Thailand's Political Landmark Talks End Without Resolution

[termad]

If there is civil war, the reds will lose. That is because it is the reds (who are based quite far from Bangkok) against the entire rest of Thailand. It is not the reds vs. yellows. In that case, the reds would romp. They would also have to "take" Bangkok and that is not their home turf. I agree Thaksin is all about taking back power without any regard for the cost to his country. As Thaksin remains puppet master of the reds, how do you negotiate in good faith with that?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the rest of Thailand. If you take away the population of Isaan, Chieng Mai and the Central plains what is the number for the remaining popu;lation. You should also not include the population of the far south in your 'the rest of Thailand' as they are quite liable to support the red shirts/Phue Thai in the next election - this because they are very interested in Chavalit's suggestion of autonomy.

I doubt very very much if there will be a civil war but I do believe very very much that there will be an election within the next six to four months.

[termad]

If there is civil war, the reds will lose. That is because it is the reds (who are based quite far from Bangkok) against the entire rest of Thailand. It is not the reds vs. yellows. In that case, the reds would romp. They would also have to "take" Bangkok and that is not their home turf. I agree Thaksin is all about taking back power without any regard for the cost to his country. As Thaksin remains puppet master of the reds, how do you negotiate in good faith with that?

If there is civil war, the reds will lose. That is because it is the reds (who are based quite far from Bangkok) against the entire rest of Thailand. It is not the reds vs. yellows. In that case, the reds would romp. They would also have to "take" Bangkok and that is not their home turf. I agree Thaksin is all about taking back power without any regard for the cost to his country. As Thaksin remains puppet master of the reds, how do you negotiate in good faith with that?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the rest of Thailand. If you take away the population of Isaan, Chieng Mai and the Central plains what is the number for the remaining population. You should also not include the population of the far south in your 'the rest of Thailand' as they are quite liable to support the red shirts/Phue Thai in the next election - this because they are very interested in Chavalit's suggestion of autonomy.

I doubt very very much if there will be a civil war but I do believe very very much that there will be an election within the next six to four months.

Edited March 29, 2010 by termad

[moresomekl]

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'.

Yes I agree , redshirt want to confuse popularity with legality . As long as one is popular never mind if he breaks the laws here and there . That is a totally distorted view of course .

Well laws can not be retroactive , Thaksin has been sentenced , no way he should be abble to get an amnisty . Its not as if he got a parking offence LOL . Only a pardon from HM could avoid him a nice jail stay if he comes back .

[Ricardo]

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.

"that means voters lost their proportional vote this way"

In which case, should the voters not blame the crooked politician and party which got caught, rather than a system that is correctly set-up to discourage voting-fraud and parties which set out to do it systematically ?

It worries me that PTP seem to want to weaken this, rather than encourage parties to be less-corrupt, one has to ask "Why ?".

Is it just because they (amongst others) have been caught by it in-the-past (sour grapes), do they (surely not !) want to still act this way in the future, or does their vision of 'true democracy' not include punishment for deliberate undemocratic-actions ? In which case, one might ask, just what sort of 'true democracy' would they plan to replace it with ?

The voters deserve to know the answer to this !

Meanwhile the talks continue, which is good, the PM should always be willing to listen to concerned-groups of ordinary-citizens, even if he doesn't always do as they would like him to do. Such a pity that those PTP-MPs, who boycotted parliament last week, were thus unable to convey the Red-Shirts' views in parliament. Perhaps they should reconsider ?

[OzMick]

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.

som nom naa!

[webfact]

Foreign Press on Red Shirt - Government Talks

The international press sees the direct talks with the government as way out for the red-shirt members, but believes Thailand's deep political divide is yet to be resolved.

The attention of the foreign press was focused on the yesterday's talks between red-shirt core leaders and the government, stating that it is the first of its kind. Before yesterday, political negotiations have been kept behind closed doors and away from the public eye.

The Wall Street Journal clearly pointed out that amidst the escalating confrontations and strings of bomb attacks, PM Abhisit Vejjajiva has agreed to hold direct talks with the anti-government core leaders to give red-shirt demonstrators camped in the capital a way to return home.

BBC stated that the smiles and handshakes exchanged between the two sides reflected their readiness to listen to each other; however, neither side budged on their stance.

BBC also said the talks showed that the government acknowledges the red-shirt demonstration as a legitimate political movement, but that it is also undeniable that they represent the ambitions of fugitive former premiere, Thaksin Shinawatra.

Hong Kong's Phoenix Television said the red-shirt demonstration shows Thailand's divide between the rural people and the middle class, which is more important than the House dissolution.

The red-shirt's weakness lies in the the fact that they are fighting for Thaksin's personal gain, without policies and ambitions to move the country forward, especially after Thaksin obtained Montenegrin citizenship, closing many doors for his return to Thai politics.

Phoenix Television believes that Thaksin is a hindrance in the progress of the red-shirts, because if Thaksin wins a general election, the demonstrations were merely a publicity stunt.

Therefore, if the red-shirts are really fighting for class equality, they must change their leadership, which will defeat the policies of the original red-shirts.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-29

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[bacchanal]

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.

To many of the reds, he's Super Thaksin... incapable of being guilty of anything untoward and oh yes, he's also savior of the Universe

[Jingthing]

The foreign press -- rather smart! The reds -- all Thaksin all the time. The reds -- no credible policy platform to move the country forward. It is heartening to see the foreign press is finally getting it right.

[jdinasia]

Hong Kong's Phoenix Television said the red-shirt demonstration shows Thailand's divide between the rural people and the middle class, which is more important than the House dissolution.

The red-shirt's weakness lies in the the fact that they are fighting for Thaksin's personal gain, without policies and ambitions to move the country forward, especially after Thaksin obtained Montenegrin citizenship, closing many doors for his return to Thai politics.

Phoenix Television believes that Thaksin is a hindrance in the progress of the red-shirts, because if Thaksin wins a general election, the demonstrations were merely a publicity stunt.

Therefore, if the red-shirts are really fighting for class equality, they must change their leadership, which will defeat the policies of the original red-shirts.

Snipped from above (post 126)

That pretty succinctly sums things up!

[Cayenne]

The foreign press -- rather smart! The reds -- all Thaksin all the time. The reds -- no credible policy platform to move the country forward. It is heartening to see the foreign press is finally getting it right.

Yes, it's a good sign and I wish they would go into serious news reporting and not their usual armchair commentaries. One foreign reporter I knew spent his entire reporting trip near Khao Sarn road, not even venturing to where the hotspots were, so you can imagine his report would be full of anecdotal information passed on as truths.

[lannarebirth]

Hong Kong's Phoenix Television said the red-shirt demonstration shows Thailand's divide between the rural people and the middle class, which is more important than the House dissolution.

The red-shirt's weakness lies in the the fact that they are fighting for Thaksin's personal gain, without policies and ambitions to move the country forward, especially after Thaksin obtained Montenegrin citizenship, closing many doors for his return to Thai politics.

Phoenix Television believes that Thaksin is a hindrance in the progress of the red-shirts, because if Thaksin wins a general election, the demonstrations were merely a publicity stunt.

Therefore, if the red-shirts are really fighting for class equality, they must change their leadership, which will defeat the policies of the original red-shirts.

Snipped from above (post 126)

That pretty succinctly sums things up!

I think it's much more complex than that, though they're on the right track. Fact is, I don't know too many middle class people that don't have family, sometimes most of their family who are amongst the rural poor. They are not at all unsympathetic to this class of people but they certainly do have different ideas how, and through which political parties, they can best achieve their goals.

Edited March 29, 2010 by lannarebirth

[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 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.

You miss my point here or i was not clear . Yes of course the law and the constitution are the highest rule .

The decision to call or not an election after the court ruling was a political decision by Abhisit and the coalition

to make but not a must do in the absence of constitutional guidance . Which ok as long as it dont breaks the

constitution , they could had made it .

And avoided the current protests .

But then perhaps it was tactical . In Europe in similar cases they would had called an election right away

and the offender PPP/PTP in this case would had lost many seats i am quite sure . But Thailand is not Europe

Edited March 29, 2010 by moresomekl

[lannarebirth]

^ Do you really believe anything could stop these protests as long as Thaksin has a personal axe to grind?

[jdinasia]

You miss my point here or i was not clear . Yes of course the law and the constitution are the highest rule .

The decision to call or not an election after the court ruling was a political decision by Abhisit and the coalition

to make but not a must do in the absence of constitutional guidance . Which ok as long as it dont breaks the

constitution , they could had made it .

And avoided the current protests .

But then perhaps it was tactical . In Europe in similar cases they would had called an election right away

and the offender PPP/PTP in this case would had lost many seats i am quite sure . But Thailand is not Europe

Nice of you to completely let PPP off the hook here. The PPP party leadership KNEW the evidence against them and it was not really subject to much debate. They (the PPP) could have dissolved parliament after forming a new party (PTP) and called new elections. They didn't because that would have been considered a public admission of their guilt to most thinking people. Including many of their supporters.

They didn't take this option and that certainly seems to absolve the government that followed Somchai from having to do so. Why didn't they? They thought they would be able to (through the new Thaksin proxy party PTP) form the next government too. They were wrong. That falls clearly on their shoulders and NOT the government that followed them.

[moresomekl]

You miss my point here or i was not clear . Yes of course the law and the constitution are the highest rule .

The decision to call or not an election after the court ruling was a political decision by Abhisit and the coalition

to make but not a must do in the absence of constitutional guidance . Which ok as long as it dont breaks the

constitution , they could had made it .

And avoided the current protests .

But then perhaps it was tactical . In Europe in similar cases they would had called an election right away

and the offender PPP/PTP in this case would had lost many seats i am quite sure . But Thailand is not Europe

Nice of you to completely let PPP off the hook here. The PPP party leadership KNEW the evidence against them and it was not really subject to much debate. They (the PPP) could have dissolved parliament after forming a new party (PTP) and called new elections. They didn't because that would have been considered a public admission of their guilt to most thinking people. Including many of their supporters.

They didn't take this option and that certainly seems to absolve the government that followed Somchai from having to do so. Why didn't they? They thought they would be able to (through the new Thaksin proxy party PTP) form the next government too. They were wrong. That falls clearly on their shoulders and NOT the government that followed them.

Do you think they could have done what you describe ? Seriously ?

And the court case would had vanished ?

The party executives were accused . Unless all those accused resign

and the remainder form the PTP . Seems far fetched to me .

Possible maybe . Am not defending the PPP please ...

[MrJohnson]

As I haven't read every single post in this thread my apologies if someone has already mentioned this. I was watching the 'debate' live on TV last night with a Thai friend. She was furious that Jatupon kept referring to the 'patcharchon' - sorry about the spelling - but otherwise known as the 'people' or 'population' wanting a house dissolution and the 'patchachon' wanting this or demanding that. Please refer to them as my 'red shirted supporters' or whatever but stop implying that this group of red shirts are representative of all Thais. It is, as is so often the case in these situations, that the silent majority do not agree with the noisy minority.

BTW - I'm not really a UDD or PAD supporter but I must admit I don't like the overly aggressive posturing of the reds.

I also agree with a previous poster that the reds would be much better served by allowing Veera to represent them at these meetings as he presents an image of reasonableness in sharp contrast to the thuggish looking Jatuporn.

[jdinasia]

You miss my point here or i was not clear . Yes of course the law and the constitution are the highest rule .

The decision to call or not an election after the court ruling was a political decision by Abhisit and the coalition

to make but not a must do in the absence of constitutional guidance . Which ok as long as it dont breaks the

constitution , they could had made it .

And avoided the current protests .

But then perhaps it was tactical . In Europe in similar cases they would had called an election right away

and the offender PPP/PTP in this case would had lost many seats i am quite sure . But Thailand is not Europe

Nice of you to completely let PPP off the hook here. The PPP party leadership KNEW the evidence against them and it was not really subject to much debate. They (the PPP) could have dissolved parliament after forming a new party (PTP) and called new elections. They didn't because that would have been considered a public admission of their guilt to most thinking people. Including many of their supporters.

They didn't take this option and that certainly seems to absolve the government that followed Somchai from having to do so. Why didn't they? They thought they would be able to (through the new Thaksin proxy party PTP) form the next government too. They were wrong. That falls clearly on their shoulders and NOT the government that followed them.

Do you think they could have done what you describe ? Seriously ?

And the court case would had vanished ?

The party executives were accused . Unless all those accused resign

and the remainder form the PTP . Seems far fetched to me .

Possible maybe . Am not defending the PPP please ...

They KNEW the evidence against PPP and they KNEW that the PPP party execs would be banned. Their hubris kept them from calling new elections using the PTP banner. Blame the ones at fault and not the ones that are cleaning up the mess.

[mazeltov]

They KNEW the evidence against PPP and they KNEW that the PPP party execs would be banned. Their hubris kept them from calling new elections using the PTP banner. Blame the ones at fault and not the ones that are cleaning up the mess.

do you know the evidence?

can you give us a small recap?

[Publicus]

They KNEW the evidence against PPP and they KNEW that the PPP party execs would be banned. Their hubris kept them from calling new elections using the PTP banner. Blame the ones at fault and not the ones that are cleaning up the mess.

do you know the evidence?

can you give us a small recap?

We're discussing the present.......let's stop rehashing old arguments ad infinitum.

Let's get back to Kuhn Larry, Kuhn Moe and Kuhn Curley in their present adventure of meeting the prime minister.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Publicus

[moresomekl]

They KNEW the evidence against PPP and they KNEW that the PPP party execs would be banned. Their hubris kept them from calling new elections using the PTP banner. Blame the ones at fault and not the ones that are cleaning up the mess.

do you know the evidence?

can you give us a small recap?

Yes it would be interesting to hear

[p_brownstone]

There is another aspect to these talks and a very good reason for the intransigence of the 3 Red Shirt "negotiators".

It is hugely in their own self-interest to keep this Demonstration going for as long as possible.

So long as they can keep a few tens of thousand Protesters in Bangkok, Thaksin will keep sending money to pay them and provide for them - and I am absolutely certain that a huge proportion of these Funds are kept in the pockets of senior Red Shirt leaders - particularly the negotiators.

To agree to disband the Protest would be killing the proverbial Goose.

Patrick

[animatic]

You miss my point here or i was not clear . Yes of course the law and the constitution are the highest rule .

The decision to call or not an election after the court ruling was a political decision by Abhisit and the coalition

to make but not a must do in the absence of constitutional guidance . Which ok as long as it dont breaks the

constitution , they could had made it .

And avoided the current protests .

But then perhaps it was tactical . In Europe in similar cases they would had called an election right away

and the offender PPP/PTP in this case would had lost many seats i am quite sure . But Thailand is not Europe

Nice of you to completely let PPP off the hook here. The PPP party leadership KNEW the evidence against them and it was not really subject to much debate. They (the PPP) could have dissolved parliament after forming a new party (PTP) and called new elections. They didn't because that would have been considered a public admission of their guilt to most thinking people. Including many of their supporters.

They didn't take this option and that certainly seems to absolve the government that followed Somchai from having to do so. Why didn't they? They thought they would be able to (through the new Thaksin proxy party PTP) form the next governmen

t too. They were wrong. That falls clearly on their shoulders and NOT the government that followed them.

Do you think they could have done what you describe ? Seriously ?

And the court case would had vanished ?

The party executives were accused . Unless all those accused resign

and the remainder form the PTP . Seems far fetched to me .

Possible maybe . Am not defending the PPP please ...

What does the court case vanishing have to do with anything?

The PPP rank and file DID start PTP before PPP was banned...

Or did you MISS that.... but they didn't run in a NEW election,

because Somchai never called it.

If the PPP government resigned, as they had to weeks later,

and the soon to be banned leadership didn't try to run PTP directly,

it would have meant PTP and it's NEW PARTY LIST, had a good chance of winning.

The PPP would have been disbanded, but as we have NOW

most all 95-98% of PPP still exists in parliament as PTP,

but missing the PTP Party List players. Because Somchai wimped out.

You are really not grasping the actualities of the situation, not sure why really.

It is pretty clear.

Edited March 29, 2010 by animatic

[thaihome]

They KNEW the evidence against PPP and they KNEW that the PPP party execs would be banned. Their hubris kept them from calling new elections using the PTP banner. Blame the ones at fault and not the ones that are cleaning up the mess.

do you know the evidence?

can you give us a small recap?

Yes it would be interesting to hear

Yongyuth Tiyapairat, at the time the deputy PPP leader, was video taped handing out bags with 100k baht in them to several village chiefs brought to a meeting in Bangkok.

He was convicted in July 2008, but the PPP was able to delay the dissolution for several months while they formed a new party and at the same time, attempted to amend the constitution to stop the dissolution from being required. The reason the PAD occupied both the government house for almost 200 days and at the end, airport was to prevent the PPP from amending the constitution.

This dissolution article continues to one the key issues for the red shirts to this day.

As far as the contention that the PPP brought the Democratic coalition on themselves, this is true and many people were telling the PPP to quit and let the new party form a government.

Link

TH

[moresomekl]

Do you think they could have done what you describe ? Seriously ?

And the court case would had vanished ?

The party executives were accused . Unless all those accused resign

and the remainder form the PTP . Seems far fetched to me .

Possible maybe . Am not defending the PPP please ...

What does the court case vanishing have to do with anything?

The PPP rank and file DID start PTP before PPP was banned...

Or did you MISS that.... but they didn't run in a NEW election,

because Somchai never called it.

If the PPP government resigned, as they had to weeks later,

and the soon to be banned leadership didn't try to run PTP directly,

it would have meant PTP and it's NEW PARTY LIST, had a good chance of winning.

The PPP would have been disbanded, but as we have NOW

most all 95-98% of PPP still exists in parliament as PTP,

but missing the PTP Party List players. Because Somchai wimped out.

You are really not grasping the actualities of the situation, not sure why really.

It is pretty clear.

Am not aware of all the details . Thanks for infos .

You should have said that before

Alright then Somchai and the PPP leadership should had disolved

the house and called for an election .

To which the PPP leadership would not had participated of course .

[hammered]

I always wondered why Somchai didnt call an election when he the chance. Surely the party hierarchy knew that by not renominating Samak they would drive a wedge between them and puen Newin. Then again they had the Isaan Pattana group threatening to go rogue at that time over puen Newin as well as he had used his people to win lots of local elections on Isaan Pattana turf by running candidates against them. An election then would have been quite interesting but Somchai let the moment pass and the rest is history.

[jdinasia]

They KNEW the evidence against PPP and they KNEW that the PPP party execs would be banned. Their hubris kept them from calling new elections using the PTP banner. Blame the ones at fault and not the ones that are cleaning up the mess.

do you know the evidence?

can you give us a small recap?

Yes it would be interesting to hear

There was already a Guilty verdict against a party executive for vote buying. The EC had reccomended the party to be disbanded and the only thing that remained to happen was the court agreeing to the disbanding. It was a given that this would happen.

The PTP "shell" party was already set up and ready to operate.

(BTW-- the law about disbanding parties if a single executive was caught for electoral fraud was in the 1997 constitution and continued on in the 2007 constitution)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-12...ent_7261751.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-12...ent_7278895.htm

edit ---

and here is the Reuters article that says the party leadership was expecting the disbanding to happen

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AR56Q20081128

Leaders of the three parties expect a guilty verdict after closing statements in the case are made on December 2, dealing another blow to the six-party coalition already battling a six-month street campaign to unseat it.

Edited March 29, 2010 by jdinasia

[jdinasia]

I always wondered why Somchai didnt call an election when he the chance. Surely the party hierarchy knew that by not renominating Samak they would drive a wedge between them and puen Newin. Then again they had the Isaan Pattana group threatening to go rogue at that time over puen Newin as well as he had used his people to win lots of local elections on Isaan Pattana turf by running candidates against them. An election then would have been quite interesting but Somchai let the moment pass and the rest is history.

Actually "the rest is history" isn't right ... The rest is what we are dealing with now

It was hubris on the part of PPP pure and simple.

[anotherpeter]

<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AR56Q20081128

Leaders of the three parties expect a guilty verdict after closing statements in the case are made on December 2, dealing another blow to the six-party coalition already battling a six-month street campaign to unseat it.

"already battling a six-month street campaign to unseat it."

So, the yellows were protesting to get rid of the PPP government, much like the reds are protesting to get rid of the Abhisit government.

The yellows were protesting because the PPP was corrupt (which is why they were disbanded) and the reds are protesting because of the perception of corruption in getting in to power (links to the coup junta etc).

But, from what I understand, the PPP were trying to change the constitution to get Thaksin off his charges, and make it easier for corruption in future elections. Is my understanding correct?

Is the Abhisit government up to anything now (being before the protests) that the reds could see as changing the constitution to make it worse for the people of Thailand as a whole?

[mazeltov]

They KNEW the evidence against PPP and they KNEW that the PPP party execs would be banned. Their hubris kept them from calling new elections using the PTP banner. Blame the ones at fault and not the ones that are cleaning up the mess.

do you know the evidence?

can you give us a small recap?

Yes it would be interesting to hear

Yongyuth Tiyapairat, at the time the deputy PPP leader, was video taped handing out bags with 100k baht in them to several village chiefs brought to a meeting in Bangkok.

He was convicted in July 2008, but the PPP was able to delay the dissolution for several months while they formed a new party and at the same time, attempted to amend the constitution to stop the dissolution from being required. The reason the PAD occupied both the government house for almost 200 days and at the end, airport was to prevent the PPP from amending the constitution.

This dissolution article continues to one the key issues for the red shirts to this day.

As far as the contention that the PPP brought the Democratic coalition on themselves, this is true and many people were telling the PPP to quit and let the new party form a government.

Link

TH

bags with 100k baht?

here is Yongyuth statement

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/02/26...cs_30066530.php

anyway, fact is Yongyuth was found guilty by the EC to give money to 10 village headmen as a bribe to have them campaigning on behalf of his younger sister La-ong Tiyapairat. who was a PPP candidate in the constituency where the village heads came from.

Yongyuth, PPP deputy leader, got a red card from the Supreme Court as recommended by the EC. his sister got only a yellow card.

yellow card means she wasn't out but could try her luck again in a by-election. and that was what she did in August 2008.

interesting was it it to see the results in that by election, how would the turn out be without any evil influence.

La-ong got a decisive victory with 170,184 votes, while the second place Democrat MP Kitipong Namwong got only 19,480 votes.

http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/toc/ViewData...?DataID=1008805

that is the case of massive vote buying and electoral fraud.

for those who are interested to do a deeper recap of the 2007 election process. i recommend

www.anfrel.org Asian Network for Free Elections. the site is down at the moment, but that must be a temporary server issue. should be back soon. they had their independent observers all over the country and published a small report (90 pages).

http://www.anfrel.org/report/thailand/thai...SION%202007.zip

its a pdf inside the zip.

EDIT: found out that i can upload the file here too

THAI_MISSION_2007.zip

Edited March 29, 2010 by mazeltov

[thaihome]

Actually a very informative report. Thanks for the link.

Of course, it took me a while to find it, but sure enough, they do mention Yongyuth case. A bit different then the storey you told.

The mobilization of a large number of police officers and Special Branch officers to supplement the ECT’s own investigators undoubtedly increased the authorities’ overall capacity to investigate election violations. Given the widespread nature of vote buying, it is natural that the ECT would wish to make use of all the resources at its disposal. This strategy did produce some positive results, shown most clearly in the investigation of Yongyuth Tiyapairat, a PPP candidate who successfully contested for a proportional representation seat in zone 1 in northern Thailand and was subsequently made Speaker of the House of Representatives. Using a hidden camera, Yongyuth was filmed bribing local government officials from the town of Chiang Rai to campaign on his behalf. The strength of such evidence – collected by the Special Branch police – lead to the ECT giving Yongyuth a ‘red card’.

I am not familar with the Chaing Rai politics, can you tell me for how many years a Tiyapairat has been the MP and have they ever lost an election?

TH