Pheu Thai MPs: Thaksin Approved His Sister Yingluck To Become Party Leader

[rubl]

More like hand puppets, you know where the hand goes.

And fingers roll the eyes and move the mouths.

Not a position I find attractive..

It's always been about Thaksin, since day one

TRT, PPP, PTP. and Red Shirts as the street wing for turmoil creation.

Nothing but a preasure group, to manipulate the populace; fear or hope.

Either one, or both at once, if they think it brings advantage.

I would think that your confusing Thaksin and the political parties that you have mentioned with the pressure group called the Thai Military who staged a coup against an elected government.

Which staged a coup against a unelected government

that had failed to run a proper election, that it's own party had invalidated,

had over stayed it's mandate, and from which the acting PM had resign weeks before.

A bit different if you insert the facts.

The election was boycotted by the opposition which knew it could not win. Is that your reason for saying it was not a proper election?

Are you actually saying that it is the Military/Amataya who decide when a government has overstayed its mandate and that is a valid reason for a military coup?

The PM was not an acting PM he was the PM and would have remained the PM until a new government was elected. He offered to resign to end the impasse and then in fact did so but could not get Chuan Leekpai to budge from his anti democratic stance because Leekpai knew that he could not win an election against Thai Rak Thai. That is the reason for the coup and why in the end the only way to make Abhist P.M. was for the Military/Amataya to buy forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin).

Go back to do your homework first, please. Unless of course you want to state explicitly that all this is your opinion only. In that case most is allowed

[whybother]

The election was boycotted by the opposition which knew it could not win. Is that your reason for saying it was not a proper election?

Are you actually saying that it is the Military/Amataya who decide when a government has overstayed its mandate and that is a valid reason for a military coup?

The PM was not an acting PM he was the PM and would have remained the PM until a new government was elected. He offered to resign to end the impasse and then in fact did so but could not get Chuan Leekpai to budge from his anti democratic stance because Leekpai knew that he could not win an election against Thai Rak Thai. That is the reason for the coup and why in the end the only way to make Abhist P.M. was for the Military/Amataya to buy forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin).

Once you dissolve parliament, you can ONLY be acting PM.

Particularly, once you resign (as Thaksin did) following an election, you shouldn't be anything-PM.

There was no result in the 2006 election because there were a number of seats where there was no result (based on the rules of the constitution). There were too many seats with no result, so there could be no declared winner. By-elections needed to be held in the undeclared seats to get a result. The whole election was later invalidated, so a new general election had to be called within 6 months.

Even after there being no winner (ie no PM, only an interim PM until an election could be held), Thaksin made appointments and tried to make law changes, which he is not entitled to do as interim/acting PM.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

twas a tit bit of humour... you are completely right I am pot too in this respect but TV is full of pots and pans that yell at me and a very few others everytime we dare mention that the reds have some points worth considering

But you don't really do that, do you?

We all know the Reds have some points worth considering. Abhisit considered them. Abhisit addressed them. He's trying to make Thailand a "welfare state" and bring every single disadvantaged Thai out from under the poverty line. More than that, he's looking to the future, allocating mammoth amounts on education so the children aren't trapped in the cycle their parents were subjected to.

The points you would like us to believe you are all about have been (and continue to be) considered.

Just not by you. Not by Thaksin. And definitely not by the Red Shirts.

-------

Unless of course, you mean other points which have nothing to do the welfare of the disadvantaged in Thailand. And a whole lot to do with political struggles between wealthy, powerful people.

[ginjag]

twas a tit bit of humour... you are completely right I am pot too in this respect but TV is full of pots and pans that yell at me and a very few others everytime we dare mention that the reds have some points worth considering

But you don't really do that, do you?

We all know the Reds have some points worth considering. Abhisit considered them. Abhisit addressed them. He's trying to make Thailand a "welfare state" and bring every single disadvantaged Thai out from under the poverty line. More than that, he's looking to the future, allocating mammoth amounts on education so the children aren't trapped in the cycle their parents were subjected to.

The points you would like us to believe you are all about have been (and continue to be) considered.

Just not by you. Not by Thaksin. And definitely not by the Red Shirts.

-------

Unless of course, you mean other points which have nothing to do the welfare of the disadvantaged in Thailand. And a whole lot to do with political struggles between wealthy, powerful people.

This post made me smile, not the subject, but its the first time I am in agreement with you. Because no matter what anyone thinks. the P.M. is the only person as far as I can see, that can attempt to get this nation towards getting on its feet. His biggest obsticle is the red mob, without backing money they will be doomed.

Edited January 11, 2011 by ginjag

[termad]

The election was boycotted by the opposition which knew it could not win. Is that your reason for saying it was not a proper election?

Are you actually saying that it is the Military/Amataya who decide when a government has overstayed its mandate and that is a valid reason for a military coup?

The PM was not an acting PM he was the PM and would have remained the PM until a new government was elected. He offered to resign to end the impasse and then in fact did so but could not get Chuan Leekpai to budge from his anti democratic stance because Leekpai knew that he could not win an election against Thai Rak Thai. That is the reason for the coup and why in the end the only way to make Abhist P.M. was for the Military/Amataya to buy forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin).

Once you dissolve parliament, you can ONLY be acting PM.

Particularly, once you resign (as Thaksin did) following an election, you shouldn't be anything-PM.

There was no result in the 2006 election because there were a number of seats where there was no result (based on the rules of the constitution). There were too many seats with no result, so there could be no declared winner. By-elections needed to be held in the undeclared seats to get a result. The whole election was later invalidated, so a new general election had to be called within 6 months.

Even after there being no winner (ie no PM, only an interim PM until an election could be held), Thaksin made appointments and tried to make law changes, which he is not entitled to do as interim/acting PM.

There is no such thing as an acting PM or an interim PM. You are the Prime Minister or you are not the Prime minister.

If a political party knows that it can't win an election and so stages a boycott to invalidate/ruin the election and the election is later invalidated then on what grounds would the Prime Minister no longer be the Prime Minister?

[termad]

The election was boycotted by the opposition which knew it could not win. Is that your reason for saying it was not a proper election?

Are you actually saying that it is the Military/Amataya who decide when a government has overstayed its mandate and that is a valid reason for a military coup?

The PM was not an acting PM he was the PM and would have remained the PM until a new government was elected. He offered to resign to end the impasse and then in fact did so but could not get Chuan Leekpai to budge from his anti democratic stance because Leekpai knew that he could not win an election against Thai Rak Thai. That is the reason for the coup and why in the end the only way to make Abhist P.M. was for the Military/Amataya to buy forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin).

Once you dissolve parliament, you can ONLY be acting PM.

Particularly, once you resign (as Thaksin did) following an election, you shouldn't be anything-PM.

There was no result in the 2006 election because there were a number of seats where there was no result (based on the rules of the constitution). There were too many seats with no result, so there could be no declared winner. By-elections needed to be held in the undeclared seats to get a result. The whole election was later invalidated, so a new general election had to be called within 6 months.

Even after there being no winner (ie no PM, only an interim PM until an election could be held), Thaksin made appointments and tried to make law changes, which he is not entitled to do as interim/acting PM.

The election was boycotted by the opposition which knew it could not win. Is that your reason for saying it was not a proper election?

Are you actually saying that it is the Military/Amataya who decide when a government has overstayed its mandate and that is a valid reason for a military coup?

The PM was not an acting PM he was the PM and would have remained the PM until a new government was elected. He offered to resign to end the impasse and then in fact did so but could not get Chuan Leekpai to budge from his anti democratic stance because Leekpai knew that he could not win an election against Thai Rak Thai. That is the reason for the coup and why in the end the only way to make Abhist P.M. was for the Military/Amataya to buy forty Phuea Thai MPs (the friends of Newin).

Once you dissolve parliament, you can ONLY be acting PM.

Particularly, once you resign (as Thaksin did) following an election, you shouldn't be anything-PM.

There was no result in the 2006 election because there were a number of seats where there was no result (based on the rules of the constitution). There were too many seats with no result, so there could be no declared winner. By-elections needed to be held in the undeclared seats to get a result. The whole election was later invalidated, so a new general election had to be called within 6 months.

Even after there being no winner (ie no PM, only an interim PM until an election could be held), Thaksin made appointments and tried to make law changes, which he is not entitled to do as interim/acting PM.

There is no such thing as an acting PM or an interim PM. You are the Prime Minister or you are not the Prime minister.

If a political party knows that it can't win an election and so stages a boycott to invalidate/ruin the election and the election is later invalidated then on what grounds would the Prime Minister no longer be the Prime Minister?

[Pi Sek]

There is no such thing as an acting PM or an interim PM. You are the Prime Minister or you are not the Prime minister.

If a political party knows that it can't win an election and so stages a boycott to invalidate/ruin the election and the election is later invalidated then on what grounds would the Prime Minister no longer be the Prime Minister?

I think this is the point that others are trying to make. As per your definitive was-he-or-wasn't-he statement above, Thaksin had not been the PM for quite some time, although he was acting PM - you yourself admit that there is no such thing. So, he was *not* the Prime Minister when he was ousted.

In my eyes, there is no difference between the 2006 coup and the impending invasion of Cote d'Ivoire to oust Laurent Gbagbo - both causes are a leader who refuses to step down after the expiration of their mandate.

I disagree that the Dems didn't contest the opposition because they knew they couldn't win it, although you're more than welcome to your opinion. The Constitution, whether it be the 2006 or 1997 one, is not that weak - if that were the case, every party would boycot elections if they were behind in the pre-election polls. The election was boycotted by the Democrats because it was a farce.

[Buchholz]

There is no such thing as an acting PM or an interim PM. You are the Prime Minister or you are not the Prime minister.

If a political party knows that it can't win an election and so stages a boycott to invalidate/ruin the election and the election is later invalidated then on what grounds would the Prime Minister no longer be the Prime Minister?

I think this is the point that others are trying to make. As per your definitive was-he-or-wasn't-he statement above, Thaksin had not been the PM for quite some time, although he was acting PM - you yourself admit that there is no such thing. So, he was *not* the Prime Minister when he was ousted.

In my eyes, there is no difference between the 2006 coup and the impending invasion of Cote d'Ivoire to oust Laurent Gbagbo - both causes are a leader who refuses to step down after the expiration of their mandate.

I disagree that the Dems didn't contest the opposition because they knew they couldn't win it, although you're more than welcome to your opinion. The Constitution, whether it be the 2006 or 1997 one, is not that weak - if that were the case, every party would boycot elections if they were behind in the pre-election polls. The election was boycotted by the Democrats because it was a farce.

Additionally, the actions of the Democrats did NOT "invalidate" the election as is claimed above.

It did, however, "ruin" the plans of Thaksin.

.

[whybother]

There is no such thing as an acting PM or an interim PM. You are the Prime Minister or you are not the Prime minister.

If a political party knows that it can't win an election and so stages a boycott to invalidate/ruin the election and the election is later invalidated then on what grounds would the Prime Minister no longer be the Prime Minister?

I think you need to do a bit more research (if you have done any at all).

There IS such a thing as an Acting Prime Minister. They are sometimes also referred to as Care-Taker Prime Minister. An Acting or Care Taker PM does not have the full authority of a PM. There are a number of scenarios where the Acting Prime Minister comes in to play.

When the PM is out of the country, someone, usually the Deputy PM, becomes the Acting PM for the duration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting_Prime_Minister

When a PM is forced to stand down, or possible dies while PM, someone becomes Acting PM. http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14251&Submit=Submit

When the PM dissolves parliament prior to an election, that effectively means that there is no sitting government, therefore NO PM. Outgoing MPs and the PM continue work in a Caretaker role until a new government is in place. http://www.dailytalkforum.com/thread-caretaker-pm-thaksin-back-to-work-at-his-office

Do a google search on "dissolve parliament caretaker prime minister". It will show a number of places where care-taker PMs are in place after parliament has been dissolved.

The Prime Minister is no longer Prime Minister once he dissolves parliament for an election. He (or someone else) doesn't become Prime Minister again until an election is validated and the Head of State (in Thailand, the King) approves it. The care-taker Prime Minister continues until an election is validated (or a coup happens, of course).

In Thailand, the constitution states that a new election has to be organised within 6 months of a failed election. In his role as Care Taker PM, Thaksin failed to do this. The election was on April 2, so the new election should have been before October 2, but had been scheduled for October 15.

The Democrats didn't "boycott to invalidate/ruin the election". They boycotted because Thaksin had called snap elections only 12 months after an election, not giving opposition parties enough time to campaign (amongst other reasons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_legislative_election,_April_2006#Opposition_boycott)

Is there some law that says that political parties have to stand for election?

4 posts - 3 wrong statements ......... Next ...

[Pi Sek]

twas a tit bit of humour... you are completely right I am pot too in this respect but TV is full of pots and pans that yell at me and a very few others everytime we dare mention that the reds have some points worth considering

But you don't really do that, do you?

We all know the Reds have some points worth considering. Abhisit considered them. Abhisit addressed them. He's trying to make Thailand a "welfare state" and bring every single disadvantaged Thai out from under the poverty line. More than that, he's looking to the future, allocating mammoth amounts on education so the children aren't trapped in the cycle their parents were subjected to.

The points you would like us to believe you are all about have been (and continue to be) considered.

Just not by you. Not by Thaksin. And definitely not by the Red Shirts.

-------

Unless of course, you mean other points which have nothing to do the welfare of the disadvantaged in Thailand. And a whole lot to do with political struggles between wealthy, powerful people.

This post made me smile too. Very well put, better than I put it last week - "What exactly are they protesting about these days". It seems they are pissed off not with what is being done to help them, but with who's doing it... seems a bit non-productive to me.

A little off topic, but related to the first quoted post. There's no way you'll get me to believe that one side of this argument is over- or under-represented on Thaivisa. There is a huge range of opinions, of which I'm sure 99% are wrong (probably including mine), and there is a vast knowledge base at the collective disposal of the TV community.

I read some nonsense today that there is a "gang of 7" or something on Thaivisa who moderate the TV boards on behalf of The Nation and its imperialistic dictator secret owners (probably headed by someone called Darth Prem from a galaxy far far away).

I've seen some posters insist on branding other users as "returning banned trolls" and even address them by the usernames that they assume the poster is returning as (did that make sense?).

I've seen an armchair red shirt supporter claim that he knows more about what the red shirts want than the red shirt protesters, because he has a master's degree.

I've seen posters on both sides of the argument misrepresent their personal opinions as given fact. I have pulled some of these people up on it, some act very defensively and some hold their hands up and say "sorry".

I've seen sympathisers on both sides put the label of 'stupid' and even threaten physical violence upon those of differing opinion, on an Internet forum.

I've also seen very well-put points of view from both sides.

[slapout]

I will applaud some of the members and their post as to their take and interpretation of past Thia political situations and law pertaining to such. many people who are not familiar/knowledgeable in a topic, content themselves with reading and or listening to those who are.

On the other hand, some people are like most of the one legged men who gets in the arse kicking contest. They need to find another sport/topic to participate in.

[rubl]

I will applaud some of the members and their post as to their take and interpretation of past Thia political situations and law pertaining to such. many people who are not familiar/knowledgeable in a topic, content themselves with reading and or listening to those who are.

On the other hand, some people are like most of the one legged men who gets in the arse kicking contest. They need to find another sport/topic to participate in.

Sorry off topic, but does anyone know how to translate this saying to fit in an 'internet forum conversation'

"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak."

[slapout]

Another one, You never know what fish will take your bait.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The election was boycotted by the Democrats because it was a farce.

Exactly. There was no reason for Thaksin to dissolve Parliament and call that snap election. He'd just won an election with the off-vaunted (by Amsterdam) "greatest mandate in history".

I should have said no legitimate reason. Thaksin had an exceptionally 'good' reason to dissolve Parliament and call the nation to a general election. And that reason was "oh crap, I'm in trouble here". And he was, he really really was.

There was a whole stack of reasons why the opposition parties boycotted, all legitimate. But the most pressing reason? Dissolving Parliament and calling a general election is an aspect of the parliamentary democratic system intended to give the incumbents a slight advantage should they wish to forfeit a portion of their maximum term if they feel the conditions are advantageous to earning another term; or when there is a breakup of the ruling coalition and the government no longer has the necessary seats to govern; or when the coalition in government no longer has the confidence of, or in, their partners.

Thaksin's personal corruption problems are not an issue for Thailand's democracy to be flicked around as if it were a bar-girl's ponytail. Thailand is not Thaksin's private playground.

Calling a snap election is never a legitimate or acceptable strategy to avoid being forced to answer tough questions about allegations of criminal misconduct. There is absolutely no legitimate reason why you would dissolve Parliament only a year after winning 374 / 500 seats. I do not believe there ever has been a legitimate reason in history, or that there will ever be one.

200 seats are needed for a no-confidence motion, for heaven's sake. The opposition were 74 seats short! Calling a snap election in that spot was the most ludicrous and unacceptable snap election called in history.

The general election held on 6 February 2005 resulted in another landslide victory for Thaksin and TRT, which controlled 374 seats in Parliament's lower house.

Thaksin came under severe questioning for selling telecommunication shares to Temasek, a Singapore investor for about 70 billion baht without paying any tax. More complex and high-level corruption and conspiracies were discovered and exposed by Sonthi Limthongkul.

Thaksin refused to publicly answer PAD's questions. Because of failure to clear himself in the alleged corruptions, there was inevitable widespread calls for his resignation and impeachment. Thaksin refused and protests continued for weeks.Thaksin dissolved parliament on 24 February 2006 and called a snap election for 2 April 2006.

No. That is unacceptable abuse of the parliamentary democratic process. Thaksin-apologists are way out of line, because they refuse to address the fact that when the evidence demanded Thaksin respond, he remained silent. Like a bar-girl caught in an outright lie. Staring blankly and stupidly at the headlights.

The only other snap election called that early that I'm aware of was in Canada 50 years ago, when Diefenbaker took advantage of a whirlwind of advantageous developments and brilliantly sent the nation to the polls 9 months into his term. The result? His minority government was returned to power as the largest majority in the history of Canadian politics.

Compare and contrast with Thaksin's snap election 12 months into a 4 year term, whilst holding 374 / 500 seats.

Outrageous.

Not only were the opposition parties justified in boycotting Thaksin's outrageous abuse of the process, an act of desperation intended to be diversion, Thailand's opposition parties had a moral obligation to refuse to legitimise the outrage much as DASSK decided she had a moral obligation to refuse to legitimise the Burmese junta's recent election scam.

We can argue till the cows come home to roost about the events from that point, but we'll all agree they have been a shambles. Many people have tragically lost their lives. Thai society, once known for it's unity and beauty of united spirit and shared identity, was ripped apart and there are divisions that will last for a very long time.

And all the mountains of rhetoric aside, Thaksin-apologists cannot - simply cannot - escape the fact that all the deaths, all the conflict, all the pain and all the chaos...everything Thailand has suffered since, all of it was avoidable. All of it has been a domino effect triggered by a single, inescapable factor: Thaksin's selfish greed. His outrageous abuses of power, and his complete refusal to defend himself when the evidence screamed and demanded that he must do so.

Everything else is diversionary nonsense and hijacked ideals.

I will refuse to participate or legitimise that charade as of now.

I've also seen very well-put points of view from both sides.

Really? Do you remember any specifically, perchance - I'd genuinely like to read them. I mean, there are obviously intelligent posters on the other side of this particular debate on ThaiVisa; geriatrickid, phiphidon I think, Thai at Heart or Siam Simon (or both), jayboy (early misread) and maybe 1-2 others are all obviously posters of intelligence. But I have not seen a "well-put" defence on TV or anywhere (at all, and I have looked) for Thaksin's behaviour / conduct, for the UDD's actions, for the Red Shirt's actions and their refusal to denounce the violence they ostensibly did not sanction....or, to date, for anything any of them actually stand for aside from demanding amnesty for the most divisive Thai politician in history. Please point me to evidence showing I'm being unfair, if I am being unfair.

On the other side? I'm continually awed by the intelligent arguments, knowledge and reason of those who argue rationally, intelligently, objectively; those who provide supporting evidence and do not lazily fall back onto emotive rhetoric (I wonder if I'd be the worst for this, actually - in the anti-Thaksin crowd); those who consistently use logic and don't simply ignore tough questions when it's inconvenient to address them.

I would think there is 10 or more brilliant posters on TV who argue this way that I look up to. If I was objective and ignorant coming fresh into this debate trying to learn, 1000 times in 1000 I would be persuaded by them. Regardless of who is 'right'. I only say this as I think perhaps it's something the other side's men of clear intelligence may wish to consider. fwiw obv obv.

[letitbe]

How would they know who they voted for?

Youshow absolutely no understanding of how life works in Thai villages. Its notnecessary for them to know who voted for whom. In Thai culture which is stillvery much a feudal system most in anyThai village follow what the head of the village and village elders say withoutquestion. Its part of the culture and if head of village says red is good theyassume he knows best and don’t even ask how women vote. Women in this societyare still seen and see themselves as lesser beings. This is not good or rightsimply the way it is. It will slowly change with education. You also showabsolutely no understanding of how schooling and teaching of children hereworks with the help often of monks. As soon as they enter school they aretaught that elders are their better’s those with power or money are clever andthat on pain of risking hell or worse they better learn this lesson. You alsoshow no understanding of the mostimportant trait of Thai culture that of saving face.

Alsowe might understand that elders do not know how someone has voted but you canbe 100% sure outside the cities very few Thais believe it is kept secret evenwith any safeguards in place. So out of fear, loss of face, culture and anumber of other factors most will simply follow what elders say and be gratefulthat they get a few hundred baht thrown in. Or are you so naïve to reallybelieve outside of cities votes are not paid for by all sides.

Thatis not to say they only support Taksin for reasons above. Most genuinelybelieve the elders and propaganda and believe Taksin and Reds will be good forthem. Most Iraqis thought the same and lovedSaddam, most Zimbabians love Mugabwe, most germans totally supported Hitler andso on. All lead their countries to ruin as would Taksin and his top men ifallowed to do so.

[Pi Sek]

I've also seen very well-put points of view from both sides.

Really? Do you remember any specifically, perchance - I'd genuinely like to read them. I mean, there are obviously intelligent posters on the other side of this particular debate on ThaiVisa; geriatrickid, phiphidon I think, Thai at Heart or Siam Simon (or both), jayboy (early misread) and maybe 1-2 others are all obviously posters of intelligence. But I have not seen a "well-put" defence on TV or anywhere (at all, and I have looked) for Thaksin's behaviour / conduct, for the UDD's actions, for the Red Shirt's actions and their refusal to denounce the violence they ostensibly did not sanction....or, to date, for anything any of them actually stand for aside from demanding amnesty for the most divisive Thai politician in history. Please point me to evidence showing I'm being unfair, if I am being unfair.

On the other side? I'm continually awed by the intelligent arguments, knowledge and reason of those who argue rationally, intelligently, objectively; those who provide supporting evidence and do not lazily fall back onto emotive rhetoric (I wonder if I'd be the worst for this, actually - in the anti-Thaksin crowd); those who consistently use logic and don't simply ignore tough questions when it's inconvenient to address them.

I would think there is 10 or more brilliant posters on TV who argue this way that I look up to. If I was objective and ignorant coming fresh into this debate trying to learn, 1000 times in 1000 I would be persuaded by them. Regardless of who is 'right'.

I only say this as I think perhaps it's something the other side's men of clear intelligence may wish to consider. fwiw obv obv.

I won't name names of who I do and don't consider to be a good debating poster (I even think it's against the rules!) and I won't point you to posts out of laziness - which does not make me one of those posters!

(edit, a search on a pro-red user that I think is clever and tries to post neutrally, I came up ) after a few clicks. I think this is a good post.)

However, I will say that some (seemingly) pro-govt posters who put forward a lot of factual evidence sometimes don't put forward all sides. What's more, some pro-red posters acknowledge the problems that are brought up by pro-govt posters. Some self-professed pro-reds actually support the Abhisit govt - which, as far as I am concerned, makes them fake reds, and a lot of Thai reds would probably agree. It's these types of "Red" that have a good reason to protest, but they're at the wrong one!

My main point, and the main point which I think that many pro-red posters are correct on, is that it is unclear who the "reds" are and what they actually want. There really are Red Shirts who don't support Thaksin, who just want a social change to bring Thailand up to speed with the rest of the world. There really are Red Shirts who want nothing other than for Thailand to return as the hub of corruption. There really are Red Shirts who don't want anything other than burning buildings down on holiday in Bangkok.

[Buchholz]

That cant be right. After all we are told the PTP and red shirts are nothing to do with Thaksin anymore and he doesnt have any involvement with them.

Has Mingkwan exploded yet?

That'll happen when he's forced to deal with the stress of being Leader of the Censure Debate...

I hope they have the paramedics on standby for him at Parliament..

His passing out and subsequent hospitalization while simply giving a speech as a Deputy PM in October 2008 is well remembered:

Perhaps Jatuporn can give mouth-to-mouth

Alert the paramedics, it's almost time for Leader of the Debate Censure to take center stage:

PM: Govt ready for censure showdown

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva expressed confidence Sunday he and his Cabinet members will be ready to answer the opposition's questions during the upcoming censure debate.

Abhisit said the government would be ready to clarify every issue if the opposition debates on alleged corruption and the government's suppressions of the red-shirt protesters.

-- The Nation 2011-01-16

[hanuman1]

I've also seen very well-put points of view from both sides.

Really? Do you remember any specifically, perchance - I'd genuinely like to read them. I mean, there are obviously intelligent posters on the other side of this particular debate on ThaiVisa; geriatrickid, phiphidon I think, Thai at Heart or Siam Simon (or both), jayboy (early misread) and maybe 1-2 others are all obviously posters of intelligence. But I have not seen a "well-put" defence on TV or anywhere (at all, and I have looked) for Thaksin's behaviour / conduct, for the UDD's actions, for the Red Shirt's actions and their refusal to denounce the violence they ostensibly did not sanction....or, to date, for anything any of them actually stand for aside from demanding amnesty for the most divisive Thai politician in history. Please point me to evidence showing I'm being unfair, if I am being unfair.

On the other side? I'm continually awed by the intelligent arguments, knowledge and reason of those who argue rationally, intelligently, objectively; those who provide supporting evidence and do not lazily fall back onto emotive rhetoric (I wonder if I'd be the worst for this, actually - in the anti-Thaksin crowd); those who consistently use logic and don't simply ignore tough questions when it's inconvenient to address them.

I would think there is 10 or more brilliant posters on TV who argue this way that I look up to. If I was objective and ignorant coming fresh into this debate trying to learn, 1000 times in 1000 I would be persuaded by them. Regardless of who is 'right'.

I only say this as I think perhaps it's something the other side's men of clear intelligence may wish to consider. fwiw obv obv.

I won't name names of who I do and don't consider to be a good debating poster (I even think it's against the rules!) and I won't point you to posts out of laziness - which does not make me one of those posters!

(edit, a search on a pro-red user that I think is clever and tries to post neutrally, I came up ) after a few clicks. I think this is a good post.)

However, I will say that some (seemingly) pro-govt posters who put forward a lot of factual evidence sometimes don't put forward all sides. What's more, some pro-red posters acknowledge the problems that are brought up by pro-govt posters. Some self-professed pro-reds actually support the Abhisit govt - which, as far as I am concerned, makes them fake reds, and a lot of Thai reds would probably agree. It's these types of "Red" that have a good reason to protest, but they're at the wrong one!

My main point, and the main point which I think that many pro-red posters are correct on, is that it is unclear who the "reds" are and what they actually want. There really are Red Shirts who don't support Thaksin, who just want a social change to bring Thailand up to speed with the rest of the world. There really are Red Shirts who want nothing other than for Thailand to return as the hub of corruption. There really are Red Shirts who don't want anything other than burning buildings down on holiday in Bangkok.

Careful old chap, any more of that kind of language and those who post the most will surely end up branding you a red-lover just as they've done to me and some others who also like to try and understand both sides of a coin.

Please save yourself from this ignominious fate by retracting your even-handed approach at once. To avoid such humiliation at the hands of the most rabid of detractors who no doubt already perceive you in this way, you will also need to contrive a way for The Nation to print an article with the headline 'Official: Pi Sek found to not support Redshirts', preferably sourced from anonymous government or judicial figures.

It's a long road back. Good luck, my friend.

P.S. Please provide photos of yourself for said article. Preferably of graduation day, wedding day etc Just nothing with red, hammers, sickles or stars (unless there are about 50), expensive cars, cheap cars or Thai people in them. Cheers.

Edited January 16, 2011 by hanuman1

[Buchholz]

The Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Prompong said yesterday the plans for the censure debate will be announced tomorrow.

It will include details such as when they plan to submit the no-confidence initiative, who will lead the debate (although Thaksin has already said it will be Mingkwan), which MP's will join in, and who in the government the debate will center on.

As required, the plans will also include the name of who the Pheu Thai Party will nominate to become Prime Minister if the the government fails in the no-confidence vote.

[hyperdimension]

who will lead the debate (although Thaksin has already said it will be Mingkwan)

Maybe Mingkwan chickened out. From PM confident govt can handle upcoming censure debate:

Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan has announced that he will lead the censure showdown in regard to the crackdown.

the plans will also include the name of who the Pheu Thai Party will nominate to become Prime Minister if the the government fails in the no-confidence vote.

I hope it will be Jatuporn, because he makes me laugh. I don't understand why I don't hear the same kind of support for Jatuporn from red shirt supporters on ThaiVisa. Don't you guys have any respect and admiration for him? He keeps fighting on for the millions of starving peasants in this country.

Edited January 17, 2011 by hyperdimension

[Pi Sek]

Careful old chap, any more of that kind of language and those who post the most will surely end up branding you a red-lover just as they've done to me and some others who also like to try and understand both sides of a coin.

Please save yourself from this ignominious fate by retracting your even-handed approach at once. To avoid such humiliation at the hands of the most rabid of detractors who no doubt already perceive you in this way, you will also need to contrive a way for The Nation to print an article with the headline 'Official: Pi Sek found to not support Redshirts', preferably sourced from anonymous government or judicial figures.

It's a long road back. Good luck, my friend.

P.S. Please provide photos of yourself for said article. Preferably of graduation day, wedding day etc Just nothing with red, hammers, sickles or stars (unless there are about 50), expensive cars, cheap cars or Thai people in them. Cheers.

I apologise for my unnecessary neutrality - I left my yellow-tinted glasses as home that day. Monday today, though, yellow shirt day! So, Thaksin is evil, the red shirts are a mixture of buffalos & terrorists and Abhisit is the archangel Gabriel. Any better?

[animatic]

A very unwise move which I am sure will be applauded by the Dems.

Direct disassociation with Thaksin had to be the wise route, but then I suppose the PT have no one with the charisma to make a go of it.You would have thought somebody would have risen from the rank and file by now if it wad gong to happen.

An early election should see the Dems romp home-sadly!

1. Yesterday thaksin appoints his sister as party leader (she has said many times that she doesn't want the job), and 2 hours before that he gave an interview to a European newspaper saying that he is not involved any more in Thai politics. As always, lots of total untruths and twists of the truth, and he thinks nobody will notice.

2. Agree, nobody in PT has the charisma to be a prominent credible leader. Why? Simple answers:

a. Thaksin deliberately made sure there was nobody right from the start who could challenge him, by any criteria.

b. Thaksin in fact deliberately recruited people who were interested in one thing only - a chance at the feeding trough. Credibility, capability, concern for the welfare and development of Thais and Thailand not even on the agenda.

Sum num nar.

I don't think he's quite as stupid as you paint him (and no I don't want him back before you ask) but anyone who gained the PM's job, in any country, has to be smart. To suggest that he only appointed people who 'wanted to be at the feeding trough is a bit simplistic and naive. Anyway I think he's finished and should 'retire' and enjoy his money.

Maybe not as stupid, but easily as amoral.

[hammered]

The only time half the useless MPs bother turning up to parliament (apart from when claiming expenses and employing their relatives, mia nois, gunmen or gay lovers as assistants) is when there is a censure debate. They love the drama, TV exposure of them going on about some nonsense or other and of course the party big wigs who own them insist on them being there although to be fair while also dishing out a pile of cash as incentive as everyone paklys I want my turn at the trough game while not giving a monkeys about a normal person.

Sad reality of soap opera big bore 1503

[animatic]

The only time half the useless MPs bother turning up to parliament (apart from when claiming expenses and employing their relatives, mia nois, gunmen or gay lovers as assistants) is when there is a censure debate. They love the drama, TV exposure of them going on about some nonsense or other and of course the party big wigs who own them insist on them being there although to be fair while also dishing out a pile of cash as incentive as everyone paklys I want my turn at the trough game while not giving a monkeys about a normal person.

Sad reality of soap opera big bore 1503

Nice summation.

[Buchholz]

who will lead the debate (although Thaksin has already said it will be Mingkwan)

Maybe Mingkwan chickened out. From PM confident govt can handle upcoming censure debate:

Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan has announced that he will lead the censure showdown in regard to the crackdown.

Unsurprisingly, there seems to be a bit of a turmoil within the PTP as to just who will be the Leader of the Censure Debate, but quite surprisingly, the Grand Master of Past Censure Debates is sitting this one out...

Chalerm says he will not join censure debate

Chalerm Yoobamrung, the Chairman of Pheu Thai Party MPs, said he will not take part in the censure debate under the leadership of Pheu Thai Party MP Mingkwan Saengsuwan.

Chalerm admitted that the Pheu Thai Party is likely to assign Mingkwan to lead the censure showdown against the government as Mingkwan has won the blessing of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to become the party's prime minister candidate.

The Pheu Thai Party is required by the Constitution to nominate a prime minister candidate in its censure motion.

Chalerm said he was willing to provide his information to Mingkwan but he would not speak during the debate.

He decided to opt out of the debate because he learned that the debate would be held in a compromising manner, not a head-on clash in line with his style.

-- The Nation 2011-01-17

[Buchholz]

All this aggravation and dispute can't be good for Mingkwan's delicate constitution. Tomorrow's announcement will be interesting to find out just who will be the Leader of the Censure Debate and who will be Pheu Thai Party's Prime Minister candidate.

Perhaps wouldn't hurt to have emergency services available for him at tomorrow's press conference.

As for Chalerm's words, I can't think of anyone less of "a head-on clash in line with his style" than milk toast Mingkwan.

.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Gosh, without Chalerm's patented vehement and impassioned gesticulations, the censure debate just won't be the same....

Instead... we get milktoast Mingkwan...

[rubl]

Chalerm admitted that the Pheu Thai Party is likely to assign Mingkwan to lead the censure showdown against the government as Mingkwan has won the blessing of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to become the party's prime minister candidate.

The Pheu Thai Party is required by the Constitution to nominate a prime minister candidate in its censure motion.

Does this mean k. Mingkwan may be PTP's PM candidate for the censure debate only? If (and only if) the censure debate leads to nothing, will the post of PM candidate be open again?

[Buchholz]

The Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Prompong said yesterday the plans for the censure debate will be announced tomorrow.

It will include details such as when they plan to submit the no-confidence initiative, who will lead the debate (although Thaksin has already said it will be Mingkwan), which MP's will join in, and who in the government the debate will center on.

As required, the plans will also include the name of who the Pheu Thai Party will nominate to become Prime Minister if the the government fails in the no-confidence vote.

Whoopsies... the PTP disunity rolls on..

Prompong announced late this afternoon that the planned meeting of MP's to announce their Leader of the Censure Debate and their PM candidate scheduled for tomorrow has been postponed.

It will be held on a, as yet, undetermined date.

.

[Buchholz]

Chalerm admitted that the Pheu Thai Party is likely to assign Mingkwan to lead the censure showdown against the government as Mingkwan has won the blessing of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to become the party's prime minister candidate.

The Pheu Thai Party is required by the Constitution to nominate a prime minister candidate in its censure motion.

Does this mean k. Mingkwan may be PTP's PM candidate for the censure debate only? If (and only if) the censure debate leads to nothing, will the post of PM candidate be open again?

It's all on hold for now.