Abhisit - A Prime Minister Tried By War

[gymboy33]

Another eyewitness report from the temple

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...le-1977647.html

im glad the truth is been spread!

[whybother]

Good night folks

Thank you.

[opebo]

I believe the heartless farangs in this forum that condone the killing of thais do not understand thais. These particular farangs are here to hump the thai women and be about their way. I don't disagree with their approach but it leaves them with a rather distant perspective. Those of us that have built a relationship with a thai woman have developed an attachment with these people or an understanding that thai woman bangers don['t understand. Those of us has built an insight of how these people think, and speaking for myself I feel a bit protection as a result. I don't feel very good about thai people being killed for whatever reason. I think the thai people have an innocence that is difficult to describe but if you understand you know it is worth saving. I believe it is what keeps us here. So if it sounds like I take it personal that thai people are being killed you would be correct. I bitch louder than anyone about how they fleece us BUT....they are worth saving. Please do not preach the slaughter of the people you deem appropriate to kill. They are worth saving.

expat9, there is something unique here, and perhaps an aspect of it might be described as an innocence of the commoners, but the real difference is the survival of an ancient form of government long since passed away in the west.

It is precisely that Ancien Régime which is worth saving, not a few individual serfs.

I'll relate an old Thai proverb as translated by a colleague of mine: 'The poor people spring up out of the ground like mushrooms'. The point being that they are a natural phenomenon, and harvest-time doesn't mean there will never be another stalk of rice.

Perhaps I am heartless, and perhaps I do bang, and, admittedly, as Wendell Philips said "Aristocracy is always cruel". But that doesn't change the fact that the precious artifact here is not the few simple pawns lost in the battle of Bangkok.

Edited May 20, 2010 by opebo

[animatic]

Excellent history lesson.

http://www.th4u.com/newin_chidchob.htm

As can be seen, Newoin din't leave PPP and brazenly go with the Dems.

He RETURNED to the Dems 15 years later.

He was in the Dems Chuan Government back then as a Deputy.

Noting he is typical of regional hgeads he has been in what ever party proved advantageous to him and his constiutencey.

• MP Buriram, Solidarity Party (1986)

• PM's Office Secretary (1986, 1988)

• MP Buriram, Therd Thai Party (1988)

• Commerce Ministry Secretary (1991)

• MP Buriram, Samakkhi Tham Party (1992)

• MP Buriram, Chart Thai Party (1992, 1995)

• Deputy Finance Minister (1995)

• MP Buriram, Solidarity Party (1996)

• Deputy Agriculture and Coop. Minister (1997)

• MP Buriram, Chart Thai (2001)

• Deputy Commerce Minister (2002)

• Joined Thai Rak Thai Party (2004)

• Deputy Minister of Agriculture (2005)

• PM's Office Minister (2005)

• 5-year Political Ban (2007) PPP as ghost

• Faction Leader, Friends of Newin (2008) The Dems as Ghost.

He alternated between Chart Thai and Solidarity at one point

and then with the Dems as a coalition partner.

Most PTP don't scream about Newin's changing,

because they know they may need him at some time in the future.

Only clueless farang ideologues rant on about his betrayal.

He change parties after Thaksin, on the run, in Hong Kong at dinner

announced the sham divorce with Potjamin and then the handed PTP's

riens to Chalerm, which was a loss of face for Newin,

which no doubt told Newin his leverage wouldn't be worth sticking around for

Thaksin LOST NEWIN, by playing him poorly. Another of his many misteps,

and so Thaksin lost control of the government.

The nameless faceless PPP care taker PM of December 2008 could have called for an election

He didn't. They could have worked harder or smarter to keep their coalition partners happy,

but they didn't. They take the full blame,and not the courts of the army.

It was theirs to lose and they did.

Thaksin was not the PM when Newin switched side .

Anyway it's wasted time to talk about thai politics .

Its pre-written. Elections dont matter .

If PTP wins they will be removed , so best to have

a single party or have Prem PM for life

No,

seeing as you are so infrequently correct, IMHO, I will note when you are correct.

'Thaksin was not PM when Newin SWITCHED BACK to the Dems.'

But Thaksin was the controler and owner of PTP as he had been for PPP,

which is why Somchai replaced Samak. Nothing major happened in PPP

or PTP without Thaksin signing off on it.

My whole statement above stands.

[Thai at Heart]

Abhisit is like a kid who is on a rollercoaster and is desperate to get to the end.

He has been put where he is to perform what has turned out to be a massively onerous task. No one would have predicted how the situation could have come to this, however, there was inevitably going to be some kind of backlash from Thaksin, but no one in the powers that be felt it could go this far. He is fighting a battle against someone who has no compunction about using the poorest people in the country to fight his battles.

Abhisit is performing his duty to the best of his ability, and I have a feeling his prolonged attempt at negotiation and the relatively slow action of the army had his hallmark written all over it. He gave people more than ample warning to get out of the protests. In many ways I feel quite sorry for him because he will never be allowed to step down or run the path he wants.

This guy went to Eton and Oxford, don't you think he understands only too well legitimacy through election? Don't you think he knows that he has been put there through a nasty deal between Newin and the army? Do you really think he wants Suthep or Kasit as his right hand guys? He has very little choice, and don't underestimate the feeling of obligation he may have to people above him in society for his privilege in life?

I don't realistically see that he had any option remaining other than to send in the army. That is how things have always been done here, and would any of us believe that the police could perform such a task. It doesn't make it right but that is the way it is. I wrote that they had to go forward quickly or the NGOs would be all over them. Amnesty piped up and they had to go for it or wait for the UN and every major country's foreign minister to be on their back. They couldn't keep firing live rounds at people fighting back with catapaults. That was a massive tactical error from the army, and I am amazed they thought that was a practical plan.

Other than Abhisit's efforts at negotiation, the reds have manipulated the situation beautifully because they know the army's playbook. It has been seen for years. So, if nothing else, it proves that as a politician he is surprisingly capable, but that the system and situation sometimes has him carry out his job with both hands tied behind his back.

I don't expect he is feeling too proud of what has happened in the last few days, but I do hope that we can see him get to a point in the not too distant future where he can announce elections, and in the words of the military junta, reboot the system but this time with an election the result of which must be honoured.

[monkfish]

Another eyewitness report from the temple

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...le-1977647.html

That's exactly the same eyewitness report that's been in the Australian papers.

Red Shirts were firing back with sling-slots, hand guns and petrol bombs.

This was another reporter.

But what's also interesting is he was shot with a shotgun.

[gymboy33]

its great the international media is getting out the truth,,,

instead of all this local goverment controlled media!!!

[monkfish]

Human Rights Watch

THAILAND: Government must fulfil obligations regarding detainees

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2010statements/2553/

4. Explain why many persons taken into custody have been blindfolded, and why a group of protest leaders who reportedly surrendered to the police have since reportedly been transferred to army custody.

Edited May 20, 2010 by monkfish

[mdechgan]

Ahbisit is the best candidate for PM we have now. He might not be the best in the world or in history, but is the best that we can possible have currently.

As for his cabinet and advisors, he could have done better. The current parliament? Average at best.

What are his possible replacements? I feel better having Abhsit as PM than airhead Chalerm.

[gymboy33]

Human Rights Watch

THAILAND: Government must fulfil obligations regarding detainees

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2010statements/2553/

4. Explain why many persons taken into custody have been blindfolded, and why a group of protest leaders who reportedly surrendered to the police have since reportedly been transferred to army custody.

its a good question!!

its sounding like burma????

next thing your be asking should you be asking these questions yourself??

are we going that way????

[JohnLeech]

I would be surprised if Aphisit can visit the UK without being charged with human rights offenses.

Then you'd be surprised. Under the UK's Head of State Immunity Act of 1978 and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as a Head of State (or Prime Minister in a country with a Monarch as nominal Head of State) he is immune from arrest while in office, except if charged by the ICJ/ICC.

When (if?) he is no longer PM he will still be protected by the Vienna Convention which gives him "substantive immunity" (rather than the "procedural immunity", which he had as a serving PM) from arrest for anything he did as an act of state - anything he did "in performance of his functions". That effectively covers everything done in this context.

[gregb]

That's when I – one of just a handful of journalists still present at the temple – was hit in the outer thigh by what appeared to be several pieces of shrapnel. They later transpired to be large pellets from a shotgun that buried themselves deep – perhaps three inches – into the flesh.

Can someone explain to me if these were shotgun pellets, why people think that they came from the military???

Were the soldiers going duck hunting?

This sounds to me more like a personal hunting weapon that a private individual was using. Hard to believe this is military issue. Perhaps these were some of the terrorists dressed as soldiers that CRES had been warning about?

Don't get me wrong. If they were actually military personnel then I support them being court martialed and punished for any transgressions. Nobody is above the law. But the account simply doesn't make any sense.

It takes a real leap of faith to believe an account like this.

[balfour]

Abhisit should pull away from any involvement with the yellow shirts and send Kasit and any others of like mind back to them and their New Politics party. He should make the Democrats the champion of the middle/poor class.

[gregb]

Human Rights Watch

THAILAND: Government must fulfil obligations regarding detainees

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2010statements/2553/

4. Explain why many persons taken into custody have been blindfolded, and why a group of protest leaders who reportedly surrendered to the police have since reportedly been transferred to army custody.

its a good question!!

its sounding like burma????

next thing your be asking should you be asking these questions yourself??

are we going that way????

Actually it is sounding alot like the United States.

Sure wouldn't want to be like them now, would we? All that democracy and such. What a terrible place to emulate.

[JohnLeech]

Abhisit is like a kid who is on a rollercoaster and is desperate to get to the end.

.............................

Abhisit is performing his duty to the best of his ability, and I have a feeling his prolonged attempt at negotiation and the relatively slow action of the army had his hallmark written all over it.

............................

He has very little choice, and don't underestimate the feeling of obligation he may have to people above him in society for his privilege in life?

My apologies for editing your post, but as I agree with much of it I see no need to repeat those parts.

I certainly agree that he is performing "to the best of his ability", and I even agree that he is among the best currently available, but that doesn't mean that he deserves some of the plaudits and praise he has had here - he is a good administrator and a "nice guy" who is totally out of his depth in this situation.

Everyone has a choice. His was to team up with anyone who would put him in power and keep him there, regardless of their political views and their personal qualities; once in power he could have shown the strength and leadership Thailand so desperately needs and formed a government and, more particularly, a cabinet which really was a change from the past and could have led Thailand into the future. It is possible, even probable, that he would have failed but at least he would have done so for the right reasons and with integrity as both a statesman and a leader; on the other hand there is at least the possibility, however faint, that he would have succeeded - others, such as Anand, took the risk and did so. He chose not to.

He chose instead to sit at the front of the rollercoaster, rather than at the controls.

[gymboy33]

Human Rights Watch

THAILAND: Government must fulfil obligations regarding detainees

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2010statements/2553/

4. Explain why many persons taken into custody have been blindfolded, and why a group of protest leaders who reportedly surrendered to the police have since reportedly been transferred to army custody.

its a good question!!

its sounding like burma????

next thing your be asking should you be asking these questions yourself??

are we going that way????

Actually it is sounding alot like the United States.

Sure wouldn't want to be like them now, would we? All that democracy and such. What a terrible place to emulate.

please dont start making it into a us connected thread...

[gregb]

Human Rights Watch

THAILAND: Government must fulfil obligations regarding detainees

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2010statements/2553/

4. Explain why many persons taken into custody have been blindfolded, and why a group of protest leaders who reportedly surrendered to the police have since reportedly been transferred to army custody.

its a good question!!

its sounding like burma????

next thing your be asking should you be asking these questions yourself??

are we going that way????

Actually it is sounding alot like the United States.

Sure wouldn't want to be like them now, would we? All that democracy and such. What a terrible place to emulate.

please dont start making it into a us connected thread...

As opposed to a Burma connected thread you mean?

Face facts. Any country when faced with terrorism reacts the same way. There is nothing wrong with the approach the Thai government has taken. A Western democracy would act similarly. Thailand is no more emulating Burma than Liechtenstein is.

Edited May 20, 2010 by gregb

[JohnLeech]

That's when I – one of just a handful of journalists still present at the temple – was hit in the outer thigh by what appeared to be several pieces of shrapnel. They later transpired to be large pellets from a shotgun that buried themselves deep – perhaps three inches – into the flesh.

Can someone explain to me if these were shotgun pellets, why people think that they came from the military???

Were the soldiers going duck hunting?

This sounds to me more like a personal hunting weapon that a private individual was using. Hard to believe this is military issue. Perhaps these were some of the terrorists dressed as soldiers that CRES had been warning about?

Don't get me wrong. If they were actually military personnel then I support them being court martialed and punished for any transgressions. Nobody is above the law. But the account simply doesn't make any sense.

It takes a real leap of faith to believe an account like this.

If you look at virtually any footage of the military you will see that around 1 in 4 of the soldiers are armed with a shotgun; these are used for firing rubber bullets and a variety of more standard shotgun cartridges. He could have been shot by either the military or the inevitable "third party", but as the guy who was shot thinks it was the military that gives it at least some credibility.

[JohnLeech]

Soldiers don't come in firing aimlessly like its a video game near the temple. If that were true, they all would've been laid down dead.

If only that were true. The sad fact is that, time and again, with even the best trained soldiers, soldiers occasionally do "come in firing aimlessly like its a video game". In this case they may or they may not have done so, but it is at least a possibility.

It is also wrong to say that all those there would have been killed if it hads been the military - it all depends on how many rounds were fired and what at.

[Insight]

A scene from somewhere not far away.

The deadline for fixing these problems is so overdue.

[JohnLeech]

Abhisit became PM through a vote in parliament just like the majority of PM's all over the world.

True generally, but NOT in this particular case even though it is an oft repeated claim.

The "majority of PM's all over the world" are the leaders of the party winning either the majority of seats or of the largest party in a coalition with the majority of seats following a general election. Most countries allow for a change of PM within the governing party without elections if the PM dies or resigns; they do not allow for a complete change of governing party and PM if they lose their majority either through a change of coalition allegiance or seats in by-elections without fresh general elections - constitutions and/or conventions dictate that fresh elections must be held.

The Thai system has a superficial resemblance to the Westminster system, no more, and despite your (and Abhisit's) claims justifying his position this would not have been possible for "the majority of PM's all over the world."

[yoshiwara]

Abhisit became PM through a vote in parliament just like the majority of PM's all over the world.

True generally, but NOT in this particular case even though it is an oft repeated claim.

The "majority of PM's all over the world" are the leaders of the party winning either the majority of seats or of the largest party in a coalition with the majority of seats following a general election. Most countries allow for a change of PM within the governing party without elections if the PM dies or resigns; they do not allow for a complete change of governing party and PM if they lose their majority either through a change of coalition allegiance or seats in by-elections without fresh general elections - constitutions and/or conventions dictate that fresh elections must be held.

The Thai system has a superficial resemblance to the Westminster system, no more, and despite your (and Abhisit's) claims justifying his position this would not have been possible for "the majority of PM's all over the world."

Not only are you a pedant you are wrong.

The LibDems could break from the Tories tomorrow and form a government with Labour and the odds and sods without an election.

Weasel chop logic comrade.

[JohnLeech]

Face facts. Any country when faced with terrorism reacts the same way. There is nothing wrong with the approach the Thai government has taken. A Western democracy would act similarly. Thailand is no more emulating Burma than Liechtenstein is.

What absolute, unadulterated rubbish.

Name any "Western democracy" where the leaders of a mob that took over the country's main airport (or a similar act) had still not been tried after two years because they were "on holiday" when their trials were due.

Or where the Foreign Minister can be given that office when he is facing criminal charges in connection with such an offence.

Or where barricades on this scale can be constructed without any action being taken to prevent it.

Or where the police and the military senior commanders publicly and consistently refuse to do as they are told.

Or where serving and retired generals are briefly arrested (on both sides) for leading mobs trying to overthrow the government.

NAME ANY.

[Publicus]

Human Rights Watch

THAILAND: Government must fulfil obligations regarding detainees

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2010statements/2553/

4. Explain why many persons taken into custody have been blindfolded, and why a group of protest leaders who reportedly surrendered to the police have since reportedly been transferred to army custody.

Thailand has used the term 'terrorist' to apply domestically and in the context of this time, place (Bangkok and certain identified provinces) and circumstance which are the three criteria to determine the validity (if any) of actions by all concerned. al Qaeda hasn't ever surrendered to the United States not will it ever do so, the US being its principally self-identified modern world enemy to the death (al Qaeda's). As wicked as is the Cheney-Bush created Gitmo facility at the US naval base (in perpetuity) in Cuba, the applicability of the incarceration of Red Shirt leaders in Thailand to those of al Qaeda and other global terrorists who would explode airplanes in flight is a far reach which is absent of logic, common sense and any rational analysis.  

Pres Obama is working to close Gitmo. He made this clear during his successful campaign for president. Now the devil is in the details, but the closing shall happen no matter the obstacles over time. 

Edit for typo.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Publicus

[JohnLeech]

Abhisit became PM through a vote in parliament just like the majority of PM's all over the world.

True generally, but NOT in this particular case even though it is an oft repeated claim.

The "majority of PM's all over the world" are the leaders of the party winning either the majority of seats or of the largest party in a coalition with the majority of seats following a general election. Most countries allow for a change of PM within the governing party without elections if the PM dies or resigns; they do not allow for a complete change of governing party and PM if they lose their majority either through a change of coalition allegiance or seats in by-elections without fresh general elections - constitutions and/or conventions dictate that fresh elections must be held.

The Thai system has a superficial resemblance to the Westminster system, no more, and despite your (and Abhisit's) claims justifying his position this would not have been possible for "the majority of PM's all over the world."

Not only are you a pedant you are wrong.

The LibDems could break from the Tories tomorrow and form a government with Labour and the odds and sods without an election.

Weasel chop logic comrade.

Totally and utterly untrue. If you are so sure of yourself then name some countries under the Westminster system (or with a similar Parliamentary / Head of State system to Thailand) where a change of government has occurred under similar circumstances, with some specific examples.

If the LibDems broke with the Tories and allied themselves with Labour (and enough "odds and sods" to gain a majority) they could not form a government; convention in the UK (which governs the UK Parliamentary system in lieu of a written constitution) dictates that the PM would still be the PM (as GB was until he resigned) and that he would be required to ask HM to dissolve the house and call for fresh elections.

If you prefer to look at a country using the Westminster system and a written constitution under these circumstances I suggest you look at the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

I am not your or anyone else's "comrade"; I simply prefer facts to factoids.

[yoshiwara]

Abhisit became PM through a vote in parliament just like the majority of PM's all over the world.

True generally, but NOT in this particular case even though it is an oft repeated claim.

The "majority of PM's all over the world" are the leaders of the party winning either the majority of seats or of the largest party in a coalition with the majority of seats following a general election. Most countries allow for a change of PM within the governing party without elections if the PM dies or resigns; they do not allow for a complete change of governing party and PM if they lose their majority either through a change of coalition allegiance or seats in by-elections without fresh general elections - constitutions and/or conventions dictate that fresh elections must be held.

The Thai system has a superficial resemblance to the Westminster system, no more, and despite your (and Abhisit's) claims justifying his position this would not have been possible for "the majority of PM's all over the world."

Not only are you a pedant you are wrong.

The LibDems could break from the Tories tomorrow and form a government with Labour and the odds and sods without an election.

Weasel chop logic comrade.

Totally and utterly untrue. If you are so sure of yourself then name some countries under the Westminster system (or with a similar Parliamentary / Head of State system to Thailand) where a change of government has occurred under similar circumstances, with some specific examples.

If the LibDems broke with the Tories and allied themselves with Labour (and enough "odds and sods" to gain a majority) they could not form a government; convention in the UK (which governs the UK Parliamentary system in lieu of a written constitution) dictates that the PM would still be the PM (as GB was until he resigned) and that he would be required to ask HM to dissolve the house and call for fresh elections.

If you prefer to look at a country using the Westminster system and a written constitution under these circumstances I suggest you look at the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

I am not your or anyone else's "comrade"; I simply prefer facts to factoids.

Sorry comrade but the only requirement is the ability to command a majority in parliament.

This is theoretically possible.

The Conservative PM would tender his resignation.if he cannot do so.

The Queen is under no constitutinal obligation for a general election to be called if another PM can command a majority.

This is true.

And you are wrong.

The reason you are pushing your position is two-fold.

One: you want to give some ideological cover to the anti-working class reds in their destruction of working class jobs. (how embarrassing for your neo-Stalinist politics)

Two: since you are supporting a popular front with Thaksin, you need to de-legitimise the current government which is no less legitimate than the preceding governments.

[Siam Simon]

Good night folks

Thank you.

You need to get moving. You only have one day left to beat jcbangkok's remarkable record of erm, ahem a newbie making it to a thousand posts in thirty three days. Strange that posters such as Ralph, his mate Publicus, and Brahmburgers haven't picked up on this???

[Siam Simon]

Not only are you a pedant you are wrong.

The LibDems could break from the Tories tomorrow and form a government with Labour and the odds and sods without an election.

Weasel chop logic comrade.

Totally and utterly untrue. If you are so sure of yourself then name some countries under the Westminster system (or with a similar Parliamentary / Head of State system to Thailand) where a change of government has occurred under similar circumstances, with some specific examples.

If the LibDems broke with the Tories and allied themselves with Labour (and enough "odds and sods" to gain a majority) they could not form a government; convention in the UK (which governs the UK Parliamentary system in lieu of a written constitution) dictates that the PM would still be the PM (as GB was until he resigned) and that he would be required to ask HM to dissolve the house and call for fresh elections.

If you prefer to look at a country using the Westminster system and a written constitution under these circumstances I suggest you look at the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

I am not your or anyone else's "comrade"; I simply prefer facts to factoids.

Sorry comrade but the only requirement is the ability to command a majority in parliament.

This is theoretically possible.

The Conservative PM would tender his resignation.if he cannot do so.

The Queen is under no constitutinal obligation for a general election to be called if another PM can command a majority.

This is true.

And you are wrong.

The reason you are pushing your position is two-fold.

One: you want to give some ideological cover to the anti-working class reds in their destruction of working class jobs. (how embarrassing for your neo-Stalinist politics)

Two: since you are supporting a popular front with Thaksin, you need to de-legitimise the current government which is no less legitimate than the preceding governments.

But none of your 'theoretically possible' have ever happened in the UK or in any similar stable democracy and they likely never will. Your OCD propaganda never disappoints .

[cdnvic]

Next person to call another a name, comrade or otherwise is gone for two weeks. Grow up already.

[yoshiwara]

Not only are you a pedant you are wrong.

The LibDems could break from the Tories tomorrow and form a government with Labour and the odds and sods without an election.

Weasel chop logic.

Totally and utterly untrue. If you are so sure of yourself then name some countries under the Westminster system (or with a similar Parliamentary / Head of State system to Thailand) where a change of government has occurred under similar circumstances, with some specific examples.

If the LibDems broke with the Tories and allied themselves with Labour (and enough "odds and sods" to gain a majority) they could not form a government; convention in the UK (which governs the UK Parliamentary system in lieu of a written constitution) dictates that the PM would still be the PM (as GB was until he resigned) and that he would be required to ask HM to dissolve the house and call for fresh elections.

If you prefer to look at a country using the Westminster system and a written constitution under these circumstances I suggest you look at the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

I am not your or anyone else's "comrade"; I simply prefer facts to factoids.

Sorry, but the only requirement is the ability to command a majority in parliament.

This is theoretically possible.

The Conservative PM would tender his resignation.if he cannot do so.

The Queen is under no constitutinal obligation for a general election to be called if another PM can command a majority.

This is true.

And you are wrong.

The reason you are pushing your position is two-fold.

One: you want to give some ideological cover to the anti-working class reds in their destruction of working class jobs. (how embarrassing for your neo-Stalinist politics)

Two: since you are supporting a popular front with Thaksin, you need to de-legitimise the current government which is no less legitimate than the preceding governments.

But none of your 'theoretically possible' have ever happened in the UK or in any similar stable democracy and they likely never will. Your OCD propaganda never disappoints .

Whether it has happened or not it is within the rules.

I will say it again:

The only criteria for forming a government is the clear ability to exercise a majority in parliament.

When a PM resigns as a result of not being able to command a majority, the Queen is not obliged to order a dissolution and an election if she is confident that an alternative government can be formed with a clear majority.

Red apologists don't like this.

They don't like it at all.

Why?

Because it does not support their position on Thaksin's allies bolting to the other side.

Well tough!