Comparative Rating On Abhisit-Yingluck Govt

[drdoom6996]

A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative.

Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it.

Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way.

Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place.

You are new here aren't you. To much res shirt nonsense.

Check the facts who did the army turn the power over to when they stepped out?

He;s right, check the facts. Hopefully prior to posting

[whybother]

He;s right, check the facts. Hopefully prior to posting

Well, actually, the PPP came to power when the army stepped out.

[Gianni77]

If the 300 baht policy has been postponed, that can only be good for the country, I will explain that...

Many SME's can't afford that, so they will have to move to provinces where that rule is not applied, the ones that can't move will sack employees to be able to cope with the extra expenditure, and the ones that can't do neither, will have to close and that will produce unemployment. I don't have an SME and i don't work for one, but for me it's obvious that will happen.

Not mentioning inflation; higher salaries, will mean increasing prices of goods to compensate for the increment in labour cost.

For a person who's making 150 baht per day would sound awesome to make double, but I don't think it will sound so awesome to the person who lost his job for that and for the person who kept it and then realized the 300 baht he/she's receiving is the not as good as 300 baht before inflation.

If that's in the mind of the government, the increment will be gradually and not from one day to the next... hope it is...

Am I wrong doing this analysis? Because if not, I'd put the wage management of this government with negative points.... hehehehe...

Have a nice weekend everyone!

P.S.: I tried making my analysis totally unbiased, I've got no sympathy for yellows, reds, blues, rainbows, etc. Just trying to live my life in harmony with all political and religious views.

[kirk0233]

Neither government achieved a 50% approval rating in any category? I would say they both failed at everything, according to the poll. They would only get at passing grade in a Thai school.

Edited February 4, 2012 by kirk0233

[longway]

A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative.

Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it.

Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way.

Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place.

I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true.

No, Ian, you have made the error. The last coalition government was forced together by the army at General Anupong's house on an army barracks. The myth being propagated is that the coalition was just a routine negotiation between and coming together of politicians in parliament.

Some coalition partners claim it was forced, I would imagine the reality would be more like they were bribed, do you really think any of their lives were in danger?

[wolf5370]

A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative.

Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it.

Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way.

Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place.

Why would that be more informative? When was the last elected party before the present one? Almost a decade ago (remember Thaksin was a caretaker PM in 2006 and thus his government were no longer an elected one, but an overstaying one - so this means going back to when he WAS elected, i.e. his last elected government). Would that make sense? Also, why does the manor or elevation to government mane any difference whatsoever with regard to performance once in there?

What WOULD be better, is if they lined up the first 6 months of both governments (like for like time wise) and only listed those policies put in place and how events were handled. Abhisit had plenty of issues during his first 6 months and so has Yinluck, so how do "we" (meaning the Thai electorate) rate them for their ability to deal with the crisis, international trade and negotiations, domestic product and the economy, policies put into place (or removed), etc.

Yinluck actually scores better than some may think in some categories - lets take the one she is most attacked for, international trade and negotiations - sure she is as eloquent as whoopee cushion, but she managed to hang on to many Thai based foreign manufacturers (like Honda) that were practically walking out the door after the floods. On policies, neither put many in their first 6 months, so probably 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. In crisis management, Dems probably score better on the first 6 months (as this is mostly Burma and Southern problems - the Red Shirt rallies and Cambodia problems were still on the horizon - which must bring them crashing down - especially the latter).

The Dems also had the advantage and disadvantage that they didn't have election promises to deliver (or to make a trusting - perhaps gullible - electorate expectant). However, this perhaps makes policies delivered in the public interest (if we consider any were - free medical?) more impressive than the PTP who have little choice but to follow their promises.

[wolf5370]

If the 300 baht policy has been postponed, that can only be good for the country, I will explain that...

Many SME's can't afford that, so they will have to move to provinces where that rule is not applied, the ones that can't move will sack employees to be able to cope with the extra expenditure, and the ones that can't do neither, will have to close and that will produce unemployment. I don't have an SME and i don't work for one, but for me it's obvious that will happen.

Not mentioning inflation; higher salaries, will mean increasing prices of goods to compensate for the increment in labour cost.

For a person who's making 150 baht per day would sound awesome to make double, but I don't think it will sound so awesome to the person who lost his job for that and for the person who kept it and then realized the 300 baht he/she's receiving is the not as good as 300 baht before inflation.

If that's in the mind of the government, the increment will be gradually and not from one day to the next... hope it is...

Am I wrong doing this analysis? Because if not, I'd put the wage management of this government with negative points.... hehehehe...

Have a nice weekend everyone!

P.S.: I tried making my analysis totally unbiased, I've got no sympathy for yellows, reds, blues, rainbows, etc. Just trying to live my life in harmony with all political and religious views.

Yes, agree it is a silly and over stated policy, but it was still an election promise. A first year economics student could see the repurcusions of the policy, but that didn't stop the PTP from using it as an election promise. So, if they don't deliver (or , as they have done, water it down and shove it a government or so away into the futre), it must be a fail. Populists promises must be delivered to keep them popular - as the term itself suggests.

[geriatrickid]

One of the assumptions made by several people in this forum is that any acknowledgement of the postive aspects of the elected government is considered to be the product of devoted pro government posters.

I recognize that the election of a government with an actual popular mandate was a much better option than the previous government that was cobbled together by various factions with a PM that had been denied a clear mandate from the population to hold the PM's office. Unlike Mr. Abhisit, who ran for the office of PM as head of his party and was soundly defeated, Madame Yingluck who was the announced PM designate for the PTP received a clear electoral mandate when the PTP won the election. That change in government was an important first step to calming the cauldron of political strife in Thailand.

For all intents and purposes,with the exception of several key components of the PTP election platform. many of the government policies are similar to the previous administration. Industrial development, treasury board and internal revenue activity follows the same path as the previous government, just as it followed the conditions during the military dictatorship and much as it worked during the Thaksin era. Elected officials may change, but the civil service bureaucrats do not.

Despite all the accusations of corruption made in the forum, there have been fewer corruption scandals associated with the current government than there were with the previous administration. Sorry, but its true. In the short time Abhisit was in office, there were multiple corruption scandals along with ministers being obliged to resign. I don't doubt for a minute that there isn't corruption going on now, but the fact of the matter is that it is far less than what was there before. The cynics will say, just wait and it will come. Well, it just might, but if the current government follows through on its statement about having oversight of big project spending, then it will have achieved a milestone in Thailand's economic development. The failing of the stimulus packages in the prevous administration was that there was no oversight.

Most importantly, the Yingluck led government is seen as a legitimate government. Mr. Abhisit did not enjoy that image. Foreign governments dealt with Abhisit because that's all there was, but they were not going to cut him any favours. One need only look at the hardline the internaional community drew on the dispute with Cambodia. In the time that the PTP has been in power, the likelihood of a war with Cambodia has receded and foreign governments are somewhat more sympathetic to Thailand now.

Recognizing those positive changes does not make me a devoted pro government supporter. I vehemently disagree with the decision of the goverment to change the minsiter of finance, replacing a well respected man of integrity with a Korn clone. I have also expressed my dismay that a woman linked to the Mugabe regime was given cabinet rank. However, the dfference with this government and the previous government is that MPs and ministers have expressed their concerns. In the previous administration, no MP or minister dared speak out. I do not agree with the appointment of the Redshirts into the government, however, the decision reflects Thai culture and is part of the reconciliation effort. Other governments have done the same. Examples are the Cambodians integrating the Khmer Rouge, the Indians integrating the Maoists and the Burmese now making peace with ethnic groups and offering a participation. Including excluded groups reduces conflict in the long term. I don't like it, but it has a proven track record. The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave. This is why I am able to see the positive aspects of the current government. In my ideal world, the former finance minister would be PM and Thailand would launch a massive anti corruption crackdown, Unfortunately, if that were to ever happen, 1/2 the population would be in jail and the nation would collapse.

Edited February 4, 2012 by geriatrickid

[rubl]

begin removed ...

BTW PM Samak had to step down (lied a wee bit about the income of his cooking program), but could have been re-elected as PM the very same day. K. Thaksin didn't like his independent stance and preferred his brother-in-law k. Somchai. I guess since no military were involved that can be called very democratic ?

Samak was a sop to Thaksin's opponents, but, as you stated, he became dispensable when he became too independant. But the big difference between Thaksin's interference and the interference of his opponents is that Thaksin has huge popular support, but his opponents don't. Didn't you notice the results of the last general election?

I did notice the results of the last elections, there was even a voting station outside my apartment block. I also noticed in neither the December 2007 nor the June 2011 general elections k. Thaksin was a candidate.

This current government is surely the best money and promises could buy. A Thaksin clone as PM and a cabinet selected on suitability. Huge popular support for k. Thaksin, but not necessarily this government, apart from the fact that 'bought popular support' is seldomly if ever benifitial to a country in the long run.

As for the OP "comparative rating ..." I have seen too many poll results in Thailand contradicting each other to put much faith in them. I would probably only agree if it says PM Yingluck looks better than k. Abhisit, but with even such a small thing some may not agree with me

[Siam Simon]

Siam Simon #56

No answer to my post-side stepping again (yawn) attack whybother-attack Abhisit, you have just confirmed what I posted. you are among the blind who are being led by the blind. So in 7 months the only good they have done is being elected. totally ridiculous comment in a reply I expected to be more positive about it's achievements. Ha Ha Ha. amazing. another failed answer from a Yingluck fan

I replied to your question but didn't write a thesis or give you an answer you wanted to read. But I'll expand a bit for you. Seven months in, they haven't done much good or much bad. They haven't done much at all. The computer tablet for schools is radical and a potentially brilliant move forward for education, but it could all go belly up. I suspect that the eventuality will be somewhere inbetween, with better results in some locations than others (but I fully expect the usual suspects on this forum to be all over any failures like a rash, proclaing the demise of the project). The floods were handled poorly, but I suspect that floods of the magnitude we saw last year would have been handled badly by any Thai government. Affairs with Cambodia improved, but considering who runs things in Cambodia and how badly the last government handled things, that's no surprise. Other than that, there's not an awful lot to report on other than the usual few minor stuff either way. No doubt, the above wasn't what you wanted to read, so there will be more boring, lame debating tactics from you plus one-or-two more personal jibes.

And typical antithaksinista ranter jibe about me being a Yingluck fan. I'm not.

[Siam Simon]

A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative.

Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it.

Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way.

Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place.

I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true.

No, Ian, you have made the error. The last coalition government was forced together by the army at General Anupong's house on an army barracks. The myth being propagated is that the coalition was just a routine negotiation between and coming together of politicians in parliament.

Some coalition partners claim it was forced, I would imagine the reality would be more like they were bribed, do you really think any of their lives were in danger?

Bribery of politicians doesn't require the detention and isolation of it's recipients, and there is absolutely no need whatsoever to do the bribing in the army chief of staff's home on a military barracks. Some of you posters need to take your thumbs out of your ears and your hands away from your eyes on this

[Siam Simon]

Whybother joined this forum during the 2010 troubles and made one thousand (yes, that's 1000) posts in the news clippings section within a month of joining. He didn't make a single post in any other part of the forum. And then there was jcbangkok.....

Ahhh ... yes ... forgot about that one. You also accused me of being the same poster as JCBangkok.

And now you're coming out with lies. I do hope you apologise for that one. You are very big on getting apologies for lying, after all.

jcbangkok didn't get banned, so why did you bin him? Too much like hard work?

[ginjag]

Siam Simon #56

No answer to my post-side stepping again (yawn) attack whybother-attack Abhisit, you have just confirmed what I posted. you are among the blind who are being led by the blind. So in 7 months the only good they have done is being elected.  totally ridiculous comment in a reply I expected to be more positive about it's achievements. Ha Ha Ha.  amazing. another failed answer from a Yingluck fan

I replied to your question but didn't write a thesis or give you an answer you wanted to read. But I'll expand a bit for you. Seven months in, they haven't done much good or much bad. They haven't done much at all. The computer tablet for schools is radical and a potentially brilliant move forward for education, but it could all go belly up. I suspect that the eventuality will be somewhere inbetween, with better results in some locations than others (but I fully expect the usual suspects on this forum to be all over any failures like a rash, proclaing the demise of the project). The floods were handled poorly, but I suspect that floods of the magnitude we saw last year would have been handled badly by any Thai government. Affairs with Cambodia improved, but considering who runs things in Cambodia and how badly the last government handled things, that's no surprise. Other than that, there's not an awful lot to report on other than the usual few minor stuff either way. No doubt, the above wasn't what you wanted to read, so there will be more boring, lame debating tactics from you plus one-or-two more personal jibes.

And typical antithaksinista ranter jibe about me being a Yingluck fan. I'm not.

This is a rather bland and negative reply,looking at the situation from day 1 of the governments achievements thus far there havent been any,so this landslide (coalition) set up, should be marching forward, instead nothing-you never mentioned the P.Ms performance ? ducking and diving-avoiding most situations and sittings, why not comment on the cabinet?? it's selection. please do not come back with the old thing sorry you did not post what I wanted... the tablet promise was a joke-and you know it, as was all the election promises. If your trying to look independent make an effort to point out the flaws, and cock-ups. The nothing much to report attitude is not very good for a new landslide government. I want the government to do well, and I'm not happy how things are going so far.

[Siam Simon]

Siam Simon #56

No answer to my post-side stepping again (yawn) attack whybother-attack Abhisit, you have just confirmed what I posted. you are among the blind who are being led by the blind. So in 7 months the only good they have done is being elected. totally ridiculous comment in a reply I expected to be more positive about it's achievements. Ha Ha Ha. amazing. another failed answer from a Yingluck fan

I replied to your question but didn't write a thesis or give you an answer you wanted to read. But I'll expand a bit for you. Seven months in, they haven't done much good or much bad. They haven't done much at all. The computer tablet for schools is radical and a potentially brilliant move forward for education, but it could all go belly up. I suspect that the eventuality will be somewhere inbetween, with better results in some locations than others (but I fully expect the usual suspects on this forum to be all over any failures like a rash, proclaing the demise of the project). The floods were handled poorly, but I suspect that floods of the magnitude we saw last year would have been handled badly by any Thai government. Affairs with Cambodia improved, but considering who runs things in Cambodia and how badly the last government handled things, that's no surprise. Other than that, there's not an awful lot to report on other than the usual few minor stuff either way. No doubt, the above wasn't what you wanted to read, so there will be more boring, lame debating tactics from you plus one-or-two more personal jibes.

And typical antithaksinista ranter jibe about me being a Yingluck fan. I'm not.

This is a rather bland and negative reply,looking at the situation from day 1 of the governments achievements thus far there havent been any,so this landslide (coalition) set up, should be marching forward, instead nothing-you never mentioned the P.Ms performance ? ducking and diving-avoiding most situations and sittings, why not comment on the cabinet?? it's selection. please do not come back with the old thing sorry you did not post what I wanted... the tablet promise was a joke-and you know it, as was all the election promises. If your trying to look independent make an effort to point out the flaws, and cock-ups. The nothing much to report attitude is not very good for a new landslide government. I want the government to do well, and I'm not happy how things are going so far.

"the tablet promise was a joke-and you know it"

The tablet promise is moving along rather well, which shows that you were writing with forked tongue when you wrote

"I want the government to do well"

As to the rest of your post, like I already told you, the subject is not worth a thesis yet, nothing much has happened.

I notice that you keep proclaiming yourself as an independant thinker, but almost all you ever seem to do is slag off anything connected to the current government, defend everything that the last government did, and make demands of other posters on these threads to do the same.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Siam Simon

[waza]

A comparative study between Democratically elected Govts. would be more informative.

Considering that a military, coup installed Govt. owes its' allegiance to those who positioned them, their priorities would reflect it.

Whereas the current Ms. Y. Govt owes its' allegiance to the electorate. Her policies would reflect that electorate, as would other previous Govts. who came to power the same, democratic way.

Alternatively, it would be interesting to compare Thai Govts which were elected, vs. those who were 'coup'ed" into place.

I think you have made an error. The Abhisit Government was not installed by the coup makers. This is a myth propagated by the reds to suit their own purposes but not at all true.

No, Ian, you have made the error. The last coalition government was forced together by the army at General Anupong's house on an army barracks. The myth being propagated is that the coalition was just a routine negotiation between and coming together of politicians in parliament.

Some coalition partners claim it was forced, I would imagine the reality would be more like they were bribed, do you really think any of their lives were in danger?

Unlike the present government that was formed in Dubai. However the topic is how they performed, and I would say that 7 months in the Dem were the most competent government. Yingluck is only in front in the bullshit promises category, although I will concede she has the duck and hide down pat.

Edited February 4, 2012 by waza

[flying]

Did not read the whole thread but 2,163 people polled out of 70 Million?

I would not read too much into it.

[whybother]

Whybother joined this forum during the 2010 troubles and made one thousand (yes, that's 1000) posts in the news clippings section within a month of joining. He didn't make a single post in any other part of the forum. And then there was jcbangkok.....

Ahhh ... yes ... forgot about that one. You also accused me of being the same poster as JCBangkok.

And now you're coming out with lies. I do hope you apologise for that one. You are very big on getting apologies for lying, after all.

jcbangkok didn't get banned, so why did you bin him? Too much like hard work?

Are you still going on with these stupid accusations? I already explained how ridiculous that one is. And it's an easy one to verify if you were actually interested in finding out. But your not.

And still no apology for your lies? Amazing really, considering how long you went on recently about not getting an apology. But that's standard fare for you, isn't it.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Edited February 5, 2012 by whybother

[CalgaryII]

The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave.

Agree with most of what you posted geriatrickid, but would like to add a comment to above.

One must keep in mind what spawned the Red Shirt Movement.....namely the Coup.

It took 'em a while to organize, but organize they did.

To then characterise their anti-coup activity as misbehavior is not accurate.

If their anti-coup stuff was misbehavior, what was the coup.

On a scale of misbehavior, the coup perpetrators so massively exceed the Red Shirt feeble effort to protest a theft of their elected Govt, it wouldn't even be close.

Every one knew, and especially the Red Shirts, that the last election represented electoral reality in Thailand, and to therefore have an electoral minority governing was appalling.

Protesting coups is not misbehavior. It is an exemplary form of standing up to wrongs. Then to have the military rampage through their efforts to protest these wrongs, added insult to injury.

There are those who seek to characterize the feeble efforts to withstand the military assault as being some sort of gross anti-social behavior, when in fact it was opposing military rule.

Considering the Oppositions efforts to again use judicial cover to steal another elected Govt. as some of yesterday's headlines featured, will have entirely different outcomes.

Having Red Shirt affiliates in Government is a very natural thing, totally in line with what those of different affiliation were included in the unelected coup-military Government. I am not a Dem. Party lover, but after they were artificially hoisted into place, I didn't particularly object to the Kasit thing. When there is a major two-way political divide, whichever side is elected has earned the right to appoint whomever they want from their side.

But bottom line, the days of freeby coups are over, regardless what cover and excuses are used - judicial, military or whatever.

If the Opposition thinks they can pull the judicial trick on an elected Government again, they'd better think again.

Edited February 5, 2012 by CalgaryII

[whybother]

<snip>

Considering the Oppositions efforts to again use judicial cover to steal another elected Govt. as some of yesterday's headlines featured, will have entirely different outcomes.

<snip>

The judicial efforts against the emergency decrees are not to "steal another elected government". The failure of the government to force the law changes without debate won't mean that they will be disbanded. It just means the government have to actually debate the laws that they want to bring in.

[CalgaryII]

The judicial efforts against the emergency decrees are not to "steal another elected government".

Yes they are!

It has nothing to do with self-righteous claims to judicial purity, and everything to do with trying to railroad this elected Govt. out of existence using judicial cover, with a constitution into which the opposition built a capability for themselves along these lines.

That is why this Govt, sees the current constitution as an existential threat, and the Opposition sees it as a tool.

Perception is everything, and the electoral majority who voted this Government into legitimate governance, are not amused.

They see through the smoke.

Edited February 5, 2012 by CalgaryII

[whybother]

The judicial efforts against the emergency decrees are not to "steal another elected government".

Yes they are!

It has nothing to do with self-righteous claims to judicial purity, and everything to do with trying to railroad this elected Govt. out of existence using judicial cover.

Perception is everything, and the electoral majority who voted this Government into legitimate governance, are not amused.

They see through the smoke.

How will this action cause the government to collapse?

Unless you're suggesting that the government should be allowed to do illegal actions and the people shouldn't be told about it.

If the people "see through the smoke" then the perception isn't an issue, is it?

Edited February 5, 2012 by whybother

[CalgaryII]

How will this action cause the government to collapse?

They have done it before, and are trying to do it again.

If not now, then death by a thousand judicial cuts later.

I don't know if we will see something as ridiculous as the Samak cooking thing again, but they wouldn't be above it.

The Opposition knows that the judiciary is their best chance, as going to the "People" has been a dismal, recurring failure.

The UDD/Red Shirt accusations of "Judicial coups" didnt come out of thin air.

They know the game, have seen it before, and the current Opposition games are very obvious to them.

Parliament is the place for Opposition activism... to do it elsewhere is their sign of electoral weakness.

IMHO

Edited February 5, 2012 by CalgaryII

[whybother]

How will this action cause the government to collapse?

They have done it before, and are trying to do it again.

If not now, then death by a thousand judicial cuts later.

The Opposition knows that the judiciary is their best chance, as going to the "People" has been a dismal, recurring failure.

The UDD/Red Shirt accusations of "Judicial coups" didnt come out of thin air.

They know the game, have seen it before, and the current Opposition games are very obvious to them.

Parliament is the place for Opposition activism... to do it elsewhere is their sign of electoral weakness.

IMHO

Now you are just mixing up cases for propaganda purposes. This isn't the same as the TRT or PPP election fraud cases. This is a case to stop the government from using emergency decrees when they shouldn't.

If it's death by a thousand judicial cuts, then maybe the government should do things by the law. Parliament is the place for opposition activism, and the courts are the place to determine if something is done according to the law.

Given that the government have such electoral strength, why are they so worried about debating these laws in parliament?

[rixalex]

The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave.

Agree with most of what you posted geriatrickid, but would like to add a comment to above.

One must keep in mind what spawned the Red Shirt Movement.....namely the Coup.

It took 'em a while to organize, but organize they did.

When public outrage is real, things happen spontaneously and quickly, and require very little organisation. You only have to look at similar incidents around the world, to see what happens when the people genuinely turn, when people are genuinely up in arms. Had Thais felt this way about the coup, the reaction would have started on the 19th September 2006, and you would have seen it on the streets right there and then. The fact was, the vast majority of Thais felt indifferently. They did nothing. They stayed at home. Those who did go out, handed out flowers.

So, how do you explain all the time it took for any major protests regarding the coup to occur? I'll give you my explanation, then you perhaps can offer yours? Thaksin and his friends needed a cause to claim to be fighting for, that was noble. How can you possibly garner support outside of those who you can influence with money, if all you are really fighting for is money and power.

The coup in 2006 was something that people had every right to protest against, but they didn't; they never have. To believe otherwise is to believe in a facade.

[CalgaryII]

Now you are just mixing up cases for propaganda purposes

My opinion is propaganda, and yours is not.

Lets just be friends and accept that we both have points-of-view, and focus on the opinions expressed.

".....maybe the government should do things by the law"

They are.

Oppositional self-righteous bleating to the contrary, smacks of self-serving political manuevering.

Their baggage hinders them as well. Having used the judiciary for political gain in the past, colours their activity now.

Gotta go. Cannot debate further at the moment.

Edited February 5, 2012 by CalgaryII

[rixalex]

I don't know if we will see something as ridiculous as the Samak cooking thing again, but they wouldn't be above it.

By they, you mean Yingluck and Thaksin?

Yingluck won't be above taking on another job besides the one she already has, and then lying about it in a court of law; and then her brother, won't be above deciding she has served her purpose, and prevent her from restanding as PM, to instead choose someone he feels better suited to serving his interests?

[whybother]

Now you are just mixing up cases for propaganda purposes

My opinion is propaganda, and yours is not.

Lets just be friends and accept that we both have points-of-view, and focus on the opinions expressed.

".....maybe the government should do things by the law"

They are.

Oppositional self-righteous bleating to the contrary, smacks of self-serving political manuevering.

Their baggage hinders them as well. Having used the judiciary for political gain in the past, colours their activity now.

Gotta go. Cannot debate further at the moment.

Mixing up 2 unrelated cases is not opinion. It's propaganda. This case will not mean the disbanding of a party, so it is irrelevant. The other cases were also not brought by the Democrats, so, once again, they are irrelevant.

The opposition don't believe the government are following the law, which is why they are asking the constitution court to rule on it.

Wow, political parties aren't allowed to do "political maneuvering"? If "the people" see through this, then surely it is in the government's interests to let the Democrats do it ... unless of course, they are scared that what they are doing IS actually illegal.

[wxyz]

"The survey found the two to have equally failed to end the political conflict and to quell the southern violence."

Are they above the LAW? They sure seem to think so. Committing crimes against humanity repeatedly.

http://the-diplomat....hai-insurgency/

"Yingluck was warmly received by the crowds. Wearing a red hijab and espousing greater autonomy for the region"

And wins zero seats.

But this could change soon. As argued by Patrick Winn at Global Post, Thailand’s Islamic insurgency now threatens to become Asia’s biggest and bloodiest:

‘Troops already occupy the streets in force. Skinny conscripts with assault rifles patrol through the fog. German Shepherds sniff for bombs in the brush.

'They kill cops. Army officers. Teachers traveling to class. Kids sometimes. To stoke maximum horror, they decapitate Buddhist monks with machetes.'

‘As oblivious backpackers party up the coast, an Islamic rebellion roars on with no end in sight…In lieu of familiar screeds against Jews, Christians and the “Great Satan” America, these mujahideen call for the heads of Thai Buddhists.’

Edited February 5, 2012 by wxyz

[CalgaryII]

The redshirts are now a part of the government and have to behave.

Agree with most of what you posted geriatrickid, but would like to add a comment to above.

One must keep in mind what spawned the Red Shirt Movement.....namely the Coup.

It took 'em a while to organize, but organize they did.

When public outrage is real, things happen spontaneously and quickly, and require very little organisation. You only have to look at similar incidents around the world, to see what happens when the people genuinely turn, when people are genuinely up in arms. Had Thais felt this way about the coup, the reaction would have started on the 19th September 2006, and you would have seen it on the streets right there and then. The fact was, the vast majority of Thais felt indifferently. They did nothing. They stayed at home. Those who did go out, handed out flowers.

So, how do you explain all the time it took for any major protests regarding the coup to occur? I'll give you my explanation, then you perhaps can offer yours? Thaksin and his friends needed a cause to claim to be fighting for, that was noble. How can you possibly garner support outside of those who you can influence with money, if all you are really fighting for is money and power.

The coup in 2006 was something that people had every right to protest against, but they didn't; they never have. To believe otherwise is to believe in a facade.

I'll give you my explanation, then you perhaps can offer yours?

You may be right. The part about anti-coup protests being spantaneous and immediate in many cases.

But not in this case.

Those whose elected Govt. was stolen were slow to anger. But when they got their shit together, the politicization that occurred was an unintended consquence that the coup perps have come to regret.

They tried to ignore it at first.....the ever growing Red Shirt rallies were plentiful and frequent outside Bangkok. They went unreported by the BKK. centric media which may lead one to conclude that the anti-coup reaction was non-existent and slower than it actually was. The media avoiding reporting on these growing rallies mislead many people to presume that the coup was a fait accompli. It most assuredly was not.

When the rallies began to hit BKK, and the media could no longer maintain the black-out on them, it surprised the hell out of many.

And then R'song happened. Again the unelected and coup originated Govt. tried to ignore these people out of existence, resulting in the thing dragging on and on.

When finally forced to acknowledge the thing, the unelected Govt finally had to talk, with the following sequence occuring:

>made a 'mafia offer' Meaning it could not be refused

>An offer is not an agreement, but an 'offer' is an invitation for four responses:

1. Acceptance

2. rejection

3. counter-offer

4. acceptance with modification - This fourth option was chosen by the UDD/RS

>Given that it was a 'mafia' offer subject to only response #1, the military onslaught commenced

All of the above was anti-coup.

To suggest that the coup was accepted is untrue.

The bit about all of this being a facade is most denigrating to all those who have lived this struggle.

They were finally rewarded with the electoral plurality they knew was being denied them by an unelected minority

That is my take in a nutshell Rixalex.

Edited February 5, 2012 by CalgaryII

[CalgaryII]

Mixing up 2 unrelated cases is not opinion. It's propaganda

Ok, have it your way whybother.

Your and my opinions are propaganda.

cest la vie!

Edited February 5, 2012 by CalgaryII