Yellow Shirt Protests Force House To Adjourn Indefinitely

[Bagwan]

Yes. Thaksin loose face again.

So what? He can always use his other one.

I have a name for Thaksin and his clan of followers. It would be recognised by many Brits, especially those who served in the RN. It is 'kipper' signifying being two faced and having no guts.

[Docno]

Let's look at the figures....

Thailand elections 2011, PTP won 48.41% of the popular vote (with a 75% turnout)

Obama won 52.9% of the popular vote (with a 63% turnout... Very high for the US)

George W Bush won 47.9% of the popular vote for his first term

Bill Clinton won 43% of the popular vote for his first term

David Cameron's party won 36% of the popular vote in the last UK elections

So however you want to slice it -- and however much you may not like it -- the PTP put in a pretty good showing as far as election results are concerned. They might not have achieved a simple majority but they came dam_n close, and they did better than a lot of other governments whose legitimacy we don't question. So it's time to stop questioning whether they have a mandate to legislate. I wish the PAD could understand this...

Oh yeah, I should have mentioned that the Dems won only 35% of the popular vote in the last Thai general election... Quite far behind the PTP.

Which means, nonet got a majority of the electorate's votes.

Yes, and if you saw my earlier post you'd know my point was that simple majorities arent that common in democracies except where runoff elections are held. Clinton and George W both had presidencies with a smaller percentage of the vote than Yingluck. And the turnout in US elections tends to be much lower than in Thai elections. Yingluck has a stronger mandate than many US presidencies....

[OzMick]

It would be difficult to be balanced when comparing the violence from both sides when it so different in both quantity and intensity.

Nice of you to admit you could be wrong, as you usually are.

It would be difficult to be balanced when comparing the response of the army when it was so different in both quantity and intensity.

Well yes, if you wish to throw in a 3rd group. The problem is the first two we were discussing were supposedly conducting peaceful protest as is their democratic right, while the RTA were obeying the orders of the legitimate government of the day to quell an armed insurrection.

It seems some people can't tell the difference between peaceful protest and armed insurrection, which IMHO makes them totally gormless..

[GentlemanJim]

Let's look at the figures....

Thailand elections 2011, PTP won 48.41% of the popular vote (with a 75% turnout)

Obama won 52.9% of the popular vote (with a 63% turnout... Very high for the US)

George W Bush won 47.9% of the popular vote for his first term

Bill Clinton won 43% of the popular vote for his first term

David Cameron's party won 36% of the popular vote in the last UK elections

So however you want to slice it -- and however much you may not like it -- the PTP put in a pretty good showing as far as election results are concerned. They might not have achieved a simple majority but they came dam_n close, and they did better than a lot of other governments whose legitimacy we don't question. So it's time to stop questioning whether they have a mandate to legislate. I wish the PAD could understand this...

Oh yeah, I should have mentioned that the Dems won only 35% of the popular vote in the last Thai general election... Quite far behind the PTP.

Which means, nonet got a majority of the electorate's votes.

Yes, and if you saw my earlier post you'd know my point was that simple majorities arent that common in democracies except where runoff elections are held. Clinton and George W both had presidencies with a smaller percentage of the vote than Yingluck. And the turnout in US elections tends to be much lower than in Thai elections. Yingluck has a stronger mandate than many US presidencies....

No. Yingluck and her family have a stronger bank balance than most US Presidencies...

[OzMick]

So what? He can always use his other one.

I have a name for Thaksin and his clan of followers. It would be recognised by many Brits, especially those who served in the RN. It is 'kipper' signifying being two faced and having no guts.

If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one? Abraham Lincoln

[lungmi]

Yes. Thaksin loose face again.

So what? He can always use his other one.

I have a name for Thaksin and his clan of followers. It would be recognised by many Brits, especially those who served in the RN. It is 'kipper' signifying being two faced and having no guts.

A kipper? This is one of the most I miss in Thailand

Yes. Thaksin loose face again.

So what? He can always use his other one.

I have a name for Thaksin and his clan of followers. It would be recognised by many Brits, especially those who served in the RN. It is 'kipper' signifying being two faced and having no guts.

A kipper? The food I miss the most in Thailand.

Edited June 2, 2012 by lungmi

[Docno]

The reason for the governments winning elections with less than 50% of the vote is when they have more than one party they take the party with the most votes and declare them the winner.

They shopould do like France did elimanate all but the top two and vote on them.

Correct... And PTP would have definitely come away with a majority in a run off election in 2011

[gand]

Let's look at the figures....

Thailand elections 2011, PTP won 48.41% of the popular vote (with a 75% turnout)

Obama won 52.9% of the popular vote (with a 63% turnout... Very high for the US)

George W Bush won 47.9% of the popular vote for his first term

Bill Clinton won 43% of the popular vote for his first term

David Cameron's party won 36% of the popular vote in the last UK elections

So however you want to slice it -- and however much you may not like it -- the PTP put in a pretty good showing as far as election results are concerned. They might not have achieved a simple majority but they came dam_n close, and they did better than a lot of other governments whose legitimacy we don't question. So it's time to stop questioning whether they have a mandate to legislate. I wish the PAD could understand this...

Oh yeah, I should have mentioned that the Dems won only 35% of the popular vote in the last Thai general election... Quite far behind the PTP.

Which means, nonet got a majority of the electorate's votes.

Yes, and if you saw my earlier post you'd know my point was that simple majorities arent that common in democracies except where runoff elections are held. Clinton and George W both had presidencies with a smaller percentage of the vote than Yingluck. And the turnout in US elections tends to be much lower than in Thai elections. Yingluck has a stronger mandate than many US presidencies....

Getting less than 50% of the vote is not what I would call a mandate for anybody, getting 2/3rds of the vote would be considered an mandate.

[gand]

The reason for the governments winning elections with less than 50% of the vote is when they have more than one party they take the party with the most votes and declare them the winner.

They shopould do like France did elimanate all but the top two and vote on them.

Correct... And PTP would have definitely come away with a majority in a run off election in 2011

That is not my quote?

And TS paid smaller parties to field candidates to split the vote away from his main opposition party.

Edited June 2, 2012 by gand

[Docno]

No. Yingluck and her family have a stronger bank balance than most US Presidencies...

Relevance please? Most US presidents are extremely wealthy also. So what's your point?

[Docno]

The reason for the governments winning elections with less than 50% of the vote is when they have more than one party they take the party with the most votes and declare them the winner.

They shopould do like France did elimanate all but the top two and vote on them.

Correct... And PTP would have definitely come away with a majority in a run off election in 2011

That is not my quote?

And TS paid smaller parties to field candidates to split the vote away from his main opposition party.

Apologies if I misattributed the quote. I hit a quote limit when responding so had to delete text ... Using an iPad which is a royal pain for this kind of thing.

What is your source for claiming PTP paid other parties to field candidates and to an extent that significantly affected the election? The PTP was so close to a simple majority that it's very unlikely they would lose in a runoff even if what you say is true. Either way, they deserve to be in power based on the will of the people...

[Docno]

Getting less than 50% of the vote is not what I would call a mandate for anybody, getting 2/3rds of the vote would be considered an mandate.

Then very governments across the world have a mandate to govern by your definition. Guess we should close shop and go home....

[OzMick]

The PTP was so close to a simple majority that it's very unlikely they would lose in a runoff even if what you say is true. Either way, they deserve to be in power based on the will of the people...

While your opinion on that is interesting, don't you understand that the problem is abuse of power, not the legitimacy of their mandate.

[gand]

Getting less than 50% of the vote is not what I would call a mandate for anybody, getting 2/3rds of the vote would be considered an mandate.

Then very governments across the world have a mandate to govern by your definition. Guess we should close shop and go home....

Getting more votes than rivals gets you in power, getting over 50% gets you a mandate of the electorate, ideally over 66% gets you a mandate of the majority of the people. Less than 50% just lets you slip into office, nothing special about it.

[Skywalker69]

Lets take Thai politics to an extreme

If I wanted to win an election here -I promise I will pay every person 5000baht (buying votes is illegal) if you vote for me - wow I'm now in government after winning a landslide election - 8 months later - were's our money

I promise I will give all school kids an ipad - and increase minimum wage to...................still waiting

"I want my face back and my 47billion baht" most Thais can't even understand how much money 47 million actually is

[heybruce]

Oh, so the police just set up the roadblocks for no reason, it had nothing to do with the protest.

Also, the Redshirts didn't blockade the center of Bangkok two years ago, it was the police road blocks.

Deliberate lies are against forum rules. There is ample evidence that the red shirts set up barricades and blocked roads.

It's called sarcasm, and it's common on TV. Clearly I need to explain it to you: When protesters create a potentially unsafe situation that requires police to set up road blocks, then the protesters are responsible for the road blocks not the police.

[Skywalker69]

I happen to think this protest by the yellows has all been very civilised, and very different from the red rent-a-mob. They came to town with an objective to delay the vote on the 'Antithesis pf Reconciliation Bill', and they have achieved that. The leaders then said, ok everyone go home till Parliament starts this farce again next week and leave the people of Bangkok to get on with their lives. The Reds could do well to learn a lot of lessons from this peaceful protest technique.

[Skywalker69]

Yep let me spell it out for you as it applies directly to you M-U-P-P-E-T-T

D'oh!

I think you should go back to Sesame Street, at least until your education level is raised enough to spell the words you wish to use to insult the intelligence of others.

And of he went.

[OzMick]

Oh, so the police just set up the roadblocks for no reason, it had nothing to do with the protest.

Also, the Redshirts didn't blockade the center of Bangkok two years ago, it was the police road blocks.

Deliberate lies are against forum rules. There is ample evidence that the red shirts set up barricades and blocked roads.

It's called sarcasm, and it's common on TV. Clearly I need to explain it to you: When protesters create a potentially unsafe situation that requires police to set up road blocks, then the protesters are responsible for the road blocks not the police.

I've looked for the "sarcasm alert" button in vain myself.

Please appreciate the difference between the 2 situations.

Currently police to set up road blocks because of a potentially unsafe situation.

2 years ago the reds set up barricades blocking streets and creating definitely unsafe situations. then they set fire to the barricades and 30 buildings.

The difference is subtle, I will admit, but definitely there.

[birdpooguava]

It would be difficult to be balanced when comparing the violence from both sides when it so different in both quantity and intensity.

Nice of you to admit you could be wrong, as you usually are.

It would be difficult to be balanced when comparing the response of the army when it was so different in both quantity and intensity.

Well yes, if you wish to throw in a 3rd group. The problem is the first two we were discussing were supposedly conducting peaceful protest as is their democratic right, while the RTA were obeying the orders of the legitimate government of the day to quell an armed insurrection.

It seems some people can't tell the difference between peaceful protest and armed insurrection, which IMHO makes them totally gormless..

Even someone as biased as yourself cannot honestly be proposing the 2008 yellow protests/seizures were peaceful

[heybruce]

Oh, so the police just set up the roadblocks for no reason, it had nothing to do with the protest.

Also, the Redshirts didn't blockade the center of Bangkok two years ago, it was the police road blocks.

Has the direction to disperse being issued? Have protesters assaulted anyone? Have they produced any kind of weapons? Have they threatened to physically hurt anyone?

Have they stormed any hospital or shopping mall?

I don't know, it wasn't in the news report. However obstructing legal government activities strikes me as illegal, even if no charges have been filed yet. Of course that doesn't matter, does it. You already wrote that it's acceptable for the PAD to break the law in order to preserve the law.

sorry to tell you but peacefully demonstrating outside of the government offices is NOT illegal, but is part of democracy and all the rest of the big words

Also do note, that i DID NOT write that it is acceptable for PAD to break the law in order to preserve the law, HOWEVER as judges say in Australia, UK and NZ, it is acceptable to to break a law to some extent if it is for the benefit of the society.

US legal system is of a different opinion though

So in summary:

1. You refuse to concede that the protesters, by creating the need for road blocks, are responsible for the police road blocks.

2. You refuse to concede that there is anything wrong with blocking access to a government building and preventing a democratically elected government from doing its job. (Yeah, I know, only 48% of the vote, the largest portion by a considerable margin and larger than the winners in many democratically elected governments).

3. Your words from earlier; " It is only too bad that the PAD is forced into positions where they have to break the law", which seem sympathetic to illegal PAD activities, aren't really. Are they some kind of subtle condemnation?

[OzMick]

It would be difficult to be balanced when comparing the violence from both sides when it so different in both quantity and intensity.

Nice of you to admit you could be wrong, as you usually are.

It would be difficult to be balanced when comparing the response of the army when it was so different in both quantity and intensity.

Well yes, if you wish to throw in a 3rd group. The problem is the first two we were discussing were supposedly conducting peaceful protest as is their democratic right, while the RTA were obeying the orders of the legitimate government of the day to quell an armed insurrection.

It seems some people can't tell the difference between peaceful protest and armed insurrection, which IMHO makes them totally gormless..

Even someone as biased as yourself cannot honestly be proposing the 2008 yellow protests/seizures were peaceful

Of course not. Besides their own actions, we could include the police firing explosive tear gas canisters to kill and maim, and Seh Daeng's boys lobbing in M-79 grenades on a regular basis. As I recall, the only deaths were PAD protesters.

But if we restrict our consideration to the PAD actions only, it was like a teddy bear's picnic compared to the bloodshed initiated by the reds.

I suggest you stick to economic damage, that point is at least arguable.

[udonguy]

The mob of again, how depressing, we have had the election and the yellows lost. Now trying to stop the democratically elected parliament from doing their job, disgraceful!

Edited June 2, 2012 by udonguy

[heybruce]

Oh, so the police just set up the roadblocks for no reason, it had nothing to do with the protest.

Also, the Redshirts didn't blockade the center of Bangkok two years ago, it was the police road blocks.

Deliberate lies are against forum rules. There is ample evidence that the red shirts set up barricades and blocked roads.

It's called sarcasm, and it's common on TV. Clearly I need to explain it to you: When protesters create a potentially unsafe situation that requires police to set up road blocks, then the protesters are responsible for the road blocks not the police.

I've looked for the "sarcasm alert" button in vain myself.

Please appreciate the difference between the 2 situations.

Currently police to set up road blocks because of a potentially unsafe situation.

2 years ago the reds set up barricades blocking streets and creating definitely unsafe situations. then they set fire to the barricades and 30 buildings.

The difference is subtle, I will admit, but definitely there.

Nope, I don't see it. I wrote: "When protesters create a potentially unsafe situation that requires police to set up road blocks, then the protesters are responsible for the road blocks not the police." and you wrote "Currently police to set up road blocks because of a potentially unsafe situation." I specifically assign responsibility to the protesters, regardless of who is demonstrating, why, and how large their numbers. That seems implied in your statement but is not explicitly stated. Is that where we differ?

Or do you have it in your head that I'm defending the red shirts? I'm not, I'm defending the democratic process, and pointing out that the actions of the yellow shirts are contrary to this process. That's probably because the yellow shirts have been losing elections for twenty years. If the red shirts start losing elections maybe they'll start taking actions contrary to the democratic process. Then I'll post comments critical of them.

Finally, I know the democratic process is imperfect in Thailand and everywhere else. I still prefer it to any alternative.

[gand]

The mob of again, how depressing, we have had the election and the yellows lost. Now trying to stop the democratically elected parliament from doing their job, disgraceful!

Right, cause only the PTP/red shirts/black shirts are allowed to do that. Do as we say, not as we say. Got it.

[OzMick]

Nope, I don't see it. I wrote: "When protesters create a potentially unsafe situation that requires police to set up road blocks, then the protesters are responsible for the road blocks not the police." and you wrote "Currently police to set up road blocks because of a potentially unsafe situation." I specifically assign responsibility to the protesters, regardless of who is demonstrating, why, and how large their numbers. That seems implied in your statement but is not explicitly stated. Is that where we differ?

Or do you have it in your head that I'm defending the red shirts? I'm not, I'm defending the democratic process, and pointing out that the actions of the yellow shirts are contrary to this process. That's probably because the yellow shirts have been losing elections for twenty years. If the red shirts start losing elections maybe they'll start taking actions contrary to the democratic process. Then I'll post comments critical of them.

Finally, I know the democratic process is imperfect in Thailand and everywhere else. I still prefer it to any alternative.

Actually, i think what you are doing is nit-picking at minor civil disobedience being some huge threat to democracy, when actually the threat is abuse of power by those in office. This bill, supposedly as a secondary effect, will have a huge benefit to the PM, her family and members of the government. That is a major conflict of interest which can only be explained if the supposed primary effect is guaranteed to work.

As at the moment it is having exactly the opposite effect, with the police and military are mobilising quietly expecting civil strife.

So why persist? And why do you concentrate on a minor symptom rather than the deadly disease?

Edited June 2, 2012 by OzMick

[volk666]

... refuse to concede that there is anything wrong with blocking access to a government building and preventing a democratically elected government from doing its job. (Yeah, I know, only 48% of the vote, the largest portion by a considerable margin and larger than the winners in many democratically elected governments).

Here goes the old chestnut again... One poster after another decides to unload whatever chip they've been carrying on their shoulders without even bothering to familiarize themselves with the topic.

These protests both by PAD and by Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with the government or the PM Yingluck. They are protesting against the bills submitted to the parliament. In fact one of their demands, articulated by Korn, is that the bill must be sponsored by the government and have Yingluck signature under it.

How could seemingly intelligent and concerned people turn it into "PAD and Democrats want to snatch power for themselves and overturn election results"? Beats me.

And while we are at it - I also don't understand the outrage.

What we've seen so far are inspiring displays of national unity that give everyone firm assurance that this country has put the past behind it and is moving forward, more united than ever. That's what you should call it if you call the proposed bills "reconciliation". That would be consistent use of the misnomers in the current situation.

The simple fact of life is that once PTP decided to tell the public that "reconciliation" means "my way of highway" it's become free for all. Old rules of decency, civilized behavior and respect for parliamentary rules expected of MPs no longer apply.

Even the common language rules no longer apply. What you saw in the videos was Democrat MPs showering the Speaker with flower petals. That's what flower petals means under the current rules of "making it up as you go along", like in the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon.

[mca]

Yep let me spell it out for you as it applies directly to you M-U-P-P-E-T-T

D'oh!

I think you should go back to Sesame Street, at least until your education level is raised enough to spell the words you wish to use to insult the intelligence of others.

And of he went.

It's "off"

Edited June 2, 2012 by mca

[phl]

So in summary:

1. You refuse to concede that the protesters, by creating the need for road blocks, are responsible for the police road blocks.

2. You refuse to concede that there is anything wrong with blocking access to a government building and preventing a democratically elected government from doing its job. (Yeah, I know, only 48% of the vote, the largest portion by a considerable margin and larger than the winners in many democratically elected governments).

3. Your words from earlier; " It is only too bad that the PAD is forced into positions where they have to break the law", which seem sympathetic to illegal PAD activities, aren't really. Are they some kind of subtle condemnation?

So in summary again

1. PAD has not broken any law as yet

2. PAD has not been issued with an order to disperse so demonstrating outside of government office is NOT illegal

3. If PAD were to stay, even after the order to disperse was issued, they would be violating the law no more or no less than the government making the order, ie one criminal telling another not to commit crime, so those directions would be nulled.

Unlike PAD's opposition, PAD has never burned down the city, and even when they took over the airport, they did not burn it down, but did help to clean it up

Yes i much prefer to take sides with educated people and people who are able to think, as compared to clueless mob with hardly any brains cells functioning.

Now if you prefer the last one, not much i can do about that

[rixalex]

So in summary again

1. PAD has not broken any law as yet

2. PAD has not been issued with an order to disperse so demonstrating outside of government office is NOT illegal

3. If PAD were to stay, even after the order to disperse was issued, they would be violating the law no more or no less than the government making the order, ie one criminal telling another not to commit crime, so those directions would be nulled.

Unlike PAD's opposition, PAD has never burned down the city, and even when they took over the airport, they did not burn it down, but did help to clean it up

Yes i much prefer to take sides with educated people and people who are able to think, as compared to clueless mob with hardly any brains cells functioning.

Now if you prefer the last one, not much i can do about that

WIth regards number 3 i think the PAD needs to find a way of expressing itself within the law. Their case that this reconciliation bill is simply a transparent attempt at obtaining a get out of jail free pass for Thaksin and chums, dressed up as something noble for the greater good of the country, is a very strong one in my opinion. By breaking the law, the PAD only unnecessarily weaken their case and lose support, as they did before with their airport protests.