Thai Peace Talks End Without Resolution

[Publicus]

The fact is that other counties went through tumultous times like this and came through better for it. What's the saying, "you can't make an omelette without breaking an egg"?

The problem is that 10% of the population have all the eggs and they aren't going to let anyone have any to make an omelette.

Not only do you not understand how capitalist society works, your hero is Thaksin who is an uber-capitalist.

So, answer this question:

Are you in favour of a Bolshevik revolution led by a revolutionary communist party?

If you aren't then don't pretend that you do.

I am not in favour of any such thing.

Having spent a large amount of my life on agricultural development in the region, any policies that are centred on helping the lot of the farmer are very welcome in my opinion. I am not in favour of a communist revolution in any way. Neither am I favour of what for example is going on in China today with 800mn rural poor trying to hang on whilst the cities run away into the distance. Curiously, the commie party in China realise that this will be the make or break reason as to whether they can hang onto power and so they are constantly trying to find ways to make sure that something goes back to the countryside. And if you think the Communist party in China are really communist, they are as pro business and pro capitalist than most right wing western political parties.

It is more the idea of seeing a country as a whole that can grow, than a collection of individuals.

If you think it isn't a good idea to try to spread some of the wealth whilst making it worth an entrepreneur to get moving, you see the world differently from me. If you think that all of the wealth in Thailand was created by enormous entrepreneurial get up and go, you are deluding yourself too. Inequality is inevitable in life, however, for the good of any society, it is a string that has a finite strength and distance. The distance between the richest and the poorest in any country has been proven to have a limit.

What politicians in Thailand and all countries need to do is to stop the string from snapping because the consequences can be societally catastrophic.

Thailand is an indicator, if not a percursor to the future of the People's Republic of China in the collective mind of the leadership of the PRC in Beijing. It's only a matter of size and proportion, and in this instance size matters. You accurately point out the PRC has half its population, some 800,000,000 which are rural poor in the countryside living on less than USD $2 a day, while the eastern coastal urban population lives in increasingly new modern centers of wealth and prosperity unimagined a generation ago and which indeed are impressive as they continue to develop (recreational drug problems in disco throbbing clubs not withstanding).

The divisions of the Thai and Chinese societies keep a significant number of the new emporers in business suits in Beijing up late at night because they accurately and correctly can forsee the same on the horizon for the Middle Kingdom which, while no longer a kingdom, none the less has a new dynasty of authoritarian and censoring leaders. The present power freak leaders are from the countryside (essentially) and the next lineup of leaders, the "5th generation" group are from the urban booming east coast areas (of course because they're rich and powerful in Beijing), which is not a good indicator concerning the near or long term future of China given the huge division of income, where 70% of the wealth is held by fewer than 1% (one percent) of the population (heavily concentrated along the eastern seaboard).

The Thailand of the present and of the past several years is a mini model to a number among the PRC leadership of what can be expected to occur by the end of the decade. China in its long history always has had its rebellions and rebellious leaders even under the most and worst oppressive and repressive imperial leaders. The yuppies of the PRC, living in their dreamtime, are confident that in about 25 years their leadership will change to be more democratic, open and in the classic meaning, more liberal. The PRC yuppies are wildely optimistic and unrealistic in their casual and lavish lifestyles as the income division, already a huge chasim, is becoming an enormous and vast expanse which already is creating an unbridgable continental divide. Yes, it's already happening.

The outcome of present events in Thailand is of great interest in the PRC and, indeed, to the world.

[bacchanal]

Conspicuous silence from the red cheerleading squad. A good move by Abhisit, who continues to impress.

A few feeble attempts since your post, but they seemed resolved now to knowing that Abshisit showed up their side to be nothing more than thugs and mobsters trying to get Thaksin back in power.

[webfact]

TRUCE TALK

Peace talks hit deadlock

BANGKOK: -- Political talks between the government and leaders of the red-shirt protest group reached an impasse yesterday as both sides failed to find a common stance to end the ongoing stand-off.

The two sides initially made an appointment for a further round of talks on Thursday, when Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is due to return from Bahrain, but the red-shirts' Jatuporn Promphan suggested the talks be suspended indefinitely as the stances of both sides looks unlikely to change.

Prime Minister Abhisit suggested Parliament be dissolved late this year after a referendum on amendments to the Constitution, but the red-shirt group insisted that the government should announce a dissolution of the House within 15 days.

Veera Musigapong, head of the Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD), tried to maintain contact with the government by proposing informal talks with prime minister's secretary Korbsak Sabhavasu to try to seek solutions.

However, Jatuporn ended the meeting saying if both sides wanted to maintain their respective stances, they should not talk any more.

Prime Minister Abhisit resumed the second day of talks after returning from Brunei, as the red shirts' protest continued for a third week on Bangkok's Rajdamnoen Avenue.

The atmosphere in the meeting room at King Prajadhipok's Institute yesterday was a bit tense compared with the first time the two sides met on Sunday evening.

And the session heated up as Jatuporn alleged the government and Prime Minister Abhisit had no legitimacy to stay in the power, because the government was set up undemocratically.

Jatuporn claimed ministers in the government were involved in many scandals and corruption cases and that Abhisit used "double standards" for legal enforcement.

"You used to call for the late prime minister Samak Sundaravej to dissolve Parliament when the yellow-shirt People's Alliance's for Democracy protested in 2008, so why don't you apply the same principle today?" he asked.

"Just simply follow your own words, and you'd be a great leader."

"If you sacrificed your power for the country, people would regard you as the leader, or on the contrary do you want people remember you as a tyrant?" he said.

Prime Minister Abhisit nearly lost control when Jatuporn raised the incident at the Interior Ministry last April and claimed Abhisit was not in the car when the red-shirt mob attacked. The PM said Jatuporn was lying.

Red-shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn tried to clam Abhisit down, saying the prime minister should not retaliate against Jatuporn as such verbal quarrels made him (the PM) look bad.

While saying that, Weng made another allegation - that soldiers shot empty-handed protesters in the crackdown in Bangkok last April. He showed Abhisit a number of pictures to try to prove his claim.

Veera tried to push the talks |forward by asking for a possible time frame from the government |on when it would dissolve Parliament.

Abhisit said he needed time to pass the budget bill for the next fiscal year, in order to buoy the economy at a time of global recession.

The government also needs time to hold a referendum on changes to the Constitution, which will require at least 120 days plus a few months for Parliament to process amendments. That will take roughly nine months.

Jatuporn said such a time line was impractical, because he did not believe the government would be able to push the constitution amendments through within nine months. It could take all of Abhisit's remaining time in office.

Later, fugitive ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra said in a video link to the red-shirt rally that the failure of the second round of talks was not unexpected, since the government was not sincere.

"As we have so different a stance, let's go our different ways," he said.

-- The Nation 2010-03-30

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[anotherpeter]

The red-dressed movement says the government is elitist and undemocratic because it came to power on the back of a parliamentary vote after a controversial court ruling ousted Thaksin's allies from power.

oh no ... a parlimentary vote!! How dare they use democracy to get into power!!

Since you must have forgotten, please let me remind you. Usually in legitimate parlimentary governments when a government is found to to have "no confidence" an election by the people must be held in a predetermined time, Not a "parlimentary vote".

The court declared the government in no confidence and removed it therfore a new election was required. It did not happen!

It is as simple as that. This appears to be the change that the government would like to make to the constitution before having an elections. If this is allowed to happen, after an election the court appointed by the incumbent government would simply declare no confidence in a newly elected government (by the will of the people's vote) and will hold a parlimentary vote to re-install the incumbent government effectively making it a dictatorship.

Think, Think. Think!.

The court DIDN'T declare "the government in no confidence". It banned a couple of MPs and disbanded a party. The PTP (which is where most of the remaining PPP MPs went) could have still formed government with the same coalition of smaller parties.

Since there was no "no confidence" vote in parliament, then there was no requirement for an election.

There was no new election when a number of MPs were banned shortly after the 2007 election.

So regardless of how "simple" it is, you can't just twist a couple of facts and say the current government want a dictatorship. That's Thaksin's job.

[Thai at Heart]

Thailand is an indicator, if not a percursor to the future of the People's Republic of China in the collective mind of the leadership of the PRC in Beijing. It's only a matter of size and proportion, and in this instance size matters. You point out the PRC has half its population, some 700,000,000 but others say more, which are rural poor in the contryside living on less than USD $2 a day while the eastern coastal urban population lives in increasingly new modern centers of wealth and prosperity unimagined a generation ago and which indeed are impressive as they continue to develop.

The divisions of Thai society keep the new emporers in business suits in Beijing up late at night because they accurately and correctly can forsee the same on the horizon for the Middle Kingdom which, while no longer a kingdom, none the less has a new dynasty of authoritarian leaders. The present leaders are from the countryside (essentially) and the next lineup of leaders, the "5th generation" group are from the urban booming east coast areas, which is not a good indicator for the huge division of wealth in a country where 70% of the wealth is held by fewer than 1% (one percent) of the population.

The Thailand of the present and of the past several years is a mini model to the PRC leadership of what can be expected to occur by the end of the decade. China in its long history always has had its rebellions and rebellious leaders even under the most and worst oppressive and repressive imperial leaders. The yuppies of the PRC are confident their leadership will change to be more democratic, open and in the classic meaning, more liberal. The PRC yuppies are wildely optimistic and unrealistic in their casual and lavish lifestyles as the income division, already a huge chasim, is becoming an enormous and vast espanse which will create an unbridgable continental divide. It's already happening.

The outcome of present events in Thailand is of great interest in the PRC and, indeed, to the world.

You may be right. I am not sure that the Chinese Politburo takes it's leads from anyone.

What you are right about is the massive division in China and the political strain that this is bringing on the country. If the Chinese cannot solve this problem, it will inevitably lead to trouble. Thailand may mirror what may happen in China, however, the constitutional, societal and political differences are obvious.

What is obvious though having been in many parts of rural China is that the farmers know their rights and are starting to really complain to get more. The little guy is starting to win just the odd case concerning corruption or infringement on his rights. I guess this is simply the little guy's communist right and it is extremely hard to deny it. I have been close to the odd riot in China where farmers complain about the prices they get, and it normally leads to a change in their favour. If they get screwed over enough, I guess one day they will take to the streets of Beijing to complain.

In Thailand, still today, the rural areas are still largely compliant with the system. It is interesting though when you consider how dominant a few players are in the agricultural business nationwide and their representatives are in the government themselves this could be called government sponsored private agricultural policy? This needs to change in Thailand. Private companies are not the best people to be involved in government agricultural policy, any more than Tesco or Walmart should be closely involved in milk or beef policy in the west.

What we are seeing today with the reds is in reality very calm and not really representative of an uprising of the poor anyway. It will take years of democracy and focus from the government to undo decades of domination by the middle man and the control of agricultural exports. But the companies are in the government so what can really be done? Of course, as they say, what can take decades in a democracy can take only minutes in a revolution.

That is what absolutely must be avoided at all costs.

[bacchanal]

Weng made another allegation - that soldiers shot empty-handed protesters in the crackdown in Bangkok last April. He showed Abhisit a number of pictures to try to prove his claim.

A few more photos that dropped to the floor out of Weng's folder and thus didn't get shown:

[anotherpeter]

The fact is that other counties went through tumultous times like this and came through better for it. What's the saying, "you can't make an omelette without breaking an egg"?

The problem is that 10% of the population have all the eggs and they aren't going to let anyone have any to make an omelette.

What a lot of people too often forget, is that it is the rich people in the villages that are getting most of the poor's share of the eggs.

Thaksin was one of those rich upcountry folk who worked out how to exploit the poor. He handed out cash. He wasn't interested in long term improvements. He just needed them to get power.

[Thai at Heart]

The fact is that other counties went through tumultous times like this and came through better for it. What's the saying, "you can't make an omelette without breaking an egg"?

The problem is that 10% of the population have all the eggs and they aren't going to let anyone have any to make an omelette.

What a lot of people too often forget, is that it is the rich people in the villages that are getting most of the poor's share of the eggs.

Thaksin was one of those rich upcountry folk who worked out how to exploit the poor. He handed out cash. He wasn't interested in long term improvements. He just needed them to get power.

The structural issue of wealth distribution in the country was there well before and will be there after Thaksin is long gone unless someone decides to do anything about it. Thaksin learnt how to use the political and business system to get rich. He exploited/used the votes of the poor, I don't see that he personally exploited them. He built a phone network, not a rice export firm.

For me it is simply of interest,that only seeing Abhisit's policies right now is to show that it has been decided that solving the lot of the poorest is an issue that needs to be handled. Bring on the education reform, build more schools, build more hospitals, build better roads, build better railways. All good in my opinion but how to pay? Can he convince the wealthy upper middle and top to pay? Don't forget it is a very small percentage who have access to private schools and hospitals. Will he be able to bring about land taxation and even further an inheritance tax? Will he go even further and remove more industries from the 51:49 foreign business rules? Allow more FDI in the country to boost the national wealth without tying the foreign investor to dead weight rent taking partners?

We all know the system has been subverted and it wasn't just Thaksin who subverted it, so it now falls at Abhisit's feet to solve. And it will fall at the next guys feet to solve if Abhisit moves on. I would like to know if prior to Thaksin , the issues of the rural areas and the lowest echelons of Thailand's society was ever at the forefront of politics in Thailand? I don't think this issue is really ever going away.

I doubt it, everyone was too busy trying to remember which army general was PM at the time.

At least finally it is an issue that someone somewhere has decided needs to be fixed. Lets hope it can be done democratically.

[animatic]

My Thai wife wants to know

Why is our PM talking to these 3

Can we see a televised debate with Thaskin against the PM

and this to be shown all over Thailand

If the protesters feel Thaskin is their leader and their God

This is what they will want also

Time to hit the nail on the head.

Can we have a Poll on this on this web site please

Who wants to see a Thaskin Abhisit debate on live TV

Abhisit is talking to these 3 for a couple of reasons.

1 ) It put a quick stop to the street movements.

2 ) it puts out the image of a reasonable man holding out an olive branch

3 ) It shows Abhisit in his own words to the Red Supporters directly,

not filtered through biased red tv, or via a twisting his words through their speakers.

4 ) It shows most Thais and the world his diplomatic and debating skills versus 3 intransigent men

he just looks head and shoulders above them in all disccusions, he is also on top of all data with out notes.

5 ) He gets to state a direct and reasoned case to ALL the people, and if the 3 don't take a reasonable compromise,

then it shows them as unreasonable. Which they clearly are.

6 ) The tweets etc , shows for all the influence of Thaksin in the banc ground... for those few doubting his control

It puts paid the ideas of a 'rebranded Red Democracy Movement without Thaksin influence.

7 ) Songkran is next week, rainy season and planting season. Not specifically a stall, but it stretches

Red shirt assets beyond feasibility.

8 ) It pins down the Red Leaders into statements in front of the nation as a whole,

that they will find hard to back away from. And by extention the PTP, that they said

they must consult with. Remembering this directly ties to the opposition party in parliament

This is a political maneuvering and not so much a peoples democratic revolution as rebranded.

9 ) It also shows the Red Leadership as having such short term vision, that there is no after considered.

Call election NOW, 2 weeks, and then we will win and then.... ... ... Chalerm for PM? Chavalit?

Bow tied cipher?

10 ) With no constitutional changes there is an excellent chance PTP will get caught...

Especially after the hubris of a 'victory' over Abhisit and a snap election, the money MUST flow,

and who on the Red/PTP side will NOT know about it and condone it...?

Debating Thaksin, sorry Abhisit would clean his clock based on seeing several Thaksin videos,

and Abhisits performance here. Maybe THAT would be a good thing, but giving a seditious ,

self-exiled, convicted, megalomaniac a forum to directly debate with the nations leader is not proper.

[animatic]

If I could figure out how to start a goddamn poll at TV on the matter of whether Abhisit and Thaksin should debate live face to face on a global remote connection for all to see, I'd fukching do it. After an hour of trying, I give up.

Jingthing?

Absolutely. But I say make it more interesting.

Between Abhisit and Thaksin, would you rather see a one on one

A ) Debate

B ) Thai Boxing Match

C ) Pistols at Dawn

Easy 3 minutes of debate; 1.5 minutes each,

then 2 minutes of Thai boxing

repeat until one can't get up.

My bets on all scores to Abhisit.

[jdinasia]

[The structural issue of wealth distribution in the country was there well before and will be there after Thaksin is long gone unless someone decides to do anything about it. Thaksin learnt how to use the political and business system to get rich. He exploited/used the votes of the poor, I don't see that he personally exploited them. He built a phone network, not a rice export firm.

For me it is simply of interest,that only seeing Abhisit's policies right now is to show that it has been decided that solving the lot of the poorest is an issue that needs to be handled. Bring on the education reform, build more schools, build more hospitals, build better roads, build better railways. All good in my opinion but how to pay? Can he convince the wealthy upper middle and top to pay? Don't forget it is a very small percentage who have access to private schools and hospitals. Will he be able to bring about land taxation and even further an inheritance tax? Will he go even further and remove more industries from the 51:49 foreign business rules? Allow more FDI in the country to boost the national wealth without tying the foreign investor to dead weight rent taking partners?

We all know the system has been subverted and it wasn't just Thaksin who subverted it, so it now falls at Abhisit's feet to solve. And it will fall at the next guys feet to solve if Abhisit moves on. I would like to know if prior to Thaksin , the issues of the rural areas and the lowest echelons of Thailand's society was ever at the forefront of politics in Thailand? I don't think this issue is really ever going away.

I doubt it, everyone was too busy trying to remember which army general was PM at the time.

At least finally it is an issue that someone somewhere has decided needs to be fixed. Lets hope it can be done democratically.

I find it interesting that you don't mention that on the scale of things that wealth distribution in Thailand is similar to many other countries and that one of your answers seems to be freeing up foreigners to make more money here.

Thaksin certainly did make money off the backs of not only the poor but also everyone else in Thailand. I invite you to look at the results of the assets seizure ruling a little more carefully, and to follow that up by looking at the loan schemes he put out there.

Taxing undeveloped/unused land is a great idea. Making the landowner that is sitting on land that is not being used in farming, housing, or business to pay some taxes on that land makes sense on so many levels.

Probate tax ... probably a bad idea overall but I'll reserve judgement. Foreign investment? Trading a new set of profiteers for the old one only benefits the foreigners. It could be done well with appropriate business taxation I guess but it still opens many doors that might better remain closed.

[quiksilva]

This was an excellent opportunity for Abhisit he came off really well.

For those that think the rural poor find him too slippery I think perhaps you are underestimating the people you are trying to defend.

He has given ground, and made a reasonable offer, dissolve a year early after he gets the house in order, which was refused.

The PM even offered to sit down again on Thursday for more talks, which was again, refused.

It does not take a university education to work out who is being the reasonable party in these talks.

In fact I would not be surprised to see an early house dissolution anyway, and the Dems sweep the majority based on his performance these last few days.

[anotherpeter]

What has been the reds take on all of this, this morning? Has anyone said anything? What is happening with the protests?

[jdinasia]

Since you must have forgotten, please let me remind you. Usually in legitimate parlimentary governments when a government is found to to have "no confidence" an election by the people must be held in a predetermined time, Not a "parlimentary vote".

The court declared the government in no confidence and removed it therfore a new election was required. It did not happen!

It is as simple as that. This appears to be the change that the government would like to make to the constitution before having an elections. If this is allowed to happen, after an election the court appointed by the incumbent government would simply declare no confidence in a newly elected government (by the will of the people's vote) and will hold a parlimentary vote to re-install the incumbent government effectively making it a dictatorship.

Think, Think. Think!.

Ummm I looked for a single accurate fact in your post and there were none.

A 'no confidence vote' is held in parliament it is NOT a function of the courts. That simple fact crushes your entire fallacious argument. It is as simple as that.

[Thai at Heart]

I find it interesting that you don't mention that on the scale of things that wealth distribution in Thailand is similar to many other countries and that one of your answers seems to be freeing up foreigners to make more money here.

Thaksin certainly did make money off the backs of not only the poor but also everyone else in Thailand. I invite you to look at the results of the assets seizure ruling a little more carefully, and to follow that up by looking at the loan schemes he put out there.

Taxing undeveloped/unused land is a great idea. Making the landowner that is sitting on land that is not being used in farming, housing, or business to pay some taxes on that land makes sense on so many levels.

Probate tax ... probably a bad idea overall but I'll reserve judgement. Foreign investment? Trading a new set of profiteers for the old one only benefits the foreigners. It could be done well with appropriate business taxation I guess but it still opens many doors that might better remain closed.

I don't see the evil farang as something that would be of net detriment to Thailand. If it brought more competition to things like agricultural exports good. If companies are dissuaded from investing in Thailand because of the investment rules this is something that is a net loss to the country. Can Thai business organically grow to provide good well paid jobs for all those who need them in Thailand? Does anyone really care whether it is Central flogging you Revlon cosmetics or a foreign shopping chain or operating and wholly owning a hotel?

The easiest way to get increased tax revenues to pay for all of these rural policies is to increase the share of the total pie for the government to fund itself from. The total pie has to get bigger to fund all this stuff.

Now controversially, hands up all those here who believe that foreign companies pay their taxes in Thailand. I would say yes. Hands up all those who reckon family owned businesses in Thailand pay their taxes in Thailand? The tax is there, it is just that the government can't get their hands on it, and the system cannot get at it. How much cash business goes on in Thailand that the government can never get to see? I don't blame people 100% for not paying in full, since the level of waste and corruption in Thai government is hardly small.

I don't see it being feasible for Abhisit to raise taxes to pay for all of his plans, it would be better if the government didn't have to borrow so much. Can he tax the corporations and individuals of Thailand more to pay for it all? Is Thai domestic business going to keep growing sufficiently to pay for all of his plans? So how to do it? Allow more FDI.

I am not in favour of inheritance tax either, I only mention it because the Dems brought it up and promptly put it away.

[Ricardo]

One suspects that Thaksin made a mistake, to send in these three, without the authority to accept a reasonable deal, when it was on-offer ? But the only deal he can take, is one which gives himself a free-pass, and that's clearly not an option, so it's back to hoping the protest can trigger an uprising. Which looks pretty unlikely now.

I suspect that the 'Game Over' sign just lit-up.

[jdinasia]

This was an excellent opportunity for Abhisit he came off really well.

For those that think the rural poor find him too slippery I think perhaps you are underestimating the people you are trying to defend.

He has given ground, and made a reasonable offer, dissolve a year early after he gets the house in order, which was refused.

The PM even offered to sit down again on Thursday for more talks, which was again, refused.

It does not take a university education to work out who is being the reasonable party in these talks.

In fact I would not be surprised to see an early house dissolution anyway, and the Dems sweep the majority based on his performance these last few days.

I am not expecting the Dems to get a majority in the next elections, but I am expexting them to form the next government. I would LOVE to see them get a majority on their own but I think that the political machines in many parts of the country, that operate under people like Newin, are far too entrenched.

[Jonathanpattaya]

Conspicuous silence from the red cheerleading squad. A good move by Abhisit, who continues to impress.

Can't be bothered. Next thread, please.

Yes. !

[webfact]

Thaksin Addresses Protesters After Failed Negotiation

Fugitive Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a video-link call to his supporters after the second round of negotiation failed to produce an agreement.

On March 29th, at approximately 9:30 PM, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a video-link call to the red-shirt protesters, claiming that he knew beforehand that the negotiation would fail.

Thaksin accused Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of lacking sincerity and said he cannot make any decision without approval from the military, the aristocrats, and other parties in the coalition.

The former prime minister asked the red-shirts to continue their fight against the incompetent government, which has come to power illegitimately.

The fugitive ousted premier added that the red-shirts must find the way out of this predicament themselves. Again, Thaksin claimed that Abhisit has come to power despite not having been voted for by the population.

Thaksin said the red-shirts must show the world how the current government lacks legitimacy by exposing corruption within the administration.

He also believes Abhisit has been avoiding responsibility by reshuffling the Cabinet after various corruption scandals were proven true.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-30

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[quiksilva]

So this is it, the next step for non-violent action against the government by Thaksin, err the Red Shirts, discredit the government. Although quite how someone convicted of graft charges gets to discredit anything is beyond me..

[bacchanal]

former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a video-link call to the red-shirt protesters, claiming that he knew beforehand that the negotiation would fail.

Can we now add clairvoyance to all his other "talents"... or does that simply solidify his pathological liar "talent"?

[jdinasia]

former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a video-link call to the red-shirt protesters, claiming that he knew beforehand that the negotiation would fail.

Can we now add clairvoyance to all his other "talents"... or does that simply solidify his pathological liar "talent"?

No, but you might be able to conclude that Thaksin gave ORDERS for negotiations to fail. After all, that is the only way he could have known they would fail. Thaksin also committed the greatest hypocrisy when he suggested that the reds should be revealing information about government graft. (I am all for all graft having the bright light of truth shown on it! --- when Thaksin returns to Thailand we can see some more of those charges awaiting him move forward!)

[webfact]

UPDATE

PM Firm on 9-Month Time Frame for House Dissolution

BANGKOK: -- The prime minister is firm on his proposed time frame of nine months for charter amendments and the dissolution of the lower House.

He said it would be a lost opportunity if the red-shirt group rejects his proposal as well as further talks, since the public is expecting a resolution from the negotiations.

Following the nationally televised meeting with red-shirt leaders, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told the press that the proposed time frame of nine months for charter amendments and House dissolution is what he considers most appropriate. He said it is regrettable if the red-shirt leaders do not accept it.

Abhisit further stated that the red-shirt leaders can go back and discuss the time frame with their supporters, and that he would like to discuss the 9-month time frame with them again when he returns from a visit to Bahrain.

The premier added that it would be nice if the red-shirt leaders agree to additional meetings, since the public is expecting a resolution from the talks, which have yet to be formed from the two talks so far.

Key red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan said he is not convinced the prime minister can make good on his proposal, considering differing opinions among the government coalition parties.

He suggested that the government discuss the resolution with its coalition partners, and said he will do the same with red-shirt supporters.

However, Jatuporn said that although the two meetings did not result in a resolution, it is not a dead end, and that he believes the two sides can eventually agree on a resolution to the ongoing political conflicts.

He affirmed that the red-shirts will protest peacefully and will not block public venues.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-30

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[hammered]

The offer of elections before the end of the year is about as good as it gets. Why not just accept it? The government becomes a lame duck as soon as it is accepted and cant really do any new stuff unless it is related to constitutional ammendments and even then they will have to be done pretty much on some lowest common denominator cross party agreement. Whether done as per Banharn's suggestion of parliamentary only or as per Abhisit's referendum needs to be resolved though and quickly.

I hope the red side wont just say no. They have gained quite a lot and in reality the date of an election isnt important in advancing democracy. The worry is of course that somebody is really still pulling the strings and not apart form this as stated by the UDD.

[Thai at Heart]

UPDATE

PM Firm on 9-Month Time Frame for House Dissolution

BANGKOK: -- The prime minister is firm on his proposed time frame of nine months for charter amendments and the dissolution of the lower House.

He said it would be a lost opportunity if the red-shirt group rejects his proposal as well as further talks, since the public is expecting a resolution from the negotiations.

Following the nationally televised meeting with red-shirt leaders, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told the press that the proposed time frame of nine months for charter amendments and House dissolution is what he considers most appropriate. He said it is regrettable if the red-shirt leaders do not accept it.

Abhisit further stated that the red-shirt leaders can go back and discuss the time frame with their supporters, and that he would like to discuss the 9-month time frame with them again when he returns from a visit to Bahrain.

The premier added that it would be nice if the red-shirt leaders agree to additional meetings, since the public is expecting a resolution from the talks, which have yet to be formed from the two talks so far.

Key red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan said he is not convinced the prime minister can make good on his proposal, considering differing opinions among the government coalition parties.

He suggested that the government discuss the resolution with its coalition partners, and said he will do the same with red-shirt supporters.

However, Jatuporn said that although the two meetings did not result in a resolution, it is not a dead end, and that he believes the two sides can eventually agree on a resolution to the ongoing political conflicts.

He affirmed that the red-shirts will protest peacefully and will not block public venues.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-30

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

This is a good game of chicken. Abhisit is playing this beautifully. Fair play to the Reds also, at least everyone is talking and as long as they are talking, Thaksin loses some control of the situation.

Will the Reds accept? He is firm on 9 months, but would

like to discuss the 9-month time frame with them again when he returns from a visit to Bahrain.

What exactly is he doing in Bahrain?

[webfact]

UPDATE

Red Shirts Continue to Refuse 9-Mth Time Frame

BANGKOK: -- Red shirt leaders continue to refuse the nine month time frame proposition introduced by the government.

They say if the prime minister is stuck to that time frame, then no agreement can be made.

They went on to deny that they are falling prey to Thaksin Shinawatra's manipulations, as suggested by the People's Alliance for Democracy.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-30

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Thai at Heart]

UPDATE

Red Shirts Continue to Refuse 9-Mth Time Frame

BANGKOK: -- Red shirt leaders continue to refuse the nine month time frame proposition introduced by the government.

They say if the prime minister is stuck to that time frame, then no agreement can be made.

They went on to deny that they are falling prey to Thaksin Shinawatra's manipulations, as suggested by the People's Alliance for Democracy.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-30

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Oh well, that didn't take long. Back to the drawing board.

[lannarebirth]

What's interesting to me about last nights Thaksin phone-in, is that neither the Bangkok Post or The Nation reported it at all. That's news in and of itself.

Thaksin Addresses Protesters After Failed Negotiation

Fugitive Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a video-link call to his supporters after the second round of negotiation failed to produce an agreement.

On March 29th, at approximately 9:30 PM, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a video-link call to the red-shirt protesters, claiming that he knew beforehand that the negotiation would fail.

Thaksin accused Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of lacking sincerity and said he cannot make any decision without approval from the military, the aristocrats, and other parties in the coalition.

The former prime minister asked the red-shirts to continue their fight against the incompetent government, which has come to power illegitimately.

The fugitive ousted premier added that the red-shirts must find the way out of this predicament themselves. Again, Thaksin claimed that Abhisit has come to power despite not having been voted for by the population.

Thaksin said the red-shirts must show the world how the current government lacks legitimacy by exposing corruption within the administration.

He also believes Abhisit has been avoiding responsibility by reshuffling the Cabinet after various corruption scandals were proven true.

-- Tan Network 2010-03-30

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[anotherpeter]

Thaksin accused Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of lacking sincerity and said he cannot make any decision without approval from the military, the aristocrats, and other parties in the coalition.

Thaksin, as the dictator, made all decisions himself without consultation with anyone.

He [Jataporn] suggested that the government discuss the resolution with its coalition partners, and said he will do the same with red-shirt supporters.

At least Jataporn understands that they need to get basic agreement from all parties before some decisions can be made.

The fugitive ousted premier added that the red-shirts must find the way out of this predicament themselves.

read: I'm running out of money. You're on your own now.

Again, Thaksin claimed that Abhisit has come to power despite not having been voted for by the population.

Another one that doesn't understand how democratic systems are supposed to work. He didn't need to be voted for by the population. He need to become an MP (voted for by his electorate) and then come to power by being voted for by the MPs (representatives of a majority of electorates).

After the 2006 election, Thaksin tried to change the law so he could come to power without having a proper election.

[bacchanal]

However, Jatuporn said that although the two meetings did not result in a resolution, it is not a dead end, and that he believes the two sides can eventually agree on a resolution to the ongoing political conflicts.

He was quite adamant about dissolution in 15 days.

Has he changed his position over-night?

He affirmed that the red-shirts will protest peacefully and will not block public venues.

So they have backed down and removed all their protesters from the previous venues they were at?