Thai Government Hangs By A Thread

[humfurry]

I agree. Constitutions should only be changed through a referendum.

I think putting changes in the constitution to a referendum is a farce. I bet no more than 1% of voters actually read the constitution and probably only about half those understand it.

Changing bar opening times is a good subject to put to a referendum.

I think that's the case with most nations if you follow my drift.

Yeah bar opening times... now there is a subject that we can all agree on!

[anotherpeter]

Many of them dont have representation under the banner in which they elected that MP .

The parliament dont represent the majority of thais currently , unless new general elections tells

otherwise because its not the parliament that was elected in Dec 2007

The only way to remove an elected governement in a democracy is through a coup.

As simple as that

They still have representation of the MPs that they voted for.

The parliament represents the majority of Thais, since all the MPs ARE ELECTED, and the elected MPs voted for the PM.

The Somchai government was not elected in Dec 2007 either. Why didn't he call an election?

The government was removed because the coalition partners changed their support, not because of a court decision, and not because of a coup.

Even more simple ... and, more importantly true ... ofcourse, if something I said isn't correct, please point it out.

edit: the voters that voted for the PPP were now represented under the PTP banner. That's where all thier MPs went to.

Edited April 10, 2010 by anotherpeter

[jayboy]

Jayboy --- condemning populist policies that were not sustainable is not comdemning state funds being used for the poor --- thus that is a lie. and intellectually dishonest.

point 2--- the Dems saw a way to block Thaksin from whitewashing Temasek and TRT dissolution. simple enough

point 3 --- blaming the Dems for the coup is not honest. thus a lie .. no matter how you qualify it.

point 4 --- it had nothing to do with the Dems -- can't blame them and to do so is dishonest

point 5 --- nobody "won" the election. The PPP got the most seats and the Dems got the most votes (votes don't matter though.

point 6 -- the Dems are not the PAD. Kasit can be slammed certainly. Then again you could blame the Reds too huh? How many of the Reds used to be PAD? Those reds are now aligned with PTP --- so by your twisted logic PTP is yellow

point 7 -- illegal to claim and a lie.

Point 8 --- flat out lies and rumour. But feel free to claim that lies and rumours are facts!

Trying to be reasonable here and without screaming out "lie" at everything I don't agree with or understand

Point 1 My point stands.The "sustainibility" argument is fatuous ( as though the current populist measures are "sustainable" and not politically motivated!).The UK National Health Service isn't "sustainable".

Point 2 My point stands.You have added nothing to suggest it needs rethinking.

Point 3 Nobody "blames" the Dems for the coup.It's the cynicism,opportunism and moral cowardice that one objects to.

Point 4 They didn't object at the time to the junta's constitution, in the knowledge they would be beneficiaries.Pure cynicism particularly as many including Abhisit were champions of the former constitution.

Point 5 I think you are wrong. In any case you're splitting hairs.Ted Heath got more votes in the UK 1966 election but fewer seats.There are always anomolies and always those that whinge at being losers.

Point 6.The Democrats and PAD were entwined like conjoined twins.

Point 7 It's illegal to criticise Thai court decisions.It's an very odd law but I respect it.It's not illegal to point out however that over many years the Thai judicial system has been politicised and deeply corrupt.You have been warned before about stirring up trouble on this issue, one of several on which is discrete silence is better.

Point 8 Most respected political analysts and historians don't agree with you.In fact name one who does.

Edited April 10, 2010 by jayboy

[moresomekl]

There is no need to dissolve a party in which milions of voters have put their trust in .

Banning the culprits , even sentencing them to jail is good enough .

I think Abhisit agrees with you. However, dissolution may not be an easy penalty to change.

What i say is not about baning only the PPP . May also apply to the dems .

Imagine for 1 minute they find some of the dems executive cheating , then the dems

party is dissolved , right ?

Then say the MPs of the now defunct dems decide to form 10 NEW political parties of average

20 members each . An now we have a new parliament . Of course no general elections

THATS A BIG JOKE

[molsey]

Even a blind man can see what's needed here, and has always been the case. The government elected by the people has to be allowed to serve out it's term without military or any other intervention. Any other scenario and the voters are bound to take to the street, especially when supporters of the opposing party have been treated with kid-gloves in the past. I'm farang, but I'd get very pear shaped if the government in the UK was ousted by the army and another, unelected, party was put in in it's place.

Exactly right .

In Thailand they have a law in the constitution that allows a court to ban an ENTIRE political party if one or more executive of that party are found gulty of breaking the law . Of course no general election right after are mandatory .

Imagine should Gordon Brown be found of getting kickbacks , the entire labor party beeing banned , and the conservative coming to power without general elections of course .

I would say that would be indeed just. After all, what respectable political party would want a corrupt person as one it's executive members?

Perhaps over here, they then might actually be a bit more careful of the kind of persons that they accept into the party, and the executive.

A step forward for Thai politics surely?

[anotherpeter]

What i say is not about baning only the PPP . May also apply to the dems .

Imagine for 1 minute they find some of the dems executive cheating , then the dems

party is dissolved , right ?

Then say the MPs of the now defunct dems decide to form 10 NEW political parties of average

20 members each . An now we have a new parliament . Of course no general elections

THATS A BIG JOKE

What if a small party is disbanded? Election then?

[humfurry]

Some red-shirt leaders alerted the protesters at 11:45 am Saturday to get prepared for a possible crackdown by troops.

The leaders, including Wisa Khanthap, Kwanchai Praiphana and Phaichit Akksornnarong, told the protesters that they learnt that troops were heading to the Phan Fa rally site.

Protesters used pick-up trucks to block five locations around the man rally site, which are the Democracy Monument, the Wanchart Bridge, the Larn Luang Intersection, the Pom Prakarn Intersection and Misakawan Intersection.

The Nation

[moresomekl]

I agree. Constitutions should only be changed through a referendum.

I think putting changes in the constitution to a referendum is a farce. I bet no more than 1% of voters actually read the constitution and probably only about half those understand it.

Changing bar opening times is a good subject to put to a referendum.

(Anyhow, the Democrats supported the last constitution and encouraged their supporters to vote for it and now less than 4 years later they insist it must be changed again.)

When the constitution in France was changed in 1958 by DeGaule and put to a referendum , how many voters understood it . yes probably 1% . But thats the way it should be done , in my opinion

[bwalker1973]

To the people supporting the reds can you please answer me these questions ?

I understand change is needed here but:

Do you truly believe that the Thai people will have more freedom, opportunity and democracy under the stewardship of an obscenely rich Thai/Chinese oligarchy ? Do you think they will get to change their mind if they are wrong ?

Look at the track record of the champion for democracy and ask yourself :

When he was in power did he try to do anything that the reds are striving for ? Did he try to enhance debate and discussion ? Did he try to give everyday Thai people more power,control and democracy in their lives and stamp out corruption ? Did he listen to people ? Did he try to (item 4. on the udd principals list- the most important in my view) implement the rule of law, due process and a system of equal justice for all, free of any obstructions or double-standards.Did he try to improve the education,knowledge and skills of the people ?

Or did he just use his time to obtain more wealth and power ?

I honestly don't know the answer to some of these questions ?

Maybe he had to be like he was so when he had achieved absolute power and wealth he could then become a benevolent dictator and that would be the only way he could change things and get things done.Finally he could work tirelessly for the Thai people ?

What do you think ?

Coups, protests and civil wars have been happening in Thailand long before Thaksin was in pampers, happens quite frequently, and we only started to hear of them more recently because of the Internet and media companies now broadcast anything.

No matter what happens, 2 - 5 years it will happen all again.

[molsey]

No disrespect to your post Rick,but haven't they always had access to arms?

I agree, but what kind of army allows the opposition to take their arms. Why were the trucks not guarded and why did some soldiers reportedly hand over their weapons?

hel_l, you would be court marshalled for doing this in the West. Only in Thailand hey!

This in my opinion is a very sad day for Thailand.

Cheers, Rick

I wonder is it because they still have military conscription here for adult males?

Probably loads of kids don't want to be in the army full stop, never mind when they're being attacked by 'their own'.

[anotherpeter]

I agree. Constitutions should only be changed through a referendum.

I think putting changes in the constitution to a referendum is a farce. I bet no more than 1% of voters actually read the constitution and probably only about half those understand it.

Changing bar opening times is a good subject to put to a referendum.

(Anyhow, the Democrats supported the last constitution and encouraged their supporters to vote for it and now less than 4 years later they insist it must be changed again.)

I think the Democrats supported the last constitution over other alternatives (ie 1997 constitution). I don't think they have said it is perfect. They have also put changes forward that have been suggested by the opposition.

[anotherpeter]

No disrespect to your post Rick,but haven't they always had access to arms?

I agree, but what kind of army allows the opposition to take their arms. Why were the trucks not guarded and why did some soldiers reportedly hand over their weapons?

hel_l, you would be court marshalled for doing this in the West. Only in Thailand hey!

This in my opinion is a very sad day for Thailand.

Cheers, Rick

I wonder is it because they still have military conscription here for adult males?

Probably loads of kids don't want to be in the army full stop, never mind when they're being attacked by 'their own'.

Similarly with the police. Thais tend not to join the police with the aim of enforcing the law. So they are not trained for the sort of policing that most western forces are.

[moresomekl]

What if a small party is disbanded? Election then?

Thats the whole point if you dont dissolve parties but just jail and ban the few MPs corrupted

you dont need unscheduled general elections . hel_l we had a few case of corrupted MP's in France

They are expulsed from Parliament and banned of participating in any elections for life ( not 5 years)

Edit : Sorry in France is 10 years but anyway no one would vote for them . In Thailand need stiffer

penalties as corruption is much more "tolerated"

Edited April 10, 2010 by moresomekl

[vicco]

Strange...I am in Issan and it's coming in loud and clear still....and now 11:03am .....now broadcasting in English

Excellent ! Abhisit has no business shutting down a TV station .

If he is not happy bout People Channel he controls enough TV stations

to organise a reply . Or does he ?

Well I'm no fan of censorship and I doubt that Abhisit is either. But it's one of those thing that seems to be allowed under the emergency decree. I remember Taksin trying to shut down a few TV stations that were simply critical of him when he was in power. There was no emergency decree in those situations. Thailand does have some strange laws... but right or wrong (in our opinion) the PM seems to be operating within his authority under the emergency decree.

Cheers

PTV still broadcasting at 12:25pm. Earlier a statement in English said that the protesters had "captured" some M16 assault rifles and ammunition but had given it back to the army.... 4500 troops can't secure a TV station? Get the feeling the army are not really up for a fight? Considering 75% of more of the regular soldiers are probably related to redshirts anyway it should not be a big surprise. We already have it on live TV....troops mingling with the reds...getting water, coffee and pats on the back....and the PM is

giving the generals shit for not getting the job done. If you lose the army you lose Thailand----so giving the generals shit was probably not the best strategy.

[Abrak]

Personally, I am totally anti the concept of yet another coup. Essentially the army are at the very core of this mess.

Remember when the reds were in charge and a few thousand yellows took over the airport - what were they doing. Now we have the yellows/dems in charge and a couple of thousand storm parliament one day and takeover the satellite uplink the next. Combine that with a judiciary that will ban a political leader for having a cooking class.

The role of the military is to make Thailand's essentially democratic political system seem pusillanimous, ineffective and weak by the military itself being incompetent. As a result they feel they have a right to come in and restore 'law and order'. The problem is not the underlying democratic process but the continual attempts of the military to undermine it. And if you want to see crony capitalism at work look at the military, they make Thaksin seem like an angel.

[bangkokrick]

No disrespect to your post Rick,but haven't they always had access to arms?

I agree, but what kind of army allows the opposition to take their arms. Why were the trucks not guarded and why did some soldiers reportedly hand over their weapons?

hel_l, you would be court marshalled for doing this in the West. Only in Thailand hey!

This in my opinion is a very sad day for Thailand.

Cheers, Rick

I wonder is it because they still have military conscription here for adult males?

Probably loads of kids don't want to be in the army full stop, never mind when they're being attacked by 'their own'.

That is a fair point, but in that case they should not be using conscripts, or is that all they have???

They surely have non conscript special forces.

Cheers, Rick

[hammered]

Here is a weird one. It seems the reds Buddha image has broken in two, Being taken by some as a bad tiding. Wonder how many people believe in that kind of stuff

[anotherpeter]

What if a small party is disbanded? Election then?

Thats the whole point if you dont dissolve parties but just jail and ban the few MPs corrupted

you dont need unscheduled general elections . hel_l we had a few case of corrupted MP's in France

They are expulsed from Parliament and banned of participating in any elections for life ( not 5 years)

Edit : Sorry in France is 10 years but anyway no one would vote for them . In Thailand need stiffer

penalties as corruption is much more "tolerated"

I think you are putting too much value in the "party". It probably doesn't make much difference to the "poor farmer" that voted for the PPP, because he knows that he is now voting for the PTP.

It may not be a perfect law, but given the level of electoral fraud that occurs, there needs to be punishment, and the party should probably be punished if they put corrupt people as their leaders.

[humfurry]

No disrespect to your post Rick,but haven't they always had access to arms?

I agree, but what kind of army allows the opposition to take their arms. Why were the trucks not guarded and why did some soldiers reportedly hand over their weapons?

hel_l, you would be court marshalled for doing this in the West. Only in Thailand hey!

This in my opinion is a very sad day for Thailand.

Cheers, Rick

I wonder is it because they still have military conscription here for adult males?

Probably loads of kids don't want to be in the army full stop, never mind when they're being attacked by 'their own'.

That is a fair point, but in that case they should not be using conscripts, or is that all they have???

They surely have non conscript special forces.

Cheers, Rick

Rick it would be my most cynical guess that the Thai SF would be more of a ummm "fancy title" awarded the way diplomas, positions of power and other things are here, rather than earned through personal merit. But I really haven't got a clue.

[jdinasia]

The governement under Thaksin was voted in by the people thru a parliament elected by the people .

This one is short of one general election it would seem . So lets be careful about the word authority .

Anyway Thaksin had no business shuting down TV stations , 100% concurr

ummm actually Thaksin ended up being the caretaker PM of an extra-constitutional government and was not elected at all.

Thaksin ended up the way you say after winning two general elections .

Abhisit havent even started along that path

hmmm wrong --- 2007 elections delivered NO party with the majority. Coalition governments are standard in parliamentary elections.

[anotherpeter]

Here is a weird one. It seems the reds Buddha image has broken in two, Being taken by some as a bad tiding. Wonder how many people believe in that kind of stuff

Far too many. Particularly country Thais.

[moresomekl]

Even a blind man can see what's needed here, and has always been the case. The government elected by the people has to be allowed to serve out it's term without military or any other intervention. Any other scenario and the voters are bound to take to the street, especially when supporters of the opposing party have been treated with kid-gloves in the past. I'm farang, but I'd get very pear shaped if the government in the UK was ousted by the army and another, unelected, party was put in in it's place.

Exactly right .

In Thailand they have a law in the constitution that allows a court to ban an ENTIRE political party if one or more executive of that party are found gulty of breaking the law . Of course no general election right after are mandatory .

Imagine should Gordon Brown be found of getting kickbacks , the entire labor party beeing banned , and the conservative coming to power without general elections of course .

I would say that would be indeed just. After all, what respectable political party would want a corrupt person as one it's executive members?

Perhaps over here, they then might actually be a bit more careful of the kind of persons that they accept into the party, and the executive.

A step forward for Thai politics surely?

Its not fair to the voters . Just like when Richard Nixon was impeached (he resigned days before) he was a party executive (republican party) right ? . Did the supreme court dissolve the republican party ? Had they done it , how do you think the republican voters would had reacted ???

Moreover the thai system its hypocrit , the same party can recreate itself the next day minus one or two banned executive under a new acronym , so why dissolve it in the first place .

[humfurry]

Here is a weird one. It seems the reds Buddha image has broken in two, Being taken by some as a bad tiding. Wonder how many people believe in that kind of stuff

Far too many. Particularly country Thais.

Do you have a link anotherpeter?

[moresomekl]

The governement under Thaksin was voted in by the people thru a parliament elected by the people .

This one is short of one general election it would seem . So lets be careful about the word authority .

Anyway Thaksin had no business shuting down TV stations , 100% concurr

ummm actually Thaksin ended up being the caretaker PM of an extra-constitutional government and was not elected at all.

Thaksin ended up the way you say after winning two general elections .

Abhisit havent even started along that path

hmmm wrong --- 2007 elections delivered NO party with the majority. Coalition governments are standard in parliamentary elections.

Did i say otherwise ?

You are wrong

PS : And what has Thaksin to do with 2007 elections ?

He won 2001 and then in 2005 when he had the absolute majority actually

Edited April 10, 2010 by moresomekl

[anotherpeter]

Here is a weird one. It seems the reds Buddha image has broken in two, Being taken by some as a bad tiding. Wonder how many people believe in that kind of stuff

Far too many. Particularly country Thais.

Do you have a link anotherpeter?

A link for .... ?

[humfurry]

Here is a weird one. It seems the reds Buddha image has broken in two, Being taken by some as a bad tiding. Wonder how many people believe in that kind of stuff

Far too many. Particularly country Thais.

Do you have a link anotherpeter?

A link for .... ?

The Red Buddha... Thanks I found it.

[anotherpeter]

Its not fair to the voters . Just like when Richard Nixon was impeached (he resigned days before) he was a party executive (republican party) right ? . Did the supreme court dissolve the republican party ? Had they done it , how do you think the republican voters would had reacted ???

Moreover the thai system its hypocrit , the same party can recreate itself the next day minus one or two banned executive under a new acronym , so why dissolve it in the first place .

How is it unfair to the voters? They still have the same representation. What difference does the party make? The remaining MPs moved to a different party. The voters moved to a different party. Nothing changes.

[quiksilva]

Here is a weird one. It seems the reds Buddha image has broken in two, Being taken by some as a bad tiding. Wonder how many people believe in that kind of stuff

Far too many. Particularly country Thais.

Do you have a link anotherpeter?

A link to the story? Sure here goes:-

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3490603

As to whether they find it serious.. I'm quite sure most Thais would. Im sure you dont need a link to see how superstitious they are, especially when Buddha images are concerned!

[Sunderland]

News blackout coming soon I think if the mobile phones are being blocked at Rajaprasong.

[jdinasia]

Its not fair to the voters . Just like when Richard Nixon was impeached (he resigned days before) he was a party executive (republican party) right ? . Did the supreme court dissolve the republican party ? Had they done it , how do you think the republican voters would had reacted ???

Moreover the thai system its hypocrit , the same party can recreate itself the next day minus one or two banned executive under a new acronym , so why dissolve it in the first place .

This isn't about the USA or any other Republic. This is about Thailand. There is no law in the US that sets up a situation that you suggest.

There is nothing "hypocrit" (sic) about allowing a new party to be formed and the only people that are banned are the leadership of the party. Those that are responsible for the way the party acts as a whole.

What isn't right is that banned people like Thaksin (and yes Newin too!) stay involved in politics. The argument is that they are not acting as anything but civilian advisors but that is crap and everyone knows it.

The law of the land is that parties that have executives that are caught cheating are banned. The electorate is protected by the fact that only the executives are banned.

Now -- to the crux of the matter --- PPP could have dissolved Parliament and called new elections but they thought that they owned the loyalty of the people that had helped them in the past. They didn't. They trusted Newin, they shouldn't have. If you want to blame someone for some people being disenfranchised (not exactly true but hey ... some votes were certainly wasted!) then blame the people that cheated! There is no question about a party leader being caught making payoffs on film, so blame the party that cheated!

edit to answer "what has Thaksin to do with this?" LOL

What does Thaksin's win in 2005 have to do with anything since HE dissolved parliament after that win (to try and protect the Temasek deal and to try and protect TRT from being disbanded). Thaksin is all this is about, you know it and so does everyone else.

Edited April 10, 2010 by jdinasia