Red Shirts Plan For Future, Next Bangkok Rally With 60,000 People

[Pi Sek]

That was not my point... violence is violence on any side and murdering someone being interviewed by a journalist is MURDER and extreme violence on behalf of the state

lol.

Do you have any evidence he wasn't ordered shot by Thaksin or one of the many unelected Red Shirt leaders who needed him out of the way?

Without evidence, making a claim that the Army "MURDERED" him could be construed as libellous.

on the balance of probability it wasn't Thaksin (who was on the same side) the bullet was Army issue and it wasn't Santa Claus right? use your brain

I thought this was argued out to its conclusion just a week ago.

We do not know that the army killed Seh Daeng, and we do know that Seh Daeng had pissed off people who also say they don't approve of violence despite sponsoring it (Thaksin), talking about “bloodshed all over the country” (Natthawut) and “a guerilla war” (Jatuporn).

Despite this argument AGAINST the army shooting Seh Daeng (and that's not even going into the many other theories), I still believe it was an army hit. But it might not have been and, as I said in the other thread, I think we can safely assume it was not Santa Claus. So common sense or otherwise, it would be misleading and, dare I say it, evil to push this opinion in the same way that you did.

Really, especially since you have brought up your very high level of education, you should engage your brain from time to time too. Hope you can take the criticism as helpful advice.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Pi Sek

[Insight]

We do not know that the army killed Seh Daeng, and we do know that Seh Daeng had pissed off people who also say they don't approve of violence despite sponsoring it (Thaksin), talking about “bloodshed all over the country” (Natthawut) and “a guerilla war” (Jatuporn).

Do believe it was Monkey Lips Jakraprob warning about "a guerilla war". Not sure if Jutaporn has also made similar claims...

[ChiangMaiFun]

That was not my point... violence is violence on any side and murdering someone being interviewed by a journalist is MURDER and extreme violence on behalf of the state

lol.

Do you have any evidence he wasn't ordered shot by Thaksin or one of the many unelected Red Shirt leaders who needed him out of the way?

Without evidence, making a claim that the Army "MURDERED" him could be construed as libellous.

on the balance of probability it wasn't Thaksin (who was on the same side) the bullet was Army issue and it wasn't Santa Claus right? use your brain

I thought this was argued out to its conclusion just a week ago.

We do not know that the army killed Seh Daeng, and we do know that Seh Daeng had pissed off people who also say they don't approve of violence despite sponsoring it (Thaksin), talking about “bloodshed all over the country” (Natthawut) and “a guerilla war” (Jatuporn).

Despite this argument AGAINST the army shooting Seh Daeng (and that's not even going into the many other theories), I still believe it was an army hit. But it might not have been and, as I said in the other thread, I think we can safely assume it was not Santa Claus. So common sense or otherwise, it would be misleading and, dare I say it, evil to push this opinion in the same way that you did.

Really, especially since you have brought up your very high level of education, you should engage your brain from time to time too. Hope you can take the criticism as helpful advice.

I would expect this sort of resonse from you - no we don't know 100% I agree but it is the balance of probability - with good ballistics and investigative techniques they should be able to identify the bullet and gun etc. you think they will do this impartially? let's see... but to suggest it was the same side is beyond any neutral person's imagination - maybe Kennedy was shot by the his own guards right?

[Pi Sek]

We do not know that the army killed Seh Daeng, and we do know that Seh Daeng had pissed off people who also say they don't approve of violence despite sponsoring it (Thaksin), talking about “bloodshed all over the country” (Natthawut) and “a guerilla war” (Jatuporn).

Do believe it was Monkey Lips Jakraprob warning about "a guerilla war". Not sure if Jutaporn has also made similar claims...

23 April 2010, from the Rajprasong stage:

Any attempt to clear the rally would spark “bloodshed all over the country” (Natthawut Saikua) and a “guerilla war” (Jatuporn Promphan).

[Insight]

We do not know that the army killed Seh Daeng, and we do know that Seh Daeng had pissed off people who also say they don't approve of violence despite sponsoring it (Thaksin), talking about “bloodshed all over the country” (Natthawut) and “a guerilla war” (Jatuporn).

Do believe it was Monkey Lips Jakraprob warning about "a guerilla war". Not sure if Jutaporn has also made similar claims...

23 April 2010, from the Rajprasong stage:

Any attempt to clear the rally would spark “bloodshed all over the country” (Natthawut Saikua) and a “guerilla war” (Jatuporn Promphan).

I stand corrected

[whybother]

I would expect this sort of resonse from you - no we don't know 100% I agree but it is the balance of probability - with good ballistics and investigative techniques they should be able to identify the bullet and gun etc. you think they will do this impartially? let's see... but to suggest it was the same side is beyond any neutral person's imagination - maybe Kennedy was shot by the his own guards right?

Even identifying the bullet or the type of gun wouldn't necessarily point the finger at the army, given the red shirts access to military hardware both before the protests and during the protests.

I'm not saying that it wasn't the army, but just highlighting that bullet and gun couldn't identify that it was the army.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I would expect this sort of resonse from you - no we don't know 100% I agree but it is the balance of probability - with good ballistics and investigative techniques they should be able to identify the bullet and gun etc. you think they will do this impartially? let's see... but to suggest it was the same side is beyond any neutral person's imagination - maybe Kennedy was shot by the his own guards right?

Even identifying the bullet or the type of gun wouldn't necessarily point the finger at the army, given the red shirts access to military hardware both before the protests and during the protests.

I'm not saying that it wasn't the army, but just highlighting that bullet and gun couldn't identify that it was the army.

yes I understand that - I should have said 'in all proabability' but I was lazy... but where is the CCTV footage? where are the witnesses? anyway we are veering way off topic - I just would like to see more balance in the posts - you cannot be against violence and pick 'n' choose which bits you are against - I'm against it ALL

edit: spl

Edited January 7, 2011 by ChiangMaiFun

[metisdead]

Some controversial, irrelevant, off-topic posts with the intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or meant to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion have been removed from view.

Edited to add, another post has been removed.

[rubl]

Sunday will see the next rally at Ratchaprasong. All about 'justice', 'democracy', 'free our leaders', etc., etc., same like before. In case some have forgotten what was before:

2010-05-12: http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-05/12/content_20024229.htm

2010-05-16: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/05/16/politics/More-bloodshed-as-red-siege-continues-30129445.html

2010-05-17: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-226548731.html

2010-05-18: http://www.mcot.net/cfcustom/cache_page/57250.html

2010-05-19: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2010/05/mil-100519-rianovosti02.htm

2010-09-07: http://nationsstate.blogspot.com/

(the last link gives an account from vdGrift who is annoyed, but seems to forget the soldier who was wounded in the same grenade attack).

[TheyCallmeScooter]

can I make it CLEAR? sae dang was a nutter - and supported violence - I am not defending nor disputing it - but nor do I enjoy one-sided posts that deplore the violence that sae dang sponsored but ignore his murder - two wrongs do not make a right! I am anti-violence FULLSTOP and have posted this regularly since the red protests down in krung thep.

I am also anti-violence as a general rule. But how would you have 'handled Seh Daeng? He was a rogue Army General known for his violent rhetoric directed against the government and Privy Council, who was establishing his own armed militia smack in the middle of the Bangkok riots / crisis. I'm not sure law and order are best served by simply ignoring him and hoping him and his militia go away?

As for your claim to oppose violence full-stop, can you please confirm you vehemently deplored the violence of the Red Shirts, when they attacked peaceful soldiers who refused to fire...on April 09?

Those ruthless Army soldiers...

1 soldier oppressing peaceful protesters...

Uncalled for head-butt from Army soldier on peaceful protester...

Soldiers using live fire as cover to launch an attack no doubt...

Completely staged, possibly photoshopped....

Balance is really important, yes. A balanced, proportional response to violent provocation is appropriate and just. The violent provocation? Usually not so much....

[Ricardo]

yes and the people who voted for the 'coalition partners'? what about them? did they get a chance to say 'it's ok to switch'? no... anyway what's done is done - bring on the election and I will support whoever wins (fairly).

Did they get a chance to say it's OK to side with the PPP in the first place?

Hmmmm well... I don't know for sure but i believe the allegiances were clear before the election - but in all honesty I can't say for sure

I myself do remember the other minor parties, who then went into coalition with PPP to help them form a government after the December-2007 election, promising pre-election that they would not side with the PPP.

Which is why, when they moved in December-2008 to support the Democrat-led coalition government, I did not view them as traitors, somehow going back on their election promises to their electorate. One might well argue however that the Friends-of-Newin faction of PTP were going back on their word, if indeed TRT/PPP/PTP were a unified party with a clear platform and democratically-elected leader, rather than a coalition of old-style feudal-factions, arguing over the scraps of power.

Incidentally while I support your non-violence stance, I can still well-believe that Thaksin might have been behind Seh Daeng's assasination, as he was saying a lot of very-incriminating things about DL just before he got shot. Hope this doesn't make me one of the right-wing nutters, you refer to, just a touch cynical about the 'defender of true democracy' who "quit Thai politics" back in 2006.

I therefore welcome the emergence of Khun Thida, who seems to claim to be a peaceful leader of the UDD & not a Thaksin-hardliner, but I wish I was more confident that she would find the rest of the movement following her lead.

[cdnvic]

One flame & a reply deleted.

You know, you may think what you are saying is very important but outside of here nobody really cares, so why get all worked up and possibly banned over it?

Read Endure's clever cartoon and take it too heart.

[aznyron]

the way I see it the shooter had no concern about the news reporter if he missed he would have killed a innocent bystander I find that repulsive I also find it that the General was being inter-viewed not engaged in a combat shoot out which also disturbs me. I never engaged in a demonstration in my own country I sure would not take part in one here but when a Government uses live ammo on unarmed demonstrators they now become murderers plain & simple. I have seen Police on horse back break up mobs without use of fire power just a strong horse & baton got the job done now I am not saying that would have worked in Bangkok but I believe it was not handled correctly. it seems the people with all the money think they know what is best for those with out the money I see it in the USA bankers running my country & robbing it blind & they get away with it that the part that disturbs me & I see the same thing going on in Thailand with inflated Thai baht once again it bankers robbing the country & small business

[ChiangMaiFun]

yes and the people who voted for the 'coalition partners'? what about them? did they get a chance to say 'it's ok to switch'? no... anyway what's done is done - bring on the election and I will support whoever wins (fairly).

Did they get a chance to say it's OK to side with the PPP in the first place?

Hmmmm well... I don't know for sure but i believe the allegiances were clear before the election - but in all honesty I can't say for sure

I myself do remember the other minor parties, who then went into coalition with PPP to help them form a government after the December-2007 election, promising pre-election that they would not side with the PPP.

Which is why, when they moved in December-2008 to support the Democrat-led coalition government, I did not view them as traitors, somehow going back on their election promises to their electorate. One might well argue however that the Friends-of-Newin faction of PTP were going back on their word, if indeed TRT/PPP/PTP were a unified party with a clear platform and democratically-elected leader, rather than a coalition of old-style feudal-factions, arguing over the scraps of power.

Incidentally while I support your non-violence stance, I can still well-believe that Thaksin might have been behind Seh Daeng's assasination, as he was saying a lot of very-incriminating things about DL just before he got shot. Hope this doesn't make me one of the right-wing nutters, you refer to, just a touch cynical about the 'defender of true democracy' who "quit Thai politics" back in 2006.

I therefore welcome the emergence of Khun Thida, who seems to claim to be a peaceful leader of the UDD & not a Thaksin-hardliner, but I wish I was more confident that she would find the rest of the movement following her lead.

well fair enough Ricardo on the PPP point - not so sure about the Sae Dang point though - yes I agree about Thida she comes across very well in my view and if she distances from Khun T all the better - there's hope yet! (a bit anyway)

[ChiangMaiFun]

the way I see it the shooter had no concern about the news reporter if he missed he would have killed a innocent bystander I find that repulsive I also find it that the General was being inter-viewed not engaged in a combat shoot out which also disturbs me. I never engaged in a demonstration in my own country I sure would not take part in one here but when a Government uses live ammo on unarmed demonstrators they now become murderers plain & simple. I have seen Police on horse back break up mobs without use of fire power just a strong horse & baton got the job done now I am not saying that would have worked in Bangkok but I believe it was not handled correctly. it seems the people with all the money think they know what is best for those with out the money I see it in the USA bankers running my country & robbing it blind & they get away with it that the part that disturbs me & I see the same thing going on in Thailand with inflated Thai baht once again it bankers robbing the country & small business

exactly! but 'some' posters won't 'get it' - murder is muder by an individual or a State.

[whybother]

the way I see it the shooter had no concern about the news reporter if he missed he would have killed a innocent bystander I find that repulsive I also find it that the General was being inter-viewed not engaged in a combat shoot out which also disturbs me.

The shooter (who ever he was) probably had no concern about the news reporter. The fact that he didn't make a clean shot shows that he could have also easily taken out someone else. His orders from someone was to get Seh Daeng. He probably took that opportunity when Seh Daeng's guard was down during an interview. I wonder who organised the interview.

I never engaged in a demonstration in my own country I sure would not take part in one here but when a Government uses live ammo on unarmed demonstrators they now become murderers plain & simple. I have seen Police on horse back break up mobs without use of fire power just a strong horse & baton got the job done now I am not saying that would have worked in Bangkok but I believe it was not handled correctly. it seems the people with all the money think they know what is best for those with out the money I see it in the USA bankers running my country & robbing it blind & they get away with it that the part that disturbs me & I see the same thing going on in Thailand with inflated Thai baht once again it bankers robbing the country & small business

How well do horses stand up to grenades and gun fire?

Edited January 8, 2011 by whybother

[ChiangMaiFun]

the way I see it the shooter had no concern about the news reporter if he missed he would have killed a innocent bystander I find that repulsive I also find it that the General was being inter-viewed not engaged in a combat shoot out which also disturbs me.

The shooter (who ever he was) probably had no concern about the news reporter. The fact that he didn't make a clean shot shows that he could have also easily taken out someone else. His orders from someone was to get Seh Daeng. He probably took that opportunity when Seh Daeng's guard was down during an interview. I wonder who organised the interview.

I never engaged in a demonstration in my own country I sure would not take part in one here but when a Government uses live ammo on unarmed demonstrators they now become murderers plain & simple. I have seen Police on horse back break up mobs without use of fire power just a strong horse & baton got the job done now I am not saying that would have worked in Bangkok but I believe it was not handled correctly. it seems the people with all the money think they know what is best for those with out the money I see it in the USA bankers running my country & robbing it blind & they get away with it that the part that disturbs me & I see the same thing going on in Thailand with inflated Thai baht once again it bankers robbing the country & small business

How well do horses stand up to grenades and gun fire?

whybother - we don't always agree but I have always respected your posts and enjoyed them - I believe we BOTH condem violence - of any side - and recognise that anyone shot in the head by anyone is murder? we will probably never know who ordered it or, indeed, who pulled the trigger as suddenly there is no CCTV and no witnesses etc. I agree that 'reasonable force' has to be used. on occasion, and if fired at the security forces have to fire back - but in this case the guy was hardly a threat.

edit: spl

Edited January 8, 2011 by ChiangMaiFun

[aznyron]

the way I see it the shooter had no concern about the news reporter if he missed he would have killed a innocent bystander I find that repulsive I also find it that the General was being inter-viewed not engaged in a combat shoot out which also disturbs me.

The shooter (who ever he was) probably had no concern about the news reporter. The fact that he didn't make a clean shot shows that he could have also easily taken out someone else. His orders from someone was to get Seh Daeng. He probably took that opportunity when Seh Daeng's guard was down during an interview. I wonder who organised the interview.

I never engaged in a demonstration in my own country I sure would not take part in one here but when a Government uses live ammo on unarmed demonstrators they now become murderers plain & simple. I have seen Police on horse back break up mobs without use of fire power just a strong horse & baton got the job done now I am not saying that would have worked in Bangkok but I believe it was not handled correctly. it seems the people with all the money think they know what is best for those with out the money I see it in the USA bankers running my country & robbing it blind & they get away with it that the part that disturbs me & I see the same thing going on in Thailand with inflated Thai baht once again it bankers robbing the country & small business

How well do horses stand up to grenades and gun fire?

like I said it may not have worked in BKK but I have to assume the person or persons who fired the first shot is responsible for all the deaths that happened I also suspect the red shirts were not heavenly armed but the army was to me it was a tank going after a dog or using a grenade to kill a roach so I see no advantage for the red shirts to engage in fire power against a heavenly armed military I also know B/S is B/S no matter how you twist the facts

[Ricardo]

well fair enough Ricardo on the PPP point - not so sure about the Sae Dang point though - yes I agree about Thida she comes across very well in my view and if she distances from Khun T all the better - there's hope yet! (a bit anyway)

I think most of us farangs have to be optimists, regarding gradual progress towards more democracy & press-freedom, given that the alternatives include a bloodbath or a dictatorship. :jap:

[whybother]

like I said it may not have worked in BKK but I have to assume the person or persons who fired the first shot is responsible for all the deaths that happened I also suspect the red shirts were not heavenly armed but the army was to me it was a tank going after a dog or using a grenade to kill a roach so I see no advantage for the red shirts to engage in fire power against a heavenly armed military I also know B/S is B/S no matter how you twist the facts

I also don't believe the red shirts were heavily armed. But they were armed. WHY were they armed?

The videos from April 10 show the army stationary and the red shirts dancing to music when the first (I assume they were the first, given nothing was really happening) shots were heard.

They didn't need to be heavily armed to raise the stakes. And raise the stakes they did. The red shirts threw grenades that killed and injured army personal (including the Colonel in charge - was that an "accident" or planned from the beginning?)

The advantage for the red shirts to engage the army was to get civilian deaths, which they expected would bring down the government as has happened in previous major protests. That failed, most likely because the armed red shirts were caught red handed (no pun intended). They didn't get the sympathy from the masses that they were expecting.

If the red shirts were not armed, there may have been no deaths on April 10, or possibly even for the rest of the protests. But we won't know what would have happened, because they were armed.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

It is a cute cartoon.

Only 1/20 of my posts are worth reading. But that's 1/20 more than some.

I never engaged in a demonstration in my own country I sure would not take part in one here but when a Government uses live ammo on unarmed demonstrators they now become murderers plain & simple. I have seen Police on horse back break up mobs without use of fire power just a strong horse & baton got the job done now I am not saying that would have worked in Bangkok but I believe it was not handled correctly. it seems the people with all the money think they know what is best for those with out the money I see it in the USA bankers running my country & robbing it blind & they get away with it that the part that disturbs me & I see the same thing going on in Thailand with inflated Thai baht once again it bankers robbing the country & small business

How well do horses stand up to grenades and gun fire?

like I said it may not have worked in BKK but I have to assume the person or persons who fired the first shot is responsible for all the deaths that happened I also suspect the red shirts were not heavenly armed but the army was to me it was a tank going after a dog or using a grenade to kill a roach so I see no advantage for the red shirts to engage in fire power against a heavenly armed military I also know B/S is B/S no matter how you twist the facts

Your country is the UK? It must be as the mobs clearly aren't armed like they would be most elsewhere. Mounted police and batons would do quite acceptably clearing those little snotty anarchists who lose their minds at the G7 summits and all the other scrawny students protesting the future.

You ever see mounted police with batons breaking up riots in the US? Remember the LA riots after Rodney King beatdown by cops?

You don't bring a baton to a shootout.

The spark came in April 1992, when all four officers in the Rodney King case were cleared of assault. Within hours, violence erupted across the city's black neighbourhoods.

Fifty-five people were killed in several days of rioting.

About 2,000 people were injured, and another 12,000 arrested.More than $1bn worth of property was damaged and the National Guard was deployed to help police restore order.

Sounds very much like Bangkok in April / May. Well, scratch all of May and 5/6ths of April. The National Guard didn't wait for 7 weeks before they started restoring law and order with live fire. I think they left the batons at home as well.

[termad]

I have no Interest in Thai politics but I sense a large number of thai citizens are unhappy with the present government since they were appointed not elected which is not the democratic way. I was not happy when the supreme court appointed GW Bush to be my President so I understand there frustration. I also want to say peaceful demonstration are good but you do not get the results your after I suspect if the election was to be held the red shirts would win with 70 % of the votes which tell me that elite ruling class fear the loss of power. I also want to ad shooting & killing unarmed demonstrators is not good policy it just ad more anger & fear & when people are tired of being afraid they become a super fighting force & nothing will stop them. I suspect the red shirts are hungry & with the economics of Thailand being loss of tourism & exports due to very strong Baht it the working poor that get hurt the most. / this is only my opinion

No interest in Thai politics ... and no knowledge of Thai politics.

Are you claiming to be an expert in Thai poitics yourself?

[whybother]

I have no Interest in Thai politics but I sense a large number of thai citizens are unhappy with the present government since they were appointed not elected which is not the democratic way. I was not happy when the supreme court appointed GW Bush to be my President so I understand there frustration. I also want to say peaceful demonstration are good but you do not get the results your after I suspect if the election was to be held the red shirts would win with 70 % of the votes which tell me that elite ruling class fear the loss of power. I also want to ad shooting & killing unarmed demonstrators is not good policy it just ad more anger & fear & when people are tired of being afraid they become a super fighting force & nothing will stop them. I suspect the red shirts are hungry & with the economics of Thailand being loss of tourism & exports due to very strong Baht it the working poor that get hurt the most. / this is only my opinion

No interest in Thai politics ... and no knowledge of Thai politics.

Are you claiming to be an expert in Thai poitics yourself?

Not at all. But I have enough knowledge to know that Abhisit became PM in the same way that Samak and Somchai became PM before him.

[termad]

I have no Interest in Thai politics but I sense a large number of thai citizens are unhappy with the present government since they were appointed not elected which is not the democratic way. I was not happy when the supreme court appointed GW Bush to be my President so I understand there frustration. I also want to say peaceful demonstration are good but you do not get the results your after I suspect if the election was to be held the red shirts would win with 70 % of the votes which tell me that elite ruling class fear the loss of power. I also want to ad shooting & killing unarmed demonstrators is not good policy it just ad more anger & fear & when people are tired of being afraid they become a super fighting force & nothing will stop them. I suspect the red shirts are hungry & with the economics of Thailand being loss of tourism & exports due to very strong Baht it the working poor that get hurt the most. / this is only my opinion

Understand what you are saying but this is not the US and Thais don't elect their president (Prime Minister) in elections. Being from the US I am not sure I understand how it exactly works but I think the bottom line is they elect their parliamentary leaders who then elect the Prime Minster. Abhisit was elected this same way by the parliament after the previous PM was thrown out.

Bush is probably a bad example to use since there is one more closely related in US Politics. Nixon's VP resigned (forget his name) over scandal and Nixon appointed Ford as the new VP. Then Nixon resigned making Ford the new President yet he was never elected by the people. On the other hand, Abhisit was elected to parliament by the people (a number of times I believe) and he was elected by parliament to be the PM as is the way things work here.

In UK and Thailand you vote for a party and its political manifesto the party decides who is to be its leader (P.M.). The Democrats lost the election but in a deal brokered by the Military and funded by the Amataya forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin) were bought and these MPs then crossed the floor of the House and formed a new party (Bhumjaithai). This new party, which has never stood for election, then gave their votes to the Democrat party thus betraying the people that had elected them as Phuea Thai MPs. If you call that being elected by parliament - well yes you are technically correct.

Part of the deal was that this new party would get control of some lucrative ministries which they did and have subsequently been at the centre of all the corruption allegations laid at the door of this present government. What has Abhisit done about that? nothing. The reason being that if he calls Bhumjaithai to account he would lose its support and have to call an election.

Edited January 8, 2011 by termad

[whybother]

In UK and Thailand you vote for a party and its political manifesto the party decides who is to be its leader (P.M.). The Democrats lost the election but in a deal brokered by the Military and funded by the Amataya forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin) were bought and these MPs then crossed the floor of the House and formed a new party (Bhumjaithai). This new party, which has never stood for election, then gave their votes to the Democrat party thus betraying the people that had elected them as Phuea Thai MPs. If you call that being elected by parliament - well yes you are technically correct.

Part of the deal was that this new party would get control of some lucrative ministries which they did and have subsequently been at the centre of all the corruption allegations laid at the door of this present government. What has Abhisit done about that? nothing. The reason being that if he calls Bhumjaithai to account he would lose its support and have to call an election.

Actually, in Thailand, a lot of people vote for a local politician regardless of the party he supposedly represents, as shown by the ex-PPP, now BJT MP, who was elected with the PPP in the 2007 election, and then recently re-elected with the BJT in a by-election.

The PPP lost the election also, but they made a deal with smaller parties that had campaigned that they would not support the PPP.

After the PPP were disbanded, ALL the remaining (non-banned) MPs moved to different parties. The "friends of Newin" decided that they didn't want to move to the PTP, and formed their own party. They also decided that they didn't want to continue supporting Thaksin's puppet parties so supported the Democrats instead.

As with any coalition government, members of smaller coalition parties are given some key posts, as shown in recent elections in Aus and the UK. Particularly, in Australia, the Liberal / National coalition always had the Nationals leader as deputy PM, and Nationals MPs in some other key posts.

[termad]

In UK and Thailand you vote for a party and its political manifesto the party decides who is to be its leader (P.M.). The Democrats lost the election but in a deal brokered by the Military and funded by the Amataya forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin) were bought and these MPs then crossed the floor of the House and formed a new party (Bhumjaithai). This new party, which has never stood for election, then gave their votes to the Democrat party thus betraying the people that had elected them as Phuea Thai MPs. If you call that being elected by parliament - well yes you are technically correct.

Part of the deal was that this new party would get control of some lucrative ministries which they did and have subsequently been at the centre of all the corruption allegations laid at the door of this present government. What has Abhisit done about that? nothing. The reason being that if he calls Bhumjaithai to account he would lose its support and have to call an election.

Actually, in Thailand, a lot of people vote for a local politician regardless of the party he supposedly represents, as shown by the ex-PPP, now BJT MP, who was elected with the PPP in the 2007 election, and then recently re-elected with the BJT in a by-election.

The PPP lost the election also, but they made a deal with smaller parties that had campaigned that they would not support the PPP.

After the PPP were disbanded, ALL the remaining (non-banned) MPs moved to different parties. The "friends of Newin" decided that they didn't want to move to the PTP, and formed their own party. They also decided that they didn't want to continue supporting Thaksin's puppet parties so supported the Democrats instead.

As with any coalition government, members of smaller coalition parties are given some key posts, as shown in recent elections in Aus and the UK. Particularly, in Australia, the Liberal / National coalition always had the Nationals leader as deputy PM, and Nationals MPs in some other key posts.

Your reply doesn't make sense. The 'friends of Newin' didn't/couldn't have decided that they didn't want to move to Phuea Thai party as they were already elected Phuea Thai MPs.

[whybother]

In UK and Thailand you vote for a party and its political manifesto the party decides who is to be its leader (P.M.). The Democrats lost the election but in a deal brokered by the Military and funded by the Amataya forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin) were bought and these MPs then crossed the floor of the House and formed a new party (Bhumjaithai). This new party, which has never stood for election, then gave their votes to the Democrat party thus betraying the people that had elected them as Phuea Thai MPs. If you call that being elected by parliament - well yes you are technically correct.

Part of the deal was that this new party would get control of some lucrative ministries which they did and have subsequently been at the centre of all the corruption allegations laid at the door of this present government. What has Abhisit done about that? nothing. The reason being that if he calls Bhumjaithai to account he would lose its support and have to call an election.

Actually, in Thailand, a lot of people vote for a local politician regardless of the party he supposedly represents, as shown by the ex-PPP, now BJT MP, who was elected with the PPP in the 2007 election, and then recently re-elected with the BJT in a by-election.

The PPP lost the election also, but they made a deal with smaller parties that had campaigned that they would not support the PPP.

After the PPP were disbanded, ALL the remaining (non-banned) MPs moved to different parties. The "friends of Newin" decided that they didn't want to move to the PTP, and formed their own party. They also decided that they didn't want to continue supporting Thaksin's puppet parties so supported the Democrats instead.

As with any coalition government, members of smaller coalition parties are given some key posts, as shown in recent elections in Aus and the UK. Particularly, in Australia, the Liberal / National coalition always had the Nationals leader as deputy PM, and Nationals MPs in some other key posts.

Your reply doesn't make sense. The 'friends of Newin' didn't/couldn't have decided that they didn't want to move to Phuea Thai party as they were already elected Phuea Thai MPs.

No. PTP didn't exist in the 2007 election. They were elected PPP MPs. PTP didn't exist until after the PPP were disbanded.

edit: see, I don't need to be an expert to know some basic facts.

Edited January 8, 2011 by whybother

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The Democrats lost the election but in a deal brokered by the Military and funded by the Amataya forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin) were bought and these MPs then crossed the floor of the House and formed a new party (Bhumjaithai). This new party, which has never stood for election, then gave their votes to the Democrat party thus betraying the people that had elected them as Phuea Thai MPs.

Wow. The people must be so furious at being betrayed. I bet they can't wait to teach Newin and BJT a lesson they won't forget in a hurry, in the impending elections.

Hey, I have more money than sense. Wanna take some off me? Let's bet (any amount) on the BJT results in the election this year.

You are claiming that Newin's clique is going to get seriously punished by their electorates for betraying the people that had elected them as PTP MPs. The BJT will effectively cease to exist for their betrayal, right? Because the people that had elected them as PTP PMs won't tolerate such betrayal, not when it makes that terrible good-for-nothing scoundrel Abhisit PM - what's he ever done for Thailand...

I am claiming ahh - the opposite. I'm clueless, so this is the easiest $ you'll ever make, but I got this hunch that BJT are gonna do just fine in the elections this year, their brutal and undemocratic 'betrayal' of their electorates notwithstanding.

Are we on? Max bet (whatever you like).

If you call that being elected by parliament - well yes you are technically correct.

Part of the deal was that this new party would get control of some lucrative ministries which they did and have subsequently been at the centre of all the corruption allegations laid at the door of this present government. What has Abhisit done about that? nothing. The reason being that if he calls Bhumjaithai to account he would lose its support and have to call an election.

Nothing?

He's done NOTHING, you say? Newin and BJT have run amok, have they? hmm. Well hey I suppose if you say it, you must be right. It does sound logical, because BJT has the Dems by the short and curlies right?

Holding them hostage to calling an election which will end the BJT party forever - for their betrayal, which you pointed out above.

[aznyron]

I don't know jack ship about thai politics on how they elect a P.M. I was only commenting on riots in BKK as for bringing a baton to a gun fight those cops had guns if they needed them as for Rodney king riots LA claims a lot but when it comes down to real issue it the NYPD is the best maybe I am biased because I come from Brooklyn N.Y. / as I read some of the post it seems many of you know a lot about thai politics so I will do the smart thing and shut up LOL

[Pi Sek]

I don't know jack ship about thai politics on how they elect a P.M. I was only commenting on riots in BKK as for bringing a baton to a gun fight those cops had guns if they needed them as for Rodney king riots LA claims a lot but when it comes down to real issue it the NYPD is the best maybe I am biased because I come from Brooklyn N.Y. / as I read some of the post it seems many of you know a lot about thai politics so I will do the smart thing and shut up LOL

That's not necessary - if you don't know, ask... that's how Thaivisa has become a pretty successful site for expats in Thailand in the first place.

Admittedly, some of the answers you get will be misinformed - some others will be blatant lies - but, due to the open nature of posting on a forum, any answer you receive will be seen by others and I imagine any propaganda will be pulled up on fairly quickly.

Anyway, what makes NYPD better than Thai police? (joke!)