Coup Leader Willing To Join Government Of Yingluck

[jdinasia]

You know what a fence straddler has in common with a eunuch? No balls.

I find this post confusing. Are you saying that military figures should align themselves publicly with political parties? How silly. Everyone knows they only do that in private.

He is retired ---- He keeps the honorific of his rank at the time of retirement.

[jdinasia]

What this really shows is the the Abhisit coalition is crumbling. Thai politics has always been vindictive, i well remember after the coup and subsequent election that many civil servants just marked time, they worried about who would be their next boss. Remember, promotion in Thailand is not based on merit but on connections.

Now we are seeing all the small parties doing the same, sitting it out until they see which way to jump. Has Sonthi been premature or is he privy to inside information. Just to add to the confusion Sondhi and the PAD are also making conciliatory overtures to PT.

I think the word is out that Abhisit's secret backer (not really so secret), is fed up with his lacklustre performance.

The leader of a political party saying he wants his party to be in the government and not in the opposition (he stated he would like just that --- to be in the government regardless of which side wins) tells you all that? That is pretty amazing.

There isn't much different between this election and previous elections when it comes to wanting a space at the trough.

imho the rest of your speculation doesn't really warrant comment

[anterian]

What this really shows is the the Abhisit coalition is crumbling. Thai politics has always been vindictive, i well remember after the coup and subsequent election that many civil servants just marked time, they worried about who would be their next boss. Remember, promotion in Thailand is not based on merit but on connections.

Now we are seeing all the small parties doing the same, sitting it out until they see which way to jump. Has Sonthi been premature or is he privy to inside information. Just to add to the confusion Sondhi and the PAD are also making conciliatory overtures to PT.

I think the word is out that Abhisit's secret backer (not really so secret), is fed up with his lacklustre performance.

The leader of a political party saying he wants his party to be in the government and not in the opposition (he stated he would like just that --- to be in the government regardless of which side wins) tells you all that? That is pretty amazing.

There isn't much different between this election and previous elections when it comes to wanting a space at the trough.

imho the rest of your speculation doesn't really warrant comment

imho also, I feel you comment is not amazing, just simply predictable, I don't know why you bothered

[zthyadat]

Asked whether he feared that Pheu Thai may take revenge against him if the party formed the next government, Sonthi said: "I am not afraid because I was not wrong. There are rules of law in this country."

There are rules of law in this country, but it seems that nobody's following them. WTFC? :jap:

and the rule of law says that a coup is illegal, yet he still led one, then changed the constitution to absolve himself from legal issues, then told the public to accept the coup or the army will stay in power,

It seems this guy will just go with whoever, he has no morals or scruples and should be dealt with for leading the last coup.

Besides, there are no Caymen Island bank deposits when you are in the opposition.

[JurgenG]

There were no Red shirts before the coup

So true !

At that time people (at least most of them) still believed in democracy. Then came the PAD and it was the beginning of "mob power".

The yellows and their backers made a mockery of democratic election.

Sonthi seems to be a pragmatic, realistic man. 5 years later, after a coup and a rigged election, and 5 years of brain washing, anti-Thaksin propaganda, people still want Thaksin.

The people of Thailand are sending a clear message. it's time for everybody to listen.

Edited June 11, 2011 by JurgenG

[robertson468]

I wouldn't condemn him for the coup, but I do seem to recall (and my memory may be at-fault ?), that he said afterwards that he would not try to move into politics, at a later stage. I thought that was the right thing, at the time, and may even have said so on TV. He should set a good example, live quietly in-retirement, his time to play a leading-role in the country's affairs has been & gone.

Perhaps Ms Yingluck will shortly reject the offer of his party, to help her into power, as she has BJT ? Or is she less-than-confident about PTP's landslide-victory in the forthcoming-elections ? Is it even her decision, I can't really see a phone-call from Dubai, ordering the party to remain open to the former-general's kind offer.

This story is a mildly-interesting side-show, in this election.

Seldom are matters as straight forward in Thai politics as are reported, which are done with the best will in the world and the available knowledge of the reporters. However, I smell a rat that there just might be another agenda here, which i haven't quite worked out yet. H-m-m-m-m.

[Buchholz]

There were no Red shirts before the coup

They started up less than 6 months after.

Then, 6 months after that, they were the first group that initiated street violence.

[jdinasia]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/03/04/headlines/headlines_20001979.php

The reds before the coup --- they didn't have a color back then --- they were just bussed in and paid demonstrators

It really is an interesting story and worth a look back as this was the lead-up to the elections that failed -- and led to more of Thaksin's illegal antics which brought about the coup.

[JurgenG]

There were no Red shirts before the coup

They started up less than 6 months after.

Thank you for making this point.

The "reds" stood up in reaction of a military coup. We agree here.

Nowadays, people are standing up agains military regimes all over the middle east. I never heard anybody calling them terrorists.

Unfortunately for Gaddafi, Assad and their friends, there are not many sexpats to support them ...

[AleG]

There were no Red shirts before the coup

They started up less than 6 months after.

Thank you for making this point.

The "reds" stood up in reaction of a military coup. We agree here.

Nowadays, people are standing up agains military regimes all over the middle east. I never heard anybody calling them terrorists.

Unfortunately for Gaddafi, Assad and their friends, there are not many sexpats to support them ...

So those that don't support the Red Shirts are "sexpats" now?

You are a real class act...

[rixalex]

Thank you for making this point.

The "reds" stood up in reaction of a military coup. We agree here.

Nowadays, people are standing up agains military regimes all over the middle east. I never heard anybody calling them terrorists.

Unfortunately for Gaddafi, Assad and their friends, there are not many sexpats to support them ...

Difference is, whereas in the examples you mention, people congregated of their own accord and did something off their own backs, here, whilst i have no doubt that some of the reds truly do believe in what they are fighting for, the truth is that without being compensated, only a tiny number would ever take to the streets. Mobilising people is very easy when you put them on your pay-role. Anyone with money can do it, and just because they do, doesn't suddenly mean they are fighting for some higher noble cause.

[dominique355]

General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, leader of the Matubhum party, said his party was prepared to join either the Democrat-led government or Pheu Thai-led government after the general election.

"We would like to join the next government even if Pheu Thai leads after the July 3 elections," he told Bernama.

Anything to get the power: rifles, tanks, and even prostitution.

[craigt3365]

An inflammatory post and associated replies have been removed. We know this is a hot topic, but please keep it civil.

[whybother]

<snipped deleted posts>

I'm glad you agree that Thaksin shouldn't come back. That's the only point I was making.

As for the sexpat comments, go to the other thread ... it's all been said.

Edited June 11, 2011 by whybother

[warfie]

So those that don't support the Red Shirts are "sexpats" now?

You are a real class act...

It has been discussed here :

http://www.thaivisa....-hates-thaksin/

Thaksin's bashers are "sexpats". It's a fact, they say so in ThaiVisa. Who are you to contest those facts ?

That's the problem with the yellows, reality has no grip on them.

"...It's a fact, they say so in ThaiVisa." LOL, Quote of the day, surely...

[bungalownights]

The frustration and denial exhibited by the vocal minority of anti-thaksin posters at the prospect of a looming PT win at the elections is almost palpable

[OZEMADE]

Asked whether he feared that Pheu Thai may take revenge against him if the party formed the next government, Sonthi said: "I am not afraid because I was not wrong. There are rules of law in this country."

There are rules of law in this country, but it seems that nobody's following them. WTFC? :jap:

But it would be good to have my toe in the door, just in case his sister does win. Wouldn't it make him happy and very forgiving.

[Buchholz]

There were no Red shirts before the coup

They started up less than 6 months after.

Thank you for making this point.

The "reds" stood up in reaction of a military coup. We agree here.

Actually, I think we agree on precise little. The Red Shirts were just doing the bidding of their financier, Thaksin.

Nowadays, people are standing up agains military regimes all over the middle east. I never heard anybody calling them terrorists.

Unfortunately for Gaddafi, Assad and their friends, there are not many sexpats to support them ...

The Middle East situations have nothing to do with the Red Shirts.

I'm sure there are plenty of sexpats that support Thaksin.

[JurgenG]

<snipped deleted posts>

I'm glad you agree that Thaksin shouldn't come back. That's the only point I was making.

As for the sexpat comments, go to the other thread ... it's all been said.

Easy for you to quote a post that has been deleted to make me say something I never said.

Typical yellow stuff. In a free, open society, this would never happen.

Enjoy while it last, the writing is on the wall, democracy is coming back.

[jdinasia]

<snipped deleted posts>

I'm glad you agree that Thaksin shouldn't come back. That's the only point I was making.

As for the sexpat comments, go to the other thread ... it's all been said.

Easy for you to quote a post that has been deleted to make me say something I never said.

Typical yellow stuff. In a free, open society, this would never happen.

Enjoy while it last, the writing is on the wall, democracy is coming back.

Democracy came back in 2007 -- stayed through today ... (it left in 2005 ---- not 2006 as many would suggest)

I may still get a huge surprise, but I doubt Thaksin is coming back soon. He's simply way too divisive and guilty of far too much to walk away free and not man enough to act like the people he has compared himself to, such as Mandela and Ghandi.

[whybother]

<snipped deleted posts>

I'm glad you agree that Thaksin shouldn't come back. That's the only point I was making.

As for the sexpat comments, go to the other thread ... it's all been said.

Easy for you to quote a post that has been deleted to make me say something I never said.

Typical yellow stuff. In a free, open society, this would never happen.

Enjoy while it last, the writing is on the wall, democracy is coming back.

In the deleted post, you said that we agree. Since I only said that Thaksin shouldn't come back, you must have been agreeing to that.

Since the posts have been deleted, the only thing we will be able to agree on is that we don't agree.

[JurgenG]

There were no Red shirts before the coup

They started up less than 6 months after.

Thank you for making this point.

The "reds" stood up in reaction of a military coup. We agree here.

Actually, I think we agree on precise little. The Red Shirts were just doing the bidding of their financier, Thaksin.

They were supporting the legally elected prime minister ousted by a military coup.

Put it the way you want, facts are facts : no coup, no red shirts.

First came the yellow shirts, backed by people who couldn't accept democracy. Then the coup. Then, as a reaction, the red shirts.

You have to accept facts. The people who started all that mayhem are people with little respect for democracy. People can vote for whoever they want as long as it is for the controlling elite. If they don't, then we have a problem ...

The problem is not vote buying, the problem is free information. Why do you think the junta is closing local radios and internet access ?

You post a lot, a lot of your stuff comes from different sources on the internet. Would it be fair if I cut your internet sources? That's what happen to people who oppose this government. Is it fair ?

Edited June 11, 2011 by JurgenG

[whybother]

They were supporting the legally elected prime minister ousted by a military coup.

Phrase it the way you want, facts are facts : no coup, no red shirts.

First came the yellow shirts, backed by people who couldn't accept democracy. Then the coup. Then, as a reaction, the red shirts.

You have to accept facts. The people who started all that mayhem are people with little respect for democracy. People can vote for whoever they want as long as it is for the controlling elite. If they don't, then we have a problem ...

The problem is not vote buying, the problem is free information. Why do you think the junta is closing local radios and internet access ?

You post a lot, a lot of your stuff comes from different sources on the internet. Would it be fair if I cut your internet sources? That's what happen to people who oppose this government. Is it fair ?

Since you're talking about facts, why don't you start with the fact the the coup didn't oust the elected PM.

[jdinasia]

They were supporting the legally elected prime minister ousted by a military coup.

Phrase it the way you want, facts are facts : no coup, no red shirts.

First came the yellow shirts, backed by people who couldn't accept democracy. Then the coup. Then, as a reaction, the red shirts.

You have to accept facts. The people who started all that mayhem are people with little respect for democracy. People can vote for whoever they want as long as it is for the controlling elite. If they don't, then we have a problem ...

The problem is not vote buying, the problem is free information. Why do you think the junta is closing local radios and internet access ?

You post a lot, a lot of your stuff comes from different sources on the internet. Would it be fair if I cut your internet sources? That's what happen to people who oppose this government. Is it fair ?

Since you're talking about facts, why don't you start with the fact the the coup didn't oust the elected PM.

and that first came Thaksin ---- which led to the PAD (and which led to the coup (the PAD didn't cause the coup -- failed elections and Thaksin's scheming did)

[JurgenG]

^

Ok, first came a democratically elected government that didn't please some people.

So basically you blame electors for the coup ? They were so stupid as not to vote for the Bangkok elite's choice, and believe they can vote for who ever they like most ?

Interesting.

What are you doing in Thailand ? I'm sure you have much better career opportunities in North Korea

[kropotkin]

They were supporting the legally elected prime minister ousted by a military coup.

Phrase it the way you want, facts are facts : no coup, no red shirts.

First came the yellow shirts, backed by people who couldn't accept democracy. Then the coup. Then, as a reaction, the red shirts.

You have to accept facts. The people who started all that mayhem are people with little respect for democracy. People can vote for whoever they want as long as it is for the controlling elite. If they don't, then we have a problem ...

The problem is not vote buying, the problem is free information. Why do you think the junta is closing local radios and internet access ?

You post a lot, a lot of your stuff comes from different sources on the internet. Would it be fair if I cut your internet sources? That's what happen to people who oppose this government. Is it fair ?

Since you're talking about facts, why don't you start with the fact the the coup didn't oust the elected PM.

and that first came Thaksin ---- which led to the PAD (and which led to the coup (the PAD didn't cause the coup -- failed elections and Thaksin's scheming did)

Correction: first came poverty, next Thaksin etc.

Can you not see that in 21st century Thailand the same things are happening as in 19th century Europe?

Drunken uneducated suppressed proletarians versus hiso, with some very clever hiso using the poor in their inter-hiso quarrels?

Let us hope that Thailand does not have to go through communism and fachism to reach the same level (economically and socially) as Europe.

[jdinasia]

^

Ok, first came a democratically elected government that didn't please some people.

So basically you blame electors for the coup ? They were so stupid as not to vote for the Bangkok elite's choice, and believe they can vote for who ever they like most ?

Interesting.

What are you doing in Thailand ? I'm sure you have much better career opportunities in North Korea

If you think things were 'democratic' under Thaksin then I am sure Sadam era Iraq would have pleased you too

You simply don't see that Thaksin bought up the regional power blocs that control the electorate and used them ...that he destroyed the checks and balances needed by a democracy to function AS a democracy ... and that he stole billions of dollars from the people (dollars not Baht) ---- That he IS guilty of corruption and on a scale never before seen in Thailand. That in a developed democracy he would have been out on his ear ... but hey ... he bought himself some Newin's and S'noh's and Sanans etc etc ec etc so it must be right? Democracies hold their elected leaders accountable ... Thaksin destroyed the checks on his power. When he was no longer PM (and had publicly resigned his caretaker PM position) he was given the boot.

Scholars say that the 2007 constitution was pretty undemocratic in how it came about --- but they also say that it strengthens democracy in that it put the checks and balances on the executive branch back in place. Reasonable analysis imho.

And no -- I blame only Thaksin for the coup. Had he not abused his power and weakened democracy in Thailand it wouldn't (and probably couldn't) have happened.

[lannarebirth]

^

Ok, first came a democratically elected government that didn't please some people.

So basically you blame electors for the coup ? They were so stupid as not to vote for the Bangkok elite's choice, and believe they can vote for who ever they like most ?

Interesting.

What are you doing in Thailand ? I'm sure you have much better career opportunities in North Korea

If you think things were 'democratic' under Thaksin then I am sure Sadam era Iraq would have pleased you too

You simply don't see that Thaksin bought up the regional power blocs that control the electorate and used them ...that he destroyed the checks and balances needed by a democracy to function AS a democracy ... and that he stole billions of dollars from the people (dollars not Baht) ---- That he IS guilty of corruption and on a scale never before seen in Thailand. That in a developed democracy he would have been out on his ear ... but hey ... he bought himself some Newin's and S'noh's and Sanans etc etc ec etc so it must be right? Democracies hold their elected leaders accountable ... Thaksin destroyed the checks on his power. When he was no longer PM (and had publicly resigned his caretaker PM position) he was given the boot.

Scholars say that the 2007 constitution was pretty undemocratic in how it came about --- but they also say that it strengthens democracy in that it put the checks and balances on the executive branch back in place. Reasonable analysis imho.

And no -- I blame only Thaksin for the coup. Had he not abused his power and weakened democracy in Thailand it wouldn't (and probably couldn't) have happened.

The evidence of the lack of TRT's, PPP's, PTP's democratic values can clearly be seen in how their "opposition" party. They haven't a clue how to do it. Authoritarianism and violence is their milleu.

[JurgenG]

Scholars say that the 2007 constitution was pretty undemocratic in how it came about --- but they also say that it strengthens democracy in that it put the checks and balances on the executive branch back in place. Reasonable analysis imho.

You said the word, scholars ! People who never had the courage to step in the real world.

People who make your every day world, people who grow your food, people who cook it, people who build the house you live in, people who drive you around, real people, they all vote for Thaksin.

Then you have the civil servants, scholars ... IMO they shouldn't have the right to vote. As their name says it so well, they are just servants.

[animatic]

Just to clarify the repeated misstatement

Thaksin had been re-elected,

but he, and he alone,

dissolved parliament to have a snap election.

That made him a Care Taker UNELECTED PM.

His job then was to mind the government and run a successful election.The election was botched, his time as Care Taker PM expired.

He went to the palace to be 'reconfirmed for a 2nd term as Caretaker PM'. Making large, hubristic statements on going, and total silence on returning. Next day he publicly announced he was stepping down as Care Taker PM. Effectively removing himself from the job and installing his Deputy PM AS acting PM. The guy publicly quit.

By all appearances he was told he was not being re-instated and to submit his resignation for botching the election and dividing the nation gravely. And he than made the best of it by appearing to step down himself.

One week later he announces 'unilaterally' he will take back the Prime Ministers job, 'Because the country needs him."

He never returned to the palace to be reconfirmed as is required by the constitution at that time. It was discussed publicly that he was not a confirmed Prime Minister Of Thailand.

He announced he would go to te UN in NYC to make a speech 'as Prime Minister of Thailand'. Many people of all levels of society agreed that this was inappropriate, since he was not even a confirmed Care Taker PM. He ignored this gfood advice, and the coup happened.

At the time of the coup, Thaksin was NOT the "Elected Prime Minister Of Thailand" He was a pretender of outrageous ego, illegally stepping on the checks and balances of the Thai legal system.

Any other statements pretending to be facts, such as:

" the 2006 Coup that Deposed Prime MInister Thaksin Shinawatra ",

or

"...the legally elected prime minister ousted by a military coup...."

are FACTUALLY INCORRECT, and should be ignored.

He removed himself from being Elected PM with his own hand.

No one else did anything but remove an illegal pretender to the job.

Edited June 11, 2011 by animatic