Thaksin Looks To Victory At Every Level

[CalgaryII]

AleG, #10

The fact that PTP doesn't say what and why they want to change the constitution is proof enough, for me, that what they intend to do is unethical to say the least.

You must have missed it AleG

According PTP's working panel, the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy, the panel said.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution, the drafting panel said.

[OzMick]

This story must be a total fabrication, as Thaksin announced years ago, that he had "Quit Thai politics", so he surely couldn't now be deciding when to hold elections, or who to put into what Cabinet-seat. Or is his word simply not to be trusted ?

And his view of 'true democracy' that means dominating the political base in all areas, or dominating the Constitution-ammendment body, surely even his most-loyal & fervent admirers must agree, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy ?

Worrying times for Thailand, while he continues to seek to strengthen his already-too-strong grip on power, rather than to help the poor to improve their lives through better-education or improved economic-opportunities.

Ah but that will all come, suggest his supporters, once he's firmly and irrevocably in-control. Famous Last Words !

Unless the writer for the Nation was present at the meeting, just how exactly would he know all the details?

Did the benevolent Chinese hosts prepare a transcript?

Was the writer briefed by Mr. Thaksin?

Frankly, I can do without these unfounded claims. I can also do without mention of Mr. Thaksin for some time. The Nation should consider another obsession.

the writer for the Nation could not be present at the meeting because that would be Criminal Association, a crime for which he could be prosecuted, but the others attending most certainly would not be (Sing along -"You've got to have friends..........).

BTW As Thaksin is a banned politician who blatantly and repeatedly makes decisions regarding PTP policy and Ministers, and features in their advertisements, why has the electoral commission not taken action to enforce Electoral LAw?

Edited February 22, 2012 by OzMick

[OzMick]

There is the 'fugitive' thing again. The Opposition seems to think that repetition best serves their agenda. Who am I to argue.

Use of this term is agenda, pure and simple.

Can we put this continued malarkey where it belongs.... in the trash bin.

In your world, the opposition controls Reuters...

Fugitive ex-PM Thaksin

http://www.msnbc.msn...t/#.T0Rx_1buUbQ

In your world, the opposition controls Bloomberg News...

Sister of Fugitive Ex-Premier Thaksin

http://www.bloomberg...tion-party.html

In your world, the opposition controls TIME magazine...

Will Thailand's Most Famous Fugitive Get His Passport Back?

http://www.time.com/...l#ixzz1n5CU5wTk

In your world, the opposition controls AFP...

Fugitive ex-leader Thaksin

http://www.google.co...2833ba7fb93.2f1

In your world, the opposition controls BBC...

fugitive ex-leader Thaksin Shinawatra

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-15831430

In your world, the opposition controls the New York Times...

Thailand’s fugitive former prime minister

http://www.nytimes.c...sia/27thai.html

You are very welcome to join the rest of the world wherein such nonsensical conspiracies are relegated to the Jokes Forum.

.

I have experienced this with a lot of Thaksin haters.

They are so intent on it, they save whatever the Opposition has fed them, and regurgitate it at every opportunity.

In this case using foreign media, the author thinks it better supports their indoctrination-by-Opposition.

This surfaces an entirely different subject matter, that being the copying and paraphrasing of local media by the foreign press.

I experienced this significantly on a recent trip to Europe. When discussing Thai politics with discerning European contacts, it was like talking to the Thai Opposition.

All that aside, the repetitive and often humorously misplaced use of the term in the interest of saying it as often as possible, is political agenda.

See my Post #16 above for support of this notion. No point in repeating myself.

The opposition party in Thailand controls the world media, otherwise they would not use the word fugitive to describe a fugitive.

Thanks for your input.

.

Out of the mouths of babes and idiots comes occasional gems.

"When discussing Thai politics with discerning European contacts, it was like talking to the Thai Opposition."

In contrast, when he spoke to non-discerning persons, they fully agreed with him and his red shirt views. Non-discerning would include the mentally retarded, the absolutely clueless, the simple, the one-idea fixated repetitious, the terminally stupid, and the abominably gormless. sounds like a red shirt rally.

[Orac]

This story must be a total fabrication, as Thaksin announced years ago, that he had "Quit Thai politics", so he surely couldn't now be deciding when to hold elections, or who to put into what Cabinet-seat. Or is his word simply not to be trusted ?

And his view of 'true democracy' that means dominating the political base in all areas, or dominating the Constitution-ammendment body, surely even his most-loyal & fervent admirers must agree, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy ?

Worrying times for Thailand, while he continues to seek to strengthen his already-too-strong grip on power, rather than to help the poor to improve their lives through better-education or improved economic-opportunities.

Ah but that will all come, suggest his supporters, once he's firmly and irrevocably in-control. Famous Last Words !

Unless the writer for the Nation was present at the meeting, just how exactly would he know all the details?

Did the benevolent Chinese hosts prepare a transcript?

Was the writer briefed by Mr. Thaksin?

Frankly, I can do without these unfounded claims. I can also do without mention of Mr. Thaksin for some time. The Nation should consider another obsession.

the writer for the Nation could not be present at the meeting because that would be Criminal Association, a crime for which he could be prosecuted, but the others attending most certainly would not be (Sing along -"You've got to have friends..........).

BTW As Thaksin is a banned politician who blatantly and repeatedly makes decisions regarding PTP policy and Ministers, and features in their advertisements, why has the electoral commission not taken action to enforce Electoral LAw?

I think it would open too big a can of worms. Don't forget that the Democrat party were reliant on the support of other parties with 'dubious' leaders to form a coalition government - there were even reports of Banharn sitting in and running meetings relating to the Ministry of Agriculture.

[OzMick]

The fact that PTP doesn't say what and why they want to change the constitution is proof enough, for me, that what they intend to do is unethical to say the least.

If they had a goal of improving the constitution in a way that would be beneficial to the whole country they would be screaming it from the rooftops to gain support for the (hopefully) time when the amendments will be put to the vote on a referendum.

The way its being not discussed stinks of a self serving hidden agenda at work.

The problem with this is that as soon as they make it clear what they want to change the same crowd will be on their soapboxes crying that the government is undermining any CDA that is set up by stipulating what changes to make.

As far as I am aware two of the main articles they are unhappy with are article 237 which deals with the disolution of parties where they want it made harder for parties to be disolved for 'political' reasons but it has been suggested that firmer penalties be put in place for individuals who break the rules.

The other article in question is 309 which is the amnesty bit. It is worth reading as it does raise quite a few issues:

Article 309. All matters guaranteed by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim Edition), B.E. 2549 (2006) to be lawful and constitutional, including all acts related to such matters whether before or after the promulgation date of this Constitution, shall be considered constitutional.

Taken from translation of Constitution found here: http://www.isaanlawy...%20-%202550.pdf

The questions over these two article also arose during the previous government as per the following article:

http://asiancorrespo...-protests-past/

IMHO the problem with article 237 is purely economic. It is quite expensive to have a pack of fall guys drawing wages as directors of the party in case it gets banned. This is currently the position with PTP as they blatanly involve banned politicians in the electoral advertising and decision making. Much cheaper to make one-off payments for some mug to take the rap when and if required (see 11th Commandment - Don't get caught.)

Of course they could solve the problem by obeying electoral law......................

[blows]

This story must be a total fabrication, as Thaksin announced years ago, that he had "Quit Thai politics", so he surely couldn't now be deciding when to hold elections, or who to put into what Cabinet-seat. Or is his word simply not to be trusted ?

And his view of 'true democracy' that means dominating the political base in all areas, or dominating the Constitution-ammendment body, surely even his most-loyal & fervent admirers must agree, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy ?

Worrying times for Thailand, while he continues to seek to strengthen his already-too-strong grip on power, rather than to help the poor to improve their lives through better-education or improved economic-opportunities.

Ah but that will all come, suggest his supporters, once he's firmly and irrevocably in-control. Famous Last Words !

Unless the writer for the Nation was present at the meeting, just how exactly would he know all the details?

Did the benevolent Chinese hosts prepare a transcript?

Was the writer briefed by Mr. Thaksin?

Frankly, I can do without these unfounded claims. I can also do without mention of Mr. Thaksin for some time. The Nation should consider another obsession.

the writer for the Nation could not be present at the meeting because that would be Criminal Association, a crime for which he could be prosecuted, but the others attending most certainly would not be (Sing along -"You've got to have friends..........).

BTW As Thaksin is a banned politician who blatantly and repeatedly makes decisions regarding PTP policy and Ministers, and features in their advertisements, why has the electoral commission not taken action to enforce Electoral LAw?

Seems the PTP should be banned as well.

[OzMick]

This story must be a total fabrication, as Thaksin announced years ago, that he had "Quit Thai politics", so he surely couldn't now be deciding when to hold elections, or who to put into what Cabinet-seat. Or is his word simply not to be trusted ?

And his view of 'true democracy' that means dominating the political base in all areas, or dominating the Constitution-ammendment body, surely even his most-loyal & fervent admirers must agree, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy ?

Worrying times for Thailand, while he continues to seek to strengthen his already-too-strong grip on power, rather than to help the poor to improve their lives through better-education or improved economic-opportunities.

Ah but that will all come, suggest his supporters, once he's firmly and irrevocably in-control. Famous Last Words !

Unless the writer for the Nation was present at the meeting, just how exactly would he know all the details?

Did the benevolent Chinese hosts prepare a transcript?

Was the writer briefed by Mr. Thaksin?

Frankly, I can do without these unfounded claims. I can also do without mention of Mr. Thaksin for some time. The Nation should consider another obsession.

the writer for the Nation could not be present at the meeting because that would be Criminal Association, a crime for which he could be prosecuted, but the others attending most certainly would not be (Sing along -"You've got to have friends..........).

BTW As Thaksin is a banned politician who blatantly and repeatedly makes decisions regarding PTP policy and Ministers, and features in their advertisements, why has the electoral commission not taken action to enforce Electoral LAw?

I think it would open too big a can of worms. Don't forget that the Democrat party were reliant on the support of other parties with 'dubious' leaders to form a coalition government - there were even reports of Banharn sitting in and running meetings relating to the Ministry of Agriculture.

I'm not advocating double standards - prosecute all and every who choose to break the rules. It might be a big can of worms, but opening it, and enforcing law rigidly, could solve a lot of problems in this country. Even the TRC has stated that allowing some to think they are above the law is the root cause of many of those problems.

[Orac]

the writer for the Nation could not be present at the meeting because that would be Criminal Association, a crime for which he could be prosecuted, but the others attending most certainly would not be (Sing along -"You've got to have friends..........).

BTW As Thaksin is a banned politician who blatantly and repeatedly makes decisions regarding PTP policy and Ministers, and features in their advertisements, why has the electoral commission not taken action to enforce Electoral LAw?

I think it would open too big a can of worms. Don't forget that the Democrat party were reliant on the support of other parties with 'dubious' leaders to form a coalition government - there were even reports of Banharn sitting in and running meetings relating to the Ministry of Agriculture.

I'm not advocating double standards - prosecute all and every who choose to break the rules. It might be a big can of worms, but opening it, and enforcing law rigidly, could solve a lot of problems in this country. Even the TRC has stated that allowing some to think they are above the law is the root cause of many of those problems.

You will struggle to find anyone who would disagree with that - apart from the self serving politicians of all parties who seek to protect their positions.

[blows]

It looks like Thaksin wants to set up a one party system in Thailand, like the CCP is in China. That is what the renewed drug war is for, eliminating all the opposition.

[phiphidon]

I'm not advocating double standards - prosecute all and every who choose to break the rules. It might be a big can of worms, but opening it, and enforcing law rigidly, could solve a lot of problems in this country. Even the TRC has stated that allowing some to think they are above the law is the root cause of many of those problems.

But if the law had been enforced rigidly in 2006 Abhisit and the democrat party would have "ceased to be" as well as the TRT over the boycotting of the April 2006 elections.

That would have saved him some face by not being beat soundly in the following election (after the Army had done their bit) but he wouldn't have been available for the PM (by any means) army sponsored parliamentary election due to being banned from politics.

I wonder who the PAD / Generals would have chosen instead?

[AleG]

AleG, #10

The fact that PTP doesn't say what and why they want to change the constitution is proof enough, for me, that what they intend to do is unethical to say the least.

You must have missed it AleG

According PTP's working panel, the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy, the panel said.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution, the drafting panel said.

So they are sore that their former party was dissolved due to blatant electoral fraud (of course you would strongly and unequivocally condemn such an act, right?) and want to change the constitution so that won't happen to them again.

Self serving agenda: Check.

[OzMick]

I'm not advocating double standards - prosecute all and every who choose to break the rules. It might be a big can of worms, but opening it, and enforcing law rigidly, could solve a lot of problems in this country. Even the TRC has stated that allowing some to think they are above the law is the root cause of many of those problems.

But if the law had been enforced rigidly in 2006 Abhisit and the democrat party would have "ceased to be" as well as the TRT over the boycotting of the April 2006 elections.

That would have saved him some face by not being beat soundly in the following election (after the Army had done their bit) but he wouldn't have been available for the PM (by any means) army sponsored parliamentary election due to being banned from politics.

I wonder who the PAD / Generals would have chosen instead?

Is it illegal for a party to boycott a snap election called well before needed? Didn't you notice the public reaction to that snap election where candidates couldn't garner sufficient votes when running virtually unopposed?How much face is lost when a majority of the voters in your electorate would rather vote for nobody rather than you? How much face is lost when you lose an election to a party subsequently convicted of electoral misbehaviour, and then gain power when they are punished for it?

[sparebox2]

What will there be left to talk about if Mr T ever dies?

Could we find out soon?

Time to call in the Iranian with their plastic radios.

[CalgaryII]

Ozmick, #33

Out of the mouths of babes and idiots comes occasional gems.

"When discussing Thai politics with discerning European contacts, it was like talking to the Thai Opposition."

That were people who follow world events, including Thai Politics.

But I am sure you knew that.

The point not to be lost however, is pervasiveness with which the foreign media either copies directly, or paraphrases Thai Domestic Media.

I get sent foreign news articles dealing with Thai Politics, and it is often like reading the BKK. Post or Nation.

This is understandable, in that the readers are not overly interested in Thai Politics. They have political problems of their own.

So foreign journalists can get away without primary research, instead using Thai Domestic media

In contrast, when he spoke to non-discerning persons, they fully agreed with him and his red shirt views. Non-discerning would include the mentally retarded, the absolutely clueless, the simple, the one-idea fixated repetitious, the terminally stupid, and the abominably gormless. sounds like a red shirt rally.

Another demonstration of how arrogant, denigrating and disparaging one side of the political divide is concerning the other.

Such contempuousness is not lost on the voters, who have voted accordingly.

Until all sides begin to understand that all sides have valid political opinions and space, and that all sides and citizens are politically equal, however distasteful that is to some, political differences can only be resolved through elections.

Obviously coups are no longer operative, as those who try it would find out in a hurry.

Edited February 22, 2012 by CalgaryII

[AleG]

...

Until all sides begin to understand that all sides have valid political opinions and space, and that all sides and citizens are politically equal, however distasteful that is to some, political differences can only be resolved through elections.

Apparently you seem to think that applies only to whoever is not a UDD/PTT/Thaksin supporter.

You are very quick to thoughtlessly dismiss any opinion that differs from your dogma as coup-ists and Oppositional forces not worth of consideration.

[CalgaryII]

Blows, #36

Seems the PTP should be banned as well.

This is the intent of all those excursions to Judges chambers by the Opposition.

It is also the reason Constitutional Reform is such a pressing issue, in order to prevent such a thing. The coup-ists built the mechanisms into their coup constitution.

To deny the electoral majority like this however ----again-----would have repercussions we can only speculate about.

Edited February 22, 2012 by CalgaryII

[CalgaryII]

AleG, #10

The fact that PTP doesn't say what and why they want to change the constitution is proof enough, for me, that what they intend to do is unethical to say the least.

You must have missed it AleG

According PTP's working panel, the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy, the panel said.

Independent organizations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution, the drafting panel said.

So they are sore that their former party was dissolved due to blatant electoral fraud (of course you would strongly and unequivocally condemn such an act, right?) and want to change the constitution so that won't happen to them again.

Self serving agenda: Check.

I am happy I am not trying to defend your situation.

Defending a coup and all its' ramifications is a hard sell.

Having last years' electoral results, and a coup constitution, is an easy discussion for me.

[whybother]

Blows, #36

Seems the PTP should be banned as well.

This is the intent of all those excursions to Judges chambers by the Opposition.

It is also the reason Constitutional Reform is such a pressing issue, in order to prevent such a thing. The coup-ists built the mechanisms into their coup constitution.

To deny the electoral majority like this however ----again-----would have repercussions we can only speculate about.

Maybe the "electoral majority" should tell their party not to cheat.

Edited February 22, 2012 by whybother

[smedly]

I thought the constitution was there to protect the system and the people from being abused, it seems Thaksin and his cohorts are intent on bending and getting rid of the rules as they see fit for purpose....scary very scary, I wonder will the army let them proceed with this madness - it's like giving a speeding motorist the authority to set the speed limit

[CalgaryII]

...

Until all sides begin to understand that all sides have valid political opinions and space, and that all sides and citizens are politically equal, however distasteful that is to some, political differences can only be resolved through elections.

Apparently you seem to think that applies only to whoever is not a UDD/PTT/Thaksin supporter.

You are very quick to thoughtlessly dismiss any opinion that differs from your dogma as coup-ists and Oppositional forces not worth of consideration.

Not sure if I can get a grip on this comment. I try to be thoughtful.

I am advocating political equality in both practice and mentally internalized by all (for lack of a better phrase at the moment)

To have one side be contemptuous, disparaging and disdainful of the other, coupled with exaggerated self-opinion and a sense of political self-importance, is difficult to change.

And I don't need to tell you which side of the political divide I am speaking of.

Only elections can decide which way governance will fall, when there are such ingrained perceptions.

Edited February 22, 2012 by CalgaryII

[AleG]

...

Until all sides begin to understand that all sides have valid political opinions and space, and that all sides and citizens are politically equal, however distasteful that is to some, political differences can only be resolved through elections.

Apparently you seem to think that applies only to whoever is not a UDD/PTT/Thaksin supporter.

You are very quick to thoughtlessly dismiss any opinion that differs from your dogma as coup-ists and Oppositional forces not worth of consideration.

Not sure if I can get a grip on this comment. I try to be thoughtful.

I am advocating political equality in both practice and mentally internalized by all (for lack of a better phrase at the moment)

To have one side be contemptuous, disparaging and disdainful of the other, coupled with exaggerated self-opinion and a sense of political self-importance, is difficult to change.

And I don't need to tell you which side of the political divide I am speaking of.

Only elections can decide which way governance will fall, when there are such ingrained perceptions.

And that is why you define anyone who doesn't buy into the UDD/PTP/Thaksin narrative as a coup-ist?

[CalgaryII]

Ozmick, #42

Is it illegal for a party to boycott a snap election called well before needed?

Not illegal, but sort of stupid.

Governments in power analyze the political winds during their mandate all the time, and will call an election when most favorable to them. The good thing, is they have a definite timeframe within which they must call an election.

Didn't you notice the public reaction to that snap election where candidates couldn't garner sufficient votes when running virtually unopposed?

If the public disagree with calling an early election, they have an opportunity to demonstrate that disagreement at the Polls. That is political reality the Govt. will need to assess when considering calling an early election. Not a good idea if it pisses off the electorate.

How much face is lost when a majority of the voters in your electorate would rather vote for nobody rather than you?

Up to the voters

How much face is lost when you lose an election to a party subsequently convicted of electoral misbehaviour, and then gain power when they are punished for it?

Gaining power via non-electoral means is a bad idea. I would politely decline.

[CalgaryII]

smedley, #49

I thought the constitution was there to protect the system and the people from being abused,

Unfortunately the coup-ists didn't see it that way.

They used a constitution to abuse one person and a Political party....that was after they abused the voters by denying them their Govt. through armed aggression.

it seems Thaksin and his cohorts are intent on bending and getting rid of the rules as they see fit for purpose....scary very scary,

Actually no. They are correcting the abuses noted above.

A task legitimized by voters who elected them to do just that.

I wonder will the army let them proceed with this madness - it's like giving a speeding motorist the authority to set the speed limit

If the coup-ists have their way...no.

But to have coup-ist armed aggression do it again, this time there will be consequences. The voters are organized and prepared to deal with them now, unlike last time.

Edited February 22, 2012 by CalgaryII

[tlansford]

So in Thailand you can with a cabinet reshuffle appoint citizens that weren't even eligible for election as minister?I always wondered what was the meaning of democracy.

You are not elected as a minister but selected also, at the point of these people being appointed if it happens, they would be eligible for election anyway.

As for Thailand having citizens as ministers instead of elected mps, it is not unusual and has happenned many times in places such as the UK - the Lord Chancellor, basically the top lawman responsible for the legal system and judges, was not drawn from the sitting MPs but selected for his expertise and abilities (or it could be because he was a close personal friend of Tony Blair for many many years). Also it is not unusual for ministers to give up their MP status such as the current lot where some relinquished their positions to allow for more party list MPs to enter parliament, or the previous government where Suthep stepped down as an MP to avoid legal charges.

The US president's cabinet is appointed by the president, not elected.

[CalgaryII]

...

Until all sides begin to understand that all sides have valid political opinions and space, and that all sides and citizens are politically equal, however distasteful that is to some, political differences can only be resolved through elections.

Apparently you seem to think that applies only to whoever is not a UDD/PTT/Thaksin supporter.

You are very quick to thoughtlessly dismiss any opinion that differs from your dogma as coup-ists and Oppositional forces not worth of consideration.

Not sure if I can get a grip on this comment. I try to be thoughtful.

I am advocating political equality in both practice and mentally internalized by all (for lack of a better phrase at the moment)

To have one side be contemptuous, disparaging and disdainful of the other, coupled with exaggerated self-opinion and a sense of political self-importance, is difficult to change.

And I don't need to tell you which side of the political divide I am speaking of.

Only elections can decide which way governance will fall, when there are such ingrained perceptions.

And that is why you define anyone who doesn't buy into the UDD/PTP/Thaksin narrative as a coup-ist?

Coup-ists are those who do not respect electoral results.

Not complicated

[Buchholz]

But if the law had been enforced rigidly in 2006 Abhisit and the democrat party would have "ceased to be" as well as the TRT over the boycotting of the April 2006 elections.

Is it illegal for a party to boycott a snap election called well before needed?

Ozmick, #42

Is it illegal for a party to boycott a snap election called well before needed?

Not illegal

Thank you for confirming that the erroneous assertion tossed out by phiphidon was, indeed, false.

.

[whybother]

Ozmick, #42

Is it illegal for a party to boycott a snap election called well before needed?

Not illegal, but sort of stupid.

Interesting that some people think the Democrats should have been disbanded for being stupid. That would mean that the PTP would be banned 10 times over.

[Buchholz]

So in Thailand you can with a cabinet reshuffle appoint citizens that weren't even eligible for election as minister?I always wondered what was the meaning of democracy.

You are not elected as a minister but selected also, at the point of these people being appointed if it happens, they would be eligible for election anyway.

As for Thailand having citizens as ministers instead of elected mps, it is not unusual and has happenned many times in places such as the UK - the Lord Chancellor, basically the top lawman responsible for the legal system and judges, was not drawn from the sitting MPs but selected for his expertise and abilities (or it could be because he was a close personal friend of Tony Blair for many many years). Also it is not unusual for ministers to give up their MP status such as the current lot where some relinquished their positions to allow for more party list MPs to enter parliament, or the previous government where Suthep stepped down as an MP to avoid legal charges.

The US president's cabinet is appointed by the president, not elected.

It's a shame the same sort of scrutiny and review of the cabinet ministers in the States isn't followed here.

None of these clowns, like Thaksin's/Yingluck's cousin or an indicted Red Shirt Leader would ever get through Senate confirmation to become a cabinet minister.

.

[ianf]

Every level, off course, means total dictatorship. I fear for the future of Thailand with this meglomaniac pulling to strings.

Not to worry ianf

Don't worry, be happy.

If things were that bad, I trust the electorate to do something about it.

Not coup-ists......electorates.

I have been searching dictionaries everywhere for a meaning for the word coup-ists. Is this something else you have made up along with the rest of the bull in your posts and the selective replies you give?

[tlansford]

And his view of 'true democracy' that means dominating the political base in all areas, or dominating the Constitution-ammendment body, surely even his most-loyal & fervent admirers must agree, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy ?

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned, Democracy is just a tool, not our goal".

Thaksin Shinawatra December 10, 2003.

Quite.

The former-PM should spell out, just what is "our goal" which he is aiming for, if it isn't a democracy with normal legal-constraints & checks-and-balances on whatever government is in-power ?

Many posters fear that the apparent 'cult-of-personality' which has been carefully-crafted over the past decade, and the objective of an unassailable single-party dominating all the reigns-of-power, are aimed at a dictatorship rather than a democracy where parties compete to deliver improvements for the poor & the country as-a-whole.

Other posters seem blissfully-unaware of the possibility.

The rest of that quote reads :

The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness, and national progress.’

You can find it here, for example : http://aliran.com/221.html