Pardon A Test Of Yingluck's Allegiance

[animatic]

'hanuman1' timestamp='1315326005' post='4678784'

'Passing a political hot potato to the monarch' didn't seem to phase the Dem opposition when Thaksin was caretaker PM and they were calling for him to resign. Thaksin's resignation would have invoked article 7 of the constitution, which required the monarch to appoint a new PM, no less.

But that was simply doing his constitutional duty, not taking a political position.

Those that put him in the position to do one of his constitutional functions didn't force any favoritism by HRM, but only that he must do one of his duties, because it became necessary. In effect Care Taker Thaksin if anyone forced the issue. By not following proper constitution channels after he didn't properly over see the snap election he called.

The Dems in opposition only called for proper legal procedures to be followed, that is not politica action, but constitutional action.

But article 7 was not invoked. It is on public record - during a speech he made when inaugurating Supreme Court judges - that the monarch considered it undemocratic.

How the appointment of a new PM anywhere in the world can not be considered a political action, I do not know. In this case therefore, 'following legal procedure' (or was it just calling for Thaksin to resign?) was a de facto political action and an undemocratic one at that.

I hope this doesn't fall foul of the mods. I haven't attributed any opinion to the monarch apart from what he is on public record as stating himself.

It was a constitutional move appointing an acting PM to finish an election, and thus legal and based on democratic principle that the legislative passed that constitution and made that maneuver legitimate.

In the speech it seems to be pointing out; the action itself was outside 'democratic definition', but not one of illegality or impropriety. It appeared to essentially be a hint to the pols to get back to work and not make it necessary.

It is not a political action if it is not used as a politically favoritizing act,

but effectively one of 'returning a neutral rudder to a ship adrift'

without assigning more than a 'maintain this course' directive,

until a new captain is chosen.

If this is putting to much comment on the speech content, mods please edit or remove.

You are using interpretation and opinion whereas I was simply presenting facts. You are welcome to do so, so thanks for that.

It is your opinion that appointing a PM 'Must Be Political'. I disagree with that.

I was only using reiteration of existing public perceptions of the speech's meaning. It is a cottage industry in Thailand to parse HRM rare public statements for meaning. Of course always in the most respectful manners.

He could as easily pick someone with proper talents, abilities and absolutely NO political party affiliations. Not to say it's possible to not KNOW someone with connections to parties. But you can know people from 10 different parties and not be in any of them. An unaffiliated academic specializing in constitutional law could be picked for instance.

Removing Thaksin for his overstay was both constitutionally proper and had political implications, but the replacement didn't necessarily have to lean towards either extremity of the political spectrum. A member of the Rubber Tree Party or the Better Education in Schools party, both minimally-aligned niche parties, that coincide with HRM stated social objectives, could have been chosen to make a point, and not any Caretaker from any of the main parties, so no choosing sides.

Of course there are always those that will try and say ANYTHING is politically against them if they don't get their way. Doesn't make it so.

Edited September 7, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

PS

Removing Thaksin for his overstay was both constitutionally proper and had political implications

was NOT meaning the coup, but the attempt to have him step down for his term as caretaker expiring.

So don't bother narrowly going down that accusatory road,

it was not the subject.

Edited September 7, 2011 by animatic

[hanuman1]

But article 7 was not invoked. It is on public record - during a speech he made when inaugurating Supreme Court judges - that the monarch considered it undemocratic.

How the appointment of a new PM anywhere in the world can not be considered a political action, I do not know. In this case therefore, 'following legal procedure' (or was it just calling for Thaksin to resign?) was a de facto political action and an undemocratic one at that.

I hope this doesn't fall foul of the mods. I haven't attributed any opinion to the monarch apart from what he is on public record as stating himself.

It was a constitutional move appointing an acting PM to finish an election, and thus legal and based on democratic principle that the legislative passed that constitution and made that maneuver legitimate.

In the speech it seems to be pointing out; the action itself was outside 'democratic definition', but not one of illegality or impropriety. It appeared to essentially be a hint to the pols to get back to work and not make it necessary.

It is not a political action if it is not used as a politically favoritizing act,

but effectively one of 'returning a neutral rudder to a ship adrift'

without assigning more than a 'maintain this course' directive,

until a new captain is chosen.

If this is putting to much comment on the speech content, mods please edit or remove.

You are using interpretation and opinion whereas I was simply presenting facts. You are welcome to do so, so thanks for that.

It is your opinion that appointing a PM 'Must Be Political'. I disagree with that.

I was only using reiteration of existing public perceptions of the speech's meaning. It is a cottage industry in Thailand to parse HRM rare public statements for meaning. Of course always in the most respectful manners.

He could as easily pick someone with proper talents, abilities and absolutely NO political party affiliations. Not to say it's possible to not KNOW someone with connections to parties. But you can know people from 10 different parties and not be in any of them. An unaffiliated academic specializing in constitutional law could be picked for instance.

Removing Thaksin for his overstay was both constitutionally proper and had political implications, but the replacement didn't necessarily have to lean towards either extremity of the political spectrum. A member of the Rubber Tree Party or the Better Education in Schools party, both minimally-aligned niche parties, that coincide with HRM stated social objectives, could have been chosen to make a point, and not any Caretaker from any of the main parties, so no choosing sides.

Of course there are always those that will try and say ANYTHING is politically against them if they don't get their way. Doesn't make it so.

The chooser of the next PM determined the choice as being undemocratic. Meaning even the appointment of the leader of the Better Education in Schools party to the office of PM would have been undemocratic regardless of the person's level of affiliation with any of the big political players.

Theorizing about all possible outcomes has its place in academia and planning, but needs to be filtered through the grim realities of a complex political landscape before any truly pertinent points can emerge and be used to back up a valid argument. IMHO.

[soundman]

I have edited some speculative comment concerning HM from preceding posts.

(For new readers; Thai Visa topic regarding HM and the Royal family here.)

I would really prefer if we got back to talking about Yingluck's dilemma, rather than analysis of HM's public role.

Also, please try to limit your quotes to the relevant part you are replying to. Multiple boxed quotes are a PITA to try and follow the conversation.

[animatic]

Her loyalties are truly to be tested and then run through the ringer of public opinion.

She has conflicting dual loyalties :

One is the the acknowledged highest chair of the land and social glue that has held Thailand together for 2 lifetimes at least,

and the historical link to centuries in the life of Siam.

The other is her family blood ties and chinese historical traditions of family dynasty building an maintenance, and filial duty to the much older brother who raised her much of her life.

Both ties SHOULD run deep into the heart of any true Thai, but which will take precedence in her ACTIONS, regardless of her choice of words? One disappoints her brother, the other can easily rip the country into civil war...

The current mindset in 'redland' is clearly in question these days, even if we can't be specific speculating about that here, while in MOST of the country the love for HRM is anything but diminished in the common man no matter his status or level in society. It is also clear that on both sides of this fence there are those amoral enough to profit on the backs of the average Somchai in any way they can, as MUCH as they can, regardless of the cost to others.

And of course both these sides say their polar opposites are the worst offenders in this regard. IMHO they are both equally low and sleazy, but some try to maintain the ways of Thailand and some seem more preoccupied with the ways of power and their positions. As in most Thai societal interactions for one to rise another must be lowered, even amongst best friends on the homiest of levels the joisting of status over rules love and duty to some extent.

So it would appear for Thaksin to lead his rouged shock troops on the street to their long sought victory, it can not maintain the status quo as it is now, but must change the loyalties of the majority of Thais or the reasons for having such allegiance. And THAT my friends is a very scary prospect.

So which way does Yingluck calculate she can move?

Forward in the long term slow and steady plan? ... ain't seeing that one these days

Or too fast, too much, too far, and too many toes crushed in the mad rush and exultation of power?

How much patience does big bro have in holding back from speeding the plow into destiny? Is his mental internal clock ticking too fast? Must he see himself as the master of the universe sooner than the state of the nation can handle it? ... will he push her to that end before it's prudent or even possible?

And if so, at what point does the opposition PUSH BACK HARD.... reading into his need for speed, that he will not show prudence, fairness or adequate forethought, and thus put any more in danger?

[zzaa09]

a pardon to the brother will only make the thai people be wary of her motives in power,and why she put herself foward in the first place

The same overwhelming majority of Thai people that supported her?

Assuming that a greater percentage would favour such moves, yes?

[animatic]

a pardon to the brother will only make the thai people be wary of her motives in power,and why she put herself foward in the first place

The same overwhelming majority of Thai people that supported her?

Assuming that a greater percentage would favour such moves, yes?

It was never overwhelming it just barely made 50% of voters who showed up to vote. Even with mandatory voting many still skip out of ennui.

If it came down to the Thai people supporting Thaksin vs the Highest Chair, Thaksin would come up short, and anger many for his presumption..

Edited September 7, 2011 by animatic