US Assistant Secretary Of State Campbell Meets Red-Shirts Protesters

[yoshiwara]

Never understud why US always put his nose in other countries affairs. US allways like to control everything. This must have a end! It's not their problem. I'm Swiss and if Swizterland would have a conflict with Italy tommorrow (just for example), than it's not the USA's Problem either.

It is if Italy is a member of NATO.

Have another look in your 'for example' kit bag.

[lazurus]

So Somchai didn't have a popular mandate either, and he should have called elections.

Who cares about Somchai anyway . We can also talk bout the pope or Mick Jaeger

they are not the PM . Abhisit is

He was elected to PM in the same way that Abhisit was and the reds weren't complaining then. So he is relevant.

The reds can't have it both ways, and just demand elections when their people aren't in power.

don't you understand, it isn't double standards when the reds do it.

[pornsasi]

It wasn't the Abhisit's decision for the PPP to commit electoral fraud and get themselves in trouble. Why hold an immediate election for the benefit of a party that already cheated to win the last one? The democrats came to power legally under the constitution, which is more important than your opinion.

Glad to see you wish to ignore Somchai who came to power the same way as Abhisit because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

for the benefit ? Do you mean to say that the PM dont call for election because he thinks

that the PTP will win those ? Then it means the PM thinks that he is illegitimate , lets call

a cat a cat

[pornsasi]

It wasn't the Abhisit's decision for the PPP to commit electoral fraud and get themselves in trouble. Why hold an immediate election for the benefit of a party that already cheated to win the last one? The democrats came to power legally under the constitution, which is more important than your opinion.

Glad to see you wish to ignore Somchai who came to power the same way as Abhisit because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

Somchai is not actuality , thats why i ignored him , or do you want me to talk about the yellows

which obviously are your brother in arms ?

Alright anyway i have work to do . talk later

[TheOldWolf]

It wasn't the Abhisit's decision for the PPP to commit electoral fraud and get themselves in trouble. Why hold an immediate election for the benefit of a party that already cheated to win the last one? The democrats came to power legally under the constitution, which is more important than your opinion.

Glad to see you wish to ignore Somchai who came to power the same way as Abhisit because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

for the benefit ? Do you mean to say that the PM dont call for election because he thinks

that the PTP will win those ? Then it means the PM thinks that he is illegitimate , lets call

a cat a cat

Most of us think that Abhisit has a legal and popular mandate. Pornsasi don´t think so and he/she is right to have an opinion, although he/she admits he has a legal mandate. I don´t think that will change even if we try to convince him/her in seven more pages

[noahvail]

It wasn't the Abhisit's decision for the PPP to commit electoral fraud and get themselves in trouble. Why hold an immediate election for the benefit of a party that already cheated to win the last one? The democrats came to power legally under the constitution, which is more important than your opinion.

Glad to see you wish to ignore Somchai who came to power the same way as Abhisit because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

for the benefit ? Do you mean to say that the PM dont call for election because he thinks

that the PTP will win those ? Then it means the PM thinks that he is illegitimate , lets call

a cat a cat

Nah, let's call it clutching at straws...

[pornsasi]

It wasn't the Abhisit's decision for the PPP to commit electoral fraud and get themselves in trouble. Why hold an immediate election for the benefit of a party that already cheated to win the last one? The democrats came to power legally under the constitution, which is more important than your opinion.

Glad to see you wish to ignore Somchai who came to power the same way as Abhisit because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

And yes the PPP got caught and paid the price , fine .

Maybe same will happen to the dems soon BTW

But anyway not a reason for the next PM to take office

without popular mandate

[whybother]

It wasn't the Abhisit's decision for the PPP to commit electoral fraud and get themselves in trouble. Why hold an immediate election for the benefit of a party that already cheated to win the last one? The democrats came to power legally under the constitution, which is more important than your opinion.

Glad to see you wish to ignore Somchai who came to power the same way as Abhisit because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

for the benefit ? Do you mean to say that the PM dont call for election because he thinks

that the PTP will win those ? Then it means the PM thinks that he is illegitimate , lets call

a cat a cat

Abhisit didn't call elections because he didn't have to. All of the electorates of the banned MPs had by-elections, so the people continued to be represented.

Abhisit wasn't in a position to call elections until he was elected as PM. Why would he get elected and then immediately call for new general elections? The PTP (being in government with a care-taker PM after the disbanding of the PPP) could have called elections before Abhisit was elected. The PPP could have called elections before they were disbanded, knowing full well that they had been caught red handed committing electoral fraud.

The PPP and PTP decided that they didn't want to call elections, so what was good enough for them was good enough for Abhisit. It wasn't until the PTP realised that they had lost the support of the coalition partners that they thought an election was a good idea. It was a bit late then. They had their chance and missed it.

[whybother]

It wasn't the Abhisit's decision for the PPP to commit electoral fraud and get themselves in trouble. Why hold an immediate election for the benefit of a party that already cheated to win the last one? The democrats came to power legally under the constitution, which is more important than your opinion.

Glad to see you wish to ignore Somchai who came to power the same way as Abhisit because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

And yes the PPP got caught and paid the price , fine .

Maybe same will happen to the dems soon BTW

But anyway not a reason for the next PM to take office

without popular mandate

BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Abhisit didn't have a reason to call an election. He was elected to be PM by the majority of elected MPs. The majority of elected MPs represent a majority of the Thai people. That means that Abhisit HAS a popular mandate.

[pornsasi]

Abhisit didn't call elections because he didn't have to. All of the electorates of the banned MPs had by-elections, so the people continued to be represented.

Abhisit wasn't in a position to call elections until he was elected as PM. Why would he get elected and then immediately call for new general elections? The PTP (being in government with a care-taker PM after the disbanding of the PPP) could have called elections before Abhisit was elected. The PPP could have called elections before they were disbanded, knowing full well that they had been caught red handed committing electoral fraud.

The PPP and PTP decided that they didn't want to call elections, so what was good enough for them was good enough for Abhisit. It wasn't until the PTP realised that they had lost the support of the coalition partners that they thought an election was a good idea. It was a bit late then. They had their chance and missed it.

Right and wrong ... Legally he did not have too , the right part . But wrong if you know what democracy means you have to call for election in such case where the composition of parliament is totally changed and MPs switches side so that majority is changed without any election . Tony Blair leaves and replaced by Gordon Brown ONLY and some ppl found its undemocratic . Well compared to UK , Thailand is planet Mars .

[cheguevara]

It wasn't the Abhisit's decision for the PPP to commit electoral fraud and get themselves in trouble. Why hold an immediate election for the benefit of a party that already cheated to win the last one? The democrats came to power legally under the constitution, which is more important than your opinion.

Glad to see you wish to ignore Somchai who came to power the same way as Abhisit because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

And yes the PPP got caught and paid the price , fine .

Maybe same will happen to the dems soon BTW

But anyway not a reason for the next PM to take office

without popular mandate

BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Abhisit didn't have a reason to call an election. He was elected to be PM by the majority of elected MPs. The majority of elected MPs represent a majority of the Thai people. That means that Abhisit HAS a popular mandate.

After the party that really won the majority was dissolved, yes. So basically, the votes of nearly half of the Thai population were voided. New elections should have been called back then and maybe we wouldn't have this mess.

[pornsasi]

BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Abhisit didn't have a reason to call an election. He was elected to be PM by the majority of elected MPs. The majority of elected MPs represent a majority of the Thai people. That means that Abhisit HAS a popular mandate.

He did have a reason : The parliament no longer represents the ppl for sure .

Which you might discover to your great sorrow , at the next elections .

Thats the result of that stupid article 237 in the 2007 constitution drafted

by the best democrats in the world ... thai generals .

Constitution voted in a referendum where it was illegal to campain for a NO vote

to the extent that ppl got arrested for that .

Well Hitler did the same in his time

Edited May 10, 2010 by pornsasi

[retarius]

Everybody knows the political affiliation of most posters here . This forum head bears the "Nation" paper , so its not surprising .

Yes everyone knows how a coalition work , thats not the issue here . The issue is that any parliament must result

of a popular mandate , which is currently not the case

No there are no proofs , am so sorry for you .

If there was real proofs the US would not be talking to the red shirts .

If they talked to them its because they believe the movement have some legitimacy .

You've seen all the explanations, but you still come up with the "popular mandate" stuff.

How, in your opinion, does a government get a "popular mandate"?

And can you please explain how the PPP had a "popular mandate"?

And then maybe explain how that differs to the Democrats?

If you dont know then why are you telling me the PM has a popular mandate ? .

You get a popular mandate by having a general election of the parliament

followed by a vote of that parliament that elects the prime minister as part

of a coalition OR by the absolute majority in the rare case one party has it .

Anything else is NO popular mandate

I ask because I never get a red supporter to explain their version. They just make statements without any detail backing it up.

So Abhisit was elected as an MP in a general election. He was elected by the parliament to be PM. He therefore has a "popular mandate".

I'll make a FINAL attempt at this: there was a 1997 Constitution was based on first past the post winners; Thaksin won handily two straight elections; he was ILLEGALLY deposed in 2006 (constitutional methods existed to deal with his alleged corruption but these were ignored); the military junta wrote a constitution designed to water down the power of the poor by introducing multiple representatives of constituencies (and incidentally the coup leaders were granted amnesty under the terms of the document); in a tactic worth of my avatar, the junta made criticism and campaigning against the constitution a criminal offense punishable by 10 years in prison and mounted a huge vote yes campaign in a referendum; international groups denounced the tactics used to secure the passage of the constitution; thus the constitution is tainted and why the reds want a return to the 1997 constitution.

Despite having the odds stacked against them the Thaksin backed parties still had the most seats in parliament and were able to form the government in the elections under the new constitution...this was intolerable to the elites and so in a collaboration between a partial judiciary using selective prosecution for political advantage ie banning the Thaksin favoring parties for vote buying when of course, vote buying applies across the political spectrum in Thailand; and the PAD demonstrating, closing the government buildings and the airports, then Abhisit was able to coerce/bribe (I read on here that Newin and his fellow BJT MPs got 40 million baht apiece...but given the source I don't know that it is relaible) a red coalition faction into his camp to enable him to form the current governemnt....

You can judge yourself wether he has a 'popular mandate'...but you can see that reasonable poeple might have different views on whether he has....

[pornsasi]

After the party that really won the majority was dissolved, yes. So basically, the votes of nearly half of the Thai population were voided. New elections should have been called back then and maybe we wouldn't have this mess.

Yes you are right , probably we would not have this mess .

And the US would not be talking to the reds

[whybother]

Right and wrong ... Legally he did not have too , the right part . But wrong if you know what democracy means you have to call for election in such case where the composition of parliament is totally changed and MPs switches side so that majority is changed without any election . Tony Blair leaves and replaced by Gordon Brown ONLY and some ppl found its undemocratic . Well compared to UK , Thailand is planet Mars .

In similar systems (Aus and UK) there are by-elections all the time, and sometimes an MP (particularly smaller party or independant MPs) even changes sides.

This rarely causes a change in government. Sometimes it causes a hung parliament (no one with a majority), which usually requires an election so that a party (or coalition) can get a majority for the government to function.

Since in this case, enough MPs changed sides that a new coalition government was formed, it does not make it undemocratic. The MPs were using their democratic right to say that the existing government was incompetent and that they want to form a new government.

And given that it was legal, and the laws were designed for a democracy, that also makes it democratic.

[whybother]

After the party that really won the majority was dissolved, yes. So basically, the votes of nearly half of the Thai population were voided. New elections should have been called back then and maybe we wouldn't have this mess.

Which party won the majority?

The votes of "nearly half" of the population WERE NOT voided. A small number of MPs were banned. There WERE by-elections that replaced those MPs.

EVERYONE is represented by an MP in parliament.

That's the problem with the red supporters. They ignore many of the facts to form their opinions.

[pornsasi]

I'll make a FINAL attempt at this: there was a 1997 Constitution was based on first past the post winners; Thaksin won handily two straight elections; he was ILLEGALLY deposed in 2006 (constitutional methods existed to deal with his alleged corruption but these were ignored); the military junta wrote a constitution designed to water down the power of the poor by introducing multiple representatives of constituencies (and incidentally the coup leaders were granted amnesty under the terms of the document); in a tactic worth of my avatar, the junta made criticism and campaigning against the constitution a criminal offense punishable by 10 years in prison and mounted a huge vote yes campaign in a referendum; international groups denounced the tactics used to secure the passage of the constitution; thus the constitution is tainted and why the reds want a return to the 1997 constitution.

Despite having the odds stacked against them the Thaksin backed parties still had the most seats in parliament and were able to form the government in the elections under the new constitution...this was intolerable to the elites and so in a collaboration between a partial judiciary using selective prosecution for political advantage ie banning the Thaksin favoring parties for vote buying when of course, vote buying applies across the political spectrum in Thailand; and the PAD demonstrating, closing the government buildings and the airports, then Abhisit was able to coerce/bribe (I read on here that Newin and his fellow BJT MPs got 40 million baht apiece...but given the source I don't know that it is relaible) a red coalition faction into his camp to enable him to form the current governemnt....

You can judge yourself wether he has a 'popular mandate'...but you can see that reasonable poeple might have different views on whether he has....

Very right .

But those guys here dont understand how democracy works . To them democracy is just respect the constitution !

No matter how outlandish it is .

But of course those guys represent the yellow elite , the yellows dont even believe in democracy to start with

[pornsasi]

Right and wrong ... Legally he did not have too , the right part . But wrong if you know what democracy means you have to call for election in such case where the composition of parliament is totally changed and MPs switches side so that majority is changed without any election . Tony Blair leaves and replaced by Gordon Brown ONLY and some ppl found its undemocratic . Well compared to UK , Thailand is planet Mars .

In similar systems (Aus and UK) there are by-elections all the time, and sometimes an MP (particularly smaller party or independant MPs) even changes sides.

This rarely causes a change in government. Sometimes it causes a hung parliament (no one with a majority), which usually requires an election so that a party (or coalition) can get a majority for the government to function.

Since in this case, enough MPs changed sides that a new coalition government was formed, it does not make it undemocratic. The MPs were using their democratic right to say that the existing government was incompetent and that they want to form a new government.

And given that it was legal, and the laws were designed for a democracy, that also makes it democratic.

It never happens in UK , and if it happened i cant dream of a PM getting himself elected without consulting the electorate .

Well in UK politicians have some moral obligations to their constituents , not sometrhing you find

in Thailand .

[pornsasi]

After the party that really won the majority was dissolved, yes. So basically, the votes of nearly half of the Thai population were voided. New elections should have been called back then and maybe we wouldn't have this mess.

Which party won the majority?

The votes of "nearly half" of the population WERE NOT voided. A small number of MPs were banned. There WERE by-elections that replaced those MPs.

EVERYONE is represented by an MP in parliament.

That's the problem with the red supporters. They ignore many of the facts to form their opinions.

I thought you were against cooking shows ! or does it only apply outside parliament ?

[selftaopath]

The US government has a long time rule never to discuss or negotiate with terrorists. So why is the assistant secretary of state making an exception now? Is it because these terrorists are not threatening the US? Not only Thailand has double standards.

Agreed. These people ought not be called "PROTESTERS." They are wanting to "overthrow" the govt. They are lawless, paid criminals. NOT protesters.

[whybother]

I'll make a FINAL attempt at this: there was a 1997 Constitution was based on first past the post winners; Thaksin won handily two straight elections; he was ILLEGALLY deposed in 2006 (constitutional methods existed to deal with his alleged corruption but these were ignored); the military junta wrote a constitution designed to water down the power of the poor by introducing multiple representatives of constituencies (and incidentally the coup leaders were granted amnesty under the terms of the document); in a tactic worth of my avatar, the junta made criticism and campaigning against the constitution a criminal offense punishable by 10 years in prison and mounted a huge vote yes campaign in a referendum; international groups denounced the tactics used to secure the passage of the constitution; thus the constitution is tainted and why the reds want a return to the 1997 constitution.

Despite having the odds stacked against them the Thaksin backed parties still had the most seats in parliament and were able to form the government in the elections under the new constitution...this was intolerable to the elites and so in a collaboration between a partial judiciary using selective prosecution for political advantage ie banning the Thaksin favoring parties for vote buying when of course, vote buying applies across the political spectrum in Thailand; and the PAD demonstrating, closing the government buildings and the airports, then Abhisit was able to coerce/bribe (I read on here that Newin and his fellow BJT MPs got 40 million baht apiece...but given the source I don't know that it is relaible) a red coalition faction into his camp to enable him to form the current governemnt....

You can judge yourself wether he has a 'popular mandate'...but you can see that reasonable poeple might have different views on whether he has....

Yes. The coup WAS illegal. I am not arguing that point. The junta ousted an APPOINTED care-taker PM who hadn't organised elections in the required time.

Yes. The constitution is tainted. That is why Abhisit wants it to be changed with input from ALL parties and community groups and for it to be voted on by the people in a referendum.

I wasn't aware that the constitution introduced "multiple representatives of constituencies". How did that affect the elections? Do the red areas have less representation because of it (ie one vote is less than one vote)?

There were MPs banned from many parties (including the Democrats) after the 2007 election. The PPP was disbanded because the PPP executive were caught red-handed committing electoral fraud. The Democrat executive may also be disbanded for mis-use of electoral funds or receiving illegal (too much from one source I believe) donations.

There a lots of rumours as to why the BJT decided to switch sides. There a lot of rumours as to why many smaller parties decided to support the PPP in the first place. Newin said after he switched sides "I don't like it, but it's for the good of the country" (or words to that effect).

The reason that the reds are protesting is because they are not in power. It has nothing to do with the idea that they should be in power. They don't care that a majority of MPs (representing a majority of the people) decided that they don't want the reds in power.

"Reasonable people" might think that this was all a bit dodgy, but reasonable people wouldn't participate in violent protests to overthrow a legal and legitimate government.

[pornsasi]

The US government has a long time rule never to discuss or negotiate with terrorists. So why is the assistant secretary of state making an exception now? Is it because these terrorists are not threatening the US? Not only Thailand has double standards.

Agreed. These people ought not be called "PROTESTERS." They are wanting to "overthrow" the govt. They are lawless, paid criminals. NOT protesters.

They dont want to overthrow the governement , they want elections , and so does the thai army

a majority of thais and the rest of the world .

That is somewhat different

[gemini81]

What a hypocrite! I can't believe the guy would even talk to these red terrorists.

Hmm ...3 anonymous forum posts claiming the red shirts are terrorists. US Assistant Secretary of State seems to think otherwise. Hmm, who should I believe. Who's more credible ...hmmm, such a tough question!

The answer is that it is probably a more tangled web than we the public are even aware of. Things are a mess! Terrorist is a term used to invoke fear and make things look extreme. The reds just may be that, but it seems like a term thrown around a lot these days doesn't it?! The siege has gotten long and ridiculous. Maybe the Sec of State was trying to get a perspective from the eyes of the "underdog," or whatever you wanna call the Red shirts.

[whybother]

I thought you were against cooking shows ! or does it only apply outside parliament ?

I am just against elected MPs having multiple jobs. They should concentrate on being MPs.

I don't mind cooking shows.

[difos57]

Ex-army or serving army officers have weapons at home . What do you expect ? In the Philippines some of my friends , that are neither police or army have M16's at home , i saw those myself . Does not mean they are using them ? No ! That actor is a plant , obvious . We are talking about red shirts , not some nutcase shooting at army or police . If you have proof that red shirts shot the policeman 2 days ago or shot the grenade in Silom , show them , or else dont speculate non sense and waist everybody's time

You certainly have interesting friends, who have M16s in their home. Are they used for deer hunting? When I hunted, the rule was one shot, one drop. Why do they have weapons that fire some 12 rounds per second?

Do you happen to have friends in Bangkok, too?

Ahh. so the truth is coming out. I f he keeps writing, I wonder what else will slip out.

[bkkjames]

The US government has a long time rule never to discuss or negotiate with terrorists. So why is the assistant secretary of state making an exception now? Is it because these terrorists are not threatening the US? Not only Thailand has double standards.

Agreed. These people ought not be called "PROTESTERS." They are wanting to "overthrow" the govt. They are lawless, paid criminals. NOT protesters.

They dont want to overthrow the governement , they want elections , and so does the thai army

a majority of thais and the rest of the world .

That is somewhat different

and on Nov 14 they shall have them. Now go home, report to the authorities on May 15 and plead chronic insanity.

[whybother]

The US government has a long time rule never to discuss or negotiate with terrorists. So why is the assistant secretary of state making an exception now? Is it because these terrorists are not threatening the US? Not only Thailand has double standards.

Agreed. These people ought not be called "PROTESTERS." They are wanting to "overthrow" the govt. They are lawless, paid criminals. NOT protesters.

They dont want to overthrow the governement , they want elections , and so does the thai army

a majority of thais and the rest of the world .

That is somewhat different

"Forcing the government to step down" is the same as "overthrow".

The army wants it sorted out politically, and not violently. If the reds can't come to a political resolution, it will probably become violent.

Majority of Thais???? A minority group are calling for elections. Other minority groups are telling the government to stand firm.

Rest of the world???? I haven't seen anything from the rest of the world calling for elections. There have only been calls for a peaceful resolution, and lots of support for the road map.

[pornsasi]

Yes. The coup WAS illegal. I am not arguing that point. The junta ousted an APPOINTED care-taker PM who hadn't organised elections in the required time.

Yes. The constitution is tainted. That is why Abhisit wants it to be changed with input from ALL parties and community groups and for it to be voted on by the people in a referendum.

I wasn't aware that the constitution introduced "multiple representatives of constituencies". How did that affect the elections? Do the red areas have less representation because of it (ie one vote is less than one vote)?

There were MPs banned from many parties (including the Democrats) after the 2007 election. The PPP was disbanded because the PPP executive were caught red-handed committing electoral fraud. The Democrat executive may also be disbanded for mis-use of electoral funds or receiving illegal (too much from one source I believe) donations.

There a lots of rumours as to why the BJT decided to switch sides. There a lot of rumours as to why many smaller parties decided to support the PPP in the first place. Newin said after he switched sides "I don't like it, but it's for the good of the country" (or words to that effect).

The reason that the reds are protesting is because they are not in power. It has nothing to do with the idea that they should be in power. They don't care that a majority of MPs (representing a majority of the people) decided that they don't want the reds in power.

"Reasonable people" might think that this was all a bit dodgy, but reasonable people wouldn't participate in violent protests to overthrow a legal and legitimate government.

Thaksin was ONLY appointed because the DEms boycotted the April 2006 elections and paid smaller parties to do the same . Else Thaksin would have been elected when the coup happened , a month before nerw elections were due to take place .

Good that you admitt the 2007 constitution is tainted . Take note that without it however Abhisit would not be the PM

Yes bout the PPP....

Exactly one can only wonder why the BJT switched side . Knowing the corruption practise in Thailand sound strange . Thats why also general elections would have been needed

Of course the reds/PTP think they should be in power , given above one can understand that . The thai ppl will decide anyway if Abhisit let them , coz the army will let them .

The reds by an large majority want election not overthrow , only some nutcases want overthrow

[pornsasi]

and on Nov 14 they shall have them. Now go home, report to the authorities on May 15 and plead chronic insanity.

We were not talking bout that ...

Good for you to take the train while moving . you sound really informed .

As usual .

[pornsasi]

"Forcing the government to step down" is the same as "overthrow".

Last time i checked the reds Nuttawong and Veera said they agree to Abhisit road map