US Assistant Secretary Of State Campbell Meets Red-Shirts Protesters

[whybother]

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

The Democrats boycotted the elections because they were not going to be free or fair.

One of the reasons the 2006 election was invalidated (prior to the coup) was that the (Thaksin appointed) EC had set up the voting booths so that there was no privacy. This allowed people to "verify" that the voters had voted "the correct way" (ie they way they had been paid).

Since when is it a crime NOT to stand in an election?

I said the constitution was tainted. I didn't say it was (completely) wrong. The laws restricting the corruption of elections should be in there. The only reason the reds want them out, is that is the only way they can get into government.

[bendejo]

Considering that he is the Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I'd say he knows quite a bit more about politics in Thailand than some of the forum members here.

Don't get too caught up in the titles they give these bureaucrats, this guy could merely be someone who sits at a desk and collects reports from underlings and passes them on to the overlords, waiting for his time to move up the ladder, hopefully to something cushy, like US ambassador to Monaco.

Ever see the Jamie Foxx movie "The Kingdom"? The US rep in that movie fits what I expect most of these guys to be like. US ambassadorships are handed out like Christmas presents to those who have been faithful to the ruling party, supportive of particular election campaigns, etc. Some of Uncle Sam's biggest foreign snafus have been the result of something crucial occurring overseas and the person whose job it is to deal with it is completely clueless.

[animatic]

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

The two PM's right before Abhisit had no more than a 1/2% plurality electoral advantage as MINORITY party.

So their mandate was no stronger to form a coalition that Abhisit's,

and the PPP tried twice and failed a third time as PTP. Their fault and non one elses.

After losing the confidence of THEIR coalition partners, a new coalition was formed.

A mandate is delivered by an overwhelming popular confidence, this has not existed.

England will have a VERY similar situation shortly.

[pornsasi]

The Democrats boycotted the elections because they were not going to be free or fair.

One of the reasons the 2006 election was invalidated (prior to the coup) was that the (Thaksin appointed) EC had set up the voting booths so that there was no privacy. This allowed people to "verify" that the voters had voted "the correct way" (ie they way they had been paid).

Since when is it a crime NOT to stand in an election?

I said the constitution was tainted. I didn't say it was (completely) wrong. The laws restricting the corruption of elections should be in there. The only reason the reds want them out, is that is the only way they can get into government.

So instead they supported a coup which is free and fair

A month before the Oct 2006 elections . Which they knew they would loose . how convenient , dont you think

No the 2007 constitution is not completely wrong , but the wrong part of it , got Abhisit "elected"

the article 237 is idiotic , unless it makes mandatory a general election and its not practical . what f.e if both democrats and PTP are convinced of corruption .

Both are banned ? Parties keep on changing every good dam_n day ? As if the thai system is not messy enough .

You could had same deterrent by increasing penalties , say 10 years ban on the party executives + cuplrits

[Publicus]

Considering that he is the Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I'd say he knows quite a bit more about politics in Thailand than some of the forum members here.

Don't get too caught up in the titles they give these bureaucrats, this guy could merely be someone who sits at a desk and collects reports from underlings and passes them on to the overlords, waiting for his time to move up the ladder, hopefully to something cushy, like US ambassador to Monaco.

Ever see the Jamie Foxx movie "The Kingdom"? The US rep in that movie fits what I expect most of these guys to be like. US ambassadorships are handed out like Christmas presents to those who have been faithful to the ruling party, supportive of particular election campaigns, etc. Some of Uncle Sam's biggest foreign snafus have been the result of something crucial occurring overseas and the person whose job it is to deal with it is completely clueless.

AsstSecState Campbell has a doctorate in international relations from Oxford.

He was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and Pacific Affairs.

Was with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington for Asia and Pacific Affairs.

Was with the London based Internation Institute of Strategic Studies, Asia and Pacific Affairs.

Was a member of the White House National Security Council, Asia and Pacific Affairs

The list goes on. Dr. Campbell is a professional, an expert with credentials and experience.

Whether or not Washington officially considers the Red Shirts as terrorists, I do.

Either way, I support Dr. Campbell's official involvement at this time and the direct involvement of the US Government.

The US does not get involved in cakewalks. This is a tough business and a thankless task as we see from certain of the posts to this thread. Dr. Campbell knows he has to succeed and I wish both him and Thailand well at this critical time of Thai history.

[pornsasi]

The two PM's right before Abhisit had no more than a 1/2% plurality electoral advantage as MINORITY party.

So their mandate was no stronger to form a coalition that Abhisit's,

and the PPP tried twice and failed a third time as PTP. Their fault and non one elses.

After losing the confidence of THEIR coalition partners, a new coalition was formed.

A mandate is delivered by an overwhelming popular confidence, this has not existed.

England will have a VERY similar situation shortly.

A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament elected by popular mandate is valid .

A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament manipulated by the court , not following

a general election dont have a popular mandate to govern .

That is called democracy ...

England will not have a similar situation , Torries, lib dem and labour MPs will get elected

Lib dems will ally themselves with the torries probably and a PM will be elected by the coalition.

Perfectly democratic

Edited May 10, 2010 by pornsasi

[ChiangMaiFun]

The two PM's right before Abhisit had no more than a 1/2% plurality electoral advantage as MINORITY party.

So their mandate was no stronger to form a coalition that Abhisit's,

and the PPP tried twice and failed a third time as PTP. Their fault and non one elses.

After losing the confidence of THEIR coalition partners, a new coalition was formed.

A mandate is delivered by an overwhelming popular confidence, this has not existed.

England will have a VERY similar situation shortly.

A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament elected by popular mandate is valid .

A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament manipulated by the court , not following

a general election dont have a popular mandate to govern .

That is called democracy ...

England will not have a similar situation , Torries, lib dem and labour MPs will get elected

Lib dems will ally themselves with the torries probably and a PM will be elected by the coalition.

Perfectly democratic

Exactly... no similarities with England - which has had 35 years of single party rule - there will be NO vote buying, NO cheating and NO violence because if it - no comparison.

Abhisit has no mandate - but the yellow triumvirate on here will never see it

[whybother]

So instead they supported a coup which is free and fair

A month before the Oct 2006 elections . Which they knew they would loose . how convenient , dont you think

No the 2007 constitution is not completely wrong , but the wrong part of it , got Abhisit "elected"

the article 237 is idiotic , unless it makes mandatory a general election and its not practical . what f.e if both democrats and PTP are convinced of corruption .

Both are banned ? Parties keep on changing every good dam_n day ? As if the thai system is not messy enough .

You could had same deterrent by increasing penalties , say 10 years ban on the party executives + cuplrits

I don't believe they supported the coup. But they didn't actively demonstrate against it (and neither did many people).

Which part got Abhisit elected? The part that says you can't pay people to vote for you? Are laws against corruption a bad thing?

The PTP could have formed government after the PPP were banned, except they lost the support of the smaller parties.

If the Democrat executives get banned, it is still possible that the leftovers will still be able to form government with the help of the smaller parties.

That would piss the reds off.

[pornsasi]

Exactly... no similarities with England - which has had 35 years of single party rule - there will be NO vote buying, NO cheating and NO violence because if it - no comparison.

Abhisit has no mandate - but the yellow triumvirate on here will never see it

Well said . Its possible , not certain , that in UK there will be a coalition needed but it will work as it has in the distant past . Because no corruption , no violence and no cheating as you explained . And MPs feel as they have obligations towards their constituents .

What do the yellows here understand about democracy anyway ? They are on the whole against it... to start with ..

[whybother]

Exactly... no similarities with England - which has had 35 years of single party rule - there will be NO vote buying, NO cheating and NO violence because if it - no comparison.

Abhisit has no mandate - but the yellow triumvirate on here will never see it

Well said . Its possible , not certain , that in UK there will be a coalition needed but it will work as it has in the distant past . Because no corruption , no violence and no cheating as you explained . And MPs feel as they have obligations towards their constituents .

What do the yellows here understand about democracy anyway ? They are on the whole against it... to start with ..

Agreed. That's why I don't support the yellow shirts.

[noahvail]

Exactly... no similarities with England - which has had 35 years of single party rule - there will be NO vote buying, NO cheating and NO violence because if it - no comparison.

Abhisit has no mandate - but the yellow triumvirate on here will never see it

Well said . Its possible , not certain , that in UK there will be a coalition needed but it will work as it has in the distant past . Because no corruption , no violence and no cheating as you explained . And MPs feel as they have obligations towards their constituents .

What do the yellows here understand about democracy anyway ? They are on the whole against it... to start with ..

Agreed. That's why I don't support the yellow shirts.

Seconded.

[pornsasi]

So instead they supported a coup which is free and fair

A month before the Oct 2006 elections . Which they knew they would loose . how convenient , dont you think

No the 2007 constitution is not completely wrong , but the wrong part of it , got Abhisit "elected"

the article 237 is idiotic , unless it makes mandatory a general election and its not practical . what f.e if both democrats and PTP are convinced of corruption .

Both are banned ? Parties keep on changing every good dam_n day ? As if the thai system is not messy enough .

You could had same deterrent by increasing penalties , say 10 years ban on the party executives + cuplrits

I don't believe they supported the coup. But they didn't actively demonstrate against it (and neither did many people).

Which part got Abhisit elected? The part that says you can't pay people to vote for you? Are laws against corruption a bad thing?

The PTP could have formed government after the PPP were banned, except they lost the support of the smaller parties.

If the Democrat executives get banned, it is still possible that the leftovers will still be able to form government with the help of the smaller parties.

That would piss the reds off.

The part that dissolve a party ...

Yes anything is possible , thats not the point . The point is that anything or something should not be possible without popular mandate .

not the job of PM at least

[whybother]

A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament elected by popular mandate is valid .

A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament manipulated by the court , not following

a general election dont have a popular mandate to govern .

That is called democracy ...

England will not have a similar situation , Torries, lib dem and labour MPs will get elected

Lib dems will ally themselves with the torries probably and a PM will be elected by the coalition.

Perfectly democratic

"A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament manipulated by the court"

The current coalition wasn't born by the court. The court disbanded the PPP. The PTP could have still formed government.

The current coalition was born by MPs who no longer supported the PPP/PTP. The court had nothing to do with that.

You get a popular mandate by having the support of a majority of MPs. That is what the current government got, and continue to have.

[whybother]

I don't believe they supported the coup. But they didn't actively demonstrate against it (and neither did many people).

Which part got Abhisit elected? The part that says you can't pay people to vote for you? Are laws against corruption a bad thing?

The PTP could have formed government after the PPP were banned, except they lost the support of the smaller parties.

If the Democrat executives get banned, it is still possible that the leftovers will still be able to form government with the help of the smaller parties.

That would piss the reds off.

The part that dissolve a party ...

Yes anything is possible , thats not the point . The point is that anything or something should not be possible without popular mandate .

not the job of PM at least

The MAIN problem with Thailand is the CORRUPTION. Anything to reduce the corruption is a good thing.

The laws that got the PPP dissolved were there before the election. If they didn't want to get dissolved, then they shouldn't have been paying people to vote for them.

[pornsasi]

Alright then lets hope Abhisit and the moderate reds can come to an agreement in the next coming days .

And both side let the other side campain in their respective stronghold for the Nov 14 election .

The violent leaders are arrested ... Arisman , Sae Daeng , what bout Suthep LOL ?

No vote buying either side . Continuing the protest is not going to bring anything but the risk for violence

The reds made their point , point taken

[Neurath]

Considering that he is the Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I'd say he knows quite a bit more about politics in Thailand than some of the forum members here.

Don't get too caught up in the titles they give these bureaucrats, this guy could merely be someone who sits at a desk and collects reports from underlings and passes them on to the overlords, waiting for his time to move up the ladder, hopefully to something cushy, like US ambassador to Monaco.

Ever see the Jamie Foxx movie "The Kingdom"? The US rep in that movie fits what I expect most of these guys to be like. US ambassadorships are handed out like Christmas presents to those who have been faithful to the ruling party, supportive of particular election campaigns, etc. Some of Uncle Sam's biggest foreign snafus have been the result of something crucial occurring overseas and the person whose job it is to deal with it is completely clueless.

AsstSecState Campbell has a doctorate in international relations from Oxford.

He was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and Pacific Affairs.

Was with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington for Asia and Pacific Affairs.

Was with the London based Internation Institute of Strategic Studies, Asia and Pacific Affairs.

Was a member of the White House National Security Council, Asia and Pacific Affairs

The list goes on. Dr. Campbell is a professional, an expert with credentials and experience.

Whether or not Washington officially considers the Red Shirts as terrorists, I do.

Either way, I support Dr. Campbell's official involvement at this time and the direct involvement of the US Government.

The US does not get involved in cakewalks. This is a tough business and a thankless task as we see from certain of the posts to this thread. Dr. Campbell knows he has to succeed and I wish both him and Thailand well at this critical time of Thai history.

Precisely. If through his intervention there is a slightly lower possibility of this mess spiraling out of control and into unrestricted violence then all power to Dr. Campbell. It's sad that it's necessary, but given that it is I hope it does some good.

[pornsasi]

A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament elected by popular mandate is valid .

A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament manipulated by the court , not following

a general election dont have a popular mandate to govern .

That is called democracy ...

England will not have a similar situation , Torries, lib dem and labour MPs will get elected

Lib dems will ally themselves with the torries probably and a PM will be elected by the coalition.

Perfectly democratic

"A PM named by a coalition born from a parliament manipulated by the court"

The current coalition wasn't born by the court. The court disbanded the PPP. The PTP could have still formed government.

The current coalition was born by MPs who no longer supported the PPP/PTP. The court had nothing to do with that.

You get a popular mandate by having the support of a majority of MPs. That is what the current government got, and continue to have.

Ok well had the PPP not been disbanded , i am very unsure that the friend of Newin would have left it .

With a new party around thats another story ...

The PPP were 223 MPs , after the court ruled the PTP has bout 185 MPs . All is magic ... Without voters having anything to say about it .

You must be joking if you pretend this is a democracy .

Reminds me of Iran ...

[bkkjames]

Alright then lets hope Abhisit and the moderate reds can come to an agreement in the next coming days .

And both side let the other side campain in their respective stronghold for the Nov 14 election .

The violent leaders are arrested ... Arisman , Sae Daeng , what bout Suthep LOL ?

No vote buying either side . Continuing the protest is not going to bring anything but the risk for violence

The reds made their point , point taken

Well well, a voice of reason from the Red Mist.

Please go inform whoever is leading your protest now so we can move on.

[whybother]

Alright then lets hope Abhisit and the moderate reds can come to an agreement in the next coming days .

And both side let the other side campain in their respective stronghold for the Nov 14 election .

The violent leaders are arrested ... Arisman , Sae Daeng , what bout Suthep LOL ?

No vote buying either side . Continuing the protest is not going to bring anything but the risk for violence

The reds made their point , point taken

Agreed.

Don't like the chances though.

- Abhisit/Reds agreement ... hard to tell at this stage.

- Allowing campaigning ... I don't think the red leaders will be able to control the hard liners during elections.

- Arrests ... We'll see. I don't think they will give in peacefully.

- Vote buying ... It will still happen. It's too ingrained and accepted in many areas.

- I think that's something the Thai's need to learn. Protest to make your point, then go home.

[pornsasi]

Alright then lets hope Abhisit and the moderate reds can come to an agreement in the next coming days .

And both side let the other side campain in their respective stronghold for the Nov 14 election .

The violent leaders are arrested ... Arisman , Sae Daeng , what bout Suthep LOL ?

No vote buying either side . Continuing the protest is not going to bring anything but the risk for violence

The reds made their point , point taken

Well well, a voice of reason from the Red Mist.

Please go inform whoever is leading your protest now so we can move on.

Am not red ,..... nor blind .

Am purple , so call it purple haze .

Once you have spoken to Sondhi , i will got talk to Jatuporn

[pornsasi]

Alright then lets hope Abhisit and the moderate reds can come to an agreement in the next coming days .

And both side let the other side campain in their respective stronghold for the Nov 14 election .

The violent leaders are arrested ... Arisman , Sae Daeng , what bout Suthep LOL ?

No vote buying either side . Continuing the protest is not going to bring anything but the risk for violence

The reds made their point , point taken

Agreed.

Don't like the chances though.

- Abhisit/Reds agreement ... hard to tell at this stage.

- Allowing campaigning ... I don't think the red leaders will be able to control the hard liners during elections.

- Arrests ... We'll see. I don't think they will give in peacefully.

- Vote buying ... It will still happen. It's too ingrained and accepted in many areas.

- I think that's something the Thai's need to learn. Protest to make your point, then go home.

see how . Its for them to decide .

As long as no violence am for it

[bkkjames]

Alright then lets hope Abhisit and the moderate reds can come to an agreement in the next coming days .

And both side let the other side campain in their respective stronghold for the Nov 14 election .

The violent leaders are arrested ... Arisman , Sae Daeng , what bout Suthep LOL ?

No vote buying either side . Continuing the protest is not going to bring anything but the risk for violence

The reds made their point , point taken

Well well, a voice of reason from the Red Mist.

Please go inform whoever is leading your protest now so we can move on.

Am not red ,..... nor blind .

Am purple , so call it purple haze .

Once you have spoken to Sondhi , i will got talk to Jatuporn

To be honest (and I think I can speak for 90% of the people on TV and in this country), I have no desire to speak to either just let the normal everyday working folk get together and sort these issues out. To many FAR (R/Y) opinions by too few f_ing it up for everyone. Perhaps I am mistaken.

[pornsasi]

Considering that he is the Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I'd say he knows quite a bit more about politics in Thailand than some of the forum members here.

Don't get too caught up in the titles they give these bureaucrats, this guy could merely be someone who sits at a desk and collects reports from underlings and passes them on to the overlords, waiting for his time to move up the ladder, hopefully to something cushy, like US ambassador to Monaco.

Ever see the Jamie Foxx movie "The Kingdom"? The US rep in that movie fits what I expect most of these guys to be like. US ambassadorships are handed out like Christmas presents to those who have been faithful to the ruling party, supportive of particular election campaigns, etc. Some of Uncle Sam's biggest foreign snafus have been the result of something crucial occurring overseas and the person whose job it is to deal with it is completely clueless.

AsstSecState Campbell has a doctorate in international relations from Oxford.

He was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and Pacific Affairs.

Was with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington for Asia and Pacific Affairs.

Was with the London based Internation Institute of Strategic Studies, Asia and Pacific Affairs.

Was a member of the White House National Security Council, Asia and Pacific Affairs

The list goes on. Dr. Campbell is a professional, an expert with credentials and experience.

Whether or not Washington officially considers the Red Shirts as terrorists, I do.

Either way, I support Dr. Campbell's official involvement at this time and the direct involvement of the US Government.

The US does not get involved in cakewalks. This is a tough business and a thankless task as we see from certain of the posts to this thread. Dr. Campbell knows he has to succeed and I wish both him and Thailand well at this critical time of Thai history.

Precisely. If through his intervention there is a slightly lower possibility of this mess spiraling out of control and into unrestricted violence then all power to Dr. Campbell. It's sad that it's necessary, but given that it is I hope it does some good.

Secunded

[retarius]

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.

The multiple representative rule means that the losers in the election also become MPs if they poll above 20% and,I think, the winner doesn't get an overall majority....thus if the winner polls 49% of the vote and two losers each poll 25%, then the constituency will have 3 equal MPs...this was designed to end Thaksin's run of victories under the first past the post system...I cannot comment on whether it is a good constitution, but the referendum that 'approved' it, was tainted and has thus denied it legitimacy in the eyes of many voter...for example, if Gordon Brown wanted to join the Euro and organized a referendum to apporve it, but made it a criminal offense to campaign against it, or criticise it in any way, then the government flooded the airwaves with pro-Euro propaganda, would you think that it fairly represented the will of the British people to enter the Euro?....I wouldn't but Gordon Brown's talking points would still say, "the Euro was approved in a referendum"...

Historically power struggles have tended to be violent...but at issue is whether the government is legitimate or not, and quite a number of people do not believe it is, because of the reasons I explained...you cannot have a legitimate government elected under a tainted constitution, written by a junta that illegally deposed a legally elected Prime Minister....as I say, reasonable people may disagree, but unreasonable people might be tempted to ignore discussion and become protest more vigourously....

[pornsasi]

To be honest (and I think I can speak for 90% of the people on TV and in this country), I have no desire to speak to either just let the normal everyday working folk get together and sort these issues out. To many FAR (R/Y) opinions by too few f_ing it up for everyone. Perhaps I am mistaken.

I hear you . I was hoping for a huge one day peaceful demonstration by half a million thais to explain to the reds the error of their continuing the disturbance , IF the red dont go home very soon . That would work i guess ...

well lets hope not needed

[bkkjames]

To be honest (and I think I can speak for 90% of the people on TV and in this country), I have no desire to speak to either just let the normal everyday working folk get together and sort these issues out. To many FAR (R/Y) opinions by too few f_ing it up for everyone. Perhaps I am mistaken.

I hear you . I was hoping for a huge one day peaceful demonstration by half a million thais to explain to the reds the error of their continuing the disturbance , IF the red dont go home very soon . That would work i guess ...

well lets hope not needed

Anyways the Reds blew it.

The one day country wide strike (paid of course) of those in all transportation, farming, manufacturing, construction, hotel etc etc industries would have paralyzed the country and the PM would have had to negotiate quick quick.

Instead, we have this.

[animatic]

The Democrats boycotted the elections because they were not going to be free or fair.

One of the reasons the 2006 election was invalidated (prior to the coup) was that the (Thaksin appointed) EC had set up the voting booths so that there was no privacy. This allowed people to "verify" that the voters had voted "the correct way" (ie they way they had been paid).

Since when is it a crime NOT to stand in an election?

I said the constitution was tainted. I didn't say it was (completely) wrong. The laws restricting the corruption of elections should be in there. The only reason the reds want them out, is that is the only way they can get into government.

So instead they supported a coup which is free and fair

A month before the Oct 2006 elections . Which they knew they would loose . how convenient , dont you think

No the 2007 constitution is not completely wrong , but the wrong part of it , got Abhisit "elected"

the article 237 is idiotic , unless it makes mandatory a general election and its not practical . what f.e if both democrats and PTP are convinced of corruption .

Both are banned ? Parties keep on changing every good dam_n day ? As if the thai system is not messy enough .

You could had same deterrent by increasing penalties , say 10 years ban on the party executives + cuplrits

They had lost before in several election but ran anyway.... so brain trust, what changed?

Oh yes Thaksin called this election to whitewash his Temasek sale of National assets to a foreign powers investment arm.

The Democratats stated they would not join in this election for that reason. Not to give ANY validation of his actions.

And so if he felt his mandate was so rock solid getting 20% should have been a cakewwalk.

It wasn't and they knew it wouldn't be a cheated big time to win. And got banned.

237 is not idiotic. But we agree it should be even stronger. 10 years bans would be better,

and actual MANDATORY jail time for those that hands on caused the dissoloution would be even better.

[animatic]

The Democrats boycotted the elections because they were not going to be free or fair.

One of the reasons the 2006 election was invalidated (prior to the coup) was that the (Thaksin appointed) EC had set up the voting booths so that there was no privacy. This allowed people to "verify" that the voters had voted "the correct way" (ie they way they had been paid).

Since when is it a crime NOT to stand in an election?

I said the constitution was tainted. I didn't say it was (completely) wrong. The laws restricting the corruption of elections should be in there. The only reason the reds want them out, is that is the only way they can get into government.

So instead they supported a coup which is free and fair

A month before the Oct 2006 elections . Which they knew they would loose . how convenient , dont you think

No the 2007 constitution is not completely wrong , but the wrong part of it , got Abhisit "elected"

the article 237 is idiotic , unless it makes mandatory a general election and its not practical . what f.e if both democrats and PTP are convinced of corruption .

Both are banned ? Parties keep on changing every good dam_n day ? As if the thai system is not messy enough .

You could had same deterrent by increasing penalties , say 10 years ban on the party executives + cuplrits

[pornsasi]

Anyways the Reds blew it.

The one day country wide strike (paid of course) of those in all transportation, farming, manufacturing, construction, hotel etc etc industries would have paralyzed the country and the PM would have had to negotiate quick quick.

Instead, we have this.

Yes something like France in 68 except the paiement side . Or more like Chile with Salvador Alende .

Problem is governements can pay that kind of money , i am not sure Thaksin could , and if one day strike enough ?

And if like Chile someone assasinates the PM then the cure is worse then the sickness .

lets hope for the best ... and some reasonable approach on both sides , well more on the red now

[whybother]

The multiple representative rule means that the losers in the election also become MPs if they poll above 20% and,I think, the winner doesn't get an overall majority....thus if the winner polls 49% of the vote and two losers each poll 25%, then the constituency will have 3 equal MPs...this was designed to end Thaksin's run of victories under the first past the post system...I cannot comment on whether it is a good constitution, but the referendum that 'approved' it, was tainted and has thus denied it legitimacy in the eyes of many voter...for example, if Gordon Brown wanted to join the Euro and organized a referendum to apporve it, but made it a criminal offense to campaign against it, or criticise it in any way, then the government flooded the airwaves with pro-Euro propaganda, would you think that it fairly represented the will of the British people to enter the Euro?....I wouldn't but Gordon Brown's talking points would still say, "the Euro was approved in a referendum"...

Historically power struggles have tended to be violent...but at issue is whether the government is legitimate or not, and quite a number of people do not believe it is, because of the reasons I explained...you cannot have a legitimate government elected under a tainted constitution, written by a junta that illegally deposed a legally elected Prime Minister....as I say, reasonable people may disagree, but unreasonable people might be tempted to ignore discussion and become protest more vigourously....

I reckon you need to go and review your idea of "multiple representative rule".

There are 400 directly elected MPs. What you are suggesting is that there can be multiple MPs depending on how people vote, which would lead to more than 400 MPs. 80 MPs are party list MPs, voted for by proportional representation.

Agreed that the "referendum" for the constitution is tainted. But I have yet to see how the changes affected the rights of the people to a fair vote (your example above, not being correct). I have only seen that it reduces corruption in elections, which severly effects the Thaksin parties.

People BELIEVE that the current government is not legitimate because they have been fed the red propaganda, and don't understand the facts. They listen to the emotion and ignore the reason.

You give an example of how the "tainted" constitution affected the ability for a fair vote, but it is clearly incorrect.

You say that the coup "deposed a legally elected Prime Minister". At the time of the coup, Thaksin wasn't elected, but an appointed care-taker, following his own "tainted" election.

If you can not have a legitimate government elected under a tainted constitution, then how is it that the PPP government is legitimate, but the Democrat government isn't?