Thai Law Voiding Verdicts To Be Tabled

[phiphidon]

Good photo, don, but what's that in the background? Boys been doing a little fire-lighting have they?

I wouldn't know who was responsible for the fire but probably the red shirts themselves. If you read the associated text on the linked photos I posted you would have read that the red shirts set fire to tyres in the Lumpini "camp" to protect themselves from the army firing. You will also read that the soldiers fired through the smoke regardless that they couldn't see what they were firing at. It's known I believe as indiscriminate firing and certainly not in self defense as according to the ROE.

[cooked]

This country has been in upheaval with coups and power struggles since 1932 and it isn't a nice story. Every time this stuff happens, the rule of law loses its authority and the resulting instability and corruption leads to even more latent unrest.

Countries like Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, even Russia for example were constantly being torn apart by this kind of thing until a dictator appeared on the scene, these dictators were really evil but things stabilised. I have the feeling that PAD (people against democracy) would not object to something like this occurring here, it would, initially at least, be in their interests.

I fight every day against my increasingly frequent knee jerk reaction of thinking that Thais deserve what they get, that would be the easy way out, I could sit at a bar all day and mutter into my beer.

This could be one of the greatest nations in Asia. Thais aren't born disinterested in intellectual discourse, it gets inculcated into them. I notice that the Chinese have their own schools everywhere. Everything that I see around me I that I don't like I put down to lack of willingness to learn or lack of interest in learning or the lack of the means of being informed.

Ok I finished my rant.

[OzMick]

Good photo, don, but what's that in the background? Boys been doing a little fire-lighting have they?

I wouldn't know who was responsible for the fire but probably the red shirts themselves. If you read the associated text on the linked photos I posted you would have read that the red shirts set fire to tyres in the Lumpini "camp" to protect themselves from the army firing. You will also read that the soldiers fired through the smoke regardless that they couldn't see what they were firing at. It's known I believe as indiscriminate firing and certainly not in self defense as according to the ROE.

Pull the other one - tyres burning produce lots of black smoke not visible in that photo. How do you know that nobody was firing out - because the red shirts said so?

[gand]

Was Thaksin staying as PM after he was not approved not a coup as well? How would removing someone holding the PM office illegally be an illegal coup? Was the 2010 riots a failed illegal coup attempt?

A very good point.

Thaksin had resigned, after not being renewed as failed Acting PM,

because he screwed up the snap election. The Election commission on

the way to jail, for apparent collusion with his party no less.

His term as acting PM had expired.

He was not renewed, his Deputy PM became officially Acting PM

He unilaterally took back the Acting PM job, and called himself PM.

a week after he PUBLICLY RESIGNED. Saying " The country needs me."

but he NEVER returned to the palace for confirmation, likely sure he would be turned down,

or published his position in The Royal Gazzette as constitutionally required.

There was the obviously faked attempt to blow him up,

and create an SOE or martial law, which specifically was talked of.

Then he paraded himself at the UN as Thaliands Prime MInister,

when he legally was not. Something had to give;

Either his ego or something more forceful.

The 2009 and 2010 riots were blatant attempts at a coup from the street.

Obviously with hopes that water-mellon Army and police would stand up

to the other side if enough deaths occurred.

And now the whitewash of it all.

He had not resigned. He stated he was not going to seek the PM's post in the coming election, the October 15th 2006 election that was royally endorsed that you neglect to mention http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, . This date was later postponed because of a clash with Ramadan. The Senate selected 4 Senior Judges and a Deputy Attorney General on September 8th 2006 to become the new Election Commissioners. So all was going ahead for an election until the Coup..................

Your link says nothing of Thaksin not running, in fact it says: "Mr Thitinan said the decree strengthened Mr Thaksin's position in his efforts to win fresh legitimacy to govern." That does not sound like he is not running does it? And why should Thaksin illegally be allowed to remain as PM? Just because he refuses to relinquish the position. And what does ramadan have to do with anything? That is also not mentioned in your link.

[phiphidon]

Good photo, don, but what's that in the background? Boys been doing a little fire-lighting have they?

I wouldn't know who was responsible for the fire but probably the red shirts themselves. If you read the associated text on the linked photos I posted you would have read that the red shirts set fire to tyres in the Lumpini "camp" to protect themselves from the army firing. You will also read that the soldiers fired through the smoke regardless that they couldn't see what they were firing at. It's known I believe as indiscriminate firing and certainly not in self defense as according to the ROE.

Pull the other one - tyres burning produce lots of black smoke not visible in that photo. How do you know that nobody was firing out - because the red shirts said so?

It really is pointless trying to tell you anything. My post has been removed due to a copyrighted photo, fair enough. I am not going to write down all the links again as you don't bother to read them. If you had you would realise what I was talking about. But, no, you have a fixed idea in your head that it was Custers last stand in Lumpini Park and the soldiers on the outside were only firing at red shirts who were armed and anybody who was in the "camp" who was shot deserved to be.

Well as far as I am concerned that is just plain B/S. They shot at people in "live fire zones" which have never been used elsewhere, they used snipers, they shot journalists, medics, unarmed civilians, even people in the sancturary of a Wat so don't tell me they were a well disciplined army working under strict SOE's. They have previous.

[phiphidon]

Was Thaksin staying as PM after he was not approved not a coup as well? How would removing someone holding the PM office illegally be an illegal coup? Was the 2010 riots a failed illegal coup attempt?

A very good point.

Thaksin had resigned, after not being renewed as failed Acting PM,

because he screwed up the snap election. The Election commission on

the way to jail, for apparent collusion with his party no less.

His term as acting PM had expired.

He was not renewed, his Deputy PM became officially Acting PM

He unilaterally took back the Acting PM job, and called himself PM.

a week after he PUBLICLY RESIGNED. Saying " The country needs me."

but he NEVER returned to the palace for confirmation, likely sure he would be turned down,

or published his position in The Royal Gazzette as constitutionally required.

There was the obviously faked attempt to blow him up,

and create an SOE or martial law, which specifically was talked of.

Then he paraded himself at the UN as Thaliands Prime MInister,

when he legally was not. Something had to give;

Either his ego or something more forceful.

The 2009 and 2010 riots were blatant attempts at a coup from the street.

Obviously with hopes that water-mellon Army and police would stand up

to the other side if enough deaths occurred.

And now the whitewash of it all.

He had not resigned. He stated he was not going to seek the PM's post in the coming election, the October 15th 2006 election that was royally endorsed that you neglect to mention http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, . This date was later postponed because of a clash with Ramadan. The Senate selected 4 Senior Judges and a Deputy Attorney General on September 8th 2006 to become the new Election Commissioners. So all was going ahead for an election until the Coup..................

Your link says nothing of Thaksin not running, in fact it says: "Mr Thitinan said the decree strengthened Mr Thaksin's position in his efforts to win fresh legitimacy to govern." That does not sound like he is not running does it? And why should Thaksin illegally be allowed to remain as PM? Just because he refuses to relinquish the position. And what does ramadan have to do with anything? That is also not mentioned in your link.

The link was to qualify that the date of a new election was royally endorsed, i.e it was going to happen. Some posters on here deny the existence of just such an election. If you knew a bit about thai history other than you have read on here you wouldn't need the gaps filled in. Why do you think Ramadan is important? Do you realise that some Thai voters are Muslim?

[animatic]

Was Thaksin staying as PM after he was not approved not a coup as well? How would removing someone holding the PM office illegally be an illegal coup? Was the 2010 riots a failed illegal coup attempt?

A very good point.

Thaksin had resigned, after not being renewed as failed Acting PM,

because he screwed up the snap election. The Election commission on

the way to jail, for apparent collusion with his party no less.

His term as acting PM had expired.

He was not renewed, his Deputy PM became officially Acting PM

He unilaterally took back the Acting PM job, and called himself PM.

a week after he PUBLICLY RESIGNED. Saying " The country needs me."

but he NEVER returned to the palace for confirmation, likely sure he would be turned down,

or published his position in The Royal Gazzette as constitutionally required.

There was the obviously faked attempt to blow him up,

and create an SOE or martial law, which specifically was talked of.

Then he paraded himself at the UN as Thaliands Prime MInister,

when he legally was not. Something had to give;

Either his ego or something more forceful.

The 2009 and 2010 riots were blatant attempts at a coup from the street.

Obviously with hopes that water-mellon Army and police would stand up

to the other side if enough deaths occurred.

And now the whitewash of it all.

He had not resigned. He stated he was not going to seek the PM's post in the coming election, the October 15th 2006 election that was royally endorsed that you neglect to mention http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, . This date was later postponed because of a clash with Ramadan. The Senate selected 4 Senior Judges and a Deputy Attorney General on September 8th 2006 to become the new Election Commissioners. So all was going ahead for an election until the Coup..................

All wrong dude, I mean fantasy world wrong.

I was here, watched it unfold daily, first hand.

He had 90 days to run the election starting back in the winter.

This slate of election commissioners was months after he had resigned when his 90 days was up.

He was never reinstated, a week later, he unilaterally took the job back for himself.

But it never was officially and constitutionally authorized.

That is the point; legally he was not Acting PM on a second term.

He hadn't been the Prime Minister of Thailand since

he disolved Parliament and resigned to call the snap election.

Yes, the Oct 15 election was royally endorsed,

but Thaksin as Acting PM WAS NOT!

Which is the point.

Edited May 28, 2012 by animatic

[OzMick]

Good photo, don, but what's that in the background? Boys been doing a little fire-lighting have they?

I wouldn't know who was responsible for the fire but probably the red shirts themselves. If you read the associated text on the linked photos I posted you would have read that the red shirts set fire to tyres in the Lumpini "camp" to protect themselves from the army firing. You will also read that the soldiers fired through the smoke regardless that they couldn't see what they were firing at. It's known I believe as indiscriminate firing and certainly not in self defense as according to the ROE.

Pull the other one - tyres burning produce lots of black smoke not visible in that photo. How do you know that nobody was firing out - because the red shirts said so?

It really is pointless trying to tell you anything. My post has been removed due to a copyrighted photo, fair enough. I am not going to write down all the links again as you don't bother to read them. If you had you would realise what I was talking about. But, no, you have a fixed idea in your head that it was Custers last stand in Lumpini Park and the soldiers on the outside were only firing at red shirts who were armed and anybody who was in the "camp" who was shot deserved to be.

Well as far as I am concerned that is just plain B/S. They shot at people in "live fire zones" which have never been used elsewhere, they used snipers, they shot journalists, medics, unarmed civilians, even people in the sancturary of a Wat so don't tell me they were a well disciplined army working under strict SOE's. They have previous.

I really love Freudian slips. The SOE was a government response to a crisis situation. People ignoring orders issued under the SOE are considered to be criminal insurgents, and were treated as such. As for blind firing, where are all the female victims? Until the incident at the wat, not yet determined, they are as rare as hen's teeth.

[Moruya]

Good photo, don, but what's that in the background? Boys been doing a little fire-lighting have they?

I wouldn't know who was responsible for the fire but probably the red shirts themselves. If you read the associated text on the linked photos I posted you would have read that the red shirts set fire to tyres in the Lumpini "camp" to protect themselves from the army firing. You will also read that the soldiers fired through the smoke regardless that they couldn't see what they were firing at. It's known I believe as indiscriminate firing and certainly not in self defense as according to the ROE.

Pull the other one - tyres burning produce lots of black smoke not visible in that photo. How do you know that nobody was firing out - because the red shirts said so?

It really is pointless trying to tell you anything. My post has been removed due to a copyrighted photo, fair enough. I am not going to write down all the links again as you don't bother to read them. If you had you would realise what I was talking about. But, no, you have a fixed idea in your head that it was Custers last stand in Lumpini Park and the soldiers on the outside were only firing at red shirts who were armed and anybody who was in the "camp" who was shot deserved to be.

Well as far as I am concerned that is just plain B/S. They shot at people in "live fire zones" which have never been used elsewhere, they used snipers, they shot journalists, medics, unarmed civilians, even people in the sancturary of a Wat so don't tell me they were a well disciplined army working under strict SOE's. They have previous.

Red Shirts did nothing wrong.

Thaksin is a hero.

Yellow shirts are evil.

Abhisit is the devil

Blah blah blah.

Monorchism rules

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

[OzMick]

Red Shirts did nothing wrong.

Thaksin is a hero.

Yellow shirts are evil.

Abhisit is the devil

Blah blah blah.

Monorchism rules

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

Shouldn't that be monochromatism? Monorchism is something quite different.

Edited May 28, 2012 by OzMick

[birdpooguava]

Red Shirts did nothing wrong.

Thaksin is a hero.

Yellow shirts are evil.

Abhisit is the devil

Blah blah blah.

Monorchism rules

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

Shouldn't that be monochromatism? Monorchism is something quite different.

No Moruya is obviously suffering from monochism. Although I suspect he has none at all. LOL

[OzMick]

Red Shirts did nothing wrong.

Thaksin is a hero.

Yellow shirts are evil.

Abhisit is the devil

Blah blah blah.

Monorchism rules

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

Shouldn't that be monochromatism? Monorchism is something quite different.

No Moruya is obviously suffering from monochism. Although I suspect he has none at all. LOL

Better than anencephalic I suppose.

[Buchholz]

In Thailand it already requires that an MP must be a graduate, that has never been the case in most real democracies

I also believe that the requirement for an MP to be a graduate has been dropped.

Correct.

Just for the record, that requirement under the wonderful 1997 Constitution's Article 107(3) was not included in the evil 2007 Constitution.

Rumour that Banharn Silpa-archa only have Primary 4 education. That doesn't stop him from becoming a PM.

He was the Prime Minister of Thailand from July 13, 1995 – November 24, 1996 (prior to the 1997 Constitution).

.

[tlansford]

A guilty person who is wasting this much money, time, and human lives, just to clear his own tarnished name, is an arrogant and unrepentant wastrel. A guilty person who commits these actions at state-level in a poor developing-world nation that is socially and economically fragile at this time, is an uncaring despot.

He could have walked away with his stolen money & lived out his days in the type of luxury that most people can not even dream of, yet he hovers vulture-like over this nation, fermenting divisions, unbalancing people's lives, and uprooting the first green shoots of a fledgling democracy.

guess it seems to obvious to ask if that fledgling democracy was before or after the coup....

I think you are mistaking my comment about the state of democracy here for a partisan argument about my politics. I don't have a vote here & I'm as happy to criticise any party if they are breaching laws that protect normal citizens and the stability of the nation. Thailand does not & has never had a fully functioning democracy. I felt that there were hopeful green-shoots signs a few times over the years, but now I think we can start talking about autocracy under this regime.

I meant that all the pieces are here for a democracy, freedom of information and communication between citizens using print and digital, a voting system, police force, votes for women, etc. Why it is fledgling is because it is lawless and unregulated & the democratic process is currently hamstrung by this criminal leviathan who keeps surfacing from the depths to take bites out of the social fund.

I used the word fledgling democracy as it is commonly used, to describe the "baby steps" of a democracy that is yet to find its stable footing and walk on. The UK is not a perfect nation, but their long-established democracy and leaders are legally accountable and closely monitored by independant agencies. In the UK terminally ill people are not left out in the street to die, because of the NHS which protects the poor along democratic principles. Closing the NHS would be political suicide for anyone in a democracy, but for a dictator it would be a mere signature over his morning coffee.

This is the best hope & raison d'etre of democracy, it is not just about having a vote, it is literally the process of accountability, leaders have to stay within an acceptable radius of behaviour to get re-elected & to not get imprisoned. Democracy combined with free media is a social tool for normal people to keep the leaders on a choker-leash. Thailand does not have democracy for this reason.

This regime / familial crime oligarchy are basically wasting national funds and crucial time, to pass laws that pardon their friends, families and hired thugs for all crimes committed, while shelving the important & essential infrastructure-building work, but can still find time to fly overseas and whip-up a spicy salad for photo-shoots.

While it is clear that you do not like Thaksin and blame him for many of Thailand's ills, there is this comment, for example :

"but now I think we can start talking about autocracy under this regime."

which, when one looks at it, is wholly unbelievable. Especially since you point out the components of democracy which exist and function. I know that it is common for TVF to decry elections as "bought", but that is not actually the case. (http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html).

Generally, it must be acknowledged that elections delivered verifiable results and legitimate governments before and after the coup - even the constitutional crisis of 2006 was the result of elections, and more elections were scheduled before the coup in order to resolve that issue. On the other hand, both the coup and the democrats judicial coup delivered governments which were not chosen by the people. These are non-democratic moments in Thailand's history.

One does not need to appreciate Thaksin as a politician or a public figure. I do not. But that said, the current elected government enjoys the legitimacy of the Thai people and is governing as such. As long as there are no more coups & non-democratic maneuvers, the Thai people will likely continue to get the governments which they elect rather than those imposed upon them. This can include future PTP governments or other coalitions. That is up to the Thai people.

[waza]

Was Thaksin staying as PM after he was not approved not a coup as well? How would removing someone holding the PM office illegally be an illegal coup? Was the 2010 riots a failed illegal coup attempt?

A very good point.

Thaksin had resigned, after not being renewed as failed Acting PM,

because he screwed up the snap election. The Election commission on

the way to jail, for apparent collusion with his party no less.

His term as acting PM had expired.

He was not renewed, his Deputy PM became officially Acting PM

He unilaterally took back the Acting PM job, and called himself PM.

a week after he PUBLICLY RESIGNED. Saying " The country needs me."

but he NEVER returned to the palace for confirmation, likely sure he would be turned down,

or published his position in The Royal Gazzette as constitutionally required.

There was the obviously faked attempt to blow him up,

and create an SOE or martial law, which specifically was talked of.

Then he paraded himself at the UN as Thaliands Prime MInister,

when he legally was not. Something had to give;

Either his ego or something more forceful.

The 2009 and 2010 riots were blatant attempts at a coup from the street.

Obviously with hopes that water-mellon Army and police would stand up

to the other side if enough deaths occurred.

And now the whitewash of it all.

He had not resigned. He stated he was not going to seek the PM's post in the coming election, the October 15th 2006 election that was royally endorsed that you neglect to mention http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, . This date was later postponed because of a clash with Ramadan. The Senate selected 4 Senior Judges and a Deputy Attorney General on September 8th 2006 to become the new Election Commissioners. So all was going ahead for an election until the Coup..................

Sure sounds like he resigned...........

April 5 (Bloomberg) -- Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said he will step down as premier after his declared victory in a weekend election failed to resolve a political standoff that crippled his government.

Thaksin, 56, speaking in a live television broadcast in Bangkok late yesterday, said he will stay on as interim prime minister until a new leader is chosen, after meeting with the country's King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Thaksin said he will retain his leadership of the Thai Rak Thai party and remain a member of parliament. http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

Thaksin announced on 4 April 2006 that he would not accept the post of Prime Minister after Parliament reconvened, but would continue as Caretaker Prime Minister until then.^[136]

He then delegated his functions to Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Wannasathit, moved out of Government House, and went on vacation. http://en.wikipedia....ksin_Shinawatra

April 4 (Bloomberg) -- Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said he will step down from his position, 14 months after securing the most decisive election victory in the kingdom's democratic history.

Thaksin, 56, speaking in a live television broadcast at a press conference in Bangkok tonight, said he will stay on as interim prime minister until a new leader is chosen. He met with the country's King Bhumibol Adulyadej this afternoon. http://t2.thai360.co...prime-minister/

The reference you posted, http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, is interesting but what does it have to do with Thaksin resigning?

Edited May 28, 2012 by waza

[tlansford]

Was Thaksin staying as PM after he was not approved not a coup as well? How would removing someone holding the PM office illegally be an illegal coup? Was the 2010 riots a failed illegal coup attempt?

A very good point.

Thaksin had resigned, after not being renewed as failed Acting PM,

because he screwed up the snap election. The Election commission on

the way to jail, for apparent collusion with his party no less.

His term as acting PM had expired.

He was not renewed, his Deputy PM became officially Acting PM

He unilaterally took back the Acting PM job, and called himself PM.

a week after he PUBLICLY RESIGNED. Saying " The country needs me."

but he NEVER returned to the palace for confirmation, likely sure he would be turned down,

or published his position in The Royal Gazzette as constitutionally required.

There was the obviously faked attempt to blow him up,

and create an SOE or martial law, which specifically was talked of.

Then he paraded himself at the UN as Thaliands Prime MInister,

when he legally was not. Something had to give;

Either his ego or something more forceful.

The 2009 and 2010 riots were blatant attempts at a coup from the street.

Obviously with hopes that water-mellon Army and police would stand up

to the other side if enough deaths occurred.

And now the whitewash of it all.

He had not resigned. He stated he was not going to seek the PM's post in the coming election, the October 15th 2006 election that was royally endorsed that you neglect to mention http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, . This date was later postponed because of a clash with Ramadan. The Senate selected 4 Senior Judges and a Deputy Attorney General on September 8th 2006 to become the new Election Commissioners. So all was going ahead for an election until the Coup..................

All wrong dude, I mean fantasy world wrong.

I was here, watched it unfold daily, first hand.

He had 90 days to run the election starting back in the winter.

This slate of election commissioners was months after he had resigned when his 90 days was up.

He was never reinstated, a week later, he unilaterally took the job back for himself.

But it never was officially and constitutionally authorized.

That is the point; legally he was not Acting PM on a second term.

He hadn't been the Prime Minister of Thailand since

he disolved Parliament and resigned to call the snap election.

Yes, the Oct 15 election was royally endorsed,

but Thaksin as Acting PM WAS NOT!

Which is the point.

How is that the point?

What is the significance of Thaksin's status regarding a coup that tore up the constitution, canceled the elections and installed a military junta?

Fantasy world ??

[waza]

A guilty person who is wasting this much money, time, and human lives, just to clear his own tarnished name, is an arrogant and unrepentant wastrel. A guilty person who commits these actions at state-level in a poor developing-world nation that is socially and economically fragile at this time, is an uncaring despot.

He could have walked away with his stolen money & lived out his days in the type of luxury that most people can not even dream of, yet he hovers vulture-like over this nation, fermenting divisions, unbalancing people's lives, and uprooting the first green shoots of a fledgling democracy.

guess it seems to obvious to ask if that fledgling democracy was before or after the coup....

I think you are mistaking my comment about the state of democracy here for a partisan argument about my politics. I don't have a vote here & I'm as happy to criticise any party if they are breaching laws that protect normal citizens and the stability of the nation. Thailand does not & has never had a fully functioning democracy. I felt that there were hopeful green-shoots signs a few times over the years, but now I think we can start talking about autocracy under this regime.

I meant that all the pieces are here for a democracy, freedom of information and communication between citizens using print and digital, a voting system, police force, votes for women, etc. Why it is fledgling is because it is lawless and unregulated & the democratic process is currently hamstrung by this criminal leviathan who keeps surfacing from the depths to take bites out of the social fund.

I used the word fledgling democracy as it is commonly used, to describe the "baby steps" of a democracy that is yet to find its stable footing and walk on. The UK is not a perfect nation, but their long-established democracy and leaders are legally accountable and closely monitored by independant agencies. In the UK terminally ill people are not left out in the street to die, because of the NHS which protects the poor along democratic principles. Closing the NHS would be political suicide for anyone in a democracy, but for a dictator it would be a mere signature over his morning coffee.

This is the best hope & raison d'etre of democracy, it is not just about having a vote, it is literally the process of accountability, leaders have to stay within an acceptable radius of behaviour to get re-elected & to not get imprisoned. Democracy combined with free media is a social tool for normal people to keep the leaders on a choker-leash. Thailand does not have democracy for this reason.

This regime / familial crime oligarchy are basically wasting national funds and crucial time, to pass laws that pardon their friends, families and hired thugs for all crimes committed, while shelving the important & essential infrastructure-building work, but can still find time to fly overseas and whip-up a spicy salad for photo-shoots.

While it is clear that you do not like Thaksin and blame him for many of Thailand's ills, there is this comment, for example :

"but now I think we can start talking about autocracy under this regime."

which, when one looks at it, is wholly unbelievable. Especially since you point out the components of democracy which exist and function. I know that it is common for TVF to decry elections as "bought", but that is not actually the case. (http://www.voanews.c...034/141777.html).

Generally, it must be acknowledged that elections delivered verifiable results and legitimate governments before and after the coup - even the constitutional crisis of 2006 was the result of elections, and more elections were scheduled before the coup in order to resolve that issue. On the other hand, both the coup and the democrats judicial coup delivered governments which were not chosen by the people. These are non-democratic moments in Thailand's history.

One does not need to appreciate Thaksin as a politician or a public figure. I do not. But that said, the current elected government enjoys the legitimacy of the Thai people and is governing as such. As long as there are no more coups & non-democratic maneuvers, the Thai people will likely continue to get the governments which they elect rather than those imposed upon them. This can include future PTP governments or other coalitions. That is up to the Thai people.

Although I agree the present government is legitamate, I quest wether the previous Thaksin governments were.

Thaksin was accused of "policy corruption", such as infrastructure and liberalization policies that, while legal and a potential benefit to society, also aided companies that were owned by his family members.^[114] ........Supannee Chai-amporn and Sirinthip Arun-rue of the National Institute of Development Administration claimed that policy corruption caused the state to spend nearly 30 per cent more than it otherwise should have spent, costing the state an additional 400 billion baht. Other examples cited were the Board of Investment granting tax breaks worth a total of Bt16.4 billion to Shin Satellite for its iPSTAR project in 2003, and the Transport Ministry's decision the same year to abolish the minimum air fare of Bt3.8 /km when Shin Corp was about to enter into a joint venture with low-cost carrier AirAsia to open a Thai subsidiary.^{[115]..........................}

However, his government was increasingly accused of dictatorship, demagogy, corruption, conflicts of interest, human rights offences, acting undiplomatically, using legal loopholes and displaying hostility towards a free press. A highly controversial leader, he has also been the target of numerous allegations of lèse majesté, treason, usurping religious and royal authority, selling assets to international investors, and religious desecration.^[16][17]

The Constitutional Tribunal dissolved the Thai Rak Thai party for electoral fraud ex post facto, banning him and TRT's executives from politics for five years.^[19] ..............

Thaksin's government was accused of exerting political influence in its crackdown on unlicensed community radio stations, and Thaksin brought massive defamation suits against critical journalists.^[122][123]

Thaksin was also accused of interference when the Senate appointed Wisut Montriwat (former Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance) to the position of Auditor General, replacing Jaruvan Maintaka.^{[citation needed]}

Thaksin has been engaged in a series of lawsuits brought by American businessman William L. Monson regarding Thaksin's takeover of a cable-television joint venture the two partnered in during the 1980s.^{[citation needed]..................}Yet another round of by-elections on 29 April was scheduled for 13 constituencies. The Thai Rak Thai Party was later accused and found guilty of paying smaller parties to contest the election to fulfill the 20% rule, while the Democrat Party was accused of paying smaller parties not to. The by-elections were suspended by the Constitution Court while it deliberated whether to annul the main elections. In press interviews in exile, Thaksin was to insist on his technical majority.^[133]

http://en.wikipedia....ksin_Shinawatra

Edited May 28, 2012 by waza

[Moruya]

Red Shirts did nothing wrong.

Thaksin is a hero.

Yellow shirts are evil.

Abhisit is the devil

Blah blah blah.

Monorchism rules

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

Shouldn't that be monochromatism? Monorchism is something quite different.

I know what I said Mick

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

[pastitche]

Your view of democracy is simplistic and ignores its acknowledged inherent weaknesses. Democracy depends on an educated electorate capable of making rational decisions based on information made easily available by a free and critical media. If you think those conditions are met here you are delusional.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time." E. B. White

Ozmick you appear to be using a lot of quotations nowadays, did you get a book as a birthday present?

The struggle for universal suffrage was always opposed by those, like Churchill who came from a privileged background. I suggest you look more deeply at his time much earlier as Home Secretary rather than PM in WW11, to understand his political viewpoint.

The UK was dragged into allowing its masses to vote at a time when education was perhaps as poor as Thailand's, using rote learning, nationalism, imperial history, a culture of servility, leaving school at 11 years old, etc. In fact it was probably worse since there were far fewer sources of information than today.

That was changed by the mobilisation of the working classes by idealists such as Keir Hardie in the late 19th century.

I accept that there is, as far as I know, no Thai Keir Hardie but suggesting that voters must have a high level of education is nonsense. Power would never change hands since the legislators have the ability to decide upon how well the state education system operates and what is the level of education required to vote.

In Thailand it already requires that an MP must be a graduate, that has never been the case in most real democracies

Well aware that Churchill was a prize prick, but a great leader when needed.

I don't believe I said anything re a "high level" of education, though a better standard than that available in rural Thailand would certainly help. And I would expect that the UK had a higher degree of press freedom than available in Thailand during the Thaksin years, internet sure but not to many, and paid attendance at "democracy schools" peddling propaganda.

I also believe that the requirement for an MP to be a graduate has been dropped.

Not a book, Tropico

I don't have any axe to grind on this - the educational standards in the UK in the early years of the 20th century were appalling, literacy was low and the press were purely a tool of the ruling class, free from official censorship perhaps, but in no way impartial. That is why so many young men died in the trenches of Flanders and so many Aussies and Kiwis in Gallipoli and elsewhere, fighting out of patriotism for an imperial class who cared nothing for their sacrifice - on both sides. The Kaiser's grandmother was Queen Victoria.

The real difference in the mass movement of the Red Shirts and the working class in the UK at that time was that the UK was by then industrialised and the new kids on the block were the Trades Unions which did educate members in the ideas of socialism. Their approach was not all that different from the Red "democracy schools".

[waza]

Red Shirts did nothing wrong.

Thaksin is a hero.

Yellow shirts are evil.

Abhisit is the devil

Blah blah blah.

Monorchism rules

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

Shouldn't that be monochromatism? Monorchism is something quite different.

I know what I said Mick

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

You have an undecended testicle?

[phiphidon]

He had not resigned. He stated he was not going to seek the PM's post in the coming election, the October 15th 2006 election that was royally endorsed that you neglect to mention http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, . This date was later postponed because of a clash with Ramadan. The Senate selected 4 Senior Judges and a Deputy Attorney General on September 8th 2006 to become the new Election Commissioners. So all was going ahead for an election until the Coup..................

All wrong dude, I mean fantasy world wrong.

I was here, watched it unfold daily, first hand.

He had 90 days to run the election starting back in the winter.

This slate of election commissioners was months after he had resigned when his 90 days was up.

He was never reinstated, a week later, he unilaterally took the job back for himself.

But it never was officially and constitutionally authorized.

That is the point; legally he was not Acting PM on a second term.

He hadn't been the Prime Minister of Thailand since

he disolved Parliament and resigned to call the snap election.

Yes, the Oct 15 election was royally endorsed,

but Thaksin as Acting PM WAS NOT!

Which is the point.

It appears that Michael H Nelson, visiting scholar at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, disagrees with you. An extract from his paper;

"Thaksin Overthrown: Thailand’s “Well-Intentioned” Coup of September 19, 2006",

It took the Constitutional Court only until May 8, 2006, to follow His Majesty’s suggestion and annul the April election. On July 25, 2006, the Criminal Court sentenced the remaining three members (of the five, one had died in office and another had resigned) of the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) to unsuspended four-year prison terms for malfeasance in office while organizing the April election, and the King later signed an amended royal decree stipulating that new elections were to be held on October 15.

In an unprecedented gesture, the King unequivocally expressed his political will in a handwritten phratchakrasae (royal message) to Prime Minister Thaksin, attached to the royal decree. In this message, the King said that he had signed the amended decree because he wanted the nation swiftly to return to peace and order.Moreover, he wanted the election to proceed in a truly orderly, clean and fair manner

(Matichon, July 23, 2006: 13).

Finally, in keeping with the King’s guidelines to have the judiciary solve the political “mess,” the Senate, on September 8, 2006, selected four senior judges and one deputy attorney-general as the new election commissioners.

Everything seemed to proceed within the frame of reference suggested by the King. A small obstacle was that the election date would have to be postponed by one or two months, in order to give the new ECT members time to familiarize themselves with their new tasks. The political parties already had entered into campaign mode.

One big obstacle, though, could not be overcome: Thaksin Shinawatra, typically so proud of his fast thinking and decision making, endlessly hesitated to announce whether or not he would temporarily withdraw from politics. Even important factions within TRT thought that it would be better for Thaksin to make clear that he would not accept the position of prime minister after the election................

....................Whatever the case might be, Chaturon Chaisaeng, who took up the position of interim chairperson of TRT after Thaksin had resigned (from the TRT - added by phiphidon to save confusion), thought that Thaksin’s hesitation might have been an important reason for the coup. According to Chaturon, he had suggested to Thaksin that he take a break. Although Thaksin had thought about a solution to the crisis, he had been unable to decide when to make a declaration. “Today the impact [of his hesitation to decide] is too great. The medicine [they are using to cure the crisis] is too strong and beyond our thoughts. I’m not sure - if Thaksin had taken a break at that time - how the situation would be now,” Chaturon said (The Nation, Oct. 19, 2006).

http://www.eastasia....1/article01.pdf

Edited May 28, 2012 by phiphidon

[rubl]

No offence to any, we here have a visiting scholar at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Michael H Nelson, saying "In an unprecedented gesture, the King unequivocally expressed his political will in a handwritten phratchakrasae (royal message) to Prime Minister Thaksin, attached to the royal decree."

That's not the same as having authenticated that the handwritten note of H.M. the Kind indeed contained the phrase 'Prime Minister', nor if that particular title was used if it was more than simple politeness. I find it difficult to imagine H.M. the King would write in exact legal terms 'To our dear and well-beloved Prime Minister' or 'To our no longer legally in function as Prime Minister'.

After all this meaningless speculation, back to the topic 'Thai Law Voiding Verdict to be Tabled'. Right, as few people here already declared many times k. Thaksin our knight in shiny armour who is innocent, maligned, wrongly prosecuted, doesn't need a pardon. The pardon is only to absolve those poor misled figures who are truly guilty

[waza]

He had not resigned. He stated he was not going to seek the PM's post in the coming election, the October 15th 2006 election that was royally endorsed that you neglect to mention http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, . This date was later postponed because of a clash with Ramadan. The Senate selected 4 Senior Judges and a Deputy Attorney General on September 8th 2006 to become the new Election Commissioners. So all was going ahead for an election until the Coup..................

All wrong dude, I mean fantasy world wrong.

I was here, watched it unfold daily, first hand.

He had 90 days to run the election starting back in the winter.

This slate of election commissioners was months after he had resigned when his 90 days was up.

He was never reinstated, a week later, he unilaterally took the job back for himself.

But it never was officially and constitutionally authorized.

That is the point; legally he was not Acting PM on a second term.

He hadn't been the Prime Minister of Thailand since

he disolved Parliament and resigned to call the snap election.

Yes, the Oct 15 election was royally endorsed,

but Thaksin as Acting PM WAS NOT!

Which is the point.

It appears that Michael H Nelson, visiting scholar at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, disagrees with you. An extract from his paper;

"Thaksin Overthrown: Thailand’s “Well-Intentioned” Coup of September 19, 2006",

It took the Constitutional Court only until May 8, 2006, to follow His Majesty’s suggestion and annul the April election. On July 25, 2006, the Criminal Court sentenced the remaining three members (of the five, one had died in office and another had resigned) of the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) to unsuspended four-year prison terms for malfeasance in office while organizing the April election, and the King later signed an amended royal decree stipulating that new elections were to be held on October 15.

In an unprecedented gesture, the King unequivocally expressed his political will in a handwritten phratchakrasae (royal message) to Prime Minister Thaksin, attached to the royal decree. In this message, the King said that he had signed the amended decree because he wanted the nation swiftly to return to peace and order.Moreover, he wanted the election to proceed in a truly orderly, clean and fair manner

(Matichon, July 23, 2006: 13).

Finally, in keeping with the King’s guidelines to have the judiciary solve the political “mess,” the Senate, on September 8, 2006, selected four senior judges and one deputy attorney-general as the new election commissioners.

Everything seemed to proceed within the frame of reference suggested by the King. A small obstacle was that the election date would have to be postponed by one or two months, in order to give the new ECT members time to familiarize themselves with their new tasks. The political parties already had entered into campaign mode.

One big obstacle, though, could not be overcome: Thaksin Shinawatra, typically so proud of his fast thinking and decision making, endlessly hesitated to announce whether or not he would temporarily withdraw from politics. Even important factions within TRT thought that it would be better for Thaksin to make clear that he would not accept the position of prime minister after the election................

....................Whatever the case might be, Chaturon Chaisaeng, who took up the position of interim chairperson of TRT after Thaksin had resigned (from the TRT - added by phiphidon to save confusion), thought that Thaksin’s hesitation might have been an important reason for the coup. According to Chaturon, he had suggested to Thaksin that he take a break. Although Thaksin had thought about a solution to the crisis, he had been unable to decide when to make a declaration. “Today the impact [of his hesitation to decide] is too great. The medicine [they are using to cure the crisis] is too strong and beyond our thoughts. I’m not sure - if Thaksin had taken a break at that time - how the situation would be now,” Chaturon said (The Nation, Oct. 19, 2006).

http://www.eastasia....1/article01.pdf

the King unequivocally expressed his

political will in a handwritten phratchakrasae (royal message) to

Prime Minister Thaksin, attached to the royal decree.

Should be acting PM because he resigned in April

Everything seemed to proceed within the frame of reference

suggested by the King........ One big obstacle, though, could not be overcome: Thaksin

Shinawatra, typically so proud of his fast thinking and decisionmaking,

endlessly hesitated to announce whether or not he would

temporarily withdraw from politics. Even important factions within

TRT thought that it would be better for Thaksin to make clear that

he would not accept the position of prime minister after the

election. Maybe Thanong Khanthong was right when he headlined

his comment quoted above “Thaksin gambled and lost his shirt”

(The Nation, Oct. 2, 2006). Maybe Thaksin’s great pride and ego

prevented him from making a politically sensible decision. Or

maybe Thaksin did not realize that this was a situation he earlier

had described in the following words:

I’m the Ghengis Khan type of manager. When you start a

company, you need someone to propel it, to set a vision and

force everyone to work like barbarians. But after a certain

point you need a builder, who must be professional, so they

don’t need someone like me any more, who might push too

hard (quoted in McCargo and Ukrist 2005: 109; originally

from The Nation, Jan. 8, 2001).

http://www.eastasia....1/article01.pdf

Edited May 28, 2012 by waza

[phiphidon]

He had not resigned. He stated he was not going to seek the PM's post in the coming election, the October 15th 2006 election that was royally endorsed that you neglect to mention http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, . This date was later postponed because of a clash with Ramadan. The Senate selected 4 Senior Judges and a Deputy Attorney General on September 8th 2006 to become the new Election Commissioners. So all was going ahead for an election until the Coup..................

Sure sounds like he resigned...........

April 5 (Bloomberg) -- Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said he will step down as premier after his declared victory in a weekend election failed to resolve a political standoff that crippled his government.

Thaksin, 56, speaking in a live television broadcast in Bangkok late yesterday, said he will stay on as interim prime minister until a new leader is chosen, after meeting with the country's King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Thaksin said he will retain his leadership of the Thai Rak Thai party and remain a member of parliament. http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

Thaksin announced on 4 April 2006 that he would not accept the post of Prime Minister after Parliament reconvened, but would continue as Caretaker Prime Minister until then.^[136]

He then delegated his functions to Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Wannasathit, moved out of Government House, and went on vacation. http://en.wikipedia....ksin_Shinawatra

April 4 (Bloomberg) -- Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said he will step down from his position, 14 months after securing the most decisive election victory in the kingdom's democratic history.

Thaksin, 56, speaking in a live television broadcast at a press conference in Bangkok tonight, said he will stay on as interim prime minister until a new leader is chosen. He met with the country's King Bhumibol Adulyadej this afternoon. http://t2.thai360.co...prime-minister/

The reference you posted, http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, is interesting but what does it have to do with Thaksin resigning?

Read it again. You will notice things like the King adressing a hand written note to Prime Minister Thaksin at the same time as the royal decree was signed in July 2006, the long anecdote about Thaksin not making his mind up about whether to take a rest from Politics, his statement that he would not seek the PM's job should he win the October election, the fact that all political parties were actively campaigning for the October election all show that the coup took place between elections - even Abhisit stated that. The EC were blamed and imprisoned for the failed April Election and the King stepped in.

That is the point, there is nothing in there about Thaksin resigning because he didn't.

Perhaps this will help, from a website even anti Thaksin/Red Shirts approve of;

2006

I will not accept post of premier in the next government : Thaksin – The Nation, April 4, 2006

Thai premier to take “political break” – Reuters, April 4, 2006

[This incident in 2006 is more a case of the local press printing wildly inaccurate headlines. In this instance, Thaksin has not resigned, but simply pledged not to be PM in the next government. On the Bangkok Post website on April 4, 2006: The headline was "Thaksin: Why should I resign?" and directly to the right was the breaking news article entitled "THAKSIN RESIGNS."]

http://2bangkok.com/...-yet-again.html

[phiphidon]

No offence to any, we here have a visiting scholar at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Michael H Nelson, saying "In an unprecedented gesture, the King unequivocally expressed his political will in a handwritten phratchakrasae (royal message) to Prime Minister Thaksin, attached to the royal decree."

That's not the same as having authenticated that the handwritten note of H.M. the Kind indeed contained the phrase 'Prime Minister', nor if that particular title was used if it was more than simple politeness. I find it difficult to imagine H.M. the King would write in exact legal terms 'To our dear and well-beloved Prime Minister' or 'To our no longer legally in function as Prime Minister'.

After all this meaningless speculation, back to the topic 'Thai Law Voiding Verdict to be Tabled'. Right, as few people here already declared many times k. Thaksin our knight in shiny armour who is innocent, maligned, wrongly prosecuted, doesn't need a pardon. The pardon is only to absolve those poor misled figures who are truly guilty

Put him on your reading list, rubl, trust me it's worth it.

[bigbamboo]

Red Shirts did nothing wrong.

Thaksin is a hero.

Yellow shirts are evil.

Abhisit is the devil

Blah blah blah.

Monorchism rules

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

Shouldn't that be monochromatism? Monorchism is something quite different.

I know what I said Mick

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

So what happened to the black shirts then? Though as black isn't strictly a colour maybe they never existed at all.

[waza]

He had not resigned. He stated he was not going to seek the PM's post in the coming election, the October 15th 2006 election that was royally endorsed that you neglect to mention http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, . This date was later postponed because of a clash with Ramadan. The Senate selected 4 Senior Judges and a Deputy Attorney General on September 8th 2006 to become the new Election Commissioners. So all was going ahead for an election until the Coup..................

Sure sounds like he resigned...........

April 5 (Bloomberg) -- Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said he will step down as premier after his declared victory in a weekend election failed to resolve a political standoff that crippled his government.

Thaksin, 56, speaking in a live television broadcast in Bangkok late yesterday, said he will stay on as interim prime minister until a new leader is chosen, after meeting with the country's King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Thaksin said he will retain his leadership of the Thai Rak Thai party and remain a member of parliament. http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

Thaksin announced on 4 April 2006 that he would not accept the post of Prime Minister after Parliament reconvened, but would continue as Caretaker Prime Minister until then.^[136]

He then delegated his functions to Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Wannasathit, moved out of Government House, and went on vacation. http://en.wikipedia....ksin_Shinawatra

April 4 (Bloomberg) -- Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said he will step down from his position, 14 months after securing the most decisive election victory in the kingdom's democratic history.

Thaksin, 56, speaking in a live television broadcast at a press conference in Bangkok tonight, said he will stay on as interim prime minister until a new leader is chosen. He met with the country's King Bhumibol Adulyadej this afternoon. http://t2.thai360.co...prime-minister/

The reference you posted, http://app.mfa.gov.s....asp?View,4889, is interesting but what does it have to do with Thaksin resigning?

Read it again. You will notice things like the King adressing a hand written note to Prime Minister Thaksin at the same time as the royal decree was signed in July 2006, the long anecdote about Thaksin not making his mind up about whether to take a rest from Politics, his statement that he would not seek the PM's job should he win the October election, the fact that all political parties were actively campaigning for the October election all show that the coup took place between elections - even Abhisit stated that. The EC were blamed and imprisoned for the failed April Election and the King stepped in.

That is the point, there is nothing in there about Thaksin resigning because he didn't.

Perhaps this will help, from a website even anti Thaksin/Red Shirts approve of;

2006

I will not accept post of premier in the next government : Thaksin – The Nation, April 4, 2006

Thai premier to take “political break” – Reuters, April 4, 2006

[This incident in 2006 is more a case of the local press printing wildly inaccurate headlines. In this instance, Thaksin has not resigned, but simply pledged not to be PM in the next government. On the Bangkok Post website on April 4, 2006: The headline was "Thaksin: Why should I resign?" and directly to the right was the breaking news article entitled "THAKSIN RESIGNS."]

http://2bangkok.com/...-yet-again.html

Ok so you have 1 one article that provides no proof except Michael H. Nelson'sa word that Thaksin was PM in june 2006 when even Thaksin himself says he resigned in April 2006.........

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra announced he would step down to reunite the country, following weeks of mass protests demanding his resignation and a controversial election which the opposition boycotted.

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra reacts to a question during a press conference at Government House in Bangkok. Thaksin announced he would step down to reunite the country, following weeks of mass protests demanding his resignation and a controversial election which the opposition boycotted.[AFP]

The former telecoms tycoon made the announcement in a 10-minute televised live statement just hours after meeting the nation's revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej and after his political rivals rejected any compromise.

"I will not accept the post of prime minister when the parliament convenes," said Thaksin.

"My reason for not accepting the post of prime minister is because this year in an auspicious year for the king, whose 60th anniversary on the throne is just 60 days away," he said.

"I beg all Thais to sacrifice for the king. I apologize to my 16 million supporters that I cannot take the post of prime minister."

Thaksin said he would carry on as caretaker until a successor was chosen, and would remain a member of parliament and leader of the Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais) party.

He hugged his daughters and wept on their shoulders after the statement.

Protests demanding Thaksin's resignation began in February after his family made 1.9 billion dollars tax free from selling their shares in Shin Corp., the telecoms firm he founded before entering politics. http://www.chinadail...tent_560290.htm

and.........

April 5 (Bloomberg) -- Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said he will step down as premier after his declared victory in a weekend election failed to resolve a political standoff that crippled his government.

Thaksin, 56, speaking in a live television broadcast in Bangkok late yesterday, said he will stay on as interim prime minister until a new leader is chosen, after meeting with the country's King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Thaksin said he will retain his leadership of the Thai Rak Thai party and remain a member of parliament.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

Who would you believe?

Edited May 28, 2012 by waza

[rubl]

As suggested by that nice chap and esteemed member phiphidon, I have done some reading of Michael H. Nelson's work. Some indeed very omnious, like this from December 2005, only the begin copied, follow the link for the complete article.

"Thailand and Thaksin Shinawatra: From Election Triumph to Political Decline

by Michael H. Nelson

eastasia.at

Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2005

ISSN 1684-629X

Before the latest general election on 6 February 2005, critical political observers had perceived Thailand's incumbent prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, as a threat to the country's fledgling democracy.[ii] It seemed that (for reasons of centralizing personal power) he did not accept the democratic rules of the game, but rather tried to narrow down the public political space, infiltrate the constitutional checks-and-balances system, and control the public access to information regarding the government's performance. This was accompanied by the implementation of a multitude of 'populist' policies that accrued tangible benefits to the great majority of voters. They repaid Thaksin's performance at the helm of government with an overwhelming election triumph. Even the voters in Bangkok, who were considered politically sophisticated and thus perhaps inclined to counter any authoritarian tendencies, convincingly backed Thaksin. Only the South withheld support, largely because of the government's mishandling of the Muslim insurgency, such as the incidents at Krue Se mosque and the Tak Bai police station, which cost dozens of lives.

Corruption and cronyism

With a majority of 375 to 125 seats in the House of Representatives, one could thus have expected the continued smooth running of the country by following Thai Rak Thai's election slogan 'Four years of repairs – four years of construction.' It is all the more surprising that, at the end of 2005, Thaksin's rule seems to rest on shaky grounds."

http://www.eastasia....2/article01.htm

[gand]

As suggested by that nice chap and esteemed member phiphidon, I have done some reading of Michael H. Nelson's work. Some indeed very omnious, like this from December 2005, only the begin copied, follow the link for the complete article.

"Thailand and Thaksin Shinawatra: From Election Triumph to Political Decline

by Michael H. Nelson

eastasia.at

Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2005

ISSN 1684-629X

Before the latest general election on 6 February 2005, critical political observers had perceived Thailand's incumbent prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, as a threat to the country's fledgling democracy.[ii] It seemed that (for reasons of centralizing personal power) he did not accept the democratic rules of the game, but rather tried to narrow down the public political space, infiltrate the constitutional checks-and-balances system, and control the public access to information regarding the government's performance. This was accompanied by the implementation of a multitude of 'populist' policies that accrued tangible benefits to the great majority of voters. They repaid Thaksin's performance at the helm of government with an overwhelming election triumph. Even the voters in Bangkok, who were considered politically sophisticated and thus perhaps inclined to counter any authoritarian tendencies, convincingly backed Thaksin. Only the South withheld support, largely because of the government's mishandling of the Muslim insurgency, such as the incidents at Krue Se mosque and the Tak Bai police station, which cost dozens of lives.

Corruption and cronyism

With a majority of 375 to 125 seats in the House of Representatives, one could thus have expected the continued smooth running of the country by following Thai Rak Thai's election slogan 'Four years of repairs – four years of construction.' It is all the more surprising that, at the end of 2005, Thaksin's rule seems to rest on shaky grounds."

http://www.eastasia....2/article01.htm

oops

[Yunla]

While it is clear that you do not like Thaksin and blame him for many of Thailand's ills, there is this comment, for example :

"but now I think we can start talking about autocracy under this regime."

which, when one looks at it, is wholly unbelievable. Especially since you point out the components of democracy which exist and function.

Yes as I said in my earlier post, Thailand *could* be a democracy today if it wasn't for government nepotism, larceny & oligarchy. Those things are anti-democracy, democracy meaning the common man in the street is no different from the PM who is merely representing said common man. Meritocracy being the highest form of democracy, meaning the people most able & hard-working get the job. Yingluck? Really? She is meritocratically the single most politically-able and hard-working person in Thailand?

My comment on autocracy meant just that - rule by one individual. He hangs like a spectre over this whole government. Just like before he got kicked out of power and found guilty by the Supreme Court for the handful of charges they actually tagged him with, of which I'm sure they were the very tip of his crime iceberg, he was a shameless undemocratic nepotist, giving jobs to his family at the very top of society and government, like a little Shin family bird-nest in the loftiest boughs of the social tree. How truly democratic of him.

The current PM got the job by carrying his family name and her campaign funded by his (stolen) billions. That is not democracy. That is autocracy. She serves his interests. He is still the boss. They got votes for him by proxy, by bribing & by promising a new dawn stuffed full of untold riches to extremely poor people, who are now even poorer today as they are once again in the grip of an uncaring billionaire crook. The nepotism continues now the same as when he wasn't fugitive, with top jobs for the whole famly.

To answer your other point about me "not liking Thaksin" I don't like or dislike him especially, he is just another dangerous fleeing criminal, he is less than me in so many ways I do not even deign to like him or not, I just think he should be in prison where he belongs & that Thai people should be given new progressive candidates who are not related to corrupt former leaders or funded by crime.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Yunla