Anti-Coup Moves Designed To Help Thaksin, Democrats Say

[JurgenG]

Re Thaksin, his lawyer/professional blogger, & being informed : I've said before that I am not terribly concerned about Thaksin and whether he comes back to Thailand or not.

Had i not been living in Thailand during his regime, from 2001 to 2006, i would probably feel that way too. I would probably be wondering what all the fuss was about. I would probably be wondering how he could be worse than any of the other corrupt politicians. I think it was something you had to experience first hand. Of course, had you, you might have come to a completely different conclusion about it all. I don't think so though. You seem too intelligent.

Come on, a huge number of expat were working in Thailand during Thaksin years and had no complain.

Before 2006 life as an expat was good in Thailand, I know I was working there.

Please, explain me in concrete terms how Thaksin was affecting your life as an expat before 2006. Tell me how miserable was your life and how it was Thaksin direct responsibility.

[rubl]

Well, about the anti-coup move, k. Thaksin paid-for lawyer Robert A. is also upping the ant. Check his latest fabric of English words put together in a 'logical order'

http://robertamsterd...thailand/?p=943

haven't read this guy before - you say he's paid for by Thaksin, is that true?

Although I'm not going to question your honesty, I have doubts on you're being really naïve.

two links removed

Hi Rubl, OK, so this guy is the Canadian lawyer hired by Thaksin to advise the UDD. He writes a blog and has some contributions to it every few weeks to several times a week. At least it is transparent and you know the connection as you read - who is behind The Nation and their daily propaganda promenading as "news"? The fact that people here believe The Nation has more to do with psychology (seeking out information that supports our existing belief system) than critical reading, questioning, and evaluation of the content.

Anyway - what is the motivation of the nitirat group? I don't know - I leave the possibilities open in my consideration of their proposal. Coming back to the strategy of the Democrats, again, the results, the daily actions (as visible to a Farang spectator like myself) is an obstructionist strategy. Some here have called it "doing what the opposition should do and question/challenge the govt" - which to me is clearly incorrect.

And although it is not directly related to this thread, that which Amsterdam writes proposes a particular viewpoint, clearly with an agenda of its own, and laden with emotion-grabbing word-choices - strip all that away, and he still makes some interesting points, no? Maybe we can come back to that in another thread.

Let me rephrase, I am going to question your honesty or maybe just your memory. Remember this thread

You posted in it. So you should have read references to Robert Amsterdam and some quotes. To now say "so he's hired by Thaksin so what" following 'how about theNation' pure obfuscation, trying to move away from what you don't want to know and putting all on wheeling, dealing Democrats. The fact you mention, is what you want to believe and want others to believe, a man on a mission you might say.

As for Robert A. fantasy stories, there always a bit of truth in it, like names, events. When you analyse and remove rhetoric not much else is left. Same with the bovine excrement you write, I'm afraid.

I have no problem with you being anti-Democrats, that's fine, but don't lie about it, or start to create your own fantasy world.

Edited September 29, 2011 by rubl

[Groongthep]

Had i not been living in Thailand during his regime, from 2001 to 2006, i would probably feel that way too. I would probably be wondering what all the fuss was about. I would probably be wondering how he could be worse than any of the other corrupt politicians. I think it was something you had to experience first hand. Of course, had you, you might have come to a completely different conclusion about it all. I don't think so though. You seem too intelligent.

As I said a few days ago I try not to comment on political threads but I must throw in my two cents on this statement.

I was living in Thailand during the timeframe of 2001 to 2006 and experienced life here first hand then too. The country was recovering nicely from the 1997 crash, infrastructure projects were being completed, a terrible drug problem was diminishing (tuk tuk drivers quit asking me if I wanted to buy dope), average people were living sufficient lives and were for the most part happy, Thaksin ran the APEC meeting of world leaders beautifully and it reflected very positively on Thailand, pride in Thailand was running at a high that hadn't been seen in decades. Things were good. There were no demonstrations in the streets because with the exception of the mishandling of the situation in the south there were few gripes.

But it was no secret that Thaksin was also being very adept at consolidating power and public sentiment toward him and away from the traditional elite (the unspeakables on this forum) so they and their allies in the military deposed him in an illegal coup using the old excuse of corruption as justification just like the Choonhaven coup in the early 90s. If they could have accused him of being a Communist they would have used that old ploy too but they knew that wouldn't fly. The coup forever changed this country and has destroyed it's unity. Resentment by the common folk remains high and politically this place has been a mess ever since.

Even after his exile the elites have been waging a bitter and ruthless propaganda war against Thaksin's reputation and have villainized both him and his supporters not unlike Fox News does against Obama and his supporters in the US. The sale of his telecom company to Singapore's Temesek was cited as treason and tax evasion when later scrutiny showed neither was true. The Army runs the main television stations here remember and the English language press is basically a mouthpiece for the privileged and powerful so truth in reporting was only sprinkled about sparingly. The real truth is things were better during Thakin's tenure than they had been for years both before and after.

If you were here at that time and couldn't see that you must have had your head buried in the sand.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Groongthep

[lannarebirth]

Had i not been living in Thailand during his regime, from 2001 to 2006, i would probably feel that way too. I would probably be wondering what all the fuss was about. I would probably be wondering how he could be worse than any of the other corrupt politicians. I think it was something you had to experience first hand. Of course, had you, you might have come to a completely different conclusion about it all. I don't think so though. You seem too intelligent.

As I said a few days ago I try not to comment on political threads but I must throw in my two cents on this statement.

I was living in Thailand during the timeframe of 2001 to 2006 and experienced life here first hand then too. The country was recovering nicely from the 1997 crash, infrastructure projects were being completed, a terrible drug problem was diminishing (tuk tuk drivers quit asking me if I wanted to buy dope), average people were living sufficient lives and were for the most part happy, Thaksin ran the APEC meeting of world leaders beautifully and it reflected very positively on Thailand, pride in Thailand was running at a high that hadn't been seen in decades. Things were good. There were no demonstrations in the streets because with the exception of the mishandling of the situation in the south there were few gripes.

But it was no secret that Thaksin was also being very adept at consolidating power and public sentiment toward him and away from the traditional elite (the unspeakables on this forum) so they and their allies in the military deposed him in an illegal coup using the old excuse of corruption as justification just like the Choonhaven coup in the early 90s. If they could have accused him of being a Communist they would have used that old ploy too but they knew that wouldn't fly. The coup forever changed this country and has destroyed it's unity. Resentment by the common folk remains high and politically this place has been a mess ever since.

Even after his exile the elites have been waging a bitter and ruthless propaganda war against Thaksin's reputation and have villainized both him and his supporters not unlike Fox News does against Obama and his supporters in the US. The sale of his telecom company to Singapore's Temesek was cited as treason and tax evasion when later scrutiny showed neither was true. The Army runs the main television stations here remember and the English language press is basically a mouthpiece for the privileged and powerful so truth in reporting was only sprinkled about sparingly. The real truth is things were better during Thakin's tenure than they had been for years both before and after.

If you were here at that time and couldn't see that you must have had your head buried in the sand.

Yet the highest GDP growth in Thai history (or at least a decade) was achieved under the Abhisit government, and that in the midst of a Global Financial Crisis. Makes you go hmmm. Hmmm?

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=th&v=66

[rixalex]

Come on, a huge number of expat were working in Thailand during Thaksin years and had no complain.

Perhaps the ones living in Isaan, Chaing Mai or the north had no compaints. Here in Bangkok, i didn't come across one foreigner, in that time, who had what you would call a high opinion of Thaksin. Where were you working?

Before 2006 life as an expat was good in Thailand, I know I was working there.

Please, explain me in concrete terms how Thaksin was affecting your life as an expat before 2006. Tell me how miserable was your life and how it was Thaksin direct responsibility.

My opinion of Thaksin, and of the Thaksin era, is not based on how happy or how miserable i was. I have been living here since the 90s and i have never allowed politics to affect me in that way, nor do i don't intend to start to allow it. If i did, i would be constantly miserable i am sure.

Thaksin did not affect me personally, as neither did the coup, as neither did Samak, or Somchai, Abhisit or Yingluck. My daily routine has remained unchanged in all that time. Get up, go to work, go home, sleep.

It's not about personally being affected. It's about those around you. It's about the country as a whole. It's about the state of public services - even though i might not use them. It's about the corruption. It's about the nepotism. It's about the greed. Many things. Things don't have to impact on you directly for you to disagree with them, or have an opinion on them.

[rixalex]

I was living in Thailand during the timeframe of 2001 to 2006 and experienced life here first hand then too. The country was recovering nicely from the 1997 crash, infrastructure projects were being completed,

I agree, but i don't think this had much to do with the government. Take a look at the economies of pretty much all the countries in this region at that time and you will see the same sort of pattern.

a terrible drug problem was diminishing (tuk tuk drivers quit asking me if I wanted to buy dope),

Perhaps the drugs problem was getting better, but i still don't think that justifies executing people without trial. I don't actually think anything does.

average people were living sufficient lives and were for the most part happy,

A lot of average people were living beyond their means, thanks to a campaign of encouraging people to buy things on credit; to borrow. For a lot of people, that has now caught up with them.

[rixalex]

But it was no secret that Thaksin was also being very adept at consolidating power and public sentiment toward him and away from the traditional elite (the unspeakables on this forum) so they and their allies in the military deposed him in an illegal coup using the old excuse of corruption as justification just like the Choonhaven coup in the early 90s. If they could have accused him of being a Communist they would have used that old ploy too but they knew that wouldn't fly. The coup forever changed this country and has destroyed it's unity. Resentment by the common folk remains high and politically this place has been a mess ever since.

Even after his exile the elites have been waging a bitter and ruthless propaganda war against Thaksin's reputation and have villainized both him and his supporters not unlike Fox News does against Obama and his supporters in the US. The sale of his telecom company to Singapore's Temesek was cited as treason and tax evasion when later scrutiny showed neither was true. The Army runs the main television stations here remember and the English language press is basically a mouthpiece for the privileged and powerful so truth in reporting was only sprinkled about sparingly. The real truth is things were better during Thakin's tenure than they had been for years both before and after.

If you were here at that time and couldn't see that you must have had your head buried in the sand.

If you believe that Thaksin was an innocent victim in the coup affair, and that it being staged had nothing to do with his own acts of increasing arrogance, greed and unlawfulness, then it is you my friend that is doing the ostrich.

[Crushdepth]

Re Thaksin, his lawyer/professional blogger, & being informed : I've said before that I am not terribly concerned about Thaksin and whether he comes back to Thailand or not.

Had i not been living in Thailand during his regime, from 2001 to 2006, i would probably feel that way too. I would probably be wondering what all the fuss was about. I would probably be wondering how he could be worse than any of the other corrupt politicians. I think it was something you had to experience first hand. Of course, had you, you might have come to a completely different conclusion about it all. I don't think so though. You seem too intelligent.

This is a key point. It has become quite fashionable to be 'anti coup', it makes sense and it's an easy message to sell to recent arrivals. I'd probably criticise it too, had I not seen the realities of life under Thaksin. If you troll the forum for old posts at the time of the coup, you will find a very different tone. He was way out of control and heading down a very dangerous path. Had he not been removed - where would Thailand be now?

Worth some consideration.

[rixalex]

This is a key point. It has become quite fashionable to be 'anti coup', it makes sense and it's an easy message to sell to recent arrivals. I'd probably criticise it too, had I not seen the realities of life under Thaksin.

Completely agree.

With regards the not criticising it thing though (talking about the coup), for me, it's not so much that i don't criticise it, it's that i am aware of what led us to the point of having a coup, and i truly believe that had Thaksin managed to pull back, even if just a little, on the acts of personal greed, on the changing laws to suit himself, on the appointing relatives in key positions - on all these sorts of things combined - that the coup would never have been staged.

Yes, Thailand doesn't expect its leader to be squeaky clean, but if you really take the piss, you will eventually get a reaction from those behind the scenes. Yes, that might not be democratic, but then nor is the piss taking that causes it.

[JurgenG]

Come on, a huge number of expat were working in Thailand during Thaksin years and had no complain.

Perhaps the ones living in Isaan, Chaing Mai or the north had no compaints. Here in Bangkok, i didn't come across one foreigner, in that time, who had what you would call a high opinion of Thaksin. Where were you working?

Before 2006 life as an expat was good in Thailand, I know I was working there.

Please, explain me in concrete terms how Thaksin was affecting your life as an expat before 2006. Tell me how miserable was your life and how it was Thaksin direct responsibility.

My opinion of Thaksin, and of the Thaksin era, is not based on how happy or how miserable i was. I have been living here since the 90s and i have never allowed politics to affect me in that way, nor do i don't intend to start to allow it. If i did, i would be constantly miserable i am sure.

Thaksin did not affect me personally, as neither did the coup, as neither did Samak, or Somchai, Abhisit or Yingluck. My daily routine has remained unchanged in all that time. Get up, go to work, go home, sleep.

It's not about personally being affected. It's about those around you. It's about the country as a whole. It's about the state of public services - even though i might not use them. It's about the corruption. It's about the nepotism. It's about the greed. Many things. Things don't have to impact on you directly for you to disagree with them, or have an opinion on them.

I was working in Bangkok and, surprise, surprise , at that time I was a democrat supporter .

Why? Because at that time I didn't really care about politic. My gf was (still is) a democrat and in our circle Thaksin was not portrayed as a very sympathetic guy. But life was good and I didn't really care much about politic. And honestly nobody else did, except for a few loonies.

When they start talking about revolution, I didn't really agree. I was definitively against the coup. And when the democrats failed to react, it was the end of our love affair.

Why I tell my story ? Because it's not original, a lot of expat (and not only expats) followed exactly the same way. Because Thaksin was maybe not a model of virtue, but life was good.

You seem to put first moral values. Somehow me too. Democracy is not something negotiable. It was obvious from day one that nothing good can come from a military coup. That's what definitively disqualify Abhisit and Korn from any public office. They went to Oxford, they studied history and politic. They should have known better than to support a coup.

Today the conclusion is that Thaksin is the worst PM Thailand ever had except for all the others that have been there before or after him.

[phiphidon]

Let me rephrase, I am going to question your honesty or maybe just your memory. Remember this thread

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4444290

You posted in it. So you should have read references to Robert Amsterdam and some quotes. To now say "so he's hired by Thaksin so what" following 'how about theNation' pure obfuscation, trying to move away from what you don't want to know and putting all on wheeling, dealing Democrats. The fact you mention, is what you want to believe and want others to believe, a man on a mission you might say.

As for Robert A. fantasy stories, there always a bit of truth in it, like names, events. When you analyse and remove rhetoric not much else is left. Same with the bovine excrement you write, I'm afraid.

I have no problem with you being anti-Democrats, that's fine, but don't lie about it, or start to create your own fantasy world.

Hey Rubl, just an aside, remember your post about Thaksin being a Cambodian Citizen? He wasn't and never has been.

[rubl]

I was working in Bangkok and, surprise, surprise , at that time I was a democrat supporter .

Why? Because at that time I didn't really care about politic. My gf was (still is) a democrat and in our circle Thaksin was not portrayed as a very sympathetic guy. But life was good and I didn't really care much about politic. And honestly nobody else did, except for a few loonies.

When they start talking about revolution, I didn't really agree. I was definitively against the coup. And when the democrats failed to react, it was the end of our love affair.

Why I tell my story ? Because it's not original, a lot of expat (and not only expats) followed exactly the same way. Because Thaksin was maybe not a model of virtue, but life was good.

You seem to put first moral values. Somehow me too. Democracy is not something negotiable. It was obvious from day one that nothing good can come from a military coup. That's what definitively disqualify Abhisit and Korn from any public office. They went to Oxford, they studied history and politic. They should have known better than to support a coup.

Today the conclusion is that Thaksin is the worst PM Thailand ever had except for all the others that have been there before or after him.

Just for the record, k. Abhisit didn't support the coup. You may say he didn't speak out against it loud enough, but he did speak against it. As for life being good in Thaksin's days, relative. I was here on a real nice expat salary, no complaint. As for the Thai population, up to a point. global economy booming, Thaksinomics, etc., etc. First signs of storm ahead late 2006 I guess.

The worst thing Thaksin did was diminish the democratic system in Thailand in the eyes of all, citizens, expats, the world (assuming they care). Cheating, no problem; bribe, no problem; politician absolved of guild, no problem; way of life. That is part of the legacy of k. Thaksin, that's what even makes it worse than a bloodless coup. IMHo.

Edited September 29, 2011 by rubl

[tlansford]

- snip - (darn those quote limits... )

haven't read this guy before - you say he's paid for by Thaksin, is that true?

Although I'm not going to question your honesty, I have doubts on you're being really naïve.

two links removed

Hi Rubl, OK, so this guy is the Canadian lawyer hired by Thaksin to advise the UDD. He writes a blog and has some contributions to it every few weeks to several times a week. At least it is transparent and you know the connection as you read - who is behind The Nation and their daily propaganda promenading as "news"? The fact that people here believe The Nation has more to do with psychology (seeking out information that supports our existing belief system) than critical reading, questioning, and evaluation of the content.

Anyway - what is the motivation of the nitirat group? I don't know - I leave the possibilities open in my consideration of their proposal. Coming back to the strategy of the Democrats, again, the results, the daily actions (as visible to a Farang spectator like myself) is an obstructionist strategy. Some here have called it "doing what the opposition should do and question/challenge the govt" - which to me is clearly incorrect.

And although it is not directly related to this thread, that which Amsterdam writes proposes a particular viewpoint, clearly with an agenda of its own, and laden with emotion-grabbing word-choices - strip all that away, and he still makes some interesting points, no? Maybe we can come back to that in another thread.

Let me rephrase, I am going to question your honesty or maybe just your memory. Remember this thread

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4444290

You posted in it. So you should have read references to Robert Amsterdam and some quotes. To now say "so he's hired by Thaksin so what" following 'how about theNation' pure obfuscation, trying to move away from what you don't want to know and putting all on wheeling, dealing Democrats. The fact you mention, is what you want to believe and want others to believe, a man on a mission you might say.

As for Robert A. fantasy stories, there always a bit of truth in it, like names, events. When you analyse and remove rhetoric not much else is left. Same with the bovine excrement you write, I'm afraid.

I have no problem with you being anti-Democrats, that's fine, but don't lie about it, or start to create your own fantasy world.

Hi Rubl - ok, one step at a time.

1) i posted one comment in the thread you mentioned, and others posted about amsterdam - which had nothing to do with my post... It was not, honestly, this thread that I was recalling when I said I had read reference to the name before (that recollection was someone replying "another Amsterdam convert" to another poster).

2) I make my own quotes, you can please stick to them. It's not terribly important, and I don't mind paraphrasing per se, but it keeps things a bit more clear. Your words, "so he's hired by Thaksin so what" written in quotation marks, is your repetition of a comment, not my words. The point there was not "so what", but rather, saying that ihe's biased, but it's transparent, followed by the point that The Nation is biased but not transparent (at least, IMO). That's all. This guy is paid for by Thaksin - that is public knowledge. If he writes something on his blog or for a news outlet, then it is clear where his starting point is.

3) You can call bovine excrement BS as far as I'm concerned, unless there's a forum rule against it, of course...

4) Please do tell me "what I don't want to know". I'm afraid that I lost track of that.

Now, we're wandering away from the point of this thread, I believe...

[lannarebirth]

Re Thaksin, his lawyer/professional blogger, & being informed : I've said before that I am not terribly concerned about Thaksin and whether he comes back to Thailand or not.

Then why does every single post of yours support that notion? Frankly, I don't believe you. Even a guy that arrived here last week is not that naive. Even a guy who met his Isaan Princess on Thailand Love Links and has Khon Kaen Syndrome is not that naive. Peddle that crap elsewhere, please.

Edited September 29, 2011 by lannarebirth

[rubl]

Let me rephrase, I am going to question your honesty or maybe just your memory. Remember this thread

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4444290

You posted in it. So you should have read references to Robert Amsterdam and some quotes. To now say "so he's hired by Thaksin so what" following 'how about theNation' pure obfuscation, trying to move away from what you don't want to know and putting all on wheeling, dealing Democrats. The fact you mention, is what you want to believe and want others to believe, a man on a mission you might say.

As for Robert A. fantasy stories, there always a bit of truth in it, like names, events. When you analyse and remove rhetoric not much else is left. Same with the bovine excrement you write, I'm afraid.

I have no problem with you being anti-Democrats, that's fine, but don't lie about it, or start to create your own fantasy world.

Hey Rubl, just an aside, remember your post about Thaksin being a Cambodian Citizen? He wasn't and never has been.

"... on grounds that Thaksin was an honorary Cambodia citizen and since his personal security could have been threatened by Sivarak's alleged action"

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ThaiTalk/2009/12/13/entry-1

[rubl]

all removed

Don't worry, old chap. You've lost all credibility you might have had in my eyes, but that shouldn't worry you.

Have a nice day and if you're in BKK don't forget your umbrella, still raining heavily

Edited September 29, 2011 by rubl

[tlansford]

Re Thaksin, his lawyer/professional blogger, & being informed : I've said before that I am not terribly concerned about Thaksin and whether he comes back to Thailand or not.

Had i not been living in Thailand during his regime, from 2001 to 2006, i would probably feel that way too. I would probably be wondering what all the fuss was about. I would probably be wondering how he could be worse than any of the other corrupt politicians. I think it was something you had to experience first hand. Of course, had you, you might have come to a completely different conclusion about it all. I don't think so though. You seem too intelligent.

Well I can understand that. For me, Thai "current events" begins post coup. The coup was already in the history books (literally) when I started reading. The historical reading of Thaksin made a few things clear... and it is a difference from having lived through it, but I appreciate the distance that this provides. They stick to the more-or-less agreed to events. The war on drugs, the south, the policy-based campaigning (apparently a novel thing in Thailand), the Thaksin businesses, avoiding taxes, and many more issues. What was clear to me on reading about Thaksin (the opinion I formed) was that I felt he did not have integrity, was not honest, and probably cared more for himself than the Thai people.

The reason I state bluntly that I don't care if he returns or not is simply a practical one. It won't change my life, and there is nothing I can do about it anyway. That is a bit of a fib, however, as the truth seems to be that this Thaksin-issue will need to be resolved before the Thai society as a whole can move on. But only in that sense do I care.

What does amaze me and certainly could lead people here to believe that I am pro-Thaksin, is that everything I have learned about the post-coup politics shows that the Democrats as a group are real (allow me to use a rhetorical shortcut here) as*h*les. It is perfectly clear that the Democratic leadership certainly has no more interest in doing the right thing for Thailand than the anti-PTP group here could claim about Thaksin. (IMO, of course). It would be great if they showed some desire to govern, but at least at the moment, and even before the last election, I don't see too much of that desire.

Cheers - Tom

[tlansford]

Re Thaksin, his lawyer/professional blogger, & being informed : I've said before that I am not terribly concerned about Thaksin and whether he comes back to Thailand or not.

Then why does every single post of yours support that notion? Frankly, I don't believe you. Even a guy that arrived here last week is not that naive. Even a guy who met his Isaan Princess on Thailand Love Links and has Khon Kaen Syndrome is not that naive. Peddle that crap elsewhere, please.

Assuming I understand what you mean to say with "support that notion", please provide an example of a post that supports the notion that I care about Thaksin returning. I don't, with the one exception mentioned in this thread, and never have. And frankly, what you believe is none of my business.

[lannarebirth]

Re Thaksin, his lawyer/professional blogger, & being informed : I've said before that I am not terribly concerned about Thaksin and whether he comes back to Thailand or not.

Then why does every single post of yours support that notion? Frankly, I don't believe you. Even a guy that arrived here last week is not that naive. Even a guy who met his Isaan Princess on Thailand Love Links and has Khon Kaen Syndrome is not that naive. Peddle that crap elsewhere, please.

Assuming I understand what you mean to say with "support that notion", please provide an example of a post that supports the notion that I care about Thaksin returning. I don't, with the one exception mentioned in this thread, and never have. And frankly, what you believe is none of my business.

When I speak about naivete it has to do with understanding that EVERY single thing having to do withis administration is about Thaksin returning. You can't see that? Pull the other one.

[phiphidon]

Let me rephrase, I am going to question your honesty or maybe just your memory. Remember this thread

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4444290

You posted in it. So you should have read references to Robert Amsterdam and some quotes. To now say "so he's hired by Thaksin so what" following 'how about theNation' pure obfuscation, trying to move away from what you don't want to know and putting all on wheeling, dealing Democrats. The fact you mention, is what you want to believe and want others to believe, a man on a mission you might say.

As for Robert A. fantasy stories, there always a bit of truth in it, like names, events. When you analyse and remove rhetoric not much else is left. Same with the bovine excrement you write, I'm afraid.

I have no problem with you being anti-Democrats, that's fine, but don't lie about it, or start to create your own fantasy world.

Hey Rubl, just an aside, remember your post about Thaksin being a Cambodian Citizen? He wasn't and never has been.

"... on grounds that Thaksin was an honorary Cambodia citizen and since his personal security could have been threatened by Sivarak's alleged action"

http://blog.nationmu...9/12/13/entry-1

Rubl, please do me the service of reading my whole reply on this thread http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/501195-two-thais-jailed-in-cambodia-no-transfer-for-veera-ratree/

You seem to have ignored it and it's fairly important as unfortunately you're wrong and thats the way certain things on this forum become "fact" despite the evidence against it.

[rubl]

Hey Rubl, just an aside, remember your post about Thaksin being a Cambodian Citizen? He wasn't and never has been.

"... on grounds that Thaksin was an honorary Cambodia citizen and since his personal security could have been threatened by Sivarak's alleged action"

http://blog.nationmu...9/12/13/entry-1

Rubl, please do me the service of reading my whole reply on this thread http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/501195-two-thais-jailed-in-cambodia-no-transfer-for-veera-ratree/

You seem to have ignored it and it's fairly important as unfortunately you're wrong and thats the way certain things on this forum become "fact" despite the evidence against it.

My dear PPD, I did not state, I did quote from other posts. I have read all. So, k. Thaksin may not be a Cambodian citizen, maybe only a honorary one. Please do me the honour of reading and 'trying' to interpret. My 'Thaksin Cambodian citizen' may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but the Cambodian court referred to Thaksin as dear to Cambodia, economical advisor to PM Hun Sen and 'wouldn't like to loose'. On second thought you're absolutely right, he's not Cambodian, he's even more valuable than a simple Cambodian citizen. How could I have missed that

[Siam Simon]

[A government shall be formed by the group that can put together a majority of MPs.

The PPP didn't have "the right" to form government in 2007. They were able to convince some of the smaller parties to side with them (even though some of them had campaigned that they wouldn't do that).

In 2008, the Democrats (and others) were able to convince some of the smaller parties to support them. Yes, the military appeared to be involved in those discussions, but given the number of ministries that BJT got, how much coercion would there have been on the part of the military.

The 2008 government was formed in the same way as the 2007 government and the 2001 government. By offering spaces at the pig trough. The only difference in 2005 was that Thaksin had bought up all the smaller parties before the election instead of after it.

And the lie is perpetrated yet again. The 2008 government was formed by the army ordering certain mp's to a 'meeting' and keeping them there, cut off from the outside world after making them an offer they couldn't refuse. Everybody outside a little clique of expat propagandists knows this. It was confirmed by one of the mp's, when he was eventually let out of the 'meeting', that he'd been given no choice.

Anyone reading this forum wanting to get to the bottom of this can do a bit of googling to quickly bypass all the forum bullsh1tters and find out the truth. Unfortunately, when you find out the truth, you will be attacked endlessly by said bullsh1tters if you try to present it on this forum.

[rubl]

And the lie is perpetrated yet again. The 2008 government was formed by the army ordering certain mp's to a 'meeting' and keeping them there, cut off from the outside world after making them an offer they couldn't refuse. Everybody outside a little clique of expat propagandists knows this. It was confirmed by one of the mp's, when he was eventually let out of the 'meeting', that he'd been given no choice.

Anyone reading this forum wanting to get to the bottom of this can do a bit of googling to quickly bypass all the forum bullsh1tters and find out the truth. Unfortunately, when you find out the truth, you will be attacked endlessly by said bullsh1tters if you try to present it on this forum.

And the lie is perpetrated. Some say without proof, just like some say the late k. Samak could have been re-elected PM if the MPs only had choosen to do so. Oops, the last seems to be a fact. Let me check for some other urban legends.

Some may write 'clique of expats' without really realising what they write. Or maybe we need a clear definition of 'expat'. I don't think we need more of the propagandist labels like 'little clique' or 'propagandists'. Some seems just to write that to describe all who do not agree with what they think. Unfortunately some don't seem to care about the truth, only about what they think is worthwhile and (their) truth

Edited September 29, 2011 by rubl

[Siam Simon]

And the lie is perpetrated yet again. The 2008 government was formed by the army ordering certain mp's to a 'meeting' and keeping them there, cut off from the outside world after making them an offer they couldn't refuse. Everybody outside a little clique of expat propagandists knows this. It was confirmed by one of the mp's, when he was eventually let out of the 'meeting', that he'd been given no choice.

Anyone reading this forum wanting to get to the bottom of this can do a bit of googling to quickly bypass all the forum bullsh1tters and find out the truth. Unfortunately, when you find out the truth, you will be attacked endlessly by said bullsh1tters if you try to present it on this forum.

And the lie is perpetrated. Some say without proof, just like some say the late k. Samak could have been re-elected PM if the MPs only had choosen to do so. Oops, the last seems to be a fact. Let me check for some other urban legends.

Some may write 'clique of expats' without really realising what they write. Or maybe we need a clear definition of 'expat'. I don't think we need more of the propagandist labels like 'little clique' or 'propagandists'. Some seems just to write that to describe all who do not agree with what they think. Unfortunately some don't seem to care about the truth, only about what they think is worthwhile and (their) truth

Yes, quite .

[JAG]

[A government shall be formed by the group that can put together a majority of MPs.

The PPP didn't have "the right" to form government in 2007. They were able to convince some of the smaller parties to side with them (even though some of them had campaigned that they wouldn't do that).

In 2008, the Democrats (and others) were able to convince some of the smaller parties to support them. Yes, the military appeared to be involved in those discussions, but given the number of ministries that BJT got, how much coercion would there have been on the part of the military.

The 2008 government was formed in the same way as the 2007 government and the 2001 government. By offering spaces at the pig trough. The only difference in 2005 was that Thaksin had bought up all the smaller parties before the election instead of after it.

And the lie is perpetrated yet again. The 2008 government was formed by the army ordering certain mp's to a 'meeting' and keeping them there, cut off from the outside world after making them an offer they couldn't refuse. Everybody outside a little clique of expat propagandists knows this. It was confirmed by one of the mp's, when he was eventually let out of the 'meeting', that he'd been given no choice.

Anyone reading this forum wanting to get to the bottom of this can do a bit of googling to quickly bypass all the forum bullsh1tters and find out the truth. Unfortunately, when you find out the truth, you will be attacked endlessly by said bullsh1tters if you try to present it on this forum.

Well said,absolutely spot on, now wait for the incoming!

[JurgenG]

And the lie is perpetrated yet again. The 2008 government was formed by the army ordering certain mp's to a 'meeting' and keeping them there, cut off from the outside world after making them an offer they couldn't refuse. Everybody outside a little clique of expat propagandists knows this. It was confirmed by one of the mp's, when he was eventually let out of the 'meeting', that he'd been given no choice.

Anyone reading this forum wanting to get to the bottom of this can do a bit of googling to quickly bypass all the forum bullsh1tters and find out the truth. Unfortunately, when you find out the truth, you will be attacked endlessly by said bullsh1tters if you try to present it on this forum.

And the lie is perpetrated. Some say without proof, just like some say the late k. Samak could have been re-elected PM if the MPs only had choosen to do so. Oops, the last seems to be a fact. Let me check for some other urban legends.

Some may write 'clique of expats' without really realising what they write. Or maybe we need a clear definition of 'expat'. I don't think we need more of the propagandist labels like 'little clique' or 'propagandists'. Some seems just to write that to describe all who do not agree with what they think. Unfortunately some don't seem to care about the truth, only about what they think is worthwhile and (their) truth

Duress : Duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform..

They had the choice but they didn't have the choice. You know it. But when the truth is inconvenient, just ignore the truth, right ?

Edited September 29, 2011 by JurgenG

[rubl]

And the lie is perpetrated yet again. The 2008 government was formed by the army ordering certain mp's to a 'meeting' and keeping them there, cut off from the outside world after making them an offer they couldn't refuse. Everybody outside a little clique of expat propagandists knows this. It was confirmed by one of the mp's, when he was eventually let out of the 'meeting', that he'd been given no choice.

Anyone reading this forum wanting to get to the bottom of this can do a bit of googling to quickly bypass all the forum bullsh1tters and find out the truth. Unfortunately, when you find out the truth, you will be attacked endlessly by said bullsh1tters if you try to present it on this forum.

And the lie is perpetrated. Some say without proof, just like some say the late k. Samak could have been re-elected PM if the MPs only had choosen to do so. Oops, the last seems to be a fact. Let me check for some other urban legends.

Some may write 'clique of expats' without really realising what they write. Or maybe we need a clear definition of 'expat'. I don't think we need more of the propagandist labels like 'little clique' or 'propagandists'. Some seems just to write that to describe all who do not agree with what they think. Unfortunately some don't seem to care about the truth, only about what they think is worthwhile and (their) truth

Duress : Duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform..

They had the choice but they didn't have the choice. You know it. But when the truth is inconvenient, just ignore the truth, right ?

True, with all his actions k. Thaksin made the coup somewhat unavoidable. They had a choice, but didn't have a choice.

[nurofiend]

And the lie is perpetrated yet again. The 2008 government was formed by the army ordering certain mp's to a 'meeting' and keeping them there, cut off from the outside world after making them an offer they couldn't refuse. Everybody outside a little clique of expat propagandists knows this. It was confirmed by one of the mp's, when he was eventually let out of the 'meeting', that he'd been given no choice.

Anyone reading this forum wanting to get to the bottom of this can do a bit of googling to quickly bypass all the forum bullsh1tters and find out the truth. Unfortunately, when you find out the truth, you will be attacked endlessly by said bullsh1tters if you try to present it on this forum.

And the lie is perpetrated. Some say without proof, just like some say the late k. Samak could have been re-elected PM if the MPs only had choosen to do so. Oops, the last seems to be a fact. Let me check for some other urban legends.

Some may write 'clique of expats' without really realising what they write. Or maybe we need a clear definition of 'expat'. I don't think we need more of the propagandist labels like 'little clique' or 'propagandists'. Some seems just to write that to describe all who do not agree with what they think. Unfortunately some don't seem to care about the truth, only about what they think is worthwhile and (their) truth

Duress : Duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform..

They had the choice but they didn't have the choice. You know it. But when the truth is inconvenient, just ignore the truth, right ?

True, with all his actions k. Thaksin made the coup somewhat unavoidable. They had a choice, but didn't have a choice.

would you elaborate on this statement?

[tig28]

For the 2001 and 2007 governments to have been decided entirely by elections, the respective governments would have had to of won a majority of house seats. They did not. Because they did not, they were decided by whether or not other smaller parties would work with them. And if you think there was no carrot dangling going on, or bribing, in getting those smaller parties who had said they would not work with PPP in 2007, to renege on that promise, you must be very naive.

rixalex

Lets get this very clear --- the 2007/1 Governments were chosen by the electorate when they gave their "anointed" significant majorities. Only their "anointed" could form a Government --- certainly the loosers could not --- and have never done so. Coalitions are the norm in Thailand.

You make far too much of your "carrot dangling" -- in 2001 with the TRT being just three seats short of an outright majority they probably had more difficulty in keeping the other hopefuls away than enticing Chavalits mob on board.

In 2007 -- just eight seats short of an outright majority -- it was little different. All five minor parties joined the coalition.Any of four would have achieved the majority.

"carrots??"-- almost for sure -- but quite small ones!

To help you better understand the process I shall quote from an extremely well placed reliable source:

After the 2007 election results were finally called Khun X (PPP) summonsed any of the minor parties who were desirous of being part of the new Government to a meeting. All five parties eagerly attended.

Khun X --- "Should any of you insignificant parties be desirous of joining with us in coalition -- please indicate now"

All in unison: " Pick us!"

Khun X --- "A problem! Our Ethics Committee has expressed grave concerns that prior to the election some of you indicated that you would not join us in coalition should we win. What say you?"

After significant deliberation a spokesman amongst the hopeful was chosen ---- who said " We have discussed this and wish to point out that the statement that we would never join you in coalition - if given - was

not a core election promise

."

Khun X ----- "

Not a core election promise

?"......... Hmmmmm.....that sounds good. I am sure our Ethics Committee will be satisfied. Any who wish to be part of the coalition ---- please step forward and click your heels.

Shuffle ...... click.

Oh... and rixalex ... as you choose to mention naivety -- you speak as if you are unaware of the many instances -- world wide - of minority governments. You know rixalex .... Political parties who won the election but were unable/unwilling to form a coalition --- but still formed the Government. So as to your statement that a party must have a majority to form Government ........ ehhhh ----no!

[rixalex]

rixalex

Lets get this very clear --- the 2007/1 Governments were chosen by the electorate when they gave their "anointed" significant majorities.

The electorate does not get to chose which parties join together to form a coalition, in the case of a majority not being won - as was the case in 01 and 07 - and that was the point being made. No different from the Dem government of 08.

You make far too much of your "carrot dangling" -- in 2001 with the TRT being just three seats short of an outright majority they probably had more difficulty in keeping the other hopefuls away than enticing Chavalits mob on board.

In 2007 -- just eight seats short of an outright majority -- it was little different. All five minor parties joined the coalition.Any of four would have achieved the majority.

"carrots??"-- almost for sure -- but quite small ones!

Carrot dangling is carrot dangling. Or should that be bribing is bribing. I don't see how the size of the bribe comes into. Yes TRT in 01 probably could afford to offer a smaller one due to the number of seats it won, but this is a matter of principle, and if you are against the Dems alleged bribing in 2008 to win power, then you must be against the alleged bribing by TRT in 01 and 07. You don't say, "well i'm not so against it when the bribe is smaller", do you? Surely not. That would be daft.

Oh... and rixalex ... as you choose to mention naivety -- you speak as if you are unaware of the many instances -- world wide - of minority governments. You know rixalex .... Political parties who won the election but were unable/unwilling to form a coalition --- but still formed the Government. So as to your statement that a party must have a majority to form Government ........ ehhhh ----no!

You are quite correct. There are instances of this, although it is quite rare, because what use is it to get into power without having the majority of seats in the house in which to pass legislation? Not much.