Thaksin Hails 'Signs Of Reconciliation' At Mass Rally

[Ricardo]

No you didn't say 33% but that was the same level of support that the constitution got for the Yes vote. Some coincidence, huh?

But The PTP got 48% of the available electorate vote hence my question where does the 33% come from - you can't blame the PTP for the rest of the electorate not voting - who knows where their vote would have gone?

The referendum had 2 choices to vote for not 10 so you cannot compare the referendum with the election.

Just admit you got it wrong, no need to continue to wriggle, it's demeaning in an experienced poster like yourself.

You started out with "eligible voting population", then went on to "Valid votes" in the aide memoire , now it's suddenly "available electorate vote", jeez you're embarrassing yourself here.

Enough already.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Ricardo

[tlansford]

"The 33% support the government enjoys" I don't understand where you got this figure from - don't tell me it was a poll?

With respect, the source of your confusion seems to be that you have changed the basis-of-comparison mid-stream, an easy mistake to make.

In Post #49, you said "only 33% of the eligible voting population voted for the 2007 constitution". (my emphasis)

In my Post #52 I have pointed out that "it was a similar proportion who voted for PTP in the July-2011 election, 15.7 million votes out of approximately 45 million eligible voters". The source for eligible voters is Wikipedia, by the way.

So the source for my claim of "a similar proportion" (I didn't actually say "the 33% support the government enjoys" anywhere) is indeed a poll, the July-2011 election.

Your Post #55 aide memoire, with the actual results of the July-2011 election, confirms the 15.7 million votes for PTP, and gives the total "Valid Votes" as 32.5 million.

'Valid votes' cast in a particular election is not the same as your original 'eligible voting population', as I'm sure you now realise ?

No wonder I'm confused, I'm accused of making up "your words", (I didn't actually say "the 33% support the government enjoys" anywhere) and lo and behold, part of your post #62 states

You attempt to divert from my post, by introducing the Dems dismal election-performance, the point was that the 2007-Constitution (which you describe as "a shame") got the same level-of-support, that the PTP-government currently enjoys

No you didn't say 33% but that was the same level of support that the constitution got for the Yes vote. Some coincidence, huh?

But The PTP got 48% of the available electorate vote hence my question where does the 33% come from - you can't blame the PTP for the rest of the electorate not voting - who knows where their vote would have gone?

The referendum had 2 choices to vote for not 10 so you cannot compare the referendum with the election.

Watching this exchange is interesting

Generally, I prefer to always use the stats from votes cast, not from all eligible voters, and other options, as the numbers are more precise, represent the people participating, and (normally) the non-participants represent the general population, so that the results would be essentially the same especially with a large margin.

With that in mind :

PTP numbers are posted in this thread, 48+% of the popular vote & 53% of the parliament seats - among 40 parties in the race and a 22-point advantage over the next highest party results, ie, the democrats.

Referendum, straight up/down vote 56.69% yes, 41.37% no.

In the former, a swing of 4 points would have made little difference. In the latter a swing of 4 points would have defeated the referendum. For this reason, a simple comparison of the support for the referendum and the support for the PTP is clearly not applicable. The additional points already made regarding 1 of 40 parties vs yes/no, and the Junta's martial law / legal restrictions on campaigning just make any comparisons less applicable.

In the end, the referendum vote was a "shame" not because of the results, but because of the situation. But given the situation, it is surprising that the referendum yes vote was so low. (caveat: IMO )

[tlansford]

No you didn't say 33% but that was the same level of support that the constitution got for the Yes vote. Some coincidence, huh?

But The PTP got 48% of the available electorate vote hence my question where does the 33% come from - you can't blame the PTP for the rest of the electorate not voting - who knows where their vote would have gone?

The referendum had 2 choices to vote for not 10 so you cannot compare the referendum with the election.

Just admit you got it wrong, no need to continue to wriggle, it's demeaning in an experienced poster like yourself.

You started out with "eligible voting population", then went on to "Valid votes" in the aide memoire , now it's suddenly "available electorate vote", jeez you're embarrassing yourself here.

Enough already.

excuse me Ricardo - ppd didn't get anything wrong, so to speak. He make the point about the referendum and nothing else. You compared his statement to the general election. That's all.

The two can't be compared (meaningfully) anyway.

[animatic]

Are you trying to tell me that these 'Red villages' were build in the last 3/4 years?

I think you've just proved my point, you really don't know do you? The "red shirt villages" are not pieces of real estate built by UDD friendly developers <deleted>!

Do a bit of research and then come back and tell me my arguments are "weak", but don't bother too soon, will you.

I actually know quite well what I am talking about as I live in one these 'Red villages' most of my time. And that village has been around for quite some time now, way back before the referendum we were discussing. The people in this village were already fervent Thaksin/TRT supporters. Nothing new here.

So now please stop side tracking and explain (my initial point) why the present Constitution is unconstitutional and did not come forth through a democratic process. Your demand of me doing some research is nothing but pathetic, and indeed very weak. Just answer the question and please show me the references as you are so keen on doing research.

KireB is correct. Just because the 'Red Village Network' wasn't actual called earlier, that doesn't mean they were not predominantly Red Villages by all but name. The Name and Network change was a way to solidify gains made already, and increasing block any dissenting voices in those villages. It was a way of connecting existing Red Villages and putting fear in those around to join or be isolated.

Reconciliation for Thaksin is forcing all dissenters to bow down, and move over to HIS SIDE of the leger sheet tally of politically dominated villages. When promises of future largesse, don't work the totally indoctrinated can be counted on to increase intimidation in their areas.

Edited April 16, 2012 by animatic

[tlansford]

It was illegal to campaign against the referendum itself, not to campaign for "no" vote.

There were quite a few episodes where "vote no" campaigners were unfairly and unjustly restricted but there was no legal basis for this persecution and the scale of the reported abuse wasn't big enough to affect the outcome, and media coverage was favorable to the victims and the "vote no" campaign itself.

Volk666 - your statement :

"It was illegal to campaign against the referendum itself, not to campaign for "no" vote." is not true and doesn't make sense either.

The junta made it illegal to campaign in any way against the referendum.

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.[2]

But of course extensive campaigning was done by the junta favoring the referendum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Constitution_of_Thailand#Campaigning

[pastitche]

Every time I read a headline with the word "reconcilliation" I can't help thinking that it is not the correct word being used - reconcilliation in basic terms means forgive and forget - I hardly think red shirt mass rallies - Fugitive Thaksin claiming to be the peoples savior and threatening constantly to return is anything like reconcilliation - to me it's more like a war being called on those that don't want him here and would prefer he was arrested silenced and thrown in jail

What word would you put in place of reconcilliation to correctly reflect what is really going on here ?

Reconciliation spelt correctly, childish I know, but you did ask. Edited April 16, 2012 by pastitche

[bigbamboo]

I decided to spend Songkran in Siem Reap. I made that decision before the red shirt rally was announced.

I wasn't concerned about it, other than the potential impact on roads etc - I doubted that all the Isaan farmers would venture into Pub Street anyway. A couple of people were p!ssed off that they were not allowed to go to Angkor Wat yesterday as it had been 'reserved' for the red shirts.

On Saturday evening 3 of us decided to go to the 'red shirt' rally site. We took the view that, whilst we were not supporters of Thaksin, we were in Siem Reap and had the opportunity to see history happening at first hand.

First, I should comment on what appeared to be first-class organisation on the part of the hosts. When we arrived in Siem Reap on Friday night we saw how the site had been prepared with thousands of (red) seats, a stage, hundreds of stewards/police and a large army presence. I don't think any trouble was expected and security was as much for Thaksin's protection as anything.

We took a tuk-tuk out to the site and had to park about a kilometre away. We entered via an airport-type scanner and went to watch Thaksin - who at this point was singing on stage. I suggest that he does not pursue that as a career !!

The highlight was when he left. I say this because at this point he had whipped up the crowd, if not into a frenzy, at least to an excitable pitch of clapper clapping. It took sometime for the star of the show to exit the stage and make his way by car just past where we were standing. There were a dozen escort vehicles and probably 50 'special' security guys running alongside the car ready to 'take a bullet'.

Pure theatre.

Whilst walking out I passed within inches of, and made eye-contact with, Arisaman. I still can't believe how he evaded police custody...

The hosts were magnificent and the red shirt guests were impeccably behaved ( a little loud in a couple of tourist attractions - but that is the Thai way).

I have absolutely no idea how many people were there. I would estimate 10,000 to 15,000. A friend said 5,000 to 10,000.

Frank and neutral accounts of such events are always highly valued - big thanks.

If we take Khun Cardholder's account at face value (and to be fair he doesn't seem to have an agenda) then taking a median figure around 10000 supporters were there to hear Thaksin, although it would seem Lydia's past attentions did not include singing lessons!

It would appear that Thaksin had a decent turn out but well short of the projected amount.

Edited April 16, 2012 by bigbamboo

[Ricardo]

No you didn't say 33% but that was the same level of support that the constitution got for the Yes vote. Some coincidence, huh?

But The PTP got 48% of the available electorate vote hence my question where does the 33% come from - you can't blame the PTP for the rest of the electorate not voting - who knows where their vote would have gone?

The referendum had 2 choices to vote for not 10 so you cannot compare the referendum with the election.

Just admit you got it wrong, no need to continue to wriggle, it's demeaning in an experienced poster like yourself.

You started out with "eligible voting population", then went on to "Valid votes" in the aide memoire , now it's suddenly "available electorate vote", jeez you're embarrassing yourself here.

Enough already.

excuse me Ricardo - ppd didn't get anything wrong, so to speak. He make the point about the referendum and nothing else. You compared his statement to the general election. That's all.

The two can't be compared (meaningfully) anyway.

Thanks for your thoughtful post #92 on this.

Perhaps I was slightly hasty in my reply above, if so then I apologise for that, but it seems obvious that if one is to try and compare the two, then the same basis-for-comparison must be applied. Or any comparison would indeed be meaningless. Which is why my first reply to phiphidon's original-post was very clear that I was trying to compare like-for-like.

And one can't change the basis-for-comparison in mid-flow, to suit ones argument.

My wider concern is that, despite occasional protestations from various PTP-luminaries that there will be a national Referendum on any new Charter, the government might instead try to ram through their own amendments via a vote in parliament, which I (and I suspect others) would see as profoundly undemocratic. The election was not a final vote on Thaksin's return, or a new Charter.

Which is where any suggestion that the current Constitution is somehow less voter-supported, than the governments own claim to power, starts to become relevant. It would have been wonderful if more people had exercised their right/duty to vote in 2007, it would be good if they get the opportunity again this time round, small steps towards a stronger democracy.

The ideal might be a yes/no vote on allowing Thaksin to return, with a full-amnesty and all charges dropped, and a second separate referendum on whether or not to adopt a revised-constitution, I don't expect this to happen.

[tlansford]

No you didn't say 33% but that was the same level of support that the constitution got for the Yes vote. Some coincidence, huh?

But The PTP got 48% of the available electorate vote hence my question where does the 33% come from - you can't blame the PTP for the rest of the electorate not voting - who knows where their vote would have gone?

The referendum had 2 choices to vote for not 10 so you cannot compare the referendum with the election.

Just admit you got it wrong, no need to continue to wriggle, it's demeaning in an experienced poster like yourself.

You started out with "eligible voting population", then went on to "Valid votes" in the aide memoire , now it's suddenly "available electorate vote", jeez you're embarrassing yourself here.

Enough already.

excuse me Ricardo - ppd didn't get anything wrong, so to speak. He make the point about the referendum and nothing else. You compared his statement to the general election. That's all.

The two can't be compared (meaningfully) anyway.

Thanks for your thoughtful post #92 on this.

Perhaps I was slightly hasty in my reply above, if so then I apologise for that, but it seems obvious that if one is to try and compare the two, then the same basis-for-comparison must be applied. Or any comparison would indeed be meaningless. Which is why my first reply to phiphidon's original-post was very clear that I was trying to compare like-for-like.

And one can't change the basis-for-comparison in mid-flow, to suit ones argument.

My wider concern is that, despite occasional protestations from various PTP-luminaries that there will be a national Referendum on any new Charter, the government might instead try to ram through their own amendments via a vote in parliament, which I (and I suspect others) would see as profoundly undemocratic. The election was not a final vote on Thaksin's return, or a new Charter.

Which is where any suggestion that the current Constitution is somehow less voter-supported, than the governments own claim to power, starts to become relevant. It would have been wonderful if more people had exercised their right/duty to vote in 2007, it would be good if they get the opportunity again this time round, small steps towards a stronger democracy.

The ideal might be a yes/no vote on allowing Thaksin to return, with a full-amnesty and all charges dropped, and a second separate referendum on whether or not to adopt a revised-constitution, I don't expect this to happen.

Hi Ricardo - a comparison, when attempted, does need to be on the same basis. The turnout for the referendum was some what lower compared to the general election, but I already mentioned why I think they can not be compared.

Back in February, is started to look like the referendum will not be the way that Thaksin is able to return - purely my observation, but I don't think that the referendum will be his "answer".

I think that the charter changes will move forward, and maybe even "cleanse" some of Thanksin's sins as it were, but I do not think that all of his issues will be resolved through the charter changes.

So I expect the second part of your conclusion to be the default - a charter referendum which does not absolve Thaksin of all of his charges. I can't imagine any referendum / vote or otherwise public deal that will be a solution for Thaksin. That, it seems, will remain a back-room issue.

But hey - let's see what happens.

PS: IMO, the writing of and the referendum process for the 2007 constitution was a shame, and the Thai people have every right and reason to revisit this now in an open debate and a democratic process.

[phiphidon]

No you didn't say 33% but that was the same level of support that the constitution got for the Yes vote. Some coincidence, huh?

But The PTP got 48% of the available electorate vote hence my question where does the 33% come from - you can't blame the PTP for the rest of the electorate not voting - who knows where their vote would have gone?

The referendum had 2 choices to vote for not 10 so you cannot compare the referendum with the election.

Just admit you got it wrong, no need to continue to wriggle, it's demeaning in an experienced poster like yourself.

You started out with "eligible voting population", then went on to "Valid votes" in the aide memoire , now it's suddenly "available electorate vote", jeez you're embarrassing yourself here.

Enough already.

I'm fine with enough - when you next wish to discuss something please try and remember what you post.

[tlansford]

Are you trying to tell me that these 'Red villages' were build in the last 3/4 years?

I think you've just proved my point, you really don't know do you? The "red shirt villages" are not pieces of real estate built by UDD friendly developers <deleted>!

Do a bit of research and then come back and tell me my arguments are "weak", but don't bother too soon, will you.

I actually know quite well what I am talking about as I live in one these 'Red villages' most of my time. And that village has been around for quite some time now, way back before the referendum we were discussing. The people in this village were already fervent Thaksin/TRT supporters. Nothing new here.

So now please stop side tracking and explain (my initial point) why the present Constitution is unconstitutional and did not come forth through a democratic process. Your demand of me doing some research is nothing but pathetic, and indeed very weak. Just answer the question and please show me the references as you are so keen on doing research.

KireB is correct. Just because the 'Red Village Network' wasn't actual called earlier, that doesn't mean they were not predominantly Red Villages by all but name. The Name and Network change was a way to solidify gains made already, and increasing block any dissenting voices in those villages. It was a way of connecting existing Red Villages and putting fear in those around to join or be isolated.

Reconciliation for Thaksin is forcing all dissenters to bow down, and move over to HIS SIDE of the leger sheet tally of politically dominated villages. When promises of future largesse, don't work the totally indoctrinated can be counted on to increase intimidation in their areas.

You state "name & network" change as if to agree that the red shirt villages existed already and this is just re-branding, so to speak.

If that was your intention, then I would claim that you are wrong. If it was not, then I apologize, as it is not my intention to put words in your mouth, just to interpret what I read.

Now, ... While it is clear that Isaan was a political stronghold for the TRT, PPP, and now for the PTP, nothing at all like the red shirt villages existed much before the election run-up last year. Before the election, there were, what, about 400, and now there are something over 10,000 if my memory serves me correctly.

As for your claim "increasing (sic) block any dissenting voices in those villages", I would guess that you might be able to produce some reports/links from red shirt villages that would be examples of systematic suppression, or perhaps something to substantiate your claim regarding the "totally indoctrinated can be counted on to increase intimidation" - you know, something more solid than "well it's obvious, and if you can't see it, then you are just a Thaksin-hugging, red shirt sympathizer... "

Know what I mean?

[KireB]

The Name and Network change was a way to solidify gains made already, and increasing block any dissenting voices in those villages. It was a way of connecting existing Red Villages and putting fear in those around to join or be isolated.

Reconciliation for Thaksin is forcing all dissenters to bow down, and move over to HIS SIDE of the leger sheet tally of politically dominated villages. When promises of future largesse, don't work the totally indoctrinated can be counted on to increase intimidation in their areas.

You state "name & network" change as if to agree that the red shirt villages existed already and this is just re-branding, so to speak.

If that was your intention, then I would claim that you are wrong. If it was not, then I apologize, as it is not my intention to put words in your mouth, just to interpret what I read.

Now, ... While it is clear that Isaan was a political stronghold for the TRT, PPP, and now for the PTP, nothing at all like the red shirt villages existed much before the election run-up last year. Before the election, there were, what, about 400, and now there are something over 10,000 if my memory serves me correctly.

As for your claim "increasing (sic) block any dissenting voices in those villages", I would guess that you might be able to produce some reports/links from red shirt villages that would be examples of systematic suppression, or perhaps something to substantiate your claim regarding the "totally indoctrinated can be counted on to increase intimidation" - you know, something more solid than "well it's obvious, and if you can't see it, then you are just a Thaksin-hugging, red shirt sympathizer... "

Know what I mean?

Dear tlandsford you are making the wrong assumption that the concept of Red villages, Red shirt movement, UDD, TRT, PT, Chiang Rai 51, Udon group of whatever, is about the people who are supposedly supporting them: the hardworking poor Phrai! It's not,bogus (!), it's all about the corrupt political dynasty that has been in place for at least a decade and wanted its power back! Not just the top, no all the way down to moo ban level! And they got it, so far that is! Old elite (amart) versus new elite (amart), is this 'gang war' called.

They couldn't care less whether their leader is called Khun Thaksin, Pinochet, Mugabe or Don Corleone! Google the names of those heroic democratic warriors that hang around their beloved leader named Khun Thaksin. Most of them are plain criminals! Thaksin stands for, most arguably, one of the purest forms of government-maffias i have read about in years. Feudal and corrupt to the core!

edit: spelling

Edited April 16, 2012 by KireB

[tlansford]

The Name and Network change was a way to solidify gains made already, and increasing block any dissenting voices in those villages. It was a way of connecting existing Red Villages and putting fear in those around to join or be isolated.

Reconciliation for Thaksin is forcing all dissenters to bow down, and move over to HIS SIDE of the leger sheet tally of politically dominated villages. When promises of future largesse, don't work the totally indoctrinated can be counted on to increase intimidation in their areas.

You state "name & network" change as if to agree that the red shirt villages existed already and this is just re-branding, so to speak.

If that was your intention, then I would claim that you are wrong. If it was not, then I apologize, as it is not my intention to put words in your mouth, just to interpret what I read.

Now, ... While it is clear that Isaan was a political stronghold for the TRT, PPP, and now for the PTP, nothing at all like the red shirt villages existed much before the election run-up last year. Before the election, there were, what, about 400, and now there are something over 10,000 if my memory serves me correctly.

As for your claim "increasing (sic) block any dissenting voices in those villages", I would guess that you might be able to produce some reports/links from red shirt villages that would be examples of systematic suppression, or perhaps something to substantiate your claim regarding the "totally indoctrinated can be counted on to increase intimidation" - you know, something more solid than "well it's obvious, and if you can't see it, then you are just a Thaksin-hugging, red shirt sympathizer... "

Know what I mean?

Dear tlandsford you are making the wrong assumption that the concept of Red villages, Red shirt movement, UDD, TRT, PT, Chiang Rai 51, Udon group of whatever, is about the people who are supposedly supporting them: the hardworking poor Phrai! It's not,bogus (!), it's all about the corrupt political dynasty that has been in place for at least a decade and wanted its power back! Not just the top, no all the way down to moo ban level! And they got it, so far that is! Old elite (amart) versus new elite (amart), is this 'gang war' called.

They couldn't care less whether their leader is called Khun Thaksin, Pinochet, Mugabe or Don Corleone! Google the names of those heroic democratic warriors that hang around their beloved leader named Khun Thaksin. Most of them are plain criminals! Thaksin stands for, most arguably, one of the purest forms of government-maffias i have read about in years. Feudal and corrupt to the core!

edit: spelling

The history of the red shirt movement and the UDD which began after the coup and as a reaction to the coup would suggest otherwise.

The fact that the local leaders in each small Thai village are the same ones today as they were 10 years ago when Thailand first elected the TRT is perhaps what you are referring to. But then that is the same in the "blue" south as it is in the "red" north.

Anyway, it would still be interesting to see some kind of data that justifies Animatic's sweeping claims about the evils of red shirt villages, not to mention how that might be different in the deep south of Thailand.

[volk666]

...

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.[2]

...

http://en.wikipedia....and#Campaigning

That wiki statement is obscuring the reality, there was a public discussion on the pros and cons of the proposed constitution and both sides had their arguments presented by the media.

What was prohibited is "using influence" to "persuade voters", the restriction that didn't cover paid advertisements in national newspapers, for example.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Anyway, it would still be interesting to see some kind of data that justifies Animatic's sweeping claims about the evils of red shirt villages, not to mention how that might be different in the deep south of Thailand.

The deep South lacks an understanding in things Thai and red-shirt type of democracy. Really shocking, I must admit.

May I join k. Thaksin in hailing signs of reconciliation ? The posts of a few members here seem to accurately indicate the level we've already managed to reach.

[nurofiend]

...

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.[2]

...

http://en.wikipedia....and#Campaigning

That wiki statement is obscuring the reality, there was a public discussion on the pros and cons of the proposed constitution and both sides had their arguments presented by the media.

What was prohibited is "using influence" to "persuade voters", the restriction that didn't cover paid advertisements in national newspapers, for example.

do you think it was done fairly?

Edited April 16, 2012 by nurofiend

[backtonormal]

Campaigning to vote "no" to 2007 constitution wasn't illegal and was actually quite successful. In Isan, for example, "no" votes far outweighted "yes".

The fact that only 33% of eligible voters approved of it doesn't mean anything - as people pointed out here PTP got over 50% of parliament seats on the same percentage of eligible voters, with only about a third of voting population that voted for them.

PTP also got over 50% of seats even if less than 50% of people who went to the polling stations voted for their candidates. After the previous elections they were similarly overrepresented and no one complained.

Such are the arithmetics of "democracy".

Personally have no faith in the last election figures after 7,000,000 extra ballot papers were printed. Why was the dusit poll so accurate all over the country and so wrong around Bangkok. Heard it after the election that Bangkok polls were rigged because it the thing the Dems had to hold onto to spout that <deleted> that the éducation middle classes voted for us' . Dont be asking me for a link or a source because it was told in a personal conversation

[letitbe]

who cares i dont ive given up caring after 17 years. Ive put a lot of money here and made a lot but nows time for out Taksin will ruin this country more than all corrupt generals PM's and rest and those who cant see him for what he is need new glasses. You can debate reds versus yellows until cows come home but I now will admit Taksin is as clever as Borgius of ROme as corrupt as all tin pot dictators and will in end probably manage to totally destroy this country. Those who can see real truth and are able will get what they can out the masses will just suffer as those in Cambodia Zimbabwie suffered and those sensible enough will have already made their preparations to safeguard their fmaily. Ive lived over 20 years + through Thailand's totally corrupt governments but never seen dangers which I now see for all people living here. Im prepared and if worst comes very sadly will leave at the right time and mourn those unable to do the same.

I certainly hope im wrong since id rather stay here but most of ops here have no idea of what is about to unfold.

[rubl]

Personally have no faith in the last election figures after 7,000,000 extra ballot papers were printed. Why was the dusit poll so accurate all over the country and so wrong around Bangkok. Heard it after the election that Bangkok polls were rigged because it the thing the Dems had to hold onto to spout that <deleted> that the éducation middle classes voted for us' . Dont be asking me for a link or a source because it was told in a personal conversation

This is what could be called starting an unfounded rumour which is against forum rules.

To take this rumour seriously for a moment, imagine, really try your best and imagine:

Out of 35M valid votes with Pheu Thai 15,7M and Dems 11,4M maybe 7M votes for the Dems are dummies! Only 27M voters actually voted, out of 45M. Unbelievable! Only 4.7M voters (worst case or best case) actually voted Dems. Really unbelievable! People down South stayed home I guess?

Edited April 16, 2012 by rubl

[volk666]

...

The junta passed a law that made criticism of the draft and opposition to the constitutional referendum a criminal act. Political parties were not allowed to persuade voters to cast ballots in favour or not in favour of the constitution. Any violators could be banned from politics for 5 years and jailed for 10 years.[2]

...

http://en.wikipedia....and#Campaigning

That wiki statement is obscuring the reality, there was a public discussion on the pros and cons of the proposed constitution and both sides had their arguments presented by the media.

What was prohibited is "using influence" to "persuade voters", the restriction that didn't cover paid advertisements in national newspapers, for example.

do you think it was done fairly?

What was done fairly? Writing that bit up on Wikipedia or campaigning for the constitution?

The campaign was fairly fair despite a handful of episodes mentioned in that wiki. Consider this, for example - the police confiscated 4,000 "no" posters but the incident was covered in the newspapers with circulation of hundreds of thousands of copies. Also note that the police didn't have an actual law to back up their actions despite what some people here want us to believe.

General elections receive hundreds and thousands of complaints like this, referendum was relatively clean.

[nurofiend]

What was done fairly? Writing that bit up on Wikipedia or campaigning for the constitution?

The campaign was fairly fair despite a handful of episodes mentioned in that wiki. Consider this, for example - the police confiscated 4,000 "no" posters but the incident was covered in the newspapers with circulation of hundreds of thousands of copies. Also note that the police didn't have an actual law to back up their actions despite what some people here want us to believe.

General elections receive hundreds and thousands of complaints like this, referendum was relatively clean.

yes, i meant the run up to the constitution referendum.

fairly fair, ok then.

[phiphidon]

begin removed ...

Anyway, it would still be interesting to see some kind of data that justifies Animatic's sweeping claims about the evils of red shirt villages, not to mention how that might be different in the deep south of Thailand.

The deep South lacks an understanding in things Thai and red-shirt type of democracy. Really shocking, I must admit.

May I join k. Thaksin in hailing signs of reconciliation ? The posts of a few members here seem to accurately indicate the level we've already managed to reach.

I wasn't aware that TV members were part of the reconciliation process, did I miss something?

[Insight]

begin removed ...

Anyway, it would still be interesting to see some kind of data that justifies Animatic's sweeping claims about the evils of red shirt villages, not to mention how that might be different in the deep south of Thailand.

The deep South lacks an understanding in things Thai and red-shirt type of democracy. Really shocking, I must admit.

May I join k. Thaksin in hailing signs of reconciliation ? The posts of a few members here seem to accurately indicate the level we've already managed to reach.

I wasn't aware that TV members were part of the reconciliation process, did I miss something?

Neither is anybody who opposes amnesty, it seems.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Anyway, it would still be interesting to see some kind of data that justifies Animatic's sweeping claims about the evils of red shirt villages, not to mention how that might be different in the deep south of Thailand.

The deep South lacks an understanding in things Thai and red-shirt type of democracy. Really shocking, I must admit.

May I join k. Thaksin in hailing signs of reconciliation ? The posts of a few members here seem to accurately indicate the level we've already managed to reach.

I wasn't aware that TV members were part of the reconciliation process, did I miss something?

The first reply which came to mind I'll spare you from. Let's just say I will not presume you missed something.

As for the part of my post you wonder about, it's a way of saying in English. It's like a bobby walking up to some hooligans and saying "Well, we do have a bit of fun here, don't we?" without in the least suggesting he might partake in the fun.

Most TV members are not part of the Thai reconciliation process, doesn't stop anyone from posting. If you think to even suggest this in a slightly sarcastic way, you do may have missed some though.

May I use the opportunity to suggest you contemplate the usefulness of a self-imposted exile from it all and TV in particular ?

Edited April 17, 2012 by rubl

[phiphidon]

begin removed ...

Anyway, it would still be interesting to see some kind of data that justifies Animatic's sweeping claims about the evils of red shirt villages, not to mention how that might be different in the deep south of Thailand.

The deep South lacks an understanding in things Thai and red-shirt type of democracy. Really shocking, I must admit.

May I join k. Thaksin in hailing signs of reconciliation ? The posts of a few members here seem to accurately indicate the level we've already managed to reach.

I wasn't aware that TV members were part of the reconciliation process, did I miss something?

The first reply which came to mind I'll spare you from. Let's just say I will not presume you missed something.

As for the part of my post you wonder about, it's a way of saying in English. It's like a bobby walking up to some hooligans and saying "Well, we do have a bit of fun here, don't we?" without in the least suggesting he might partake in the fun.

Most TV members are not part of the Thai reconciliation process, doesn't stop anyone from posting. If you think to even suggest this in a slightly sarcastic way, you do may have missed some though.

May I use the opportunity to suggest you contemplate the usefulness of a self-imposted exile from it all and TV in particular ?

Why would I take a self imposed exile at your suggestion rubl? Weren't you harping on about freedom of speech so very recently?

ps.You've got very personal in the past couple of months, I'm worried about your stress levels. Insults, no matter how veiled in little smiley faces really aren't the way to go, it just puts on a level with some of your fellow posters.

[rubl]

The deep South lacks an understanding in things Thai and red-shirt type of democracy. Really shocking, I must admit.

May I join k. Thaksin in hailing signs of reconciliation ? The posts of a few members here seem to accurately indicate the level we've already managed to reach.

I wasn't aware that TV members were part of the reconciliation process, did I miss something?

The first reply which came to mind I'll spare you from. Let's just say I will not presume you missed something.

As for the part of my post you wonder about, it's a way of saying in English. It's like a bobby walking up to some hooligans and saying "Well, we do have a bit of fun here, don't we?" without in the least suggesting he might partake in the fun.

Most TV members are not part of the Thai reconciliation process, doesn't stop anyone from posting. If you think to even suggest this in a slightly sarcastic way, you do may have missed some though.

May I use the opportunity to suggest you contemplate the usefulness of a self-imposted exile from it all and TV in particular ?

Why would I take a self imposed exile at your suggestion rubl? Weren't you harping on about freedom of speech so very recently?

ps.You've got very personal in the past couple of months, I'm worried about your stress levels. Insults, no matter how veiled in little smiley faces really aren't the way to go, it just puts on a level with some of your fellow posters.

I didn't say you should go into self-imposed exile, I just politely suggested you might want to contemplate the usefullness. You seems so absent at the moment missing things even when written in rather plain English. I worry about your state of mind in all this.

As for getting personal, you might mean more surgically in analysis. That might hurt, but may help in the long run. Ask any doctor.

If you really think friendly banter should be banned from this forum, I'm afraid it would not only become a dull place, but would be sliding down a very slippery slope. Like the increased internet censorship by the PM Yingluck government.

[phiphidon]

I didn't say you should go into self-imposed exile, I just politely suggested you might want to contemplate the usefullness. You seems so absent at the moment missing things even when written in rather plain English. I worry about your state of mind in all this.

As for getting personal, you might mean more surgically in analysis. That might hurt, but may help in the long run. Ask any doctor.

If you really think friendly banter should be banned from this forum, I'm afraid it would not only become a dull place, but would be sliding down a very slippery slope. Like the increased internet censorship by the PM Yingluck government.

Like the increased internet censorship by the PM Yingluck government.

Subsequently proved false.

[nurofiend]

I didn't say you should go into self-imposed exile, I just politely suggested you might want to contemplate the usefullness. You seems so absent at the moment missing things even when written in rather plain English. I worry about your state of mind in all this.

As for getting personal, you might mean more surgically in analysis. That might hurt, but may help in the long run. Ask any doctor.

If you really think friendly banter should be banned from this forum, I'm afraid it would not only become a dull place, but would be sliding down a very slippery slope. Like the increased internet censorship by the PM Yingluck government.

I didn't say you should go into self-imposed exile, I just politely suggested you might want to contemplate the usefullness.

[rubl]

I didn't say you should go into self-imposed exile, I just politely suggested you might want to contemplate the usefullness. You seems so absent at the moment missing things even when written in rather plain English. I worry about your state of mind in all this.

As for getting personal, you might mean more surgically in analysis. That might hurt, but may help in the long run. Ask any doctor.

If you really think friendly banter should be banned from this forum, I'm afraid it would not only become a dull place, but would be sliding down a very slippery slope. Like the increased internet censorship by the PM Yingluck government.

I didn't say you should go into self-imposed exile, I just politely suggested you might want to contemplate the usefullness.

In the same spirit, my dear fiend. If you don't cease and desist I will put you on the publicly accessable list of "my friends" here in this forum

[nurofiend]

I didn't say you should go into self-imposed exile, I just politely suggested you might want to contemplate the usefullness. You seems so absent at the moment missing things even when written in rather plain English. I worry about your state of mind in all this.

As for getting personal, you might mean more surgically in analysis. That might hurt, but may help in the long run. Ask any doctor.

If you really think friendly banter should be banned from this forum, I'm afraid it would not only become a dull place, but would be sliding down a very slippery slope. Like the increased internet censorship by the PM Yingluck government.

I didn't say you should go into self-imposed exile, I just politely suggested you might want to contemplate the usefullness.

In the same spirit, my dear fiend. If you don't cease and desist I will put you on the publicly accessable list of "my friends" here in this forum

now i'm not saying don't put me on your friends list but i just politely ask you to contemplate the usefullness of not doing so.

i wonder would that one work in a trial

i didn't tell him to murder the guy, I just politely suggested that he might want to contemplate the usefullness of the guy being murdered.

"case dismissed"