Yingluck Needs To Take A Stand If She Wants To Save Her Govt

[ThaiOats]

Yingluck is making some good moves. She's killing 2 birds with one stone by not attending the APEC meeting.

1 - She has a legitimate reason to play hookie, saving herself from potential embarrassment as she may not have time to write her script. She's been so busy with the floods, how will she prepare for any questions they might have for her?

2 - She saves face and gains popularity by being with her people in time of need. She can't get criticized for that, and even if she did, it wouldn't be that detrimental.

She continues with her "can do" spirit, most likely getting sympathy from her voters. As someone mentioned before, she has nothing to lose and a lot to gain as long as she keeps the acting up. A lot of things can go under the radar now, she just needs to ride out the storm and the sun will shine on her when the floods over.

[tlansford]

So will there be an inquiry into water management in the months leading up to the flooding? Any just who was this Minister that ordered reduced releases from the dams during this time? Saw it mentioned a couple of times here and there, but no names were given.

Exactly. Between April and July they had ample opportunity to lower the water levels in the dams. The water levels were kept consistently at double the level they were in 2010. The farmers wanted water released for a second rice crop but were refused by central gov. Abhisit, yellow shirt, royalist, think of a name.Poo yah!

Then come August with the dams full the rain it just wouldn't stop not until October so exasperated they just flooded the country. Who was put in charge? Up until now the democrats have been surprisingly quiet. When you recall how they had a shadow ministry with the explicit, implicit aim to highlight PTP failures.

Now the misery of it all. People flooded out of their houses. Peoples possessions destroyed.

This is a typical "the Nation" style smear story. They have a long track record. We have Rupert Murdoch but he doesn't write the leaders or say what is included and what is not. It's different here.

OMB why do you tell untruths?, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Agriculture Minister Theera Wongsamut yesterday acknowledged that the controversial decision to delay the release of water from the country's major dams had been made by the government."I admit ordering a delay in the release of water into the plains areas so that farmers could harvest their crops first," he said. My linkThis incident does not result from a natural disaster. Our problem is that we do not know how to manage water. We did not assess from the beginning of the rainy season whether there would be lots of rain and how much water should have been held in the dams.

you and babcock are talking about two different points in time.

[whybother]

Exactly. Between April and July they had ample opportunity to lower the water levels in the dams. The water levels were kept consistently at double the level they were in 2010. The farmers wanted water released for a second rice crop but were refused by central gov. Abhisit, yellow shirt, royalist, think of a name.Poo yah!

Then come August with the dams full the rain it just wouldn't stop not until October so exasperated they just flooded the country. Who was put in charge? Up until now the democrats have been surprisingly quiet. When you recall how they had a shadow ministry with the explicit, implicit aim to highlight PTP failures.

Now the misery of it all. People flooded out of their houses. Peoples possessions destroyed.

This is a typical "the Nation" style smear story. They have a long track record. We have Rupert Murdoch but he doesn't write the leaders or say what is included and what is not. It's different here.

OMB why do you tell untruths?, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Agriculture Minister Theera Wongsamut yesterday acknowledged that the controversial decision to delay the release of water from the country's major dams had been made by the government."I admit ordering a delay in the release of water into the plains areas so that farmers could harvest their crops first," he said. My link

This incident does not result from a natural disaster. Our problem is that we do not know how to manage water. We did not assess from the beginning of the rainy season whether there would be lots of rain and how much water should have been held in the dams.

you and babcock are talking about two different points in time.

But they are talking about the same situation.

Obviously they had enough water for both the second AND third crops, so it doesn't make much sense that they were complaining about not getting enough water for the second crop.

[scorecard]

It's a bit rich complaining about criticism and politicing from the opposition considering Phua Thai never managed a single constructive suggestion in all their time in opposiion.

A piece of utter garbage written by the minority Democrat party. Why don't they just understand that the Thai people don't want them? When did they last win a proper election? 15 years ago? I'm astonished that they are allowed to print such propoganda.

Another one who doesn't believe in freedom of speech.

[animatic]

'culicine' timestamp='1320898960' post='4836396'

So will there be an inquiry into water management in the months leading up to the flooding? Any just who was this Minister that ordered reduced releases from the dams during this time? Saw it mentioned a couple of times here and there, but no names were given.

Exactly. Between April and July they had ample opportunity to lower the water levels in the dams. The water levels were kept consistently at double the level they were in 2010. The farmers wanted water released for a second rice crop but were refused by central gov. Abhisit, yellow shirt, royalist, think of a name.Poo yah!

Then come August with the dams full the rain it just wouldn't stop not until October so exasperated they just flooded the country. Who was put in charge? Up until now the democrats have been surprisingly quiet. When you recall how they had a shadow ministry with the explicit, implicit aim to highlight PTP failures.

Now the misery of it all. People flooded out of their houses. Peoples possessions destroyed.

This is a typical "the Nation" style smear story. They have a long track record. We have Rupert Murdoch but he doesn't write the leaders or say what is included and what is not. It's different here.

OMB why do you tell untruths?, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Agriculture Minister Theera Wongsamut yesterday acknowledged that the controversial decision to delay the release of water from the country's major dams had been made by the government."I admit ordering a delay in the release of water into the plains areas so that farmers could harvest their crops first," he said. My linkThis incident does not result from a natural disaster. Our problem is that we do not know how to manage water. We did not assess from the beginning of the rainy season whether there would be lots of rain and how much water should have been held in the dams.

you and babcock are talking about two different points in time.

Babcock is trying to muddy the waters so to speak by dragging a barely relevant event into the discussion. There was plenty of time to lower levels without severe damage, after what was left in during the spring, for AT THAT TIME logical reasons.

Where it goes illogical was the New Agri-Minister's decision to protect the rice pledging crop, without considering the dams capacities or the predictions of what was coming down to them. He has finally stepped forward, or been forced forward, to fall on his sword, and this is a GOOD THING.

[animatic]

It's a bit rich complaining about criticism and politicing from the opposition considering Phua Thai never managed a single constructive suggestion in all their time in opposiion.

A piece of utter garbage written by the minority Democrat party. Why don't they just understand that the Thai people don't want them? When did they last win a proper election? 15 years ago? I'm astonished that they are allowed to print such propoganda.

Another one who doesn't believe in freedom of speech.

Agreed! So it's the Thai 'land of the free'

as long as they shut up if they lose an election.

Forgetting being an effect 'Shadow Government' dealing with issues, and not just character assasination of their opposite numbers.

If you can show me ONE. JUST ONE, actual piece of PTP legislation they put forward while in opposition, to 'deal with the peoples needs', that was more than a no confidence vote, or attack to remove the Dems, then PLEASE DO SO.

I have asked this question many may times,

the answers NEVER come. What have they done for the people, besides build the Thaksin Legend beyond credibility?

Because, the PTP has proved, and continues to prove daily, to be ineffectual in the extreme at the actual governance of Thailand.

Edited November 11, 2011 by animatic

[PeaceBlondie]

48% PT

[h90]

Yingluck is making some good moves. She's killing 2 birds with one stone by not attending the APEC meeting.

1 - She has a legitimate reason to play hookie, saving herself from potential embarrassment as she may not have time to write her script. She's been so busy with the floods, how will she prepare for any questions they might have for her?

2 - She saves face and gains popularity by being with her people in time of need. She can't get criticized for that, and even if she did, it wouldn't be that detrimental.

She continues with her "can do" spirit, most likely getting sympathy from her voters. As someone mentioned before, she has nothing to lose and a lot to gain as long as she keeps the acting up. A lot of things can go under the radar now, she just needs to ride out the storm and the sun will shine on her when the floods over.

Add 1: she never writes her scripts, for this Thaksin has staff. But she is saving her face as by not going there there is no risk that someone finds out that she has no clue about what that APEC thing is about.

Add 2: yes but only at these who can anyhow bought with 500 Baht. So no real reason to gain popularity with them.

[billd766]

48% PT

52% everybody else.

[animatic]

Yingluck is making some good moves. She's killing 2 birds with one stone by not attending the APEC meeting.

1 - She has a legitimate reason to play hookie, saving herself from potential embarrassment as she may not have time to write her script. She's been so busy with the floods, how will she prepare for any questions they might have for her?

2 - She saves face and gains popularity by being with her people in time of need. She can't get criticized for that, and even if she did, it wouldn't be that detrimental.

She continues with her "can do" spirit, most likely getting sympathy from her voters. As someone mentioned before, she has nothing to lose and a lot to gain as long as she keeps the acting up. A lot of things can go under the radar now, she just needs to ride out the storm and the sun will shine on her when the floods over.

Add 1: she never writes her scripts, for this Thaksin has staff. But she is saving her face as by not going there there is no risk that someone finds out that she has no clue about what that APEC thing is about.

Add 2: yes but only at these who can anyhow bought with 500 Baht. So no real reason to gain popularity with them.

If she left the Bkk Gov and Irrigation Chief would like fight a pitched dual at Victory monument.

[animatic]

48% PT

52% everybody else.

Then they bought a larger percentage of 'coalition partners'

who shape-shift to fit at the trough of the moment.

'The Peoples Will', my hind leg.

[ThaiOats]

It's a bit rich complaining about criticism and politicing from the opposition considering Phua Thai never managed a single constructive suggestion in all their time in opposiion.

A piece of utter garbage written by the minority Democrat party. Why don't they just understand that the Thai people don't want them? When did they last win a proper election? 15 years ago? I'm astonished that they are allowed to print such propoganda.

Another one who doesn't believe in freedom of speech.

Agreed! So it's the Thai 'land of the free'

as long as they shut up if they lose an election.

Forgetting being an effect 'Shadow Government' dealing with issues, and not just character assasination of their opposite numbers.

If you can show me ONE. JUST ONE, actual piece of PTP legislation they put forward while in opposition, to 'deal with the peoples needs', that was more than a no confidence vote, or attack to remove the Dems, then PLEASE DO SO.

I have asked this question many may times,

the answers NEVER come. What have they done for the people, besides build the Thaksin Legend beyond credibility?

Because, the PTP has proved, and continues to prove daily, to be ineffectual in the extreme at the actual governance of Thailand.

+1

Even Abhisit mentioned this during his interview. When the Dems were in power, the opposition only focused on removing him without any intelligent debate, plus a riot. They didn't even give him a chance to run the country, they just assumed he was no good because he wasn't a Shinawatra handing out freebies. All that gullible, naivety among Thai people disgusts me.

Just 2 days ago a red-shirt supporting customer walked in and talked to me about the Democrat's conspiracy related to the flood. All I did was nod and just "uh-huh" my way through the conversation, but he was truly convinced that it was the Dem's. Now look, we have the AG Minister confessing his mess up (or just a scapegoat). I again still challenge any of this government's supporter to show me ONE positive thing this government has done. Or to raise their hand and agree on any of the populist policies that this administration puts out.

The Thai people should be thankful that there's an opposition from the Democrats. At least Abhisit speaks with reason, so what if he's "all talk". Better to talk than to do something stupid and just screw the country several times over.

[Macmundi]

If anyone wants a reformed Thailand, we should try to have a steady government. Since Abhisit showed his sincerity to have a transparent election, the outcome already shows. So let that be the result that also show Thai people that this is the chosen path. Unless there is foulplay, we should put up with it for the remaining of this term unless something else arises. We are Thai people, Please dont show the world that we are uncivilised.

Uncivilized is the least of your problems. How about ill-informed, gullible, corrupt, vote-selling, venal to the point of accepting a kleptocracy as long as I get a windfall, etc, etc,..........

Admitting to making a mistake would be one small step for democracy, one giant leap for Thailand.

Thank you. 'Uncivilised' is the biggest of your problems not to mention 'ill-informed, gullible, corrupt, vote-selling, venal to the point of accepting a ' kleptocracy ? ( did you hear this word from somewhere?)' as long as I get a windfall, etc, etc,..........'.

I don't favor both the reds and the yellows, and I don't think you match up to either one of them.

I will not be visiting this article anymore if you might be having fun. As for me, I just posted my point of view with no intention to waste my time debating with you.

[hammered]

+1

Even Abhisit mentioned this during his interview. When the Dems were in power, the opposition only focused on removing him without any intelligent debate, plus a riot. They didn't even give him a chance to run the country, they just assumed he was no good because he wasn't a Shinawatra handing out freebies. All that gullible, naivety among Thai people disgusts me.

Just 2 days ago a red-shirt supporting customer walked in and talked to me about the Democrat's conspiracy related to the flood. All I did was nod and just "uh-huh" my way through the conversation, but he was truly convinced that it was the Dem's. Now look, we have the AG Minister confessing his mess up (or just a scapegoat). I again still challenge any of this government's supporter to show me ONE positive thing this government has done. Or to raise their hand and agree on any of the populist policies that this administration puts out.

The Thai people should be thankful that there's an opposition from the Democrats. At least Abhisit speaks with reason, so what if he's "all talk". Better to talk than to do something stupid and just screw the country several times over.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course. And after the let the people decide election a government was chosen by the people. It was the Yingluck led one. Now we just have to wait for them to finish their term or call an early election as is their prerogative. Obviously the Thai voters had a different opinion to some but they have the government they voted for and Abhisit is in opposition and must wait until the next election. After all democracy is about adding up everyone's choice and seeing what has the most votes

[animatic]

+1

Even Abhisit mentioned this during his interview. When the Dems were in power, the opposition only focused on removing him without any intelligent debate, plus a riot. They didn't even give him a chance to run the country, they just assumed he was no good because he wasn't a Shinawatra handing out freebies. All that gullible, naivety among Thai people disgusts me.

Just 2 days ago a red-shirt supporting customer walked in and talked to me about the Democrat's conspiracy related to the flood. All I did was nod and just "uh-huh" my way through the conversation, but he was truly convinced that it was the Dem's. Now look, we have the AG Minister confessing his mess up (or just a scapegoat). I again still challenge any of this government's supporter to show me ONE positive thing this government has done. Or to raise their hand and agree on any of the populist policies that this administration puts out.

The Thai people should be thankful that there's an opposition from the Democrats. At least Abhisit speaks with reason, so what if he's "all talk". Better to talk than to do something stupid and just screw the country several times over.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course. And after the let the people decide election a government was chosen by the people. It was the Yingluck led one. Now we just have to wait for them to finish their term or call an early election as is their prerogative. Obviously the Thai voters had a different opinion to some but they have the government they voted for and Abhisit is in opposition and must wait until the next election. After all democracy is about adding up everyone's choice and seeing what has the most votes

Two points.

1 ) The also can be booed out of office by the populace for ineptitude and forced to call a snap election.

2 ) Being in opposition doesn't mean <deleted>; you can no longer

'speak on the issues of the day, make proposals, or work for the people'.

A real Shadow Governments job is to do JUST THAT!

[jayboy]

The(y) also can be booed out of office by the populace for ineptitude and forced to call a snap election.

How does this "booing out of office" work in a parliamentary system such as Thailand's? Can you elaborate please?

[hammered]

+1

Even Abhisit mentioned this during his interview. When the Dems were in power, the opposition only focused on removing him without any intelligent debate, plus a riot. They didn't even give him a chance to run the country, they just assumed he was no good because he wasn't a Shinawatra handing out freebies. All that gullible, naivety among Thai people disgusts me.

Just 2 days ago a red-shirt supporting customer walked in and talked to me about the Democrat's conspiracy related to the flood. All I did was nod and just "uh-huh" my way through the conversation, but he was truly convinced that it was the Dem's. Now look, we have the AG Minister confessing his mess up (or just a scapegoat). I again still challenge any of this government's supporter to show me ONE positive thing this government has done. Or to raise their hand and agree on any of the populist policies that this administration puts out.

The Thai people should be thankful that there's an opposition from the Democrats. At least Abhisit speaks with reason, so what if he's "all talk". Better to talk than to do something stupid and just screw the country several times over.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course. And after the let the people decide election a government was chosen by the people. It was the Yingluck led one. Now we just have to wait for them to finish their term or call an early election as is their prerogative. Obviously the Thai voters had a different opinion to some but they have the government they voted for and Abhisit is in opposition and must wait until the next election. After all democracy is about adding up everyone's choice and seeing what has the most votes

Two points.

1 ) The also can be booed out of office by the populace for ineptitude and forced to call a snap election.

2 ) Being in opposition doesn't mean <deleted>; you can no longer

'speak on the issues of the day, make proposals, or work for the people'.

A real Shadow Governments job is to do JUST THAT!

I actually didnt say the opposition should shut up. Of course they should do their job. How and when they criticise and when in times of catastrophe that is appropriate or not is also their call, as with the government they will be assessed by their actions by the people. My point is that simply the election will happen when either Yingluck or the legislature decide and nobody can change that.

I dont think anyone can easily be booed out of office. If there is some multicoloured demo, there will be a red counter demo and one that is far bigger. Plus of course they can follow the precedent of calling an election when they want crisis or no crisis as Abhisit did even if they have to use the army to clear the street of demonstrators

[animatic]

The(y) also can be booed out of office by the populace for ineptitude and forced to call a snap election.

How does this "booing out of office" work in a parliamentary system such as Thailand's? Can you elaborate please?

It's called; so much public dissent, that there is a general consensus that they have lost their mandate in real terms. So they call a snap election.

That is why most snap elections are called in most parliamentary governments. Happens some where around the world ever year or less.

But you knew that, but just had to press the point.

Edited November 12, 2011 by animatic

[jayboy]

It's called; so much public dissent, that there is a general consensus that they have lost their mandate in real terms. So they call a snap election.

That is why most snap elections are called in most parliamentary governments. Happens some where around the world ever year or less.

But you knew that, but just had to press the point.

I asked the question because your earlier post suggested you might be hazy about the practical application of parliamentary democracy.Your response to my question demonstrates that is indeed the case.

There is no accepted concept of a government losing its mandate in real terms, and I am afraid your comment is meaningless.It would imply that when a government is unpopular it has call a snap election.Almost every government goes through unpopular phases and this does not mean it has lost its mandate.It loses its mandate when it cannot command a majority in the legislature or when of course it has been defeated in a general election

In practice, and the UK is as good example as any as the Mother of Parliaments, the Prime Minister is able to call a General Election at any time of his pleasing (and of course the ritual of Royal approval) but must do so within a five year term.This means that even if a government is unpopular the PM may hang on to the last possible moment, and this is the course most follow.In other words what actually happens is the precise opposite of what you suggest.A deeply unpopular government tends to dig in in the hope popularity will recover before a general election is constitutionally due.There is no suggestion in a parliamentary democracy that a snap election should be called if the opinion polls are bad.

Although you appear not understand the principles of parliamentary democracy, your mistake is worth a moment's consideration in Thailand given that entrenched and unelected elites hate the idea of parliamentary democracy, or at least are profoundly uncomfortable with it.I have little doubt that elements within this grouping will be looking for ways to destabilise the current government in the current flooding crisis.Indeed we have already seen evidence of this on the crackpot fringe both in terms of media commentators and political activists.The more astute members of the opposition like Abhisit understand the dangers of this approach and are more cautious.Still the situation needs careful monitoring as there are still powerful interests which feel bruised at the way the Thai people at the last election gave them the brush off.

[animatic]

It's called; so much public dissent, that there is a general consensus that they have lost their mandate in real terms. So they call a snap election.

That is why most snap elections are called in most parliamentary governments. Happens some where around the world ever year or less.

But you knew that, but just had to press the point.

I asked the question because your earlier post suggested you might be hazy about the practical application of parliamentary democracy.Your response to my question demonstrates that is indeed the case.

There is no accepted concept of a government losing its mandate in real terms, and I am afraid your comment is meaningless.It would imply that when a government is unpopular it has call a snap election.Almost every government goes through unpopular phases and this does not mean it has lost its mandate.It loses its mandate when it cannot command a majority in the legislature or when of course it has been defeated in a general election

In practice, and the UK is as good example as any as the Mother of Parliaments, the Prime Minister is able to call a General Election at any time of his pleasing (and of course the ritual of Royal approval) but must do so within a five year term.This means that even if a government is unpopular the PM may hang on to the last possible moment, and this is the course most follow.In other words what actually happens is the precise opposite of what you suggest.A deeply unpopular government tends to dig in in the hope popularity will recover before a general election is constitutionally due.There is no suggestion in a parliamentary democracy that a snap election should be called if the opinion polls are bad.

Although you appear not understand the principles of parliamentary democracy, your mistake is worth a moment's consideration in Thailand given that entrenched and unelected elites hate the idea of parliamentary democracy, or at least are profoundly uncomfortable with it.I have little doubt that elements within this grouping will be looking for ways to destabilise the current government in the current flooding crisis.Indeed we have already seen evidence of this on the crackpot fringe both in terms of media commentators and political activists.The more astute members of the opposition like Abhisit understand the dangers of this approach and are more cautious.Still the situation needs careful monitoring as there are still powerful interests which feel bruised at the way the Thai people at the last election gave them the brush off.

Nice try at extended obfuscation. No sale.

Restating the obvious, and pretending it is misunderstood is trollishness.

How they themselves determine a' global lack of confidence

of government crippling proportions' is not by any one mechanism,

but that of individual circumstances for each Nation and Government.

Just because you can not seemingly grasp that significant fact is your problem not mine.

Edited November 12, 2011 by animatic

[jayboy]

Nice try at extended obfuscation. No sale.

At some level even you must be ashamed of that reply.I'll leave it to others to consider.

[philw]

It's called; so much public dissent, that there is a general consensus that they have lost their mandate in real terms. So they call a snap election.

That is why most snap elections are called in most parliamentary governments. Happens some where around the world ever year or less.

But you knew that, but just had to press the point.

I asked the question because your earlier post suggested you might be hazy about the practical application of parliamentary democracy.Your response to my question demonstrates that is indeed the case.

There is no accepted concept of a government losing its mandate in real terms, and I am afraid your comment is meaningless.It would imply that when a government is unpopular it has call a snap election.Almost every government goes through unpopular phases and this does not mean it has lost its mandate.It loses its mandate when it cannot command a majority in the legislature or when of course it has been defeated in a general election

In practice, and the UK is as good example as any as the Mother of Parliaments, the Prime Minister is able to call a General Election at any time of his pleasing (and of course the ritual of Royal approval) but must do so within a five year term.This means that even if a government is unpopular the PM may hang on to the last possible moment, and this is the course most follow.In other words what actually happens is the precise opposite of what you suggest.A deeply unpopular government tends to dig in in the hope popularity will recover before a general election is constitutionally due.There is no suggestion in a parliamentary democracy that a snap election should be called if the opinion polls are bad.

Although you appear not understand the principles of parliamentary democracy, your mistake is worth a moment's consideration in Thailand given that entrenched and unelected elites hate the idea of parliamentary democracy, or at least are profoundly uncomfortable with it.I have little doubt that elements within this grouping will be looking for ways to destabilise the current government in the current flooding crisis.Indeed we have already seen evidence of this on the crackpot fringe both in terms of media commentators and political activists.The more astute members of the opposition like Abhisit understand the dangers of this approach and are more cautious.Still the situation needs careful monitoring as there are still powerful interests which feel bruised at the way the Thai people at the last election gave them the brush off.

Nice try at extended obfuscation. No sale.

Restating the obvious, and pretending it is misunderstood is trollishness.

How they themselves determine a' global lack of confidence

of government crippling proportions' is not by any one mechanism,

but that of individual circumstances for each Nation and Government.

Just because you can not seemingly grasp that significant fact is your problem not mine.

trollishness. with a capital F. from a capital A.

Incoherent also.

[Siam Simon]

It's called; so much public dissent, that there is a general consensus that they have lost their mandate in real terms. So they call a snap election.

That is why most snap elections are called in most parliamentary governments. Happens some where around the world ever year or less.

But you knew that, but just had to press the point.

I asked the question because your earlier post suggested you might be hazy about the practical application of parliamentary democracy.Your response to my question demonstrates that is indeed the case.

There is no accepted concept of a government losing its mandate in real terms, and I am afraid your comment is meaningless.It would imply that when a government is unpopular it has call a snap election.Almost every government goes through unpopular phases and this does not mean it has lost its mandate.It loses its mandate when it cannot command a majority in the legislature or when of course it has been defeated in a general election

In practice, and the UK is as good example as any as the Mother of Parliaments, the Prime Minister is able to call a General Election at any time of his pleasing (and of course the ritual of Royal approval) but must do so within a five year term.This means that even if a government is unpopular the PM may hang on to the last possible moment, and this is the course most follow.In other words what actually happens is the precise opposite of what you suggest.A deeply unpopular government tends to dig in in the hope popularity will recover before a general election is constitutionally due.There is no suggestion in a parliamentary democracy that a snap election should be called if the opinion polls are bad.

Although you appear not understand the principles of parliamentary democracy, your mistake is worth a moment's consideration in Thailand given that entrenched and unelected elites hate the idea of parliamentary democracy, or at least are profoundly uncomfortable with it.I have little doubt that elements within this grouping will be looking for ways to destabilise the current government in the current flooding crisis.Indeed we have already seen evidence of this on the crackpot fringe both in terms of media commentators and political activists.The more astute members of the opposition like Abhisit understand the dangers of this approach and are more cautious.Still the situation needs careful monitoring as there are still powerful interests which feel bruised at the way the Thai people at the last election gave them the brush off.

Nice try at extended obfuscation. No sale.

Restating the obvious, and pretending it is misunderstood is trollishness.

How they themselves determine a' global lack of confidence

of government crippling proportions' is not by any one mechanism,

but that of individual circumstances for each Nation and Government.

Just because you can not seemingly grasp that significant fact is your problem not mine.

trollishness. with a capital F. from a capital A.

Incoherent also.

Just invents wild conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence to back them up and constructs entire political scenarios around his wild theories.