Top Army, Navy Units Readied For Red-Shirts Dispersal

[yoshiwara]

the PPP was banned under the provision of article 237 of the 2007 constitution , that constitution was established by other cheaters , who came to power through a coup . So its cheaters with guns versus cheaters without .

And you know full well that switching governement from one party to its oposition WITHOUT consulting the people is totally undemocratic .

Please google: 2007 Constitution Referendum Thailand! 60% of the people showed up and the majority voted YES!

You seem to forget that campaning for a "NO" , under that military governement was not possible . Which explain the relatively low attendance . So do you think democratic ?

Is that the latest lie pushed out by Thaksin, like the one denying it was the reds being violent in Songkran 2009?

[ChiangMaiFun]

1) the military coup written constitution is more favourable to the government

2) there are no free and fair elections in Thailand (The old and new elite buy the patronage of the Nai who then instruct the Phrai how to vote)

3) The government would lose the election and the new government could then select the new army leadership thus making subsequent coups more difficult

4) No one seems to respect the results of elections- if the reds win, the yellows protest; if the democtrats form a government by 'influencing' the coalition parners, the reds come out

5) Everyone is so entrenched in their own dogma and constrained by their own loyalties, dialogue and compromise are not even a possibility

Pretty spot on.

It's a national crisis - he needs a mandate - or the Thail people will never forgive him - he does not have a mandate and if he sends these guys in and it gets bloody it can spiral - why is he so frightened of an election? come to your own conclusion - it's obvious.

He already has a mandate. He has the mandate of the Democrat MPs and all of the coalition partners. Together they represent well over half of the population of Thailand.

they do not - a large block of votes was disallowed - he has no mandate - if he believes he has hold an election and find out not send in troops to kill his own countryman

[pornsasi]

the PPP was banned under the provision of article 237 of the 2007 constitution , that constitution was established by other cheaters , who came to power through a coup . So its cheaters with guns versus cheaters without .

And you know full well that switching governement from one party to its oposition WITHOUT consulting the people is totally undemocratic .

But they knew when they showed up to compete in the election that if they were caught cheating, they would be banned. That's like me being Polish, then showing up to box in USA against an American boxer with an American judge. I know the rules, and if i choose to repeatedly punch under the belt, how can I complain when I get disqualified?

If all the coalition partners had switched anyhow, democrats would still have a government now. It just so happens that PPP /PT were such a total mess and so moronic not to call an election...can you blame the rats who desert a sinking ship?

Lest you think that when you vote for one party, and it ends up linking hands with another, I note that none of the TRT/PPP/PT complainers now had any issue when the voters of NAP suddenly discovered the party being dissolved into TRT (totally undemocratic also?) or Chart Pattana being rolled in TRT also pre 2005.

Surely, the voters suddenly might have discovered the people they elected were now part of another party altogether? Shock! The horror!

And yet, despite that, I cannot really recall 20,000 red shirt flag waving people taking to the streets to protest.

Hmmmmm.. That Chavalit. He's a tricky one, despite obesity and the fact that his hair line is receding at the same rate that senility appears to be advancing.

I would agree with you that PPP was cheating and had it coming though i would not think that article 237 is a good thing , why not instead ban the offenders only harshly with fines or jail terms + total ban in politics, Not the whole party , else its the judicial interfering with the executive . Well arguable i guess .

What i meant is that this kind of case happens in Thailand but not in other countries .

Yes Chavalit must be 78 by now lol .

Sorry must go now

[way2muchcoffee]

He already has a mandate. He has the mandate of the Democrat MPs and all of the coalition partners. Together they represent well over half of the population of Thailand.

Maybe not anymore . But it cost nothing to check it out by calling for a general election , perhaps it might even save some innocent lives

Actually it would cost a great deal to call an election right away. It will significantly erode the position of all future governments for decades to come. It supports the notion that a street mob representing a minority interest can remove an elected sitting government. Moreover, due to the inability for Democrats to campaign in the north and Isaan for fear of death or mutilation, any election in the very near future would be invalid. Additionally, the constitution needs to be amended before any election, otherwise the PTP or any other parties caught committing electoral fraud could very well see themselves dissolved and their leaders banned.

Some might try to claim that PAD did exactly that, when in fact that is very far from the truth. The PAD was fighting against Thaksin and his cronies' corruption at first, and at the end they were fighting the PTP attempts to whitewash Thaksin of his many crimes.

Edited April 19, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[pornsasi]

You seem to forget that campaning for a "NO" , under that military governement was not possible . Which explain the relatively low attendance . So do you think democratic ?

Is that the latest lie pushed out by Thaksin, like the one denying it was the reds being violent in Songkran 2009?

Check google ...

[pornsasi]

He already has a mandate. He has the mandate of the Democrat MPs and all of the coalition partners. Together they represent well over half of the population of Thailand.

Maybe not anymore . But it cost nothing to check it out by calling for a general election , perhaps it might even save some innocent lives

Actually it does cost a great deal to call an election right away. It will significantly erode the position of all future governments for decades to come. It supports the notion that a street mob representing a minority interest can remove an elected sitting government.

Some might try to claim that PAD did exactly that, when in fact that is very far from the truth. The PAD was fighting against Thaksin and his cronies' corruption at first, and at the end they were fighting the PTP attempts to whitewash Thaksin of his many crimes.

Cost less then few deaths

[tonywebster]

the PPP was banned under the provision of article 237 of the 2007 constitution , that constitution was established by other cheaters , who came to power through a coup . So its cheaters with guns versus cheaters without .

And you know full well that switching governement from one party to its oposition WITHOUT consulting the people is totally undemocratic .

Please google: 2007 Constitution Referendum Thailand! 60% of the people showed up and the majority voted YES!

The options they were given was to vote 'yes' or the military would stay in power and not call an election. The public had to take the lesser of 2 evils.

[Tod Daniels]

No, no, no! He does NOT have "the support of the representatives of the majority of the people in Thailand"

The choice of the LARGEST block of voters was ignored as a result of the mass disqualification. He may have the LEGAL right to the PMs chair under the new constitution. But this country can't even agree on which constitution is legal?!? The ethical thing to do would have been to hold a NEW election ASAP in Dec 2008 so that the wishes of the LARGEST BLOCK of voters would be represented in the government.

Still posting without letting facts get in the way or having the slightest understanding of how thai politics really works huh?

I give you a +1 for tenacity, but -15 for your feeble understanding of the thai political system as a whole.

What ever you want to think, the facts bear out that the 2007 constitution IS the one which was in effect both when Samak and Somchai FORMED COALITIONS with smaller parties to get a majority of MP's in the Lower House to side with them as they didn't have a majority with their own party list of MP’s alone.

Even when some MP's were banned for let me check, oh yeah, breaking electoral law as it's written; by-elections were held in those constituencies and those people were able to vote AGAIN for an MP to represent their interests.

I find your argument both tedious and lacking any substance other than red-shirt rhetoric.

As I have pointed out repeatedly; the linchpin in all this, is banned politician Newin Chidchob and the 32 odd MP's he controls via Bhum-Jai-Thai Party and his "Friends of Newin" group.

When he had those MP's jump ship on the PTP they lost the majority, and thereby the mandate to 'run the government'.

In case you were wondering the vote in the Lower House for Abhisit when he ran against Pracha Promnok endorsed by the pro-Thaksin party, PTP was 235 MPs voted for Abhisit versus 198 votes for Pracha.

Those 32 MP's Newin controls were the deciding factor. You want to blame someone blame General Anupong as there is speculation he was the one who 'encouraged' Newin to side with the Demz, although it is unsubstantiated by any evidence.

As I have said before, when Samak & Somchai used the current constitution to form a coalition of parties and were able to run the government I guess you think that was okay, business as usual? But when Abhisit used the same constitution to form a coalition of parties and then gets to run the government suddenly it’s “the people didn’t elect him”.

Sadly my clueless posting pal, the people of thailand NEVER EVER elect a PM, they elect the MP’s for the lower house who votes in their best interest for the PM of their choice.

Now I know this is thailand and some posters on T/V seem quite thick, but an intelligent person might be lead to believe that if the MP’s switched sides to allow another party to run the government, it might have been in the best interest of their constituents seeing as that’s who elected them and that’s whose interests they are supposed to watch out for.

And to answer another posters pathetic whine; Nope MP's aren't bound by ANY law under the constitution as it's written to go back to their constituients and tell them they are changing sides.

[monkfish]

If you like living in Thailand then start hoping they find a peaceful solution.

[tomyummer]

Yawn. So...what's the next event at this Thai Olympics?

[rabo]

The Thai military is obviously split now.

I mean, those guys in black who shot the heck out of Thai army with rubber bullets but also shot from long range and killed with real bullets the leader, are of course active Thai military.

Their loyalty is to their people and not the current Thai regime.

They were recruited and trained by Seh Daeng aka Maj-Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol who was relieved of his duties by Anupong. They're rebels.

Maybe a few hundred are there now but who knows, maybe a thousand are there in the area.

There are tall buildings everywhere. Bombs could be already placed to meet any push into a building.

Do you really think the Thai military wants to die for the current regime at the hands of Thai people who just simply asking for a free and for once honest Thai election?

My bet is no.

Maybe so, but I believe they would be loyal to their leaders in an effort to prevent the return of Mr. Thaksin, especially as they all the country's special ops.

[ChiangMaiFun]

If you like living in Thailand then start hoping they find a peaceful solution.

That's something we can all agree on... but the government would have to take the risk of an election - and it all comes down to THAT

[otherstuff1957]

Why do red supporters keep coming out with "Abhisit wasn't elected"?

Can a red supporter please explain to me how their version of elections show that Abhisit wasn't elected?

Thailand is tearing itself apart because of one corrupt billionaire. And it's only because he didn't get control of the army that we are not living under the rule of his gun.

He wasn't elected - go read - I can't be bothered to repeat the arguements - the red government (which was elected) was banned and MPs jumped ship - do your homework

I've read. I've posted. I've explained. All I get back is "he wasn't elected".

And then half-truths:

- "the red government (which was elected) " - The PPP got 40% of the vote and needed coalition partners to form government.

- "the red government was banned" - the PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government after the PPP was disbanded.

- "MPs jumped ship" - MPs changing sides - it's legal, it's democratic, it happens in many countries that have coalition governments.

No (in reply to anotherpeter) it does not without general elections . Sorry to disapoint you

Actually, politicians in many countries are allowed to change parties without any elections being held at all. Here are some examples from the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switchi...e_United_States

But if your mind is made up, don't let the facts get in the way.

[KireB]

the PPP was banned under the provision of article 237 of the 2007 constitution , that constitution was established by other cheaters , who came to power through a coup . So its cheaters with guns versus cheaters without .

And you know full well that switching governement from one party to its oposition WITHOUT consulting the people is totally undemocratic .

Please google: 2007 Constitution Referendum Thailand! 60% of the people showed up and the majority voted YES!

You seem to forget that campaning for a "NO" , under that military governement was not possible . Which explain the relatively low attendance . So do you think democratic ?

Youre hilarious! Keep them coming those lies! I wonder how long your nose must be!

[anotherpeter]

The reds ARE nothing because they don't have the support of the coalition parties.

Don't you understand, that's the way democracy works. You need to get the majority of support.

Abhisit currently has the support of all the coalition parties. He has the support of the representatives of the majority of the people in Thailand.

The reds want to come to power even though they only have the minority support of Thailand. That's not the way democracy works.

No, no, no! He does NOT have "the support of the representatives of the majority of the people in Thailand"

The choice of the LARGEST block of voters was ignored as a result of the mass disqualification. He may have the LEGAL right to the PMs chair under the new constitution. But this country can't even agree on which constitution is legal?!? The ethical thing to do would have been to hold a NEW election ASAP in Dec 2008 so that the wishes of the LARGEST BLOCK of voters would be represented in the government.

The "largest block" is not a majority. Or are you suggesting that the minority should be in government?

[danc]

"It's over, Boss." With those three words, veteran politician Newin Chidchob finally broke the deadlock that has paralysed Thailand for the past three years. They were uttered in a phone conversation with Thaksin Shinawatra last week, the man to whom Mr Newin had been faithful for almost eight years, as the exiled former prime minister pleaded with him to reconsider his decision to defect to the opposition Democrats. Mr Newin was also the first to break the bonds of money and genuine loyalty which have made the Thaksinistas the most powerful political force in Thailand for the past decade. And he shattered any final illusions that might still have been harboured here that, a decade ago, Thailand's politics had entered a new age with the adoption of a new, populist constitution, and the rise of a new, populist party.

For Newin Chidchob has now reverted to type - the type being a provincial strongman, schooled in the rough-house politics of one of Thailand's roughest neighbourhoods, Buri Ram, who simply sells his team of MPs to the highest bidder.

This is what Mr Newin (who was named by his father after the notorious Burmese General Ne Win) did before the formation of Thaksin Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai party in 1998. It is what every other provincial godfather did.

These men dominated business and politics in their regions, offering voters a tantalising vision of abundant new development money if their votes gave the faction a shot at a cabinet position. They would then collect as many loyal MPs around them as they could after the election campaign, which they funded generously, and offer the support of those MPs in parliament to whichever prospective government made them the most attractive offer. This practice delivered Thailand a succession of short-lived, messy coalition governments in the 1990s, better known for corruption scandals than good governance. It was under such governments - in which Mr Newin participated - that Thailand sleep-walked into the catastrophic 1997 financial crisis.

Appalled by the calibre of their politicians, Thailand's middle-class applauded the birth of a new constitution in the same year - the country's 16th, but the first to be drawn up after extensive consultation with NGOs and other representatives of civil society.

This constitution was the first to enshrine protection of human rights and freedom of expression. It created a number of independent bodies that were given legal powers to rein in corruption. But the new charter also had another objective. Several of its articles, like the one restricting MPs' freedom to jump from one party to another, were intended to strengthen political parties in the hope that Thailand would progress to a more stable parliamentary system, as in western Europe.

Its drafters hoped this would nurture a new breed of clean, professional politicians to replace the corrupt old godfathers.

One of those goals, producing stronger parties, was realised with surprising speed. Thaksin Shinawatra, an ambitious provincial businessman who had made a fortune from telecoms, and managed to keep it during the financial crisis, built a new-style party called Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais). It used modern marketing methods and a raft of new, populist policies to win the support of the rural electorate. It encouraged mass party membership, and its appeal went right over the heads of the godfathers, making Mr Thaksin an instant political superstar. The godfathers did not go away. Instead, recognising this new political phenomenon, they opted to move under the Thai Rak Thai umbrella. Newin Chidchob was one of them.

Mr Thaksin's wealth and personal popularity gave him a far stronger hand in dealing with the godfathers than any other party in Thailand's history, so his governments were not crippled by the demands of coalition partners, as his predecessors had been.

In 2001 he won his first election, and became the first prime minister in Thai history to complete a four year term in office. In the 2005 election he became the first prime minister to win an outright majority. He inspired passionate loyalty among his lieutenants, among them Mr Newin, and he left the Democrats, Thailand's oldest party, floundering. Thailand seemed to have put the era of weak coalition governments behind it.

The story of how Mr Thaksin turned a position of such strength into his situation today - where he is a fading political force, stuck in exile - has been written about extensively elsewhere. But it is only now, when the newspapers are carrying front-page photographs of the clean-cut Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva giving a bunch of roses to Newin Chidchob, once the mortal enemy of the Democrats and every bit the old-style godfather, that it is clear Thailand has come full-circle. After three years of turmoil, old politics is back, where politicians of whatever persuasion can climb into bed with whoever gives them a shot at power. It is a depressing scenario, one which finally buries all the high hopes that were raised by the 1997 constitution.

Doubtless many of those now embracing old politics again, perhaps even Mr Abhisit and Mr Newin, do not feel particularly good about it. Blame for this will be fired in many directions - at Mr Thaksin, at the military, at the Democrats, at the monarchy even, whose role in recent events is till unclear. But at a time when Thailand is confronting its worst economic outlook since the disastrous events of 1997, old politics is unlikely to give it a government capable of meeting the challenge.

I had this clipping from the BBC in my files, December 2008 - surely of interest to all.

If you could stop flinging mud at each other for just a nanosecond, one would realise that none of the players here are any better than each other - it's one huge ugly mess that the country has complacently brought upon itself over many years of allowing fiefdoms, corruption, lying, cheating, face-saving and thinking that all these ways are the the norm , right from the small boy in the village to the 200bt policeman, to the bar girl and the farang, all the way to the top of government and the army - self-implosion has always been the likely result as has happened in so many other countries, particularly African where similar practices have gone on for decades...

Edited April 19, 2010 by danc

[Maestro]

Thai protesters prepare next move

An uneasy calm prevails in Bangkok as anti-government protesters prepare for their next move and counter-protests have grown.

-- Reuters 2010-04-18

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[bangkoklight]

Crossy: Forgive me if I'm mistaken. But I thought the whole point of Special Operations deployments was that you don't tell the other side you're coming

They announce it so if it goes wrong, they won't lose face by claims that someone in their SO unit leaked the information for money. And it probably will go wrong...

[gigiman]

Reds receive stern Army warning

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- PAD re-emerges to give government an ultimatum; security forces will never allow a repeat of use of force against anti-riot troops, Army spokesman says

The Army yesterday gave the red shirts a stern warning against staging a rally on the prohibited Silom Road - as the crisis grew more complicated with the People's Alliance for Democracy re-emerging to give an ultimatum to the government.

Security forces would never allow a repeat of use of force against riot troops, Army spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd said yesterday, suggesting tough measures will be used to stop the protests spreading from Rajprasong intersection to Silom Road.

However, Sansern said troops will only disperse the red shirts when the timing is right.

"If I say when, the operation is doomed to fail," he said.

The rally by the red shirts, due to held on Tuesday, was just a gimmick to use crowds as shields to safeguard leaders facing arrest, he said.

Numbers at Rajprasong quite a lot, he said. The crowd surged to around 13,000 on Saturday night and dropped to about 4,000 yesterday morning.

The anti-riot force would not allow the reds to parade around the capital or set up a new site at Silom, he said, vowing to contain the rally where it is.

He said a number of special operations teams were dispatched to stakeout high-rise buildings around the rally site in order to prevent any infiltration by armed terrorists.

Crowd control measures would be stepped up and protesters discouraged from entering Rajprasong. Police will issue citations for those who refuse to heed warnings at the barricaded zone.

"Whatever happens, there will be no repeat of assaults against the riot forces, seizures of official vehicles and arms," the Army spokesman said.

He said the riot forces were under strict instruction to exercise restraint but would have the right to repel life-threatening attacks. He also ruled out concern over the enforcement of martial law.

Red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan said the government had veered off course by trying to fault the red shirts for harbouring terrorists in their midst.

Jatuporn demanded the red shirts have equal access at stakeout points set up by the riot forces. In the April 10 violence, a lot of people were shot dead by gunfire from buildings, he claimed.

Red-shirt leaders insist Silom protest will go ahead

Red-shirted leaders still insisted on a protest on Silom but were vague on how it would take place, only urging red shirts in rural areas to travel to the capital and take part in the upcoming mass rally.

Metropolitan Police Region 1 commander Maj-General Wichai Sangprapai said he was negotiating with the red shirts - to try to limit the rally near Siam Discovery to Pathumwan intersection, and to shift loudspeakers away from Chulalong-korn Hospital.

Police have beefed up security at Bangkok Bank headquarters after the red shirts threatened to rally on Silom Road.

Businessmen for Democracy Club secretary-general Pornsak Limboonyaprasert said any protests on Silom would inflict untold damage on the business community.

The PAD, meanwhile, gave the government seven days to resolve the crisis with the red shirts or the movement would organise counter rallies which could have unknown consequences.

All core leaders of the PAD, except Sondhi Limthongkul, and about 3,000 ranking members turned out at Rangsit University auditorium to "brainstorm" a way out of the political predicament.

It was the first gathering of the yellow shirts from across the country since the red shirts began their Bangkok rally on March 12.

"The red shirts have caused polarisation with words like 'prai' and 'ammat' but their real intention is to mobilise the masses as a means to transform the political system," Chamlong Srimuang said.

The violence on "Black Saturday" would not have erupted with so many soldiers killed if the government had taken effective legal action against the red shirts, he said.

Somsak Kosaisuk said any drastic reform of the government system should come via Parliament.

"I believe Thais don't want chaos," he said, referring to the violence-prone street protests by the red shirts.

Pipop Thongchai blamed fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Pheu Thai Party chairman Chavalit Yongchaiyudh for the April 10 violence.

Hardcore leftists and certain remnants of the nowdefunct Communist Party of Thailand had teamed up with the red shirts to try to trigger a civil war, he said.

The PAD issued a statement condemning Thaksin and his army of red shirts for trying to incite a rebellion.

Pheu Thai Party, the red shirts and a private army were seeking to agitate the public, leading to an uprising, it said in the statement.

-- The Nation 2010-04-19

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

amazing thailand ,, land of smiles,,, great investment climate

[animatic]

Top Army, Navy Units Readied For Red-Shirts Dispersal

If this happens I fear the Red -Shirts may disperse temporarily only to regroup and then begin an all out armed insurgency. Many could die and the country be plunged into Iraq-like chaos. Why not just bring back the 1997 Constitution, hold a free and fair election and respect the outcome of that election? I fear we have only seen the tip of the iceburg of the madness that could occur.

Read carefully.

Strip away the 'I fear...' wrapping and it is just another thinly disguised red threat.

This time from Mr Iceburg.

The Thai military is obviously split now.

I mean, those guys in black who shot the heck out of Thai army with rubber bullets but also shot from long range and killed with real bullets the leader, are of course active Thai military.

Their loyalty is to their people and not the current Thai regime.

Maybe a few hundred are there now but who knows, maybe a thousand are there in the area.

There are tall buildings everywhere. Bombs could be already placed to meet any push into a building.

Do you really think the Thai military wants to die for the current regime at the hands of Thai people who just simply asking for a free and for once honest Thai election?

My bet is no.

If the men in black, not even in their main area, could shoot 250 army, how many do you think they could kill using real bullets in their main defensive area?

1000? 2000?

You think the Thai army guys want to die for this?

I think not.

Shooting school kids at Thamasat was easy but at this place--the men in Black will rip them some new holes should they charge the mauls.

Funny thing is the men in black can likely get away and do it again in another part of the city the next day.

I can just see it in the future.

Major mauls destroyed and hotels closed--economy in meltdown and the regime says let them eat cake.

Ludicrous post.

What 'army faction shot up the army with rubber bullets'.

You're talking out of your ass with this.

No doubt those tall buildings are being scouted out for high ground control before you even thought of it.

Leaving bombs at all the malls to prevent a push into them... ? abusrd.

A raft of dead guards would be on red hands.

By the way it's malls, and mauls is what a pit bull does to your throat.

The Thai military doesn't want to die for anyone, but most will do their duty,

but be better prepared from the threat they face than last time.

When they didn't expect Thais would be trying to kill Thais in that manner.

[tonywebster]

I have noticed that it is the yellows on here that resort to personal abuse to other posters. How about putting your points across in a calm balanced non abusive manner.

[Mosha]

As for the constitution referendum, if my wife is anything to go by. The booklet went unread, her excuse was I'm too busy. That's too busy watching tv and playing cards.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

the PPP was banned under the provision of article 237 of the 2007 constitution , that constitution was established by other cheaters , who came to power through a coup . So its cheaters with guns versus cheaters without .

And you know full well that switching governement from one party to its oposition WITHOUT consulting the people is totally undemocratic .

Please google: 2007 Constitution Referendum Thailand! 60% of the people showed up and the majority voted YES!

You seem to forget that campaning for a "NO" , under that military governement was not possible . Which explain the relatively low attendance . So do you think democratic ?

Yup... Some people seem to have very short memories.

And, apparently some forgot how this was forced down, when the junta leader actually said 'you can either vote for this consitution, or you will get one I hold behind my back'.

Super Thai Democracy in Action !

Edited April 19, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[noahvail]

IS A MASSACRE BEING PLANNED? .. "Elite forces from all three branches of the armed forces and police are being mobilised to carry out "operations" to remove red-shirt demonstrators..."

The Red Shirt demonstrators are seeking the resignation of the Government and free elections.

The solution is simple, the Government should resign and call "free" elections and stop blaming its incompetence on a Mr T, a person of no fixed abode.

Abhisit and his Government must resign?

Abhisit has no mandate to govern he was never elected in a democratic vote. He was appointed.

If he had been elected in a public vote he would resign as he no longer enjoys popular support.

This illegitimate Government is not deploying troops to defend democracy, the troops are there purely to defend an undemocratic unelected Government.

Never fear a soldier fear his faceless master ... who is currently hiding in a bunker!

Interesting to note, a totally different scenario of the power of the people; during the time of the public outpouring at Princess Diana's death the House of Windsor's was initially reluctant to give her due respect and a State Funeral.

Q Elizabeth later stated words to effect "we underestimated the peoples' wishes and we then had to remind ourselves we remain only as long as we enjoy popular support."

The 'people's support tore down the Berlin Wall. It was the 'people' who spent weeks on the streets of Edsa and got rid of the dictator Marcos in the Philippines.

People Power will always Prevail!

Too many Governments when in a corner state we must maintain the "The Rule of Law".

What does this mean?

It means the Rule of Law is the "Rule Of The Gun"!

He who controls the most guns usually wins!

Except when it comes to People Power because the shooting innocent of unarmed civilians is a "War Crime" and deemed to be a Crime against humanity.

The perpetrators know at some stage they will be held accountable whether or not they say they were provoked by black shirt terrorists!

Thailand is now tearing itself apart. WHY ?

For years you were the greatest country in Asia with the best and friendliest people and foreigners loved visiting for the best sights and the best time in the world!

We felt safe and secure. No more!

Where are the Leaders and future Leaders?

Someone please stand up, stop the self destruction and war mongering and take control.

Leadership from the highest authority is urgently required !

Why do red supporters keep coming out with "Abhisit wasn't elected"?

Can a red supporter please explain to me how their version of elections show that Abhisit wasn't elected?

Thailand is tearing itself apart because of one corrupt billionaire. And it's only because he didn't get control of the army that we are not living under the rule of his gun.

He wasn't elected - go read - I can't be bothered to repeat the arguements - the red government (which was elected) was banned and MPs jumped ship - do your homework

There's no point in arguing with a zealot - they will always say they are right, even if they are patently wrong.

As you say...no point in repeating the arguments - well, information, really. That has been done dozens of times in the past week, and the red shirt zealots - fanatics? - refuse to accept the fact that Mr Abhisit was elected by the representatives of the people, just the way a constitutional monarchy should be done. And had been done with the prior 'red' administrations. Mr Thaksin never garnered more than 40% of the popular vote, yet he led a coalition as PM. If it was right for Mr Thaksin, why would it be wrong for Mr Abhisit.

Nah, no point in using logic... and I'm going to stop repeating the information too. It seems it's just a waste of bandwidth to rationally explain things to zealots/fanatics.

[anotherpeter]

I have noticed that it is the yellows on here that resort to personal abuse to other posters. How about putting your points across in a calm balanced non abusive manner.

I think it goes both ways tony, but not very constructive and childish none the less.

[steveromagnino]

I would agree with you that PPP was cheating and had it coming though i would not think that article 237 is a good thing , why not instead ban the offenders only harshly with fines or jail terms + total ban in politics, Not the whole party , else its the judicial interfering with the executive . Well arguable i guess .

What i meant is that this kind of case happens in Thailand but not in other countries .

I understand the intent...that only severe punishment will deter, but that didn't work, and instead encourages change to the constitution or lots of paper parties like PT, ready to wheel out when needed.

Personally, I think it should be the executive facing jail time, and they should be remanded in custody pending trial, with the severest consequence being a 10 year ban and some serious fines as well.

However, again, this should be a decision made by a cross section of Thai society, not by politicians alone and certainly not by a single party.

As for the BBC, 'Mr Thaksin's wealth and personal popularity gave him a far stronger hand in dealing with the godfathers than any other party in Thailand's history, so his governments were not crippled by the demands of coalition partners, as his predecessors had been. ' that's sort of true, but perhaps they should have pointed out that from 2005 onwards (when Newin defected from Chart Thai to TRT) the share of payments made to the key godfather factions was far more than had ever been previously paid; the airport fiasco being a prime example, the rubber trees and virtually every single scheme of TRT actually that I can think of being the others (yes, including 30b healthcare, where there are many allegations of involvement of senior politicians in the private hospital system e.g. PhayaThai, where monopolies were granted to specific drug suppliers some of whom were alledgedly connected to the minister of health; procurement of IT systems; etc etc). In other words, more profitable than ever to be inside, and cost of political campaigning considerably reduced, as buying vote costs shifted from costs to the party (which means a cost to each faction) to instead being the tax payer paying for winning votes.

With no oversight (media muzzled, constitution safeguard watchdogs organisations disabled, censure in the house impossible) if ever there was a government that epitomised what occurs when godfathers have complete control.....look at TRT 2005. Simply gin bahn gin muang.

But of course.....the godfathers still on the PPP/PT side...their hearts are pure now, they are 'pro democracy'. The godfathers who aren't....They are evil and elite.

Strange how easy some of the media make it to put everyone in Thailand into just two groups - red and yellow. I see a few posters here doing the same thing. Seems to be ideal for consumption by a preteen. Not quite so enticing for someone who understands more of the issues and realises that the current problems are anything but the simplistic visions presented by both reds and yellows and gobbled up effortlessly by some reporters.

But again, I guess that's because I am a broke Amartaya. Others are billionaire Prai living it up big time in that bastion of democracy, Fiji.

Edited April 19, 2010 by steveromagnino

[danc]

I would agree with you that PPP was cheating and had it coming though i would not think that article 237 is a good thing , why not instead ban the offenders only harshly with fines or jail terms + total ban in politics, Not the whole party , else its the judicial interfering with the executive . Well arguable i guess .

What i meant is that this kind of case happens in Thailand but not in other countries .

I understand the intent...that only severe punishment will deter, but that didn't work, and instead encourages change to the constitution or lots of paper parties like PT, ready to wheel out when needed.

Personally, I think it should be the executive facing jail time, and they should be remanded in custody pending trial, with the severest consequence being a 10 year ban and some serious fines as well.

However, again, this should be a decision made by a cross section of Thai society, not by politicians alone and certainly not by a single party.

As for the BBC, 'Mr Thaksin's wealth and personal popularity gave him a far stronger hand in dealing with the godfathers than any other party in Thailand's history, so his governments were not crippled by the demands of coalition partners, as his predecessors had been. ' that's sort of true, but perhaps they should have pointed out that from 2005 onwards (when Newin defected from Chart Thai to TRT) the share of payments made to the key godfather factions was far more than had ever been previously paid; the airport fiasco being a prime example, the rubber trees and virtually every single scheme of TRT actually that I can think of being the others (yes, including 30b healthcare, where there are many allegations of involvement of senior politicians in the private hospital system e.g. PhayaThai, where monopolies were granted to specific drug suppliers some of whom were alledgedly connected to the minister of health; procurement of IT systems; etc etc). In other words, more profitable than ever to be inside, and cost of political campaigning considerably reduced, as buying vote costs shifted from costs to the party (which means a cost to each faction) to instead being the tax payer paying for winning votes.

With no oversight (media muzzled, constitution safeguard watchdogs organisations disabled, censure in the house impossible) if ever there was a government that epitomised what occurs when godfathers have complete control.....look at TRT 2005. Simply gin bahn gin muang.

But of course.....the godfathers still on the PPP/PT side...their hearts are pure now, they are 'pro democracy'. The godfathers who aren't....They are evil and elite.

Strange how easy some of the media make it to put everyone in Thailand into just two groups - red and yellow. I see a few posters here doing the same thing. Seems to be ideal for consumption by a preteen. Not quite so enticing for someone who understands more of the issues and realises that the current problems are anything but the simplistic visions presented by both reds and yellows and gobbled up effortlessly by some reporters.

But again, I guess that's because I am a broke Amartaya. Others are billionaire Prai living it up big time in that bastion of democracy, Fiji.

Exactly my point, which might surprise you a little that I concur, (surely we should be point scoring!). But I am neutral in all this, listening to arguments on both sides - there are two sides to all these things here in Thai politics, none of them smelling of roses - and no, I am not having a laff, given that Abhisit gave a big bunch of them to Newin!

Edited April 19, 2010 by danc

[WinnieTheKhwai]

As for the constitution referendum, if my wife is anything to go by. The booklet went unread, her excuse was I'm too busy. That's too busy watching tv and playing cards.

We found a very good use for it in the washroom.

[quartz]

Ratu Epeli Ganilau says the government looks more favourably on people who can invest a large sum of money.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiji has the Asia-Pacific region’s worst performing economy.

Thaksin coming to invest: Fiji PM

Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is coming to Fiji to look at potential investments, says Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama.

Bainimarama did not elaborate further when questioned by FBC NEWS on the matter, saying that was all he had to say for now.

Overseas media have been reporting Shinawatra’s impending arrival to Fiji, saying the former PM may be looking to set up base in Fiji after his Thai passport was canceled.

Fiji authorities have remained tight-lipped on whether Thaksin was on his way or already in the country, but Immigration Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau told Radio New Zealand that the billionaire would have to follow the normal application process if he chose to reside in Fiji.

RADIO FIJI

The Fiji Broadcasting Corporation

Monday, April 19, 2010

http://www.radiofiji.com.fj/fullstory.php?id=27149

[anotherpeter]

I wonder how he is getting there.

Oh, ofcourse, the poor guy has a private jet.