Thaksin Supports Reconciliation Talks: Sanan

[jayboy]

Nevertheless I think one has to acknowledge the informal (and actually somewhat unfair) pressures brought by the state to get the constitution through.

Let's get specific here. What were these unethical pressures?

The state simply telling citizens that voting "yes" is in the best interest of the nation for moving fowards is not. It's no different from what the "no" lobby group were doing. Both sides were selling their argument (not literally one hopes). It's what happens when referendums are called.

It went far beyond that.The following article from the Singapore Institute of International Affairs is reasonably even handed

http://www.siiaonline.org/?q=programmes/insights/thailand%E2%80%99s-referendum-junta-and-government-eat-humble-pie

[whybother]

Nevertheless I think one has to acknowledge the informal (and actually somewhat unfair) pressures brought by the state to get the constitution through.

Let's get specific here. What were these unethical pressures?

The state simply telling citizens that voting "yes" is in the best interest of the nation for moving fowards is not. It's no different from what the "no" lobby group were doing. Both sides were selling their argument (not literally one hopes). It's what happens when referendums are called.

It went far beyond that.The following article from the Singapore Institute of International Affairs is reasonably even handed

http://www.siiaonlin...-eat-humble-pie

The article is reasonably even handed. So where does the "it went far beyond that" come into it?

The only real negative in the article is an opposition person stating that there was one-sided publicity. Ofcourse the opposition would say that.

If you break down the numbers a little - given a third of the population is in the North/North east, you could assume they had a third of the voters. 8.5 mil voters - 6 mil voted "No". Which means in the rest of the country, 4.5 mil out of 18 mil said "No".

Outside of the TRT strongholds, 75% said "Yes".

[gemini81]

whats he doing still rantin' and ravin' about politics of Thailand in other countries anyway? Hope he gets the boot again, from Lebanon and Norway, wherever the weasel is.

[rubl]

Who are you to tell us why Thai people voted the way they did? And furthermore, how is it important? The important thing is that citizens vote of their own free will. Why people vote the way they do is entirely their business, just as with general elections, and trying to discredit the results of a vote on the basis of not liking the reasons why you think people voted the way they did is a pretty weak argument, if i may say so.

I don't suppose I am the first to offer an opinion on this forum.That's what it is, an opinion.I have already pointed out why the junta's constitution is discredited and there's no need to rehearse those points.Your argument (such as it is) doesn't add up to much since when the full state apparatus, military, and directed judicial system are lined up to frustrate the popular will the results of the referendum on the constitution don't represent a popular free will decision.We have seen that in Burma,North Korea and other military dominated states with totalitarian tendencies.I'm not saying Thailand is in that category as witnessed the stinging slap in the face given to the elite and their henchmen despite all the pressures to tick the right boxes.

Something unquestionable true at last !

"I don't suppose I am the first to offer an opinion on this forum.That's what it is, an opinion."

It put all your other remarks with or without a possible proof in the right light. I'm saying nothing more, just mention this by the way. Wouldn't dare to suggest my opinion is better than yours, maybe less opinionated only

[rixalex]

Nevertheless I think one has to acknowledge the informal (and actually somewhat unfair) pressures brought by the state to get the constitution through.

Let's get specific here. What were these unethical pressures?

The state simply telling citizens that voting "yes" is in the best interest of the nation for moving fowards is not. It's no different from what the "no" lobby group were doing. Both sides were selling their argument (not literally one hopes). It's what happens when referendums are called.

It went far beyond that.The following article from the Singapore Institute of International Affairs is reasonably even handed

http://www.siiaonlin...-eat-humble-pie

Can't see anything in that article that substantiates your claim; "It went far beyond that". Why don't you give us some of your own examples of people being unethically pressured into voting a certain way?

All the article does is give voice to the losers of a vote trying their best, as all good politicians do, to paint defeat as some sort of victory.

[rixalex]

A 16% win isnt bad in a vote actually and certainly isnt barely. Assumptions of why people voted for or against something or for or agaisnt a party are interesting to debate but irrelvent in practice. I take it you wont be arguing that people voted for X becuase their votes were bought which is a similar arguement;) The 58% turnout was on the low side compared to a national election but as there has never been a constitutional vote In Thailand before and one in which elements of a political party campaigned for people not to vote at one point it is difficult to state whether it was good or bad. As an aside it compares very well with the 40.3% turnout for the recent US elections.

Maybe in the critical thing is that we have just heard that the vast majority of people have never read or know nothing about the Thai constitution or have read a fraction of it or have minimal knowledge which isnt surprising to those who have discussed such things across the social spectrum

All fair points made in an intelligent and temperate way, and I note you aren't defending this discredited constitution.Others could learn from you.

Whether hammered feels the constitution is discredited or not is a matter for him, and one he doesn't address in the above; but as to your praising that he didn't defend it... well, you said the vote for it was won barely. He disagreed. You said that the people voted for it for the wrong reasons. He said that that was neither here nor there (to paraphrase). You said the turnout was low, he said all things considered it wasn't that bad (paraphrasing again).

Seems like a defence of sorts to me.

[souvenirdeparis]

nominated for funniest title of the year" T supports reconciliation talks" a sure winner.

[iono]

"We giggled" has to be the best part of the article, meeting with a man that has thrown a country into massive turmoil and "we giggled," I would have left that part out as giggling leads to slap and tickle.

[cecil2805]

Not really news, because nothing is new except that they talked.

And considering the Nopadum has been trumpeting the meeting for a week it

was hardly 'met by chance in Norway'.

Thaksin's position isn't news;

he wants the whole shooting match in his hands or he keeps fighting.

Reconciliation with him still in the picture is a red herring.

Not going to happen.

We are so past the 4 year old coup that it is irrelevent to the actual reconciliation. It's not the coup but Thaksin wanting 'power' back that is the current issue at hand. Wailing on about the long past coup is just a political talking point.

Legal or not AT THAT TIME, it is legal now, since the country voted on a post coup constitution. To say that Thaksin's actions in the last 2 years have been legal is just so much smoke and mirrors. Many have not been and his illegal wrongs do not balance out the actions of the coup makers, and suddenly become legal, because they may have not acted legally.

Let's also not forget Thakin resigned as PM before the coup. and was no more than acting PM prior to that, and has returned and left again while his own crew was in power.

This is Thaksin wanting power again and nothing more,

no matter the talking points.

The same tired discredited points wheeled out again.Some people have no sense of shame.

To take but one example the constitution was imposed on the Thai public by the junta.It passed only barely because most people just wanted an end to the incompetent quisling government.The junta made it clear that if the constitution didn't pass it would be promulgated anyway.Even then with the full weight of the army and state apparatus pushing it, the constitution only scraped through - a massive slap in the face to the criminal regime.

Firstly let me apologise for adding my comment so late.

I checked the stats in regard to the result and I see that the constitution was passed with a vote of 59.30%. In my humble opinion, that does not represent your comment, namely:

"It passed only barely because most people just wanted an end to the incompetent quisling government."

in a very logical way.

100.00% - 59.30% = 40.70%; 59.30% -40.70% = 18.60 The latter figure as a %age of 40.70% = 45.70% hardly a minuscule difference I would have thought?

This post is my first posting, in regard to a contentious issue,in Thaivisa, even though I have been a member for some years. My reason for stating this, is because I could not be bothered to respond to so much "drivel" that appears here. I guess I do not have the patience of certain other members who attempt so valiantly to argue with logic and common decency. To those guys please continue, and perhaps with luck someday you may be able to covert some people into being more rational human beings.

Cheers, and good luck to THAILAND! I love the country and most of the Thai people I meet. I just wish that TS would disappear from print. Sadly the MEDIA, as some people have suggested before, play a big part in keeping alive his aspirations to return!

[cecil2805]

Not really news, because nothing is new except that they talked.

And considering the Nopadum has been trumpeting the meeting for a week it

was hardly 'met by chance in Norway'.

Thaksin's position isn't news;

he wants the whole shooting match in his hands or he keeps fighting.

Reconciliation with him still in the picture is a red herring.

Not going to happen.

We are so past the 4 year old coup that it is irrelevent to the actual reconciliation. It's not the coup but Thaksin wanting 'power' back that is the current issue at hand. Wailing on about the long past coup is just a political talking point.

Legal or not AT THAT TIME, it is legal now, since the country voted on a post coup constitution. To say that Thaksin's actions in the last 2 years have been legal is just so much smoke and mirrors. Many have not been and his illegal wrongs do not balance out the actions of the coup makers, and suddenly become legal, because they may have not acted legally.

Let's also not forget Thakin resigned as PM before the coup. and was no more than acting PM prior to that, and has returned and left again while his own crew was in power.

This is Thaksin wanting power again and nothing more,

no matter the talking points.

The same tired discredited points wheeled out again.Some people have no sense of shame.

To take but one example the constitution was imposed on the Thai public by the junta.It passed only barely because most people just wanted an end to the incompetent quisling government.The junta made it clear that if the constitution didn't pass it would be promulgated anyway.Even then with the full weight of the army and state apparatus pushing it, the constitution only scraped through - a massive slap in the face to the criminal regime.

Firstly let me apologise for adding my comment so late.

I checked the stats in regard to the result and I see that the constitution was passed with a vote of 59.30%. In my humble opinion, that does not represent your comment, namely:

"It passed only barely because most people just wanted an end to the incompetent quisling government."

in a very logical way.

100.00% - 59.30% = 40.70%; 59.30% -40.70% = 18.60 The latter figure as a %age of 40.70% = 45.70% hardly a minuscule difference I would have thought?

This post is my first posting, in regard to a contentious issue,in Thaivisa, even though I have been a member for some years. My reason for stating this, is because I could not be bothered to respond to so much "drivel" that appears here. I guess I do not have the patience of certain other members who attempt so valiantly to argue with logic and common decency. To those guys please continue, and perhaps with luck someday you may be able to covert some people into being more rational human beings.

Cheers, and good luck to THAILAND! I love the country and most of the Thai people I meet. I just wish that TS would disappear from print. Sadly the MEDIA, as some people have suggested before, play a big part in keeping alive his aspirations to return!

[Gonsalviz]

I am confused. Is it me or is it OK for a government official to meet, discuss, seek approval of government policy and giggle with a wanted fugative, charged with corruption, treason and funding the overthrow of that government? Not to mention a convicted criminal on the run to avoid his goal sentence and further prosecution?

Yes I think you are a bit confused.Sanan isn't a government official and can meet who he likes.Secondly this isn't the first meeting by neutral parties with Thaksin, for example the respected Bangkok Mayor Sukhumbhand met him in Brunei some months ago.Thirdly Thaksin remains the most popular politician in the country (and I grant you the most unpopular) and thus has a huge domestic base which can't be ignored.Fourthly he has transformed politics in Thailand, with the present government copying many of his policies.Fourthly he has been found guilty of only one relatively trivial offence.Fifthly there's a widely held view that many of the other charges against him are politically motivated.I don't think he's been charged with treason, has he?

In terms of the overthrow of governments, much of the current difficulty can be tracked back to the criminal coup of 2006 where the perpetrators remain unpunished.They awarded themselves a post facto pardon.I suggest first on the critical path is to nail these brutes and their not so hidden amart supporters.

And Thaksin? I think he's finished - too divisive and flawed.Let him stay in exile for a few years.But he's changed the country permanently so that the majority can no longer be patronised and ignored - which explains the fury and vengeful behaviour of the greedy, corrupt elite.

All good points.

Relatively trivial? Does that make it better than ................................

Edited November 10, 2010 by Gonsalviz

[jayboy]

A 16% win isnt bad in a vote actually and certainly isnt barely. Assumptions of why people voted for or against something or for or agaisnt a party are interesting to debate but irrelvent in practice. I take it you wont be arguing that people voted for X becuase their votes were bought which is a similar arguement;) The 58% turnout was on the low side compared to a national election but as there has never been a constitutional vote In Thailand before and one in which elements of a political party campaigned for people not to vote at one point it is difficult to state whether it was good or bad. As an aside it compares very well with the 40.3% turnout for the recent US elections.

Maybe in the critical thing is that we have just heard that the vast majority of people have never read or know nothing about the Thai constitution or have read a fraction of it or have minimal knowledge which isnt surprising to those who have discussed such things across the social spectrum

All fair points made in an intelligent and temperate way, and I note you aren't defending this discredited constitution.Others could learn from you.

Whether hammered feels the constitution is discredited or not is a matter for him, and one he doesn't address in the above; but as to your praising that he didn't defend it... well, you said the vote for it was won barely. He disagreed. You said that the people voted for it for the wrong reasons. He said that that was neither here nor there (to paraphrase). You said the turnout was low, he said all things considered it wasn't that bad (paraphrasing again).

Seems like a defence of sorts to me.

I said the military imposed constitution was discredited (I didn't attribute this to anyone else), an opinion shared by some leading Democrats by the way.My praise for Hammered was essentially because he knows the background and has a reasonable tone.I don't share his opinions always but that's what makes a forum interesting.

[rixalex]

I said the military imposed constitution was discredited (I didn't attribute this to anyone else), an opinion shared by some leading Democrats by the way.My praise for Hammered was essentially because he knows the background and has a reasonable tone.I don't share his opinions always but that's what makes a forum interesting.

Agreed.

So have you retracted your comments about the vote being won "barely"?

Think of it this way, if you do, perhaps you might have a stronger case with your as yet unsubstantiated remarks about the vote not having been a free one.

[rixalex]

Yes I think you are a bit confused.Sanan isn't a government official and can meet who he likes.Secondly this isn't the first meeting by neutral parties with Thaksin, for example the respected Bangkok Mayor Sukhumbhand met him in Brunei some months ago.Thirdly Thaksin remains the most popular politician in the country (and I grant you the most unpopular) and thus has a huge domestic base which can't be ignored.Fourthly he has transformed politics in Thailand, with the present government copying many of his policies.Fourthly he has been found guilty of only one relatively trivial offence.Fifthly there's a widely held view that many of the other charges against him are politically motivated.I don't think he's been charged with treason, has he?

If i might take you up on your second fourthly, maybe our standards of measurement differ, but were i sentenced to two years in jail, i don't think i would consider it a trivial matter, relatively or otherwise.

As to your fifthly, whether the charges are politically motivated or not is a matter we'll never know all the while he remains in self-imposed exile. It's my personal feeling however that people who refuse to show in court should, after a given period of time, be declared guilty. Would save some time and tax payers' money.

[jayboy]

I said the military imposed constitution was discredited (I didn't attribute this to anyone else), an opinion shared by some leading Democrats by the way.My praise for Hammered was essentially because he knows the background and has a reasonable tone.I don't share his opinions always but that's what makes a forum interesting.

Agreed.

So have you retracted your comments about the vote being won "barely"?

Think of it this way, if you do, perhaps you might have a stronger case with your as yet unsubstantiated remarks about the vote not having been a free one.

It's a perfectly fair point you make about my description of the vote being won "barely.It was more than that and I'm happy to concede on that.

AS for my "unsubstantiated comments" there's an awful lot of material out there supporting my position.Forgive me if I don't regurgitate it now partly because it's way off topic now and partly because I can't be bothered and partly because I don't sense you are open to different views or perspectives.Could be wrong on the latter though.

[rixalex]

AS for my "unsubstantiated comments" there's an awful lot of material out there supporting my position.Forgive me if I don't regurgitate it now partly because it's way off topic now and partly because I can't be bothered and partly because I don't sense you are open to different views or perspectives.Could be wrong on the latter though.

Then there's an awful lot of material that i haven't seen and would like to. If it's not too much bother, any links you can send my way - via PM if you deem it off topic - would be appreciated.

I'm as open-minded as the next man, but like the next man, i need to see something concrete and substantiated to bring about a change of opinion - and my opinion right now is that the constitution, flawed as it may well be, was put forward to the Thai people and they, without unethical or untoward pressurising, accepted it of their own free-will.

[hammered]

A 16% win isnt bad in a vote actually and certainly isnt barely. Assumptions of why people voted for or against something or for or agaisnt a party are interesting to debate but irrelvent in practice. I take it you wont be arguing that people voted for X becuase their votes were bought which is a similar arguement;) The 58% turnout was on the low side compared to a national election but as there has never been a constitutional vote In Thailand before and one in which elements of a political party campaigned for people not to vote at one point it is difficult to state whether it was good or bad. As an aside it compares very well with the 40.3% turnout for the recent US elections.

Maybe in the critical thing is that we have just heard that the vast majority of people have never read or know nothing about the Thai constitution or have read a fraction of it or have minimal knowledge which isnt surprising to those who have discussed such things across the social spectrum

All fair points made in an intelligent and temperate way, and I note you aren't defending this discredited constitution.Others could learn from you.

Whether hammered feels the constitution is discredited or not is a matter for him, and one he doesn't address in the above; but as to your praising that he didn't defend it... well, you said the vote for it was won barely. He disagreed. You said that the people voted for it for the wrong reasons. He said that that was neither here nor there (to paraphrase). You said the turnout was low, he said all things considered it wasn't that bad (paraphrasing again).

Seems like a defence of sorts to me.

I said the military imposed constitution was discredited (I didn't attribute this to anyone else), an opinion shared by some leading Democrats by the way.My praise for Hammered was essentially because he knows the background and has a reasonable tone.I don't share his opinions always but that's what makes a forum interesting.

Jayboy as you know I have always enjoyed exchanging views with you over the years.

To answer some questions and ruminate a little. All constitutions have good and bad points. 2007 did enshrine certain rights of the people although some would argue that a constitution shouldnt get so specific. For me though they were good points as people rarely get any protection in Thailand. On the other hand 2007 moved the checks and balances weighting too much. In that respect 1997 was better. Many think 1997 was too weak because the Thaksin was easily able to trample over them . However, what many forget is that it wasnt the constitution itself that failed but the check and balance mechanisms or more accurately those on them. With such mechanisms being new they had little confidence and no "precedent" and of course Thailand neither expected (look at Chalerm's ridiculing Thaksins chances of winning the 2001 vote at the time) or had seen before a single party government with all the power that comes with it. They were unique times. Unfortuantely we will never know if that situation would over time have found a balance as ultimately the military stepped in. In short there was nothing wrong with the 1997 constitution itself and also the 2007 did imho add the peoples protections and rights. From where we are now I would personally like to see the rights of people from 2007 enshrined in a more 1997 like coverage of the polity - elected upper house, less restrictive on MPs and checks and balances.

In the whole debate about how 2007 was conducted it is easy to disagree on peoples motivation for voting and we will never know so can all assume we are right or wrong if we want. However, one thing that nobody has raised yet is that if the 2007 charter had been rejected then by default it fell on the Junta or some body of it to chose any of Thailand's previous constitutions. Now they vary from complete reactionary documents to one that is considered the most democratic ever (not 1997), but they never made clear which one they would select. That always made me feel uneasy and I severely doubt it would have been anything other than a reactionary one. Whether this affected how people voted, and many didnt have a clue of these issues, is open to conjecture. However, it certainly imho affected how the poltical parties and canvassers advised people to vote and iirc even divided those who opposed 2007 and this was an issue on which the people generally sought advice of elders in many communities I know of. Understandinmg the finer details of a constitution is a difficult enough thing and may I add be intensely boring even for many committed poltically obsessed people.

Still the best thing about 2007 may be that for the first time a referendum was held and it would be nice to see this standard maintained for future ammendments or constitutions. My feeling in Thailand or any country is that you cant take away what has already been given so fully elected senate and constitutional referendum are now part of the poltical landscape even if this is currently denied and reversion to them is needed.

Also maybe the best thing about the recent checks and balance offensives against all and sundry is maybe that it happened rather than the decisions they reached as few could now argue the checks and balance institutions dont have the cojones to deal with the powerful as was argued earlier in the decade, and this is now also part of the culture of poltics in Thailand. Everything needs a bit of balancing as would anyone really want to go back to excesses of mass disolutions or unfettered exectuive control that even bypassed parlaiment much of the time?

Edited November 10, 2010 by hammered

[webfact]

Noppadol confident Sanan-Thaksin talk 'will go well'

By The Nation

The legal adviser to former premier Thaksin Shinawatra said on Wednesday that he believed the reconciliation talks between Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kajornprasart and ex-premier Thaksin Shinnawatr 'will go well'

Noppadol Pattama said that the "coincidental" talk lasted only about 15 minutes, which was too short to discuss the setting up of a new government. He thought the conversation was more about Sanan's reconciliation plan to which Thaksin had already agreed in the principle.

When asked whether the discussion had covered the alleged proposal to get MPs from Chat Thai Pattana Party to join in the setting up of a new government with the Pheu Thai Party in the next election and if this succeeded, Sanan would become the prime minister, Noppadol said the question should be directed to Sanan.

He also expressed his personal view that some ill-intentioned persons who didn't want to see reconciliation wanted to tarnish the goodwill between Sanan and Thaksin.

Asked if Phue Thai Party would be okay were Sanan to be appointed as the next Prime Minister, he replied that Sanan is a very experienced politician, but that the Pheu Thai Party would firstly support its own members.

Noppodol said "the party has qualified members who could become the next prime minister as well. So if we support outsiders when we are campaigning for votes under the Pheu Thai Party, people won't like that. The party has plenty of capable persons so we don't need to depend on other parties."

Regarding the reconciliation plan, Noppadol commented that the current government doesn't really mean to make it happen in a proper manner, even though it appears to be motivated to amend the constitution, which will solve only two issues and is not in line with the five-point road map.

He said, "it is difficult to have reconciliation as long as the government is still trying to hunt down the red shirt people."

-- The Nation 2010-11-10

[rubl]

Slightly off topic (only), but Noppadol Pattama, also spelled Noppodol Pattama in the latest Nation newsflash used to be Noppadon Pattama.

Typical Thai mistake translating into English, next we'll read 'schoon opening again'.

[whybother]

Noppadol Pattama said that the "coincidental" talk lasted only about 15 minutes ...

The "coincidental" talk that Noppadol has been spouting on about for a week or 2.

He also expressed his personal view that some ill-intentioned persons who didn't want to see reconciliation ...

So ... that would be the red shirts??

Edited November 10, 2010 by whybother

[jdinasia]

Not really news, because nothing is new except that they talked.

And considering the Nopadum has been trumpeting the meeting for a week it

was hardly 'met by chance in Norway'.

Thaksin's position isn't news;

he wants the whole shooting match in his hands or he keeps fighting.

Reconciliation with him still in the picture is a red herring.

Not going to happen.

We are so past the 4 year old coup that it is irrelevent to the actual reconciliation. It's not the coup but Thaksin wanting 'power' back that is the current issue at hand. Wailing on about the long past coup is just a political talking point.

Legal or not AT THAT TIME, it is legal now, since the country voted on a post coup constitution. To say that Thaksin's actions in the last 2 years have been legal is just so much smoke and mirrors. Many have not been and his illegal wrongs do not balance out the actions of the coup makers, and suddenly become legal, because they may have not acted legally.

Let's also not forget Thakin resigned as PM before the coup. and was no more than acting PM prior to that, and has returned and left again while his own crew was in power.

This is Thaksin wanting power again and nothing more,

no matter the talking points.

The same tired discredited points wheeled out again.Some people have no sense of shame.

To take but one example the constitution was imposed on the Thai public by the junta.It passed only barely because most people just wanted an end to the incompetent quisling government.The junta made it clear that if the constitution didn't pass it would be promulgated anyway.Even then with the full weight of the army and state apparatus pushing it, the constitution only scraped through - a massive slap in the face to the criminal regime.

Point by point -----

1 "the same tired discredited points" .... empty and untrue statement meant as an ad hominem attack ... an attempt to discredit the poster without addressing what was said.

2 "because most people just wanted..." --- please document how you know what most people that voted in favor of the constitution wanted.

3 "a massive slap in the face"... personal opinion not balanced by any fact

3 "criminal regime" --- another fallacious attack. The government at the time may not have been democratically elected but they were the official government with normal relations with other countries. Had jayboy chosen the word 'extra-constitutional' it may have been accurate. The fact that the previous caretaker government was also 'extra-constitutional' seems to be a point that he refuses to admit.

edit to add ...... Sanan's not a government official Jayboy? DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER ------ think carefully before ridiculing posters

Edited November 10, 2010 by jdinasia

[samjaidee]

I am confused. Is it me or is it OK for a government official to meet, discuss, seek approval of government policy and giggle with a wanted fugative, charged with corruption, treason and funding the overthrow of that government? Not to mention a convicted criminal on the run to avoid his goal sentence and further prosecution?

If you're going to use archaic language why don't you practice spelling it first.

'goal' has a quite different meaning to "gaol".

[dekbahnnok]

who cares what he thinks?

the opinion of a wanted terrorist and convicted criminal on the run deserves no consideration at all

Thaksin is spent force.

Thailand is much better off with Abhisit and Korn at the helm

lets move on

old soldiers never die they just fade away....without endless media coverage Thaksin would fade away....

[rubl]

Noppadol confident Sanan-Thaksin talk 'will go well'

By The Nation

The legal adviser to former premier Thaksin Shinawatra said on Wednesday that he believed the reconciliation talks between Deputy Prime Minister Sanan Kajornprasart and ex-premier Thaksin Shinnawatr 'will go well'

... end removed

K. Noppadon did it again, masterly!

'talks will go well' suggests there will be more talks. Probably just 'by chance' as K. Sanan said about the 15 giggling minutes in Oslo.

[yellow1red1]

Nevertheless I think one has to acknowledge the informal (and actually somewhat unfair) pressures brought by the state to get the constitution through.

Let's get specific here. What were these unethical pressures?

The state simply telling citizens that voting "yes" is in the best interest of the nation for moving fowards is not. It's no different from what the "no" lobby group were doing. Both sides were selling their argument (not literally one hopes). It's what happens when referendums are called.

It went far beyond that.The following article from the Singapore Institute of International Affairs is reasonably even handed

http://www.siiaonlin...-eat-humble-pie

good read,

Is your point there IS a 'mood' for real democracy AND it is not a tiny movement?

surely that is a fact that can be faced, sometimes with open mind, sometimes with Bullets

BTW wot is reconciliation, Thai style?

Is it Sanan cobbling all the red and yellow mobsters together to get things 'back to normal'? Ha ha ha

normal??? when exactly was it NORMAL plzzzzz?

when it happens they will pull wool over eyes and call it DEMOCRACY

fixing up the pig trough to make room for more snouts is better than fighting over it and breaking it up, aight?

even the mafia knows that!

This lingering stalemate between Thaksin and Sondhi has had the benefit of exposing the underbelly of snakes and crocs!

better than when they were lover boys and partners in crime, which they WERE!

[Buchholz]

Sanan said he talked to Thaksin for about 15 minutes at an temple event in Norway.

Very reminiscent of Thaksin trying to get the most mileage from his brief greeting and hand shake that he got with his 5 minutes of Nelson Mandela's time.

You would have thought they were in locked in meetings for hours having deep and substantive talks on a myriad of intricate issues by the tone of his lawyer cum spokesman Noppadon's pronouncements.

Now, some pivotal and monumental reconciliation conference devolves into a 15 minute chit-chat.

[Buchholz]

I'm not a policeman and have no power to arrest anyone. Even policemen who have met Thaksin abroad cannot arrest him.

A number of policemen from Pheu Thai Party, such as Police Captain Chalerm, have met the criminal fugitive on the run overseas.

Or a former judge, in the form of brother-in-law Somchai (and banned PPP big wig), has met the wanted absconder on his wandering sojourns.

I'm sure it pains them all greatly, as sworn upholders of the law, to be unable to arrest the convict on the lam, or at least encourage him, as a former officer of the court, to return and serve out his sentence.

[Buchholz]

The same tired discredited points wheeled out again.Some people have no sense of shame.

To take but one example the constitution was imposed on the Thai public by the junta.It passed only barely because most people just wanted an end to the incompetent quisling government.The junta made it clear that if the constitution didn't pass it would be promulgated anyway.Even then with the full weight of the army and state apparatus pushing it, the constitution only scraped through - a massive slap in the face to the criminal regime.

A 16% win isn't bad in a vote actually and certainly isn't barely. Assumptions of why people voted for or against something or for or against a party are interesting to debate but irrelevant in practice. I take it you wont be arguing that people voted for X because their votes were bought which is a similar argument;) The 58% turnout was on the low side compared to a national election but as there has never been a constitutional vote In Thailand before and one in which elements of a political party campaigned for people not to vote at one point it is difficult to state whether it was good or bad.

Maybe in the critical thing is that we have just heard that the vast majority of people have never read or know nothing about the Thai constitution or have read a fraction of it or have minimal knowledge which isn't surprising to those who have discussed such things across the social spectrum

Indeed, the ground-breaking, unprecedented publicly-approved constitution status is noteworthy.

Still, regarding those percentages, it's laughable to try and say it was a slap in the face to the drafters, but it, sadly, rests with the voters themselves when such a low number read any of it at all.

[kropotkin]

I am confused. Is it me or is it OK for a government official to meet, discuss, seek approval of government policy and giggle with a wanted fugative, charged with corruption, treason and funding the overthrow of that government? Not to mention a convicted criminal on the run to avoid his goal sentence and further prosecution?

If you're going to use archaic language why don't you practice spelling it first.

'goal' has a quite different meaning to "gaol".

1. We all admire your command of english.

2. What else you speak?

3. How about answering the poster - in english, or in whatever other language you speak?

The poster had a very valid question.

[waza]

I am confused. Is it me or is it OK for a government official to meet, discuss, seek approval of government policy and giggle with a wanted fugative, charged with corruption, treason and funding the overthrow of that government? Not to mention a convicted criminal on the run to avoid his goal sentence and further prosecution?

If you're going to use archaic language why don't you practice spelling it first.

'goal' has a quite different meaning to "gaol".

Sorry teacher, I will try better next time. I was going to write jail, but thought archaic was more appropriate. Pity this is all you can contrbute to the discussion.