Pheu Thai Set To Beat Democrats By Narrow Margin: Survey

[Oberkommando]

Amazingly, a party in disarray with leadership squabbles, run remotely, with a number 1 objective to spring Thaksin, and constantly exposed as fraudulent still manages to edge ahead, only in Thailand.

Not amazing at all when they know the alternative is a military led coalition with an ineffective prime minister.

[rubl]

Amazingly, a party in disarray with leadership squabbles, run remotely, with a number 1 objective to spring Thaksin, and constantly exposed as fraudulent still manages to edge ahead, only in Thailand.

Not amazing at all when they know the alternative is a military led coalition with an ineffective prime minister.

Nice to see these distinct opinions. I really like it when people speak in absolutes. Ignoring the past when convinient is a nice touch as well. The two previous governments (under the late k. Samak, and under k. Somchai) had only ONE agenda point: 'get back Thaksin'. Apart from having nothing to do with trying to rule and bring forward the country, with k. Thaksin still abroad also very ineffective.

Ah well, begin of July elections. K. Thaksin coming back before the end of the year (as he said), straight to jail, no free pass, and all other cases can finally continue. Justice at last. Then we can start to pay attention to the HRW report which blamed both government/army AND UDD c.s.

[lungmi]

Amazingly, a party in disarray with leadership squabbles, run remotely, with a number 1 objective to spring Thaksin, and constantly exposed as fraudulent still manages to edge ahead, only in Thailand.

Not amazing at all when they know the alternative is a military led coalition with an ineffective prime minister.

change your login, may be your ignorance about Thailand is changing in the same way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberkommando_der_Wehrmacht

[Misterwhisper]

Stirring martial music playing on all TV and radio stations to begin in three...two...one...

[Bobverily]

Sorry champ but using Australia as an example of a functional democracy is just wrong.

Just so those who read this know the party that got into power in Australia got there because two corrupt conservative politicians decided they would take bribes and

side with the left wing parties.

The opposition in Australia had more than 500,000 more votes than the current government. In a country of just 22 million.

What is sad in Australia is the general population really doesn't care to much, any other country in the world people would take to the street and remove these lying scum politicians.

What happened in Australia is not right no matter what side of politics you agree with.

What happens in Thailand is not right either.

People should be able to choose what ever idiot they like to represent them.

If they actually get a choice, history shows they will eventually choose someone reasonable. They just have to have the opportunity to make a mistake they can learn from.

Democrats, Pheu Thai (%)

Management efficiency: 35.5 54.5

Economic performance: 35.4 64.6

Vision and policies: 41.0 59.0

Public acceptance: 39.1 60.9.........

It's time for these muppets to get out!! Unelected and unfit to govern. In the last election they were massacred 165: 233

Even though you Dem defenders claim the 'Westminster system' and 'fairly elected by fellow members of the house', the simple fact is; there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly in the most recent general election. And still they refuse to accept the condition that the party with the most votes gets the mandate...they know this will cause more political turbulence, but shamelessly and spinelessly they will cling to power by any means. You've had your turn (as unfair as it was) now listen to the people AND GET OUT!!!!!!!!

"there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly"

In Australia, (which also uses the Westminster system), the party that is in power is often not the one that gets the most votes, usually by a considerable margin. In fact that particular party hasn't been the party with the most votes for quite a long time. But, they are the ones that can form a coalition to get into government when the other main party doesn't get a majority on it's own.

Democracy is about majority.

Red Democracy is about Reds.

[whybother]

Sorry champ but using Australia as an example of a functional democracy is just wrong.

Just so those who read this know the party that got into power in Australia got there because two corrupt conservative politicians decided they would take bribes and

side with the left wing parties.

The opposition in Australia had more than 500,000 more votes than the current government. In a country of just 22 million.

What is sad in Australia is the general population really doesn't care to much, any other country in the world people would take to the street and remove these lying scum politicians.

What happened in Australia is not right no matter what side of politics you agree with.

What happens in Thailand is not right either.

People should be able to choose what ever idiot they like to represent them.

If they actually get a choice, history shows they will eventually choose someone reasonable. They just have to have the opportunity to make a mistake they can learn from.

Are you suggesting that these two "Independent" (ex-Liberal/National) politicians personally took bribes from the Labor party to benefit themselves? I think you might be a Liberal or National voter.

These two got voted in by their constituents as Independents (not aligned with any party), and then they did what they thought was best for their constituents. They did a deal with the Labor party to get what their constituents what they wanted.

They didn't have to tow any party line. They didn't say before they were elected that they would back either side. They were Independent. They were elected by a majority of their constituents. Once they were elected and it was a hung parliament, they were going to have the balance of power which ever way they went. They had offers from the Liberals. They had offers from Labor. They chose the party that was offering the best policies for their constituents.

If their constituents don't like what they did, then they will get voted out at the next election. That's how it should work. They didn't do anything illegal.

Of course, what you are suggesting is that it's OK to have the two smaller parties in government, and the largest party in opposition. The red shirts wouldn't like you suggesting that.

[maewrocks]

maewrocks

TV user name means Thaksin rocks

frequent poster in favour of Thaksin

frequent abuser of democrats

joined 1st may 2011

can anyone join the dots here............

Oh and people can't have a different opinion than you? Just like the elite/ military in Thailand. I actually joined because I was disgusted with the one-sided nature of the forum.

Everyone supports the government .... can anyone join the dots here............

[maewrocks]

Democrats, Pheu Thai (%)

Management efficiency: 35.5 54.5

Economic performance: 35.4 64.6

Vision and policies: 41.0 59.0

Public acceptance: 39.1 60.9.........

It's time for these muppets to get out!! Unelected and unfit to govern. In the last election they were massacred 165: 233

Even though you Dem defenders claim the 'Westminster system' and 'fairly elected by fellow members of the house', the simple fact is; there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly in the most recent general election. And still they refuse to accept the condition that the party with the most votes gets the mandate...they know this will cause more political turbulence, but shamelessly and spinelessly they will cling to power by any means. You've had your turn (as unfair as it was) now listen to the people AND GET OUT!!!!!!!!

"there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly"

In Australia, (which also uses the Westminster system), the party that is in power is often not the one that gets the most votes, usually by a considerable margin. In fact that particular party hasn't been the party with the most votes for quite a long time. But, they are the ones that can form a coalition to get into government when the other main party doesn't get a majority on it's own.

Democracy is about majority.

Red Democracy is about Reds.

"there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly"

Please read carefully before making a feeble effort to rebut;

Thai election 2007

Dems 165 PPP 233

Australian election 2010

Labour 72 Coalition 73

The Aussies and in fact no credible democracy will allow a party to govern who lost by such a huge margin. In 2007 the people's voice was loud & clear, but it wasn't the voice that the powerful wanted to hear.

Yet again this election will be a victory for TRT/PPP/PT but yet again they will not be in power.

& oh by the way...the reds didn't have any reason to protest.... just a paid rabble...hahaha

[whybother]

"there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly"

Please read carefully before making a feeble effort to rebut;

Thai election 2007

Dems 165 PPP 233

Australian election 2010

Labour 72 Coalition 73

The Aussies and in fact no credible democracy will allow a party to govern who lost by such a huge margin. In 2007 the people's voice was loud & clear, but it wasn't the voice that the powerful wanted to hear.

Yet again this election will be a victory for TRT/PPP/PT but yet again they will not be in power.

& oh by the way...the reds didn't have any reason to protest.... just a paid rabble...hahaha

The key word you used is "coalition". The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) even though they "lost badly" because they have a coalition to give them a majority.

The Democrats are in power because they got a majority of MPs to support them. It doesn't matter that they "lost so badly", because the PTP couldn't get the support of the majority.

[maewrocks]

"there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly"

Please read carefully before making a feeble effort to rebut;

Thai election 2007

Dems 165 PPP 233

Australian election 2010

Labour 72 Coalition 73

The Aussies and in fact no credible democracy will allow a party to govern who lost by such a huge margin. In 2007 the people's voice was loud & clear, but it wasn't the voice that the powerful wanted to hear.

Yet again this election will be a victory for TRT/PPP/PT but yet again they will not be in power.

& oh by the way...the reds didn't have any reason to protest.... just a paid rabble...hahaha

The key word you used is "coalition". The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) even though they "lost badly" because they have a coalition to give them a majority.

The Democrats are in power because they got a majority of MPs to support them. It doesn't matter that they "lost so badly", because the PTP couldn't get the support of the majority.

Labour are the government

[whybother]

The key word you used is "coalition". The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) even though they "lost badly" because they have a coalition to give them a majority.

The Democrats are in power because they got a majority of MPs to support them. It doesn't matter that they "lost so badly", because the PTP couldn't get the support of the majority.

Labour are the government

Learn to read. It's not that hard. "The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) ".

The Liberals have also been in power nationally without getting the most seats because they have formed a coalition with the Nationals. Labor got the most seats but not a majority, so couldn't form government.

The point being, that's how the Westminster system works. It's not about getting the most seats. It's about getting a majority.

Edited May 10, 2011 by whybother

[jayboy]

The key word you used is "coalition". The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) even though they "lost badly" because they have a coalition to give them a majority.

The Democrats are in power because they got a majority of MPs to support them. It doesn't matter that they "lost so badly", because the PTP couldn't get the support of the majority.

Labour are the government

Learn to read. It's not that hard. "The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) ".

The Liberals have also been in power nationally without getting the most seats because they have formed a coalition with the Nationals. Labor got the most seats but not a majority, so couldn't form government.

The point being, that's how the Westminster system works. It's not about getting the most seats. It's about getting a majority.

Agreed but there is a further important point which needs consideration, namely that if a party achieves the largest number of seats (but not a majority) that is a factor which smaller parties should take into account when considering forming part of a coalition.Thus in the last British election although the LibDems talked to both major parties, they in the end joined the Conservatives who had won the largest number of seats (but falling short of a majority).The LibDem leadership subsequently confirmed its view that most British people would have seen it as unfair if it had made a pact with Labour.

Now I'm not suggesting that this translates directly into Thai politics but there are some legitimate comparisons.I also accept that if the PTP and Dems come out level pegging (or just a few seats separating them) the minority parties are not really under any moral pressure to do a deal with the majority party.However if the PTP has a very clear lead but not a majority, and the Dems stitch up a partnership again with the smaller parties (which let's admit it would again be based on money politics), there will continue to be that sense of betrayal which has brought Thailand to its current dilemma.

[whybother]

Agreed but there is a further important point which needs consideration, namely that if a party achieves the largest number of seats (but not a majority) that is a factor which smaller parties should take into account when considering forming part of a coalition.Thus in the last British election although the LibDems talked to both major parties, they in the end joined the Conservatives who had won the largest number of seats (but falling short of a majority).The LibDem leadership subsequently confirmed its view that most British people would have seen it as unfair if it had made a pact with Labour.

Now I'm not suggesting that this translates directly into Thai politics but there are some legitimate comparisons.I also accept that if the PTP and Dems come out level pegging (or just a few seats separating them) the minority parties are not really under any moral pressure to do a deal with the majority party.However if the PTP has a very clear lead but not a majority, and the Dems stitch up a partnership again with the smaller parties (which let's admit it would again be based on money politics), there will continue to be that sense of betrayal which has brought Thailand to its current dilemma.

The PTP are contesting in every seat in the country. If they don't win a particular seat, then the people in that electorate don't particularly want the PTP in government. Of course, the same goes for the Democrats.

But then it comes down to the party winning that particular seat to decide what to do. There is no obligation for them to back any party.

Should the Democrats form a coalition with the PTP because the PTP get the most seats? I know you're going to say "But it's not the same thing", but where do you draw the line?

It still comes back to:

- Each MP is elected by the constituents.

- Each MP can choose (or has already chosen) who to form a coalition with.

- The side that can get a majority of the MPs to form a coalition are the ones that form government.

[Insight]

Oh and people can't have a different opinion than you? Just like the elite/ military in Thailand. I actually joined because I was disgusted with the one-sided nature of the forum.

Everyone supports the government .... can anyone join the dots here............

Here's some dots for you - the antics of the red shirt supporters last year, combined with similar antics the year before, turned even some of the most ardent supporters of Thaksin on this forum against him.

One of the second coming's new election policies is effectively promising debt to those who really shouldn't be in debt. This is after the globe is still reeling from a major economic crisis, the primary cause of which being loans being given to those who are not able to repay them. Do you really expect people with even a basic level of education to buy into this crap he is offering?

[animatic]

maewrocks

TV user name means Thaksin rocks

frequent poster in favour of Thaksin

frequent abuser of democrats

joined 1st may 2011

can anyone join the dots here............

Oh and people can't have a different opinion than you? Just like the elite/ military in Thailand. I actually joined because I was disgusted with the one-sided nature of the forum.

Everyone supports the government .... can anyone join the dots here............

Not really, but then the alternative to the current government appears to be a Thaksin puppet party, with the hindsight of PPP's history, and with Thaksin again pulling the strings with no accountability at all, that is infinitely worse a prospect than supporting the currently functional government. And it most certainly IS functional, the political stabbing of their record not withstanding scrutiny.

If there really was a better alternative to the current situation, most of those who you label 'pro-government / pro-army', would most all likely swing to that better alternative. But there isn't so they can not.

Oh, and by the way, everyone is entitled to a different opinion, but don't expect others to blithely accept yours if they think it is totally wrong. And in a forum they WILL tell you they most definitely think your opinions are wrong if they think so.

Edited May 10, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

The key word you used is "coalition". The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) even though they "lost badly" because they have a coalition to give them a majority.

The Democrats are in power because they got a majority of MPs to support them. It doesn't matter that they "lost so badly", because the PTP couldn't get the support of the majority.

Labour are the government

Learn to read. It's not that hard. "The Liberals are in power in Victoria (same system) ".

The Liberals have also been in power nationally without getting the most seats because they have formed a coalition with the Nationals. Labor got the most seats but not a majority, so couldn't form government.

The point being, that's how the Westminster system works. It's not about getting the most seats. It's about getting a majority.

Agreed but there is a further important point which needs consideration, namely that if a party achieves the largest number of seats (but not a majority) that is a factor which smaller parties should take into account when considering forming part of a coalition.Thus in the last British election although the LibDems talked to both major parties, they in the end joined the Conservatives who had won the largest number of seats (but falling short of a majority).The LibDem leadership subsequently confirmed its view that most British people would have seen it as unfair if it had made a pact with Labour.

Now I'm not suggesting that this translates directly into Thai politics but there are some legitimate comparisons.I also accept that if the PTP and Dems come out level pegging (or just a few seats separating them) the minority parties are not really under any moral pressure to do a deal with the majority party.However if the PTP has a very clear lead but not a majority, and the Dems stitch up a partnership again with the smaller parties (which let's admit it would again be based on money politics), there will continue to be that sense of betrayal which has brought Thailand to its current dilemma.

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

[jayboy]

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

[whybother]

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

Except for a particular policy of "We'll bring Thaksin back and whitewash his criminal charges".

[animatic]

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

Except for a particular policy of "We'll bring Thaksin back and whitewash his criminal charges".

Quite!

[jayboy]

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

Except for a particular policy of "We'll bring Thaksin back and whitewash his criminal charges".

That's not ideology, that's politics.

For ideology in Thailand one has to look ato the crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on.

[whybother]

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

Except for a particular policy of "We'll bring Thaksin back and whitewash his criminal charges".

That's not ideology, that's politics.

For ideology in Thailand one has to look ato the crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on.

You talked about "policy content difference". Is returning Thaksin not policy content?

If "ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties", does that mean the that the red shirts are part of the "crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on."

You can't have it both ways.

[animatic]

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

Except for a particular policy of "We'll bring Thaksin back and whitewash his criminal charges".

That's not ideology, that's politics.

For ideology in Thailand one has to look ato the crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on.

Which so neatly encapsulates PTP, and the Red Shirt legions.

[jayboy]

Which so neatly encapsulates PTP, and the Red Shirt legions.

Explain further please, otherwise it's just meaningless.

[foolforlove]

Your claims and complaints are, to put it succinctly, without merit.

First, the goal of a democratic electorial system should be consistent, periodic, orderly transfer of power.

The Thai approach to this is defined in the Thai constitution -- which was adopted by national popular vote four years ago. It doesn't matter if you call the Thai system "westminster" or "wallaby", the coalition government was formed openly according to the procedures and processes which the Thai nation adopted in their constitution. They have "followed the rules" as defined in the Thai constitution in forming the government. So, it is inaccurate to claim they have done something wrong, unfair, or invalid.

Second, it is a coalition government. It isn't one political party (i.e. Democratic Party). The coalition is made of a group of parties which hold more than a majority of the power in the parliament. Therefore, it is wrong to discount the "mandate" of the entire coalition based on one member (i.e. Democratic Party) of the coalition.

Third, if the current mandate is for Pheu Thai, as you claim, why have they not been able to convince the other political parties to abandon this coalition and (re)join with them to form a new coalition now?

Better yet, why was Pheu Thai unable to form a coalition with the other political parties, if their mandate has been so strong and consistent all along? Oh yes, it was because this time around those political parties said NO to Pheu Thai and decided to join with the Democratic Party for once. Traditionally, those parties had always sided with Pheu Thai (or its old names Thai-Rak-Thai or People's Power Party), but this time they didn't.

Fourth, you claim the Democratic Party lost badly in the "most recent general election". Actually the most recent general election was in 2007. The Democrats got 39.63% of the vote, and Pheu Thai only 39.60% (source: Wikipedia Last Thai General Election 2007 ). Perhaps this is why Pheu Thai could not form a coalition after the last general election?

Fifth, Pheu Thai (or TRT or PPP) has never had a simple majority of a popular vote win. They have always formed coalition governments themselves. You didn't trumpet their illegitimacy back then, so why claim now that this makes the current government unfair and invalid?

Sixth, if there was anything going down here that was not in accord with the laws, procedures, and constitution of Thailand, you really believe that Pheu Thai would not instantly be at the Constitution Court? If they had any flimsy leg to stand on, they would be at the high court with a team of five hundred lawyers faster than you can say "som-tom-gai-yang".

Perhaps you have a legitimate complaint about the Thai political processes, procedures, and rules. However, do not confuse that systematic issue with a complaint about the current government.

Democrats, Pheu Thai (%)

Management efficiency: 35.5 54.5

Economic performance: 35.4 64.6

Vision and policies: 41.0 59.0

Public acceptance: 39.1 60.9.........

It's time for these muppets to get out!! Unelected and unfit to govern. In the last election they were massacred 165: 233

Even though you Dem defenders claim the 'Westminster system' and 'fairly elected by fellow members of the house', the simple fact is; there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly in the most recent general election. And still they refuse to accept the condition that the party with the most votes gets the mandate...they know this will cause more political turbulence, but shamelessly and spinelessly they will cling to power by any means. You've had your turn (as unfair as it was) now listen to the people AND GET OUT!!!!!!!!

[jayboy]

You talked about "policy content difference". Is returning Thaksin not policy content?

If "ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties", does that mean the that the red shirts are part of the "crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on."

You can't have it both ways.

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.

The Democrats may be the favoured party of the elite, but it is much more than that with some first class key people.It's certainly not organically part of the corrupt feudal military establishment.

[rubl]

You talked about "policy content difference". Is returning Thaksin not policy content?

If "ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties", does that mean the that the red shirts are part of the "crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on."

You can't have it both ways.

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.

The Democrats may be the favoured party of the elite, but it is much more than that with some first class key people.It's certainly not organically part of the corrupt feudal military establishment.

Stop beating around the bush, Jayboy. Just writing 'ideologically hard to see policy content difference' is already the start of obfuscation, unless you mean all parties have the best in mind for ALL Thai people.

Still there are content and execution differences. PTP has one brain, the Dem's many. The Dem's are slower in implementation, the PTP over hasty. The Dem's have part of the traditional elite behind them, the PTP the other part. Both parties have corruption problems, although PTP in it's older guise of TRT/PPP seems to excel. The two PM's with PPP had main agenda point 'bring back Thaksin', the current PM 'bring forward the country'. The PTP has again main agenda point 'bring back Thaksin', the Dem's again 'bring forward the country'. Well, what do you know, by know I even listed some of those 'ideological differences' which some found hard to see

Edited May 10, 2011 by rubl

[SomTumTiger]

Remember Chai's "Suprise"? House is dissolved today. Lets see out many PTP MP's jump ship to BJT.

Any guesses?

[SomTumTiger]

You talked about "policy content difference". Is returning Thaksin not policy content?

If "ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties", does that mean the that the red shirts are part of the "crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on."

You can't have it both ways.

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.

The Democrats may be the favoured party of the elite, but it is much more than that with some first class key people.It's certainly not organically part of the corrupt feudal military establishment.

Stop beating around the bush, Jayboy. Just writing 'ideologically hard to see policy content difference' is already the start of obfuscation, unless you mean all parties have the best in mind for ALL Thai people.

Still there are content and execution differences. PTP has one brain, the Dem's many. The Dem's are slower in implementation, the PTP over hasty. The Dem's have part of the traditional elite behind them, the PTP the other part. Both parties have corruption problems, although PTP in it's older guise of TRT/PPP seems to excel. The two PM's with PPP had main agenda point 'bring back Thaksin', the current PM 'bring forward the country'. The PTP has again main agenda point 'bring back Thaksin', the Dem's again 'bring forward the country'. Well, what do you know, by know I even listed some of those 'ideological differences' which some found hard to see

Which is why anyone who argues that PTP is better for Thailand is completely mental.

[Nonsi]

IMO, all the discussions about democracy in Thailand are completely useless and fruitless at the moment. Almost any problem in Thailand comes down to one major issue, the non-existing police force in this country.

As long as not every party can campaign freely and peacefully in every part of the country, there is no need to hold new elections. As long as the local authorities are either not willing or not in a position to provide security for each party to campaign in an orderly manner, the locals will be brain washed by one side only.

Does anybody really believe this is the right time for any civil government to take over ? How should they ever sort out the mess having a police force which is completely out of control and wouldn't give a dime about the orders from any civil government ?

May be the better way would be to clear up this mess first (military government ?) and then hand over to a regular civil government.

People complaining the army about the handling of the red shirt riots last year should think about how it got that far. Would the BIB have done their jobs by following simple orders from the government the situation would never had escalated that much. In the end, what was the government supposed to do rather than to ask the army to step in and do the BIB's job ?

[rubl]

NEWSFLASH - NEWSFLASH - NEWSFLASH.

For all those who wonder why the PTP will only win by a small margin, read this from my main source of inspiration, Robert A.'s website on Thailand:

"Down By Law: The Legal Impairment of Thailand’s Opposition

We are pleased to announce the latest release of The Thailand 2011 General Elections Report Series, No. 2 — Down By Law: The Legal Impairment of Thailand’s Opposition, focused on the issue of party dissolutions. Much of the content of this report has been submitted to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which then passed a resolution urging the Government of Thailand to reform these constitutional provisions that damage democracy."

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ERS-DOWNBYLAW.pdf