is no need for an election to vote for new MPs in electorates where the existing MP was not banned.

If there was a general election, maybe ex-PPP MPs that did not get banned would get dumped because of their association with the PPP, even though they personally did nothing wrong. Would that be fair?

Correction

Is it fair to disolve an entire party just because a few of them are crooks ?

I dont know .

But if it is yes ex PPP MPs that are not banned are still member of a party

that got banned and they should face the electorate . Like the entire house

They might win or not . Depends if they did good things for their voters or

not

Edited March 29, 2010 by moresomekl

[lannarebirth]

As I said if very limited number of MPs bi election fine not a whole party banned

If this happen in any democratic system let me tell you what happen , the voters

punish the party , in this case the PPP/PTP . They loose the elections .

The result is the same but its democratic .

Like it was done its not

Not all the MPs of the party were banned.

And even IF they were, the people who voted for them would still get to vote for a new MP in by-elections.

There is no need for an election to vote for new MPs in electorates where the existing MP was not banned.

If there was a general election, maybe ex-PPP MPs that did not get banned would get dumped because of their association with the PPP, even though they personally did nothing wrong. Would that be fair?

Is it fair to disolve an entire party just because a few of them are crooks ?

I dont know .

But if it is yes ex PPP MPs that are not banned are still member of a party

that got banned and they should face the electorate . I think they would

win again anyway .

I believe the thinking is, that if it is executives of the party who are in breach of the law, they are breaching the law for the benefit of the entire party and therefore the corruption is "systemic" and the entire organization should be disbanded. Reasonable people could disagree about that I suppose, but it does make a certain amount of sense.

Edited March 29, 2010 by lannarebirth

[moresomekl]

As I said if very limited number of MPs bi election fine not a whole party banned

If this happen in any democratic system let me tell you what happen , the voters

punish the party , in this case the PPP/PTP . They loose the elections .

The result is the same but its democratic .

Like it was done its not

Not all the MPs of the party were banned.

And even IF they were, the people who voted for them would still get to vote for a new MP in by-elections.

There is no need for an election to vote for new MPs in electorates where the existing MP was not banned.

If there was a general election, maybe ex-PPP MPs that did not get banned would get dumped because of their association with the PPP, even though they personally did nothing wrong. Would that be fair?

Is it fair to disolve an entire party just because a few of them are crooks ?

I dont know .

But if it is yes ex PPP MPs that are not banned are still member of a party

that got banned and they should face the electorate . I think they would

win again anyway .

I believe the thinking is, that if it is executives of the party who are in breach of the law, they are breachibng the law for the benefit of the entire party and therefore the corruption is "systemic" and the entire organization should be disbanded. Reasonable people could disagree about that I suppose, but it does make a certain amount of sense.

Indeed yes it does make sense .