Thai Protesters Brace For Crackdown As Compromise Rejected

[Mekhong]

A disappointing but unsurprising response from the biggest stubborn mule PM the world has ever seen.

Is he?

More like a measured response from the most rational, articulate and honest PM Thailand has ever had. What would you have him do? Concede to the demands of these thugs and terrorists? Pave the way for leaders like Juttaporn and Veera, ably supported by the likes of Arisman?

[midas]

The Reds undoubtedly have a point about Abhisit never having faced the Thai people as PM in an election.David Cameron has proposed that any British PM who has not received such a national mandate must call an election within six months.Where I differ from the Reds is that I think Abhisit's offer of elections by year end was quite reasonable.I also agree that mobs should not be able to twist the arm of legitimate governments in this way, and Abhisit's government is certainly legitimate.But in response to all these little lectures on this forum about democratic form, it's important to remember that the Reds do have a very strong case which is valid even if one discounts altogether the appalling record of the elite sponsoring coups, court decisions,military interference and a rigged constitution.

What is the relevance of "The Reds undoubtedly have a point about Abhisit never having faced the Thai people as PM in an election."?

I just don't know what to say. That's just a stupid argument.

Abhisit went to the last election as the leader of the Democrats. So he was in the same position as Samak. And where was that argument from the reds when Somchai was elected PM?

"David Cameron has proposed that any British PM who has not received such a national mandate must call an election within six months."

PROPOSED? MUST? How do you have that in the same sentence?

The reality is that any MP that is elected can also be elected PM. In Australia and UK (both similar systems to Thailand) there are PM handover's (and Premiers in the Aus states) all the time halfway through an elected term.

It keeps coming back to the reds not understanding democracy. They just think that they are popular, so they should be in government.

" They just think that they are popular, so they should be in government " that sounds like something Basil Fawlty would say

[animatic]

Mandate –noun

1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue

given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.

2. a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.

3. an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

4. (in the League of Nations) a commission given to a nation to administer the government and affairs of a former Turkish territory or German colony.

5. a mandated territory or colony.

6. Roman Catholic Church. an order issued by the pope, esp. one commanding the preferment of a certain person to a benefice.

7. Roman and Civil Law. a contract by which one engages gratuitously to perform services for another.

8. (in modern civil law) any contract by which a person undertakes to perform services for another.

9. Roman Law. an order or decree by the emperor, esp. to governors of provinces.

–verb (used with object)

10. to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law.

11. to order or require; make mandatory: to mandate sweeping changes in the election process.

12. to consign (a territory, colony, etc.) to the charge of a particular nation under a mandate.

Looking at #1

The mandate is given to individual Minsters of Parliament as

# 8 a contract to perform services for the electorate.

No where in Thai election law or either constitution is is said

a Prime Minister is voted in by the electorate. A presumed PM candidate

MUST be voted in by his district, as Abhisit was, before he can be voted as PM by the parliamentarians.

But this is PRESUMED cadidate is nothing more than that. because in the actual give and take of parliamentary voting,

he might not be elected by the parliamentarians for many reasons,

not least of which is a loss of confidence SINCE the general election happened.

A PM candidate could kill someone on the night after the election

and by the time of Parliament voting for a PM, his goose is cooked.

He himself could have died, but that doesn't stop the parliamentarians from voting in a PM.

That is the whole point of People voting a parliament to sit and choose a PM, PM's can come and go,

but the parliament gives some electoral continuity to the national constrol structure,

regardless of the political fortunes of any one party.

[bangkokrick]

THE NATION: Thaksin said he's been to many countries so few chances to contact protesters

Just shows how much interest he has in the people that are supposedly prepared to die for him. Mind you of course business and money always came first.

Cheers, Rick

[elcent]

you can't run a country with a mob mentality or a clandestine mentality as Thaksin has displayed. The red leaders are using wrong tools to bring about change and they probably don't want it anyway. They are just there to backup their gov reps to intrigue a democratic system.

the yellows are not much different, but more sophisticated.

They all need to face the music. Wait until they are all indicted by the court. Until then it's going to be a dangerous place.

[melbpete]

<snip>

It keeps coming back to the reds not understanding democracy. They just think that they are popular, so they should be in government.

" They just think that they are popular, so they should be in government " that sounds like something Basil Fawlty would say

Clarification then: They *think* they are popular.

They *think* they are the majority, but they are a minority, as shown in the last election.

And minority does not give you the right to be in government.

[BKjohn]

I’m sure the reds in this forum will call the following opinionated, but I tried to make some sort of sense to this whole thing based on facts.

Is Thailand doomed?

Unfortunately the answer is probably “yes”.

Everybody knows the story of Thaksins corruption and how he used Thailand as his personal company to gain fantastic riches and power. We all know why the coup was inevitable and why the so called “yellow shirts” did what they did to avoid Thaksin coming back to power by proxy of his family and supporters.

The methods may have been questionable but looking back, were probably necessary.

Abhisit came to power legally despite of what the reds claim and proceeded to start reforms of many problem areas he saw within the Thai political and social system.

Reforms however take time, especially in a country ruled until then by vested interests of which Thaksin was the personification.

Reforms in such an environment are also dangerous because vested interests by nature want to retain a system in which they can thrive. With the megalomaniac Thaksin in self imposed exile but having access to his vast fortune which he had moved abroad to off shore banks was and is the biggest thread to Thailand. Especially since a large number of cohorts who benefited of him during his reign remained in the country, ready and willing to follow their “master”

A megalomaniac with vast amounts of money and supporters within the country that had just sentenced him to 2 years in jail, is a very dangerous adversary as we now see.

Add to this a vast pool of uneducated, credulous people like the Issanies who also believe in him because they were told by their local leaders that Thaksin was and will be taking care of them and you have a powder cake waiting to blow up.

Thaksin could not risk any of the reforms Abhisit had initiated to start and his stern base supporters in Isaan realizing that the PM wasn’t a bad guy after all.

The timing of the events currently unfolding was of utmost importance. It had to happen before any reforms could set roots and before a military re-shuffle because to make his return possible, he needs his own supporters in key army positions to avoid another coup.

If one does not understand why the reds are totally set on immediate change and are not willing to negotiate a more practical and possible term for new elections, this is the reason.

The megalomaniac Thaksin, who went as far as to offer the world governments his assistance to solve the financial crisis, is clearly willing to bring Thailand to its knees if this will accomplish his goals.

Unfortunately his control over the so called “red shirts” seems to be total ad the government is forced to crack down on the mob to avoid total anarchy. There is no daubed that the red core, the terrorist part of the mob will than resolve to a terrorist war like happened in the UK during the 70’s/80’s with the IRA.

This, in my opinion will be un-avoidable as long as Thaksin is alive and the driving force behind the reds.

Without Thaksins financial support the red shirt movement will eventually fizzle out and the terrorist core will be caught and eliminated, allowing Thailand to start rebuilding the by than shattered economy which will take years and the emotional healing process between the Thai’s will take even longer because the majority of the Thais will view the Isaanies with great suspicion for a long time.

Edited April 25, 2010 by BKjohn

[elcent]

THE NATION: Thaksin said he's been to many countries so few chances to contact protesters

Just shows how much interest he has in the people that are supposedly prepared to die for him. Mind you of course business and money always came first.

Cheers, Rick

as the 'jockey' here he plays to much SIM City in Saudi Arabia.

Lets revoke the aircraft licence and the pilots' licences. I think the aircraft is in a miserable shape and still registered in Thailand. Keep him busy so he doesn't have much time to cause more troubles as he already did.

You can rest assured that he's in daily contact with red leaders via secret lines. His aim is destruction and extorting the country.

[kenai]

I think the real point is 7 out of 10 Thai live and work outside of cities. Not all of this large majority support PTP or Red Shirts and not all those living in cities are anti. No one is trying to play with numbers here, it is a simple fact Thai has a large rural population that is lower class.

If they had majority support then why not hold a new election? ..Why the 2006 coup?... Why constitution change? etc etc.

Isn't it obvious?

Those in power pulling the strings liked democracy only until they felt the power begin to slip, then it was a scramble to slant the table.

Governments shouldn't need to call elections every time a minority mob of thugs comes out on the streets. At the moment the government have majority support of all elected MPs, so they don't need to call elections until next scheduled in Dec 2011.

The 2006 coup happened mainly because Thaksin controlled all the checks and balances required in a democracy, by putting his family and friends in all the high positions. The one thing he didn't control was the army, but not through lack of trying.

The constitution changes were generally aimed at reducing the power of the PM, and reducing the corruption in elections. And ofcourse to keep the coup generals out of jail.

Thaksin showed that loopholes in the 1997 constitution allowed HIM to control too much. More than a leader of any democratic country should control.

I agree a country should not have to change on the demands of a group (PAD, Red Shirts) and it is sad the country averages a military coup every 10 years or so. Maybe better to never hold elections just schedule chaos, crisis, and a coup every 10 years.

I understand how you see things, but in Thailand nothings quite what is reported, labeled and stated (IMO).

Edited April 25, 2010 by kenai

[agord]

It's looking like Kent State all over again.......1970 riot over a US planned Cambodia invasion when upset students looted, threw rocks and bottles, and otherwise taunted the police and military for a few days.

Result - 4 dead and one paralyzed for life as national guard fired rounds over a few seconds. The riot ended, but marred the country for quite some time.

If this event can be etched in the memory of nearly all Americans after 40 years, imagine what the latest incidents (and incidents yet to come) will do to the small country of Thailand.

Except nobody was paying the Kent State students and they were well informed on the issues and knew why they were protesting so actually it is nothing like Kent State.

[Beardog]

Quote: Calling the Redshirts Terrorists is a dangerous game.

How can the Redshirts cause maximum disruption to this government ? By acts of real terrorism, bombs in Tourist areas for example, kill a few hundred Farangs, destroy the tourist industry stone dead.

Gm1955 I think you need to take off your rosies & call a spade a spade. In the U.S. this is considered terrorism & treason. Do you think Thailand would be better turning the other cheek & having a blind eye to the acts against the government & kingdom.

Not being left or right in this fight it seems like something has to be done. Only in Thailand would (in the name of democracy) would it be allowed to cripple the country. All other countries would have snuffed the insurgency out. It is truly unfortunate for this country that they are to weak to go out & find Taksin & eliminate the problem. Here a dead martyr's name would die out quickly unless some else doles out the bought & paid for payroll. I am not advocating to wipe out the reds but sometime the governments have to make tough calls. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few.

[kratiam]

THE NATION: Thaksin said he's been to many countries so few chances to contact protesters

Just shows how much interest he has in the people that are supposedly prepared to die for him. Mind you of course business and money always came first.

Cheers, Rick

Another 'spot on' comment......

[bangkokrick]

THE NATION: Thaksin said he's been to many countries so few chances to contact protesters

Just shows how much interest he has in the people that are supposedly prepared to die for him. Mind you of course business and money always came first.

Cheers, Rick

as the 'jockey' here he plays to much SIM City in Saudi Arabia.

Lets revoke the aircraft licence and the pilots' licences. I think the aircraft is in a miserable shape and still registered in Thailand. Keep him busy so he doesn't have much time to cause more troubles as he already did.

You can rest assured that he's in daily contact with red leaders via secret lines. His aim is destruction and extorting the country.

I am surprised as to why he is allowed to travel freely around the world given that he is a fugitive. The countries that he is visiting should take the lead of the UK and Germany to refuse him entry knowing that he is behind the mayhem in Thailand. So much for the UN.

Cheers, Rick

[animatic]

Somchai, and Samak never faced the voters as PMs either,

Agreed and they too following the David Cameron rule should have been compelled to face the voters within the six months limit.

Wow twice we agree, well mostly this time.

Now the one problem is 6 months another election, besides the expense,

when all the parliamentarians are already seated.

I really think the french model should be tried here.

Election One

Let all the little parties run and have election free for all.

Then if one party does NOT get 50%+

Election Two

A run off between top two parties happens 2 weeks later.

This has two distinct benefits:

1 ) it takes out all the little self interest parties

and lets those with the closest to an actual mandate fight it out

2 ) those that voted for the little parties are now free to vote again for

the bigger vote getters choosing between the two available philosophies.

3 ) if a little self-interest or purely regional power broker party

gets it's 50% in election 1 or 2 it still gets it's seat and can vote as it sees fit.

4 ) a mandated lead party MUST come from this configuration.

Fair to all the little parties had their shot,

But those with the ability to actual get a mandate go at it.

It also encourages the little parties to work with their closest bigger party and causes unity

and in the end greater strength for the smaller parties, becoming permanent parts of a large unit.

In France there is a president voted in directly by the electorate and a PM voted in by the MPs.

and not neccesarily from the same party at all. See: Socialist PM Jospin and Gaulist Pres Chirac.

And here is a head turner,

what is wrong with a constitutional monarch over a republic?

Essentially this is here now, but never called that,

and without a directly elected president to run the executive.

If we want to see absolute undiluted mandates from the majority of the electorate,

then run off by the two biggest parties seems the best and only choice.

Edited April 25, 2010 by animatic

[Robbie Dye]

When Thaksin said this is his final stand, THIS time, he really wasn't kidding. If I wasn't an atheist, I would say something like God save Thailand.

Wasn't that a General Custer thing? Six inches or something with an arrow through it?

[offissa]

I love that opening line

""1st. 20m of 60m is not a majority" You wrote.

You are incorrect."

What part of; 'a majority is 50% or more', does this poster not understand.

No most certainly and without a doubt YOU are incorrect.

30 million +1 is a slim majority of 60 million.

But also as pointed out children don't count, only voters.

Using UN/Unicef's numbers

67,386,000 Total 2008 population

18,007,000 total under 18 population 26.7% are children

so take your 34 miilion and remove 9,078,000 or 26.7%

so then you have 24,922,000 voters + or -

So at BEST 36% of the nation if EVERY voter in Issan AND the north voted,

AND if EVERY voter in there also voted exclusively red,

which is not the case.

Which leaves 64% of the country NOT voting for the Red.

But then remove the children from that group

and the numbers come up about what we see in the polls.

And so the main difference is the relative strength of vote buying efforts,

and control of information flow / indoctrination, up in Issan by The Thaksin Machine.

Strange reasoning. If nobody outside Isaan and the North can be counted as a Red supporter, and if children are also eliminated, then indeed the Reds certainly could not count a majority of the population as supporters.

I doubt that any political party anywhere could claim majority support under such stringent criteria.

[animatic]

A disappointing but unsurprising response from the biggest stubborn mule PM the world has ever seen.

Nope, that would be the other guy, Thaksin.

I concur. Thaksin is very stubborn. He could call this off tonight, but won't because he is desperate to return to Thailand at any cost.

Cheers, Rick

Thaksin wants/needs/yearns/craves to go in the annuls of history as the first president (for life) of the Republic of Thailand

Or just wants a big ass revenge on his enemies before he dies.

Gathering face back to take to the grave, by ruining his enemies,

so terribly old world Chinese of him

[BKjohn]

Or just wants a big ass revenge on his enemies before he dies.

Gathering face back to take to the grave, by ruining his enemies,

so terribly old world Chinese of him

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

You are forgetting, he has a son and as a good father he wants to leave him something .. like Thailand

Probably spend an evening with Kim in North Korea discussing the values of Fatherhood

[jefro]

Reds block police from entering BKK

• Published: 25/04/2010 at 09:50 AM
  
• Online news: Local News
  

Groups of red-shirt protesters in the upper northeastern provinces on Sunday morning converged on Mitraphap road in Udon Thani province to stop 178 policemen from joining the security forces in Bangkok, reports said.

[animatic]

I love that opening line

""1st. 20m of 60m is not a majority" You wrote.

You are incorrect."

What part of; 'a majority is 50% or more', does this poster not understand.

No most certainly and without a doubt YOU are incorrect.

30 million +1 is a slim majority of 60 million.

But also as pointed out children don't count, only voters.

Using UN/Unicef's numbers

67,386,000 Total 2008 population

18,007,000 total under 18 population 26.7% are children

so take your 34 miilion and remove 9,078,000 or 26.7%

so then you have 24,922,000 voters + or -

So at BEST 36% of the nation if EVERY voter in Issan AND the north voted,

AND if EVERY voter in there also voted exclusively red,

which is not the case.

Which leaves 64% of the country NOT voting for the Red.

But then remove the children from that group

and the numbers come up about what we see in the polls.

And so the main difference is the relative strength of vote buying efforts,

and control of information flow / indoctrination, up in Issan by The Thaksin Machine.

Strange reasoning. If nobody outside Isaan and the North can be counted as a Red supporter, and if children are also eliminated, then indeed the Reds certainly could not count a majority of the population as supporters.

I doubt that any political party anywhere could claim majority support under such stringent criteria.

That IS the point, it is quite close to a dead heat, with a light leaning towards Issan,

partly because of their control of the discourse with an iron hand,

and strength at political machine purchasing of influence.

And yet they CLAIM a majority, as reason to tear the nation apart.

Under 18 can't vote and so don't count in this calculation of voter strength.

Having 6 children vs having only 2.13 does NOT raise your voting power,

until those kids become voters themselves.

[boggle]

Somchai, and Samak never faced the voters as PMs either,

Agreed and they too following the David Cameron rule should have been compelled to face the voters within the six months limit.

Wow twice we agree, well mostly this time.

Now the one problem is 6 months another election, besides the expense,

when all the parliamentarians are already seated.

I really think the french model should be tried here.

Let all the little parties run and have election 1 the fre for all.

Then if one party does NOT get 50%+

a run off between top two parties happens 2 weeks later.

This has two distinct benefits:

1 ) it takes out all the little self interest parties

and lets those with the closest to an actual mandate fight it out

2 ) those that voted for the little parties are now free to vote again for

the bigger vote getters choosing between the two available philosophies.

Fair to all the little parties had their shot,

But those with the ability to actual get a mandate go at it.

It also encourages the little parties to work with their closest bigger party and causes unity

and in the end greater strength for the smaller parties, becoming permanent parts of a large unit.

In France there is a president voted in directly by the electorate and a PM voted in by the MPs.

and not neccesarily from the same party at all. See: Socialist PM Jospin and Gaulist Pres Chirac.

And here is a head turner,

what is wrong with a constitutional monarch over a republic?

Essentially this is here now, but never called that,

and without a directly elected president to run the executive.

If we want to see absolute undiluted mandates from the majority of the electorate,

then run off by the two biggest parties seems the best and only choice.

Another option is to have preferential voting. As in Australia. This would alleviate the need for any more rounds of voting.

[BKjohn]

Looking at the adverts showing real-estate its sort of wild, offering low prices I wonder if they had any idea how low those prices will be very soon

[jayboy]

Sorry double post

Edited April 25, 2010 by jayboy

[melbpete]

I agree a country should not have to change on the demands of a group (PAD, Red Shirts) and it is sad the country averages a military coup every 10 years or so. Maybe better to never hold elections just schedule chaos, crisis, and a coup every 10 years.

I understand how you see things, but in Thailand nothings quite what is reported, labeled and stated (IMO).

I am sure there is plenty going on that none of us know about, and at best, can only speculate.

Abhisit staying on as PM will not solve all of Thailands problems, but it is one step forward in making Thais understand democracy.

Going back to Thaksin, which is the reds main aim, is just step back to his corrupt ways.

Edited April 25, 2010 by melbpete

[Thai at Heart]

Reds block police from entering BKK

• Published: 25/04/2010 at 09:50 AM
  
• Online news: Local News
  

Groups of red-shirt protesters in the upper northeastern provinces on Sunday morning converged on Mitraphap road in Udon Thani province to stop 178 policemen from joining the security forces in Bangkok, reports said.

Why are they drafting police in from 500 km away? Particularly, ones from Isaan?

[SiriusBlack1]

Of course if democracy were usurped in YOUR country, you would not only be inclined but in fact DUTY-bound to defend your nation against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." That's the wording in the United States, other countries are much the same in spirit. I find it painful to think what I would have to do if my country's democracy were taken from me, so it's not surprising you don't give it any thought.

But that's okay, consistent logic is the enemy of elite revanchists anywhere, I don't expect any different from (what remains of) the yellow-shirt crowd.

Can you please explain how it was "usurped"?

I've seen several detailed explanations of why the government is elected and legitimate.

But all I see from the opposite side is broad statements.

I would be delighted to argue the point with you chapter and verse.

The problem is, every time I cite facts, my posts get deleted.

Even mentioning the fact that posts are censored, is grounds for censorship here.

This post will probably be deleted too. And my warning level raised again.

All I can say is that I stand by my points, I urge you to read more widely than this forum, and if we ever meet in person over a beer I'd be happy to explain in the detail to which you are entitled.

[jayboy]

Wow twice we agree, well mostly this time.

Now the one problem is 6 months another election, besides the expense,

when all the parliamentarians are already seated.

I do tend to believe the Cameron 6 month guideline is too short a period.The French system you suggest obviously has several points of merit.But on the Cameron argument I would suggest one year rather than 6 months.

[kenai]

I love that opening line

""1st. 20m of 60m is not a majority" You wrote.

You are incorrect."

What part of; 'a majority is 50% or more', does this poster not understand.

No most certainly and without a doubt YOU are incorrect.

30 million +1 is a slim majority of 60 million.

But also as pointed out children don't count, only voters.

Using UN/Unicef's numbers

67,386,000 Total 2008 population

18,007,000 total under 18 population 26.7% are children

so take your 34 miilion and remove 9,078,000 or 26.7%

so then you have 24,922,000 voters + or -

So at BEST 36% of the nation if EVERY voter in Issan AND the north voted,

AND if EVERY voter in there also voted exclusively red,

which is not the case.

Which leaves 64% of the country NOT voting for the Red.

But then remove the children from that group

and the numbers come up about what we see in the polls.

And so the main difference is the relative strength of vote buying efforts,

and control of information flow / indoctrination, up in Issan by The Thaksin Machine.

I'm not an expert but I have a feeling I can find a few on here. Doesn't The PM and his party become elected by a House or Senate that is represented by each province? And if so how many provinces are in the North and NE certainly the majority of them are.

Maybe someone can fill me in on the electoral process post 2006. Thanks.

[BKjohn]

Of course if democracy were usurped in YOUR country, you would not only be inclined but in fact DUTY-bound to defend your nation against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." That's the wording in the United States, other countries are much the same in spirit. I find it painful to think what I would have to do if my country's democracy were taken from me, so it's not surprising you don't give it any thought.

But that's okay, consistent logic is the enemy of elite revanchists anywhere, I don't expect any different from (what remains of) the yellow-shirt crowd.

Can you please explain how it was "usurped"?

I've seen several detailed explanations of why the government is elected and legitimate.

But all I see from the opposite side is broad statements.

I would be delighted to argue the point with you chapter and verse.

The problem is, every time I cite facts, my posts get deleted.

Even mentioning the fact that posts are censored, is grounds for censorship here.

This post will probably be deleted too. And my warning level raised again.

All I can say is that I stand by my points, I urge you to read more widely than this forum, and if we ever meet in person over a beer I'd be happy to explain in the detail to which you are entitled.

Those discussions are totally useless - according to the law of the land and the constitution the current government is legal - this is fact and there is really no point in arguing that

Edited April 25, 2010 by BKjohn

[kissdani]

THE NATION: Jatuporn picked up the idea of Rwanda and said the crackdown of UDD means Thailand would become Rwanda.

Non-violent. Right.

Violent indeed, but to be honest I doubt very much that Jatuporn would even know where Rwanda is.

Cheers, Rick

Some peace groups planned the screening of the movie 'Hotel Rwanda' at the Hualamphong train station and invited all groups to watch and take it as lesson to remain peaceful and refrain from using violence. This event was also announced in heavy rotation on Thai television, so it was clearly not a red shirt idea.

That is the context why Jatuporn speaks of Rwanda and using it as example.

Anyway, the planned screening lacked proper coordination and eventually didn't happen. TIT moment.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...l-30127834.html

And there is no doubt that the both of you aren't much smarter than Jatuporn either.