House Dissolution Won't End Conflict : Anand

[moresomekl]

No, the majority of Thai people do want them in power.

Source? Last elections they got somewhere in the area of just under 40% that does not strike me as the majority... only a few percentage points above the DEMS as I recall.

So ummm <deleted> are you talking about, yet again

Last general election PPP : 233 MP's , Dems 165 MP's . A mere 30% difference

Edited April 8, 2010 by moresomekl

[anotherpeter]

"PERCEIVED electoral court abuse" ... not actual court abuse.

Are you suggesting that NOT following the law is more democratic?

Perceived or actual , it depends on your shirt colour of course .

In this particular case yes i do .

Did I read that right? You are saying that breaking the law is OK? That electoral fraud is OK? It's democratic?

Oh dear ...

Edited April 8, 2010 by anotherpeter

[anotherpeter]

No, the majority of Thai people do want them in power.

Source? Last elections they got somewhere in the area of just under 40% that does not strike me as the majority... only a few percentage points above the DEMS as I recall.

So ummm <deleted> are you talking about, yet again

Last general election PPP : 233 MP's , Dems 165 MP's . A mere 30% difference

But not a majority. The majority (ie more that 240) have decided that they want the Democrats in government.

[way2muchcoffee]

No, the majority of Thai people do want them in power.

Source? Last elections they got somewhere in the area of just under 40% that does not strike me as the majority... only a few percentage points above the DEMS as I recall.

So ummm <deleted> are you talking about, yet again

Last general election PPP : 233 MP's , Dems 165 MP's . A mere 30% difference

Using a weighted average between the Constituency and Proportional votes for all votes cast in the 2007 election the results come out as follows:

PPP: 37.6% of all votes cast

Dems: 33.4% of all votes cast

If you are trying to determine how many people are represented by a particular party then the Proportional vote is the only sensible measure. For the Proportional Vote

PPP: 39.60%

Dems: 39.63%

We are now discussing about what the country wanted. While the number of seats in parliament determines power, it is also clear that the topic of discussion is the percentage of people supporting a particular party.

Edited April 8, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moresomekl]

"PERCEIVED electoral court abuse" ... not actual court abuse.

Are you suggesting that NOT following the law is more democratic?

Perceived or actual , it depends on your shirt colour of course .

In this particular case yes i do .

Did I read that right? You are saying that breaking the law is OK? That electoral fraud is OK? It's democratic?

Oh dear ...

No . i said that banning a party because few individuals have bought votes is indeed undemocratic .

And moreover i challenge you to find any other documented identical example in any democratic countries .

Probably in some banana republic , that might have happened , i grant it to you

[Thai at Heart]

No, the majority of Thai people do want them in power.

Source? Last elections they got somewhere in the area of just under 40% that does not strike me as the majority... only a few percentage points above the DEMS as I recall.

So ummm <deleted> are you talking about, yet again

Last general election PPP : 233 MP's , Dems 165 MP's . A mere 30% difference

Haven't seen those numbers for a long time.

Those little guys must have struck up a good bargain with the Dems.

PPP doesn't even exist anymore. Am I correct? And BumjaiThai has been born since?

TIT indeed.

[moresomekl]

No, the majority of Thai people do want them in power.

Source? Last elections they got somewhere in the area of just under 40% that does not strike me as the majority... only a few percentage points above the DEMS as I recall.

So ummm <deleted> are you talking about, yet again

Last general election PPP : 233 MP's , Dems 165 MP's . A mere 30% difference

Using a weighted average between the Constituency and Proportional votes for all votes cast in the 2007 election the results come out as follows:

PPP: 37.6% of all votes cast

Dems: 33.4% of all votes cast

What counts at the end of the day is the number of MPs , so stick to that

[way2muchcoffee]

What counts at the end of the day is the number of MPs , so stick to that

No. What counts in relation to the arguments being put forth here about massive support for one party over another is the raw percentages.

So I will reiterate. Of all votes cast in the General Election of 2007 the breakdown is as follows:

PPP: 37.6% of all votes cast

Dems: 33.4% of all votes cast

Edited April 8, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moresomekl]

No, the majority of Thai people do want them in power.

Source? Last elections they got somewhere in the area of just under 40% that does not strike me as the majority... only a few percentage points above the DEMS as I recall.

So ummm <deleted> are you talking about, yet again

Last general election PPP : 233 MP's , Dems 165 MP's . A mere 30% difference

Haven't seen those numbers for a long time.

Those little guys must have struck up a good bargain with the Dems.

PPP doesn't even exist anymore. Am I correct? And BumjaiThai has been born since?

TIT indeed.

Yes lol , i suspect that some of them got quite wealthy after their deals with the dems

Yes PPP dont exist anymore , coz it has been banned to make way for the current governement

[way2muchcoffee]

Yes lol , i suspect that some of them got quite wealthy after their deals with the dems

Yes PPP dont exist anymore , coz it has been banned to make way for the current governement

Why do you lie?

PPP was banned because their executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

[anotherpeter]

"PERCEIVED electoral court abuse" ... not actual court abuse.

Are you suggesting that NOT following the law is more democratic?

Perceived or actual , it depends on your shirt colour of course .

In this particular case yes i do .

Did I read that right? You are saying that breaking the law is OK? That electoral fraud is OK? It's democratic?

Oh dear ...

No . i said that banning a party because few individuals have bought votes is indeed undemocratic .

And moreover i challenge you to find any other documented identical example in any democratic countries .

Probably in some banana republic , that might have happened , i grant it to you

Go and read steve's post in another thread.

It was still a law. It was a clear law to punish those committing, or allowing, electoral fraud. And they chose to ignore it. And they got punished as per the law.

(here is an example of directors being responsible for the insolvency of a company even if they don't run the company: http://montegodata.co.uk/Company/directors.htm )

[rogerdee123]

In the 5 years that Thaksin was PM, did he increase the education in the poorer areas? Did he build schools? If so, where?

The farmers in the N/NE are poor because they are being ripped off by the middlemen buying their produce and because of the rich business men in their local areas. That is where most of Thaksin's money "to the poor" went. That's where the poor need to start their protests.

To add some fuel to this discussion. The average Thai house hold debts skyrocketed while Thaksin was in power.

And all these people with their necks in debt form the vulnerable pool of red shirt supporters!

Yes indeed this was Mr. T's attempt at implementing "supply side economics" ... i.e. make credit easy so more money flows ... with the result that everyone (except the elite) goes into debt. OK the positive side of this theory is that money would be available to the poor farmers so they wouldn't have to go to the loan sharks. But several also bought new pickups on the easy terms, using their property as collateral, and guess what happened. A lot of the middle class and lower middle class, i.e. school teachers also were enticed to buy a new car, which is kind of a life-long dream of many Thai people in the lower and middle income levels. I remember articles in one of the English Language newspapers during that (Mr. T's) time about the plight of the rural school teachers who had bought new cars on these new easy credit terms and their monthly loan payments (to the banks not the loan sharks) were almost their entire salaries. During that period there were several research projects done (also in Issan) on the economic effects of this borrow and spend economic policy. Maybe someone here has access to them and can share with us some statistics.

So during Mr. Thaksin's time the economy boomed ... yes indeed. But the chickens eventually came home to roost. Many of the poor people that Mr. T claims to be helping have suffered a lot due to his economic policies. But what can we expect? He is basically a policeman. And if one looks closely at his rise to business "success" one will see exactly what kind of man he is.

[moresomekl]

Yes lol , i suspect that some of them got quite wealthy after their deals with the dems

Yes PPP dont exist anymore , coz it has been banned to make way for the current governement

Why do you lie?

PPP was banned because their executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

I dont lie . The party dissolution was politically motivated .

Impeaching the culprits would have been suffisant otherwise

edited for misspelling

Edited April 8, 2010 by moresomekl

[moresomekl]

No . i said that banning a party because few individuals have bought votes is indeed undemocratic .

And moreover i challenge you to find any other documented identical example in any democratic countries .

Probably in some banana republic , that might have happened , i grant it to you

Go and read steve's post in another thread.

It was still a law. It was a clear law to punish those committing, or allowing, electoral fraud. And they chose to ignore it. And they got punished as per the law.

(here is an example of directors being responsible for the insolvency of a company even if they don't run the company: http://montegodata.co.uk/Company/directors.htm )

Now that is an identical example LOL

[anotherpeter]

Now that is an identical example LOL

It's a pretty clear example of leaders being responsible for their minions, which is common in law through out the western world.

Sorry, I'll keep looking for an "identical" example. Do you want it to be written in Thai too?

[anotherpeter]

Yes lol , i suspect that some of them got quite wealthy after their deals with the dems

Yes PPP dont exist anymore , coz it has been banned to make way for the current governement

Why do you lie?

PPP was banned because their executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

I dont lie . The party dissolution was politically motivated .

Impeaching the culprits would have been suffisant otherwise

edited for misspelling

Just because you don't agree with a law, doesn't make it ok to break.

It was a clear law to stop electoral fraud. The PPP chose to ignore it.

[rogerdee123]

Getting back to the point of this thread and the original news article.

Khun Sanan is recommending Khun Chavalit to be the negotiator between the Reds and the Govt.

So I feel it appropriate to post a bit of bio info on Khun Chavalit for those of you who have no idea who he is.

NOTE TO ADIMN: If this post is inappropriate or otherwise shouldn't be here, please remove it.

The following is from Wikipedia at :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chavalit_Yongchaiyudh

General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh (Thai ชวลิต ยงใจยุทธ, born May 15, 1932 in Nonthaburi) is a Thai politician and retired general. He was Thailand's 22nd Prime Minister from 1996 to 1997. He is of Sino-Thai and ethnic Lao descent.[1]

Chavalit began his political career in 1988 as Defence Minister, with the rank of Deputy Prime Minister, in the administration of Chatichai Choonhavan. He held that position until 1991. He then served as Minister of Interior from 1992 to 1994, and was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence from 1995 to 1996.

In late 1996, following the Royal Decree of Parliament Closure a general election was held. On November 16, 1996, Chavalit's "New Aspiration Party" won the most seats. With the support of five coalition parties - Chart Pattana, Social Action, Thai Citizen, Seri Dhamma and Mass Citizen - Chavalit was appointed by royal decree as the 22nd Prime Minister on November 25, 1996. However, he encountered pressure from many political movements, who finally forced him to resign on November 6, 1997, in the midst to the Asian financial crisis.

On 14 May and 15 May 1997, the Thai baht was hit by massive speculative attacks. Prime Minister Chavalit announced he would not devalue the baht. This sparked the Asian financial crisis, since the Thai government failed to defend the baht, which was then pegged to the U.S. dollar, against the international speculators. Eventually Chavalit's government could not help but had to defloat the national currency's value in July 1997.

Thailand's booming economy came to a halt amidst massive layoffs in finance, real estate, and construction that resulted in huge numbers of workers returning to their villages in the countryside and 600,000 foreign workers being sent back to their home countries.The baht devalued swiftly and lost more than half of its value. The Thai stock market dropped 75% in 1997. Due to the crisis, in November this year, the premier eventually stepped down.

During the early 1990s, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh controlled 126 military-run radio stations and two of the country's five television networks. Chavalit agreed to make military stations available for an anti-AIDS campaign. He also agreed to help Meechai Viravaidya spearhead a three-year blitz to halt the spread of the disease.

After holding the position of deputy prime minister in Somchai Wongsawat cabinet in 2008, on October 7, 2008, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh resigned and admitted partial responsibility for violence due to police tear gas clearance of Parliament blockade, causing injuries to 116 protesters, 21, seriously. His resignation letter stated: "Since this action did not achieve what I planned, I want to show my responsibility for this operation." But after dispersal, 5,000 demonstrators returned and also blocked all 4 entries to the parliament building.

On October 2, 2009, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh joined the Pheu Thai Party, which comprises of Thaksin Shinawatra's loyalists. He insists he will be a regular member until the party's executives consider a future role for him.

On February 4, 2010, Thai news media reported that Thaksin Shinawatra was forming a "peoples' army" and named Chavalit as the Supreme Commander.

Edited April 8, 2010 by rogerdee123

[moresomekl]

Yes lol , i suspect that some of them got quite wealthy after their deals with the dems

Yes PPP dont exist anymore , coz it has been banned to make way for the current governement

Why do you lie?

PPP was banned because their executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

I dont lie . The party dissolution was politically motivated .

Impeaching the culprits would have been suffisant otherwise

edited for misspelling

Just because you don't agree with a law, doesn't make it ok to break.

It was a clear law to stop electoral fraud. The PPP chose to ignore it.

If its the law then why when dems MPs were found buying votes or MPs , the dem

party was not banned ?

The law must be harsh to discourage corruption , your own words

And what about the law to discourage military coups ? Any ?

Or if no law then it must be ok ? Right ?

Am sure you approve as long as the victim is on your opposite political

spectrum

[way2muchcoffee]

Yes lol , i suspect that some of them got quite wealthy after their deals with the dems

Yes PPP dont exist anymore , coz it has been banned to make way for the current governement

Why do you lie?

PPP was banned because their executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

I dont lie . The party dissolution was politically motivated .

Impeaching the culprits would have been suffisant otherwise

edited for misspelling

More lies from you. If you have evidence that the judges were paid or instructed to ban the PPP present it now. Otherwise you are making a statement of fact that has no factual basis. That makes your statement a lie.

The court had no discretion to act otherwise. Executives of a party were caught on video red-handed committing electoral fraud. There were no mitigating circumstances. The law required the dissolution of that party. And they were dissolved, along with a couple of other parties.

Edited April 8, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[SpoliaOpima]

I don't actually see the coup as being worse that what Thaksin did.

Nor did most of the Thai people. The coup was widely popular when it occurred. It was the lesser of two evils.

MOST ? You mean most in Bangkok right ?

Nope. Guess you weren't around in 2006.

[shiva2009]

I am from Undon so I guess I must be a red shirt, but 5 years ago I came to Bkk and got a job at 4,000 baht a month, I worked hard for a rich Bkk Family and send most of the money home to my family.

I never once made trouble for the family that paid me, I just worked hard, the harder I worked the more money I made and soon was making 8,000 baht a month

When I met my western husband he helped me decide to go out and open my own business, and slowly and with a lot of hard work it got better and better, now I own 2 shops and looking at opening a third.

The hours are long but I make good money and do not have to ask 1 baht from my western husband, now I employ 4 girls from my home town, so we send 4 times more money back home. I look after my family and put my younger brother through University.

These so called Rich Bangkok people you are protesting against use my shops and pay me money which I send back to Udon both through myself and also my staff.

Hurt the Thai elite no way, I have like many others learnt to use them to help my family,

Imagine if all the red shirts who are causing all the problems got up and did what I and many of my friends have done how much money would be flowing back to Udon

Wake up my brothers and sisters of Udon you are being used, this is not about our people, this is about a select few who are using you for their own financial gain.

Protesting, violence, is not the way to a better Udon

The real way is to take the advantage the Bangkok gives us, work hard and educate our younger brothers and sisters, I can tell you now, no promise you now, our time will come when we will rule Thailand, but because we worked hard and deserve it.

What you are doing to day is setting a example for tomorrow, You are the creators of tomorows problems

I ask my and your Budha to open your eyes to the real truth

I really liked reading your post, I love to know what is in the hearts of Thai people & I admire that you have worked soo hard after leaving your family to come to Bangkok... I would be only to happy to spend my also hard earned Farang Money $$$ in any of your shops, knowing that it was helping your Bangkok family, your Udon family, & helping your younger Brother attain his University Education..

If more Udon Villages & other Rural Villages had access & $$$ for education through self sustaining business enterprises, than perhaps in the future, Thailand would have the chance to truly Elect/Vote in Future Political Leaders who Genuinly & Honestly represent the voice of All Thai People both Rural & City...

Protesting is good as long as it is done peacefuly & for Positive Change, all violence does is creates loud, painful noise which drowns out the voices of Thai People, which leaves an aching silence & The Thai people's voice is Lost & their reasons are crushed.... I am Farang, I Do Not Speak For Thai People,Thai Politics Is A Thai Issue, Thai People Speak For Thai People, but there is something that Unites us Globaly aswell, the fundamental issue is Humanity, Your Humanity, & speaking from my Humanity, ALL the people in Thailand are in my prayers, & thoughts in the hopes that they can find a Genuine Political Leader who truly & honestly reperesents the Voice Of The People Of Thailand in a fair & equal manner, without threat of violence & innocent people being hurt... ALL people of Thailand have something Beautiful & Unique to offer their Amazing Kingdom...... Let them Unite in solidarity for Positive change through love, understanding, acceptance, compassion,empathy, & humility pathing the way to truly being able to communicate with one another in hopes of addressing the needs of ALL Thai People Equally...... This is in my prayers tonight........

[moresomekl]

Yes lol , i suspect that some of them got quite wealthy after their deals with the dems

Yes PPP dont exist anymore , coz it has been banned to make way for the current governement

Why do you lie?

PPP was banned because their executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

I dont lie . The party dissolution was politically motivated .

Impeaching the culprits would have been suffisant otherwise

edited for misspelling

More lies from you. If you have evidence that the judges were paid or instructed to ban the PPP present it now. Otherwise you are making a statement of fact that has no factual basis. That makes your statement a lie.

The court had no discretion to act otherwise. Executives of a party were caught on video red-handed committing electoral fraud. There were no mitigating circumstances. The law required the dissolution of that party. And they were dissolved, along with a couple of other parties.

Then the law need to be changed ... or applied equally to other parties as well .

Personally I believe it needs to be changed , a personal opinion of course

[SpoliaOpima]

What counts at the end of the day is the number of MPs , so stick to that

Exactly. That's how the system works.

[anotherpeter]

More lies from you. If you have evidence that the judges were paid or instructed to ban the PPP present it now. Otherwise you are making a statement of fact that has no factual basis. That makes your statement a lie.

The court had no discretion to act otherwise. Executives of a party were caught on video red-handed committing electoral fraud. There were no mitigating circumstances. The law required the dissolution of that party. And they were dissolved, along with a couple of other parties.

Then the law need to be changed ... or applied equally to other parties as well .

Personally I believe it needs to be changed , a personal opinion of course

It was applied equally to other parties. No other parties executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

So you think the laws need to be changed so that political parties can commit more electoral fraud? Strike one for democracy!

[khunjamespittman]

They should go for a compromise - elections within three months - it's the Elephant in da room

That's far better than what we've heard to date.

Both sides are you listening? Stsrt negotiating.

[moresomekl]

What counts at the end of the day is the number of MPs , so stick to that

Exactly. That's how the system works.

[anotherpeter]

What counts at the end of the day is the number of MPs , so stick to that

Exactly. That's how the system works.

Correct, and the system says that the MPs vote for the PM. And the majority of MPs voted for Abhisit as PM.

[moresomekl]

More lies from you. If you have evidence that the judges were paid or instructed to ban the PPP present it now. Otherwise you are making a statement of fact that has no factual basis. That makes your statement a lie.

The court had no discretion to act otherwise. Executives of a party were caught on video red-handed committing electoral fraud. There were no mitigating circumstances. The law required the dissolution of that party. And they were dissolved, along with a couple of other parties.

Then the law need to be changed ... or applied equally to other parties as well .

Personally I believe it needs to be changed , a personal opinion of course

It was applied equally to other parties. No other parties executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

So you think the laws need to be changed so that political parties can commit more electoral fraud? Strike one for democracy!

Nah no dems nor any other parties but the PPP MPs were ever caught buying votes

Edited April 8, 2010 by moresomekl

[khunjamespittman]

More lies from you. If you have evidence that the judges were paid or instructed to ban the PPP present it now. Otherwise you are making a statement of fact that has no factual basis. That makes your statement a lie.

The court had no discretion to act otherwise. Executives of a party were caught on video red-handed committing electoral fraud. There were no mitigating circumstances. The law required the dissolution of that party. And they were dissolved, along with a couple of other parties.

Then the law need to be changed ... or applied equally to other parties as well .

Personally I believe it needs to be changed , a personal opinion of course

It was applied equally to other parties. No other parties executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

So you think the laws need to be changed so that political parties can commit more electoral fraud? Strike one for democracy!

What is the Book, Chapter and paragraph number for the law.

It seems unlikely the intent was to punish people for crimes comitted by others.

I'd like to read the exact wording.

[anotherpeter]

More lies from you. If you have evidence that the judges were paid or instructed to ban the PPP present it now. Otherwise you are making a statement of fact that has no factual basis. That makes your statement a lie.

The court had no discretion to act otherwise. Executives of a party were caught on video red-handed committing electoral fraud. There were no mitigating circumstances. The law required the dissolution of that party. And they were dissolved, along with a couple of other parties.

Then the law need to be changed ... or applied equally to other parties as well .

Personally I believe it needs to be changed , a personal opinion of course

It was applied equally to other parties. No other parties executives were caught committing electoral fraud.

So you think the laws need to be changed so that political parties can commit more electoral fraud? Strike one for democracy!

What is the Book, Chapter and paragraph number for the law.

It seems unlikely the intent was to punish people for crimes comitted by others.

I'd like to read the exact wording.

Read Steve's post #79.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thai-Protest...75&start=75