Thailand: A Simple Guide To Anarchy And Chaos

[Kervon]

Nicely engineered.. LOL... Nice word to use..

Anyways, I know this is like a broken record and it's been years... But I'm still amazed at how some people fail to accept the fact that Abhisit was not elected via the ballot boxes by CITIZENS.....

But of course we're way past that issue now.. and I personally see Thailand heading 3 directions...

1: Snap elections:- Temporary solution. Reds will go home. Yellows will be made.. and the whole episode will become a staple example in Thailand's political system on how protestors can get what they want by swarming up in big numbers. Yellows will do their airport stance again... whole cycle repeats itself..

2: Military coup:- We're so familiar with this word, aren't we?. Thailand has gone through numerous coups and regimes under military juntas in her history books. Reds will go home, Yellows will suck their thumbs.. and the whole cycle will repeat itself in a couple of years time.

3: Crackdown/Martial Law:- Anyone recalls Tiananmen Square Protests on 4th June 1989 in Beijing, China... Where about 100000 protestors were 'dispersed' in little less than 5 hours.. Streets lights were turned off, soldiers and tanks went in at 1am.. Bullets flew, people screamed...540am.. the whole protest site was 'cleared'..or flattened.. Reds are flattened. Yellows are happy.. Government back in control.. However, this will throw Thailand into UN's eye...and face world condemnation...etc etc...

Sad... But I can't think of any other solutions... which I hope I can.

Your point 3 is somewhat incorrect and an affront to those who participated in the Tiananman Square demonstration - the demonstrators in China did not launch grenades or use other weapons and kill people but were a none violent real demonstration looking to gain freedom of speech and travel.

I ca assure you that the UN is not impressed with the violent mob on Bangkok's streets and neither is any western country and most are surprised that no decisive action has been taken yet against them.

Please do not use the Tiananman Square protesters in this subject and compare them to this rioting mob in it for money

Dear BkJohn,

Sorry if my post was misleading. But I was nowhere near claiming the rights of protests or the governments actions in either ways.

If you'd to re-read my post again from a different angle.. I was merely listing the possible 'directions' I personally see this episode unfolding onto, with a mentality to resolve the current situation..

As per my statement reads.. "and I personally see Thailand heading 3 directions... "

But I see where you're coming from, bro... And I sincerely hope that where you're coming from does not translate to saying...

"Do not compare Tiananmen Square protesters to this riot mob for money, because there were grenades thrown in from their side.. though I don't have proof who exactly did it.. But yeah.. grenades were thrown, so it's OKAY to roll tanks over them Red Shirts."

I'm sure you don't mean that do you, bro?.. Because if you do.. I think we have a serious problem.

[generalgrant]

I wonder --------------if the poor people of the USA rioted on Wall St --------------and demand a fair share of the USAs wealth --------------------------backing up their demands by using bombs , rockets and gun fire -------------------------What would happen and how long would they be allowed to stay on the streets ??

Hey Newbie

If the poor people in the USA were so motivated they could simply vote and get what they wanted. They can vote in their own states and pass their own laws and own social programs. The same is not true in Thailand.

The vote--that is the point here.

Last time I looked, the USA did make quite a change using the vote. Obama is very liberal and moving the nation toward the left. The right is screaming but they LOST. There is no thought that while Obama is gone out of the nation that some Captain will take over.

You do see the difference I am sure.

But I don't want to be getting all mighty and claiming that America or Europe have not had their massive fights in the past over democratic rule. America had its fight between the South and North. Sometimes violence is the only answer when a tyranny is being imposed upon the people.

I am just curious as to why any foreigner living here in Thailand would defend the current unfair system in Thaoiland?

Certainly you would not do so in your own homes?

Over 20 coups and you think it is just fine?

[BKjohn]

Dear BkJohn,

Sorry if my post was misleading. But I was nowhere near claiming the rights of protests or the governments actions in either ways.

If you'd to re-read my post again from a different angle.. I was merely listing the possible 'directions' I personally see this episode unfolding onto, with a mentality to resolve the current situation..

As per my statement reads.. "and I personally see Thailand heading 3 directions... "

But I see where you're coming from, bro... And I sincerely hope that where you're coming from does not translate to saying...

"Do not compare Tiananmen Square protesters to this riot mob for money, because there were grenades thrown in from their side.. though I don't have proof who exactly did it.. But yeah.. grenades were thrown, so it's OKAY to roll tanks over them Red Shirts."

I'm sure you don't mean that do you, bro?.. Because if you do.. I think we have a serious problem.

What I mean is, that this mob in Bangkok should be dealt with quickly and like one would deal with any mob consisting of violent terrorists hiding among a mob of imbeciles mixed in- I would personally use CS and CN gas mixed to disable them and than move in soldiers in NBC suites - remove the lot of them to a camp where the real farmers can be separated from the terrorists and after decon be send back to Isaan and the rest be dealt with in court later where they will hopefully receive the death sentence for terrorism and treason.

Before anyone starts to yell, those gasses are none lethal and just result in a lot of red shirts rolling on the floor itching and throwing up with their eyes watering. Better than guns considering there will be minimal collateral damage

Edited April 23, 2010 by BKjohn

[hammered]

Interesting that Thanong pens onbe of the best pieces of analysis. Obvious ut shows a bias but it covers issues in a better way than others have done.

Everyone negotiates with terrorists by the way. Look at Afghanistan. It is just a matte ro fnegotiating when tempers are not flared and describing the ones you negotiate with as moderate members of...... (add name of group), Then they dont have the label terroists.

The problem here is that Methee has just said it was the red shirts whjo fired on the army and tempers are too high so it probably cant happen right now

[jrtmedic]

I wonder --------------if the poor people of the USA rioted on Wall St --------------and demand a fair share of the USAs wealth --------------------------backing up their demands by using bombs , rockets and gun fire -------------------------What would happen and how long would they be allowed to stay on the streets ??

Hey Newbie

If the poor people in the USA were so motivated they could simply vote and get what they wanted. They can vote in their own states and pass their own laws and own social programs. The same is not true in Thailand.

The vote--that is the point here.

Last time I looked, the USA did make quite a change using the vote. Obama is very liberal and moving the nation toward the left. The right is screaming but they LOST. There is no thought that while Obama is gone out of the nation that some Captain will take over.

If you think the USofA is so wonderful ---------------so democratic (I rember GB --------------DID he win the election ??) why dont you go back there ---------

You do see the difference I am sure.

But I don't want to be getting all mighty and claiming that America or Europe have not had their massive fights in the past over democratic rule. America had its fight between the South and North. Sometimes violence is the only answer when a tyranny is being imposed upon the people.

I am just curious as to why any foreigner living here in Thailand would defend the current unfair system in Thaoiland?

Certainly you would not do so in your own homes?

Over 20 coups and you think it is just fine?

[rixalex]

You often talk about the elite. I would like to know who you are talking about when you discuss them.

It is one of the most over-used words in this debate.

The reds' definition of "elite" is anyone with money and power who opposes them / opposes Thaksin.

[BKjohn]

You often talk about the elite. I would like to know who you are talking about when you discuss them.

It is one of the most over-used words in this debate.

The reds' definition of "elite" is anyone with money and power who opposes them / opposes Thaksin.

I would go as far as to say "anyone who is not on their side"

[vicco]

Lets see now, the children and husband of the dead women and the many injured from last nights "rethoric" eeeh grenade attacks might disagree with you on that point

Or the thousands of dead, had the RPG launched into the fuel tank in Lam Luka caused an explosion as was intended would have disagreed with you too

OK..but surely you are stating the obvious. Rhetoric may or may not lead to actions. There is also the assumption that the reds fired the grenades, but we can not be certain that they did (even though many will want to believe that it was them without leaving any possibility that it could have been somebody else). I think however that your statement is already covered by the last line of my post. "There has been a serious and ongoing lack of sound strategy here...from both sides" I'm not sure why so many of us take up these very partisan and at times almost hysterical positions. If you step back and take a hard look at the developments that started back on April 10th...the only thing that is clear is that nothing is really clear. We trade all kinds of theories, opinions, hyperbole, and unfortunately just plain nastiness---but we KNOW very little....other than the casualty count.

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

come on, you can not seriously believe that the government did it ?????? this is red propaganda as they always do it after every crime that was committed by them.

This started a lot earlier tha April 10 of this year - this started when Thaksin managed to buy enough votes to get into power in Thailand and transformed it into his own PLC - subsequently leading to the coup which was absolute necessary and the following riots when the yellow shirts had to stop Thaksins supporters from re-claiming the power for him. I lost my business during that time due to lack of venues but still had to agree with their cause

Now he is throwing everything at his attempt of a coup t regain his money and power and you chaps are blind to facts or are part of his network

That response barely warrants a reply, but I will try. First of all, where did I ever suggest that the government did it? I simply said that we can not be certain that the reds did it. There are many other players involved here, it could have been any of them. We simply do not KNOW yet. I won't even go there on the Thaksin bit----I think we have beaten that to death already. Anyway it's all covered in my original post...but quoting a line or two out of the context of posts and ignoring the core points, seems to be the current style of debate on here.

The reds and the blacks are one group and it doesn't matter who within their compound launched the grenades, if you side with criminals / terrorists you become guilty yourself. The farmers among them obviously have no clue of their real agenda but if they have not figured out what is going on by now and left, they can not be helped

So let me see if I understand your argument: First. Your are saying that you know who fired the grenades (Red or Black) Please advise the forum how you know this. Nobody else seems to know. (You are I trust aware of the need for evidence and the concept of innocent until proven guilty? and also the difference between opinion and fact?)

Second: You seem to be under the impression that not taking sides is actually supporting a side (Ie Reds)..how is that so?

Third: How do you know that the "farmers" have not figured out the agenda? How many farmers do you know.

(Just for the record---there is a massive queue in Khonkaen to obtain UDD membership ID cards (30 baht each). Most of the people lined up are not farmers...they are

from all walks of life and they are most certainly not terrorists. (How do I know this...I was there yesterday and again this morning) What you see in Bankok is the tip of a very big iceberg. You may have heard what happened to the Titanic when it ran into an iceberg??

This whole situation has to end with a negotiated political agreement. What is the alternative? Does anybody seriously think that the Army can take down all these people?

Constantly saying that the redshirt leaders are "terrorists" and you can't negotiate with terrorists is just defeatist nonsense. Both sides may have to wear each other down to the point where talks are possible but that is the nature of this kind of conflict. If you talk to these people (redshirts) you will find that they are adamant, fearless and a lot more savvy than you think. They do not fear the army or police. They do not fear death and they are not going away, so get used to it.

Even the first world war ended with a treaty. A very unsatisfactory one for sure, but a treaty never the less....after 37 million casualties. You would think that they could have managed something before that....but they were all farangs and just like here everybody just knew their side was right.

[jrtmedic]

generalgrant

Unlike you I dont support any side in Thailand. I was just suggesting that violent rent amob would not be tolerated in the good old US ------------------The national gaurd would be called out to remove them ------------------no matter whAT VIOLENCE was deemed necessay .

The Thai people have to find their own way foreward ---------------------and Thaksins support of whisy swiiling, violent , red shorted criminals will no help.

[generalgrant]

I wonder --------------if the poor people of the USA rioted on Wall St --------------and demand a fair share of the USAs wealth --------------------------backing up their demands by using bombs , rockets and gun fire -------------------------What would happen and how long would they be allowed to stay on the streets ??

Hey Newbie

If the poor people in the USA were so motivated they could simply vote and get what they wanted. They can vote in their own states and pass their own laws and own social programs. The same is not true in Thailand.

The vote--that is the point here.

Last time I looked, the USA did make quite a change using the vote. Obama is very liberal and moving the nation toward the left. The right is screaming but they LOST. There is no thought that while Obama is gone out of the nation that some Captain will take over.

If you think the USofA is so wonderful ---------------so democratic (I rember GB --------------DID he win the election ??) why dont you go back there ---------

You do see the difference I am sure.

But I don't want to be getting all mighty and claiming that America or Europe have not had their massive fights in the past over democratic rule. America had its fight between the South and North. Sometimes violence is the only answer when a tyranny is being imposed upon the people.

I am just curious as to why any foreigner living here in Thailand would defend the current unfair system in Thaoiland?

Certainly you would not do so in your own homes?

Over 20 coups and you think it is just fine?

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

HAAA HAAAAA

Got to you.

[anotherpeter]

<snip>

I am just curious as to why any foreigner living here in Thailand would defend the current unfair system in Thaoiland?

Certainly you would not do so in your own homes?

Over 20 coups and you think it is just fine?

I don't see many people on TVF defending the current unfair system in Thailand.

Most anti-red people are just rejecting the idea that the reds are really trying to fix that.

Thaksin and his following puppet governments didn't change the system when they were in government. And they are unlikely to change if they get into government again.

Edited April 23, 2010 by anotherpeter

[hammered]

Metthee has confessed that red shirts fired on the army on April 10. Im not sure how many are aware of this but it is going to hit the reds very hard with neutrals

[Mario2008]

1 post and a reply to it deleted for flaming.

[londonthai]

Metthee has confessed that red shirts fired on the army on April 10. Im not sure how many are aware of this but it is going to hit the reds very hard with neutrals

yes, but the question is: who first started to fire?

as to the article, the title is a bit sensational and dramatic and the claim that "arms are coming to bangkok in vast quantities" are not to be proved - again a bit of "litentia poetica"

Edited April 23, 2010 by londonthai

[webfact]

A warning an some advise

Given the highly inflammatory nature of some posts and posters in the News forum,

we are instituting a zero tolerance policy with regards to posting inflammatory

comments, comments advocating violence, trollish comments, and flames. You will

receive an automatic posting rights suspension for this behavior in the News forum.

Bear that in mind when posting.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Warning-Advice-t342100.html

[danc]

I ca assure you that the UN is not impressed with the violent mob on Bangkok's streets and neither is any western country and most are surprised that no decisive action has been taken yet against them. sic

In reply to the above statement by BKJohn :-

BKJohn, I think you write some good interesting stuff but I do think that you must qualify the above with something along the lines of "I would conjecture", unless you are uniquely well-connected with the higher bastions of world power and I would hazard a guess someone that well-connected does not hang out with us saddos here in the forum!

Edited April 23, 2010 by danc

[clausewitz]

Of course there has always been corruption in Thailand like there is in every country - here just more obvious - but to compare Thaksin with anyone before him would be the same as to compare a boy stealing a sweet in a corner shop with the Brinks Matt robbery

forgot - and he isn't in Thailand , if he was he would be in Klong Prem where he belongs

The fortune that Thaksin accumulated was/is obscene, yes, but Thaksin's wealth is rather small when you compare it to the entire wealth of the old money elite ruling the country. I'm sure these people too didn't get their money from an honest day's work.

Why were the courts so keen to nab Thaksin for his crimes? - Because he got popular vote and was upsetting the balance of power. "No, no, no!" said the old boys, "We'll start a Yellow movement and the army can't touch us."

Relevant to this is this article in Japan Times

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo2...earch%20Results

<h1 id="headline">

</h1>

By SIN-MING SHAW BANGKOK — Thailand's political and social fabric is fraying. Indeed, the country's future looks as shaky as it has never been.

google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);

One Hong Kong scion whose wife is from an elite Thai family estimates that perhaps 20 families control most of Thai business. The Thai military is constitutionally subordinate to civilian leadership, but in reality it owes its allegiance to the Palace. In the current crisis, army generals have told the public that they are reluctant to use force, a position that was not theirs to take.

How long this inactivity will last is anyone's guess. Mobs wearing red shirts to symbolize their loyalty to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra are camped out in two major commercial areas, paralyzing a large part of the local economy. They demand that the government dissolve the legislature, and that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva resign because he was never elected and is viewed as a front man for the traditional anti-Thaksin monied groups.

Many believe that the current crisis will pass, and that Thailand will revert to its historical harmony among the four groups. But this view ignores the country's new political dynamics.

First and foremost, Thailand's lower classes have decided that docility is a thing of the past. They are angry and frustrated by the status quo. Save for the handouts they got under Thaksin, they benefited little from the economic growth of the past three decades. The vast gap between the urban rich and the rest has grown worse over the years, with no discernible "trickle-down" effect.

The poor view the coup against Thaksin of 2006, and the later disbanding of his party, as revenge by the traditional elites who wanted the old ways back, and who would get what they wanted by force since they could no longer get it through the ballot box. It is a view that is not entirely wrong.

I

What Thaksin did for the poor required only political self-interest. Yet even that elementary wisdom has never occurred to traditional ruling elites too set in their myopic and arrogant ways. Until it does, Thailand's otherwise promising future will be increasingly remote.

[chantorn]

Metthee has confessed that red shirts fired on the army on April 10. Im not sure how many are aware of this but it is going to hit the reds very hard with neutrals

yes, but the question is: who first started to fire?

as to the article, the title is a bit sensational and dramatic and the claim that "arms are coming to bangkok in vast quantities" are not to be proved - again a bit of "litentia poetica"

After he is released on bail, he is going to stay that DSI force him to sign a pre-written confession.

Can you trust this SOB? He is an actor by profession.

[danc]

Metthee has confessed that red shirts fired on the army on April 10. Im not sure how many are aware of this but it is going to hit the reds very hard with neutrals

I am neutral and I cannot get too excited about it - sorry, it proves very little.

[generalgrant]

generalgrant

Unlike you I dont support any side in Thailand. I was just suggesting that violent rent amob would not be tolerated in the good old US ------------------The national gaurd would be called out to remove them ------------------no matter whAT VIOLENCE was deemed necessay .

The Thai people have to find their own way foreward ---------------------and Thaksins support of whisy swiiling, violent , red shorted criminals will no help.

I agree.

Well said.

[clausewitz]

Nice article in the washington Post

Stopping Thailand's endless battle of the yellow and red shirts

Thursday, April 15, 2010

THE LATEST political crisis in Thailand is a particularly tragic instance of political blowback. Three times in the past four years, Thais opposed to the populist movement of Thaksin Shinawatra precipitated the downfall of democratically elected governments by creating chaos in the streets of Bangkok. Now the current government, backed by that same alliance of the middle class, business and traditional elites, has itself been cornered by the same tactics.

Last Saturday, the Thai army, which refused to act against the anti-Thaksin "yellow shirts" even when they shut down Bangkok's international airport, tried to disperse the pro-Thaksin "red shirts" from their month-old street camps. The result was the worst political violence in two decades, with 23 protesters and soldiers killed -- and a retreat by the security forces. That leaves the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva with few options other than what he and his coalition should have embraced in the first place: free elections.

Neither side in Thailand's class-based political conflict is a paragon of democracy. Mr. Thaksin, who now lives in exile, was a bad prime minister from 2001 to 2006. He violated press freedoms and allowed massive violations of human rights by security forces. The root of Thailand's years of conflict, however, is the unwillingness of the old establishment to accept that Mr. Thaksin has the support of the country's majority. After a military coup removed the populist leader in 2006, his supporters easily won the election that was eventually held in December 2007. After two more prime ministers were forced from office by demonstrations and questionable court rulings in late 2008, Mr. Abhisit brought the anti-Thaksin forces to power without calling a new election. He has resisted holding one since, for the obvious reason that Mr. Thaksin's supporters probably would win once again.

Mr. Abhisit is now suggesting that he could call an election at the end of this year. That stall is dangerous and unlikely to work. The army commander suggested Monday that it might be necessary to meet the protesters' demand that the parliament be dissolved and a new election called immediately. Meanwhile, Mr. Abhisit's party is under threat of being forced from office by a court order -- just like the past two pro-Thaksin prime ministers.

What ought to be clear by now is that anti-democratic tactics, from military intervention to street barricades to convenient court edicts, will not end Thailand's turmoil. The only solution is for both sides to accept that elections should decide who governs Thailand -- and that both winners and losers should respect basic political and civil rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0041404391.html

[Crash999]

yes, but the question is: who first started to fire?

I don't think we'll ever know. None of the videos I've seen from the incident are close enough to 'ground zero' to know exactly what happened- you can only hear from a distance the first shots. My theory is an escalation of words, stones, and warning shots at one side of the protest which caused the rapid spiral into panic and chaos that you can see in the videos. No doubt shots were fired on both sides into the opposing group, and at least one grenade was launched into the soldiers- the footage from the Japanese cameraman who was killed shows it going off very close to him and wounding some soldiers.

Given the overwhelming firepower of the troops, to me it's clear that they weren't there that night to clear the protesters out of Bangkok as when the trouble began they immediately started to retreat.

[gemini81]

Never put a politician in charge of military, because they always they put good of themselves before the good of the country

Not in a developed, civilsed country.

I think you will find that Winston Churchill (plus others) would take exception to your comment.

Indeed. FDR and Teddy would stand beside him, and do anything for the sake of their countrymen.

[lannarebirth]

Of course there has always been corruption in Thailand like there is in every country - here just more obvious - but to compare Thaksin with anyone before him would be the same as to compare a boy stealing a sweet in a corner shop with the Brinks Matt robbery

forgot - and he isn't in Thailand , if he was he would be in Klong Prem where he belongs

The fortune that Thaksin accumulated was/is obscene, yes, but Thaksin's wealth is rather small when you compare it to the entire wealth of the old money elite ruling the country. I'm sure these people too didn't get their money from an honest day's work.

Why were the courts so keen to nab Thaksin for his crimes? - Because he got popular vote and was upsetting the balance of power. "No, no, no!" said the old boys, "We'll start a Yellow movement and the army can't touch us."

Thaksin bought the godfathers who delivered their voting blocks. Just like the rally now, he biought them and they're delivering him bodies.

Read it!

http://books.google.com/books?id=-gW9Z0-q_...p;q&f=false

[rixalex]

Nice article in the washington Post

Stopping Thailand's endless battle of the yellow and red shirts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0041404391.html

This article was discussed in a thread last week. This was my response:

Also the view of the highly respected Washington Post which calls for early dissolution

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0041404391.html

But that's a journal in the pay of Thaksin I hear you say.But look the article is clearly anti-Thaksin, a "bad prime minister".It doesn't compute.Whur whur blur blur.

Washington Post isn't a publication i read and i don't know what their background is in terms of reputation or agenda, but there were some glarringly obvious mistruths in there, as well as some over-simplifications that bordered on child-like.

Here's an example of both:

Mr. Thaksin, who now lives in exile, was a bad prime minister from 2001 to 2006.

It's a mistruth to say that Mr. Thaksin lives in exile and whilst i don't dispute that he was indeed a bad prime minister, it strikes me as being a slightly peculiar turn of phrase to be using with an educated readership.

Here's another mistruth:

After a military coup removed the populist leader in 2006, his supporters easily won the election that was eventually held in December 2007.

Not only did his supporters not win easily, they in fact didn't win at all, otherwise why form a coalition?

And as far as the following statement goes:

That leaves the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva with few options other than what he and his coalition should have embraced in the first place: free elections.

it's all very well simply saying that the government should have embraced free elections, but is the writer not aware that free elections are virtually impossible at the best of times here, and right now you'd have a snowball in h*lls chance of organising one that wasn't fraught with vote-buying, intimidation and most likely violence. Not saying that that should be used as an indefinite excuse for not having elections - obviously there have to be elections at some point no matter what - but don't pretend that organising elections with the aim for them to be free is an easy or simple matter, because it certainly is not. The complexities that are involved and that are exasperated at the moment mean that other alternatives need to be considered as well.

[Crash999]

Mr. Abhisit is now suggesting that he could call an election at the end of this year. That stall is dangerous and unlikely to work. The army commander suggested Monday that it might be necessary to meet the protesters' demand that the parliament be dissolved and a new election called immediately. Meanwhile, Mr. Abhisit's party is under threat of being forced from office by a court order -- just like the past two pro-Thaksin prime ministers.

If the red shirts are so confident in their ability to win an election then the government agreeing to call elections later this year can be considered a victory as, after all, it will ensure that they will shortly be coming into power.

The red shirts can negotiate a fixed date for the election and leave Bangkok after holding press conferences declaring how this is a victory for democracy and the voice of the people has been heard- it would appear to observers to be the moral high ground.

Yet the red shirts press on with their current campaign, refusing to accept anything beyond immediate dissolution of the government. It doesn't make sense to risk loss of life and bringing the situation to a crisis point (where they in fact may not get what they want) unless they're not so confident that a "free and fair" election would result in victory for the red shirts.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Crash999

[clausewitz]

Mr. Abhisit is now suggesting that he could call an election at the end of this year. That stall is dangerous and unlikely to work. The army commander suggested Monday that it might be necessary to meet the protesters' demand that the parliament be dissolved and a new election called immediately. Meanwhile, Mr. Abhisit's party is under threat of being forced from office by a court order -- just like the past two pro-Thaksin prime ministers.

If the red shirts are so confident in their ability to win an election then the government agreeing to call elections later this year can be considered a victory as, after all, it will ensure that they will shortly be coming into power.

The red shirts can negotiate a fixed date for the election and leave Bangkok after holding press conferences declaring how this is a victory for democracy and the voice of the people has been heard- it would appear to observers to be the moral high ground.

Yet the red shirts press on with their current campaign, refusing to accept anything beyond immediate dissolution of the government. Why risk loss of life and potentially bring the situation to a crisis point for the sake of just a few months of time?

But previously Abhisit thought house dissolution should be immediate, wouldn't that also solve the problem.

Abhist also claims (as he did on CNN in his interview with Dan R. ) that the Democrats would win.

Dispute over whether to dissolve Parliament

By The Nation Published on September 2, 2008

"During the joint sitting of the House and the Senate in Parliament on Sunday, Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Prime Minister Sama

k Sundaravej to dissolve Parliament. Sacrificing MPs would unlock the crisis and return power so voters could decide the outcome again."

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/02/pol...cs_30082196.php

Democrats not being opportunistic by nominating Abhisit as new Thai PM

TNA 12 September 2008

Thailand's opposition Democrat Party denied being opportunistic in nominating its party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as prime minister after the caretaker coalition government failed early Friday to appoint a new government leader due to the lack of a quorum in the House. ...

Thais are now killing each other and there are signs that more will be killed. There should be no more negotiations," Mr. Abhisit affirmed.

Asked about his response if the ruling People Power Party dissolved the House, he said the Democrats had proposed a House dissolution from the beginning. "How to do it depends on the situation."

http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=6233

Abhisit calls for House dissolution

By The Nation Published on December 3, 2008

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Wednesday urged for House dissolution on the ground that a snap election will allow a fresh start to form a viable government to tackle the political and economic woes. ...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30090130

[rixalex]

But previously Abhisit thought house dissolution should be immediate, wouldn't that also solve the problem.

If all the reds were doing right now was what Abhisit did then - suggest house dissolution as a possible solution when questioned by reporters - then that would be fine. The reds aren't doing that. They aren't making suggestions. They are making demands with the threat of further disruptions, injuries and deaths, if their demands aren't agreed to. Do you see the difference?

[OzMick]

When I read people talking about dissolution in 4 months, Thaksin, negotiation etc.. they simply do not get it do they, they just do not understand Thailand.

This is about a COUP, and preventing the military re-shuffle that will lead to a COUP before any election ever gets a chance to happen.

The only way to stop it is to get the House dissolved now.

Which is why even Annupong has said "Dissolve the House now".

The PRO COUP group are all set to promote their clan to all lead positions and will then lead a COUP and take away all democracy. This is why you see Army, Police, Reds and everyone else all in the middle and all trying to apply pressure to get the House dissolved BEFORE the reshuffle.

If the reshuffle is done then democracy in Thailand is dead and buried.

Be aware of the real facts and do not fall into the abyss of believing the propaganda.

you shout "coup" so many times, that you begin to sound like a pigeon. Can you please substantiate these claims? Has anybody else expressed the same opinion.

Could it be that this concept came to you after observing that it was exactly the attempted stacking of the military that led to the last coup?

[quiksilva]

The only thing a house dissolution solves now is the problem of having reds camping out in the CBD and throwing grenades around. (We hope)

It does not fix the loopholes of an otherwise great constitution that were abused by Thaksin, that led to the coup, because the opposition were powerless to stop him.

House dissolution will not alleviate the problems of the rural poor.

House dissolution will not mean that all those responsible for the violence (on both sides) will be held accountable for their actions.

If they win, a house dissolution will mean that PTP will be able seek amnesty for its banned politicians, including of course Thaksin, paving the way for his return to power under the same constitution that he abused last time which resulted in him being ousted in a coup because the opposition had their hands tied...

See the problem with it now?

Edited April 23, 2010 by quiksilva