Remove The Democrats, Reds Told

[tlansford]

Democrats haven't won an election in 30 years. Maybe the Thai people's voice should be respected?????

I would point out a small factual error there, but it wouldn't fit the propaganda you are being fed, so probably little point in doing so.

No harm would have been done if you had pointed out the error.It would also have underlined that once the Democrats were a truly popular national party and not the current compromised and ineffective grouping they are now, dependent for success on the whims of military, courts and feudalists - not the judgement of the Thai people.However notwithstanding the error the poster's main point holds good - ie that for many years the Democrats have been unable to command the electoral support of the Thai people.That's not a matter of being fed propaganda, simply the unvarnished truth.

I don't have the links at hand, but from memory, the last democrat-led coalition in the early 90's (20 years ago, not 30) was a 5 party coalition in which the Democrats won between 21-25% of the vote. Interestingly enough, at the time they the anti-military coalition in the post-coup elections. The comparison with the next coup in 2006 is interesting - post-coup, military opposition politicians are elected. It is speculation on my part of course, but that seems like a reasonable enough response from a population - which perhaps - prefers democracy.

[tlansford]

It's amazing how people have a short memory.

The junta was quite aware that a democratic election will return Thaksin in power, so they wrote a new constitution that will limit the power of the new government and make sure that the army will firmly stay in charge of the country. That was made very clear, candidly presented as a way to avoid the return of Thaksin. And people were clearly informed that if they don't accept the new constitution, there wouldn't be any democratic election in the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately at that time there was no organized citizen movement to stop a minority of thugs to derail democracy in Thailand. That's why we now have the "reds", to send a clear message to the PAD that this time it won't be as easy as in 2006 and 2008. All the current red's sabre rattling is a reminder for the PAD to stay within the limit of the law or there will be consequences.

The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government.

It's been 5 years since the last charter referendum. The UDD has grown a lot. They are changing the political landscape in a very visible way. Whether one agrees with the UDD or with the PAD, or with neither, the PAD call for the military to come out, and the UDD call for elections. Besides the natural alignment between PAD/Royalists and the military and the UDD/populists, the convenient facts for each is that the UDD will win elections for a while and the PAD has not a chance of coming out the victor in an election. That is just the state of things today.

Come out and launch a political fight to eradicate the Democrat Party from the Thai political platform.

IMO, this is another part of the war of words regarding the charter. It looks like plenty of posters over-react to such words and see an instant dictatorship. But to me it seems that the rhetoric on both sides is going to continue to increase during the current debate.

If the Democrats become politically irrelevant ('eradicated' as it were), that would leave just 39 other parties. Oooooooh, I see Zimbabwe already !

[MunterHunter]

North Korea has a oppositon party. It isn't a one party system.

"North Korea is a single-party state under a united front led by the Korean Workers' Party (KWP)" -wiki

Thailand wants to be a single-party state under a suppressed front led by the PTP party - mh

Edited June 18, 2012 by MunterHunter

[Thaddeus]

Democrats haven't won an election in 30 years. Maybe the Thai people's voice should be respected?????

I would point out a small factual error there, but it wouldn't fit the propaganda you are being fed, so probably little point in doing so.

No harm would have been done if you had pointed out the error.It would also have underlined that once the Democrats were a truly popular national party and not the current compromised and ineffective grouping they are now, dependent for success on the whims of military, courts and feudalists - not the judgement of the Thai people.However notwithstanding the error the poster's main point holds good - ie that for many years the Democrats have been unable to command the electoral support of the Thai people.That's not a matter of being fed propaganda, simply the unvarnished truth.

I don't have the links at hand, but from memory, the last democrat-led coalition in the early 90's (20 years ago, not 30) was a 5 party coalition in which the Democrats won between 21-25% of the vote. Interestingly enough, at the time they the anti-military coalition in the post-coup elections. The comparison with the next coup in 2006 is interesting - post-coup, military opposition politicians are elected. It is speculation on my part of course, but that seems like a reasonable enough response from a population - which perhaps - prefers democracy.

I don't think anyone has tried to claim that the population in general doesn't want a democracy, I believe they do.

But there is a problem when a very very small percentage of the population only want their version of democracy.... and that works for both factions.

[lannarebirth]

'Red peasant revolution' is the most commonly used phrase for this event in sociology

really? show me then

no? why? because you can't.

but honestly, i'm not at all interested in what you have to say... so let's leave it at that.

(though i know you'll use that as an excuse not to show me this most commonly used phrase "red peasant revolution")

It is a merely a translation of how the Reds describe themselves. "Prai".

[lannarebirth]

Democrats haven't won an election in 30 years. Maybe the Thai people's voice should be respected?????

I would point out a small factual error there, but it wouldn't fit the propaganda you are being fed, so probably little point in doing so.

No harm would have been done if you had pointed out the error.It would also have underlined that once the Democrats were a truly popular national party and not the current compromised and ineffective grouping they are now, dependent for success on the whims of military, courts and feudalists - not the judgement of the Thai people.However notwithstanding the error the poster's main point holds good - ie that for many years the Democrats have been unable to command the electoral support of the Thai people.That's not a matter of being fed propaganda, simply the unvarnished truth.

I don't have the links at hand, but from memory, the last democrat-led coalition in the early 90's (20 years ago, not 30) was a 5 party coalition in which the Democrats won between 21-25% of the vote. Interestingly enough, at the time they the anti-military coalition in the post-coup elections. The comparison with the next coup in 2006 is interesting - post-coup, military opposition politicians are elected. It is speculation on my part of course, but that seems like a reasonable enough response from a population - which perhaps - prefers democracy.

The power of the military had been on the wane ever since the early 90's thanks to the Democrats putting them back in the box. It was Thaksin in the early 2000's that re-politicized them. He was just never able to gain their trust.

Edited June 18, 2012 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

It's amazing how people have a short memory.

The junta was quite aware that a democratic election will return Thaksin in power, so they wrote a new constitution that will limit the power of the new government and make sure that the army will firmly stay in charge of the country. That was made very clear, candidly presented as a way to avoid the return of Thaksin. And people were clearly informed that if they don't accept the new constitution, there wouldn't be any democratic election in the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately at that time there was no organized citizen movement to stop a minority of thugs to derail democracy in Thailand. That's why we now have the "reds", to send a clear message to the PAD that this time it won't be as easy as in 2006 and 2008. All the current red's sabre rattling is a reminder for the PAD to stay within the limit of the law or there will be consequences.

The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government.

It's been 5 years since the last charter referendum. The UDD has grown a lot. They are changing the political landscape in a very visible way. Whether one agrees with the UDD or with the PAD, or with neither, the PAD call for the military to come out, and the UDD call for elections. Besides the natural alignment between PAD/Royalists and the military and the UDD/populists, the convenient facts for each is that the UDD will win elections for a while and the PAD has not a chance of coming out the victor in an election. That is just the state of things today.

Come out and launch a political fight to eradicate the Democrat Party from the Thai political platform.

IMO, this is another part of the war of words regarding the charter. It looks like plenty of posters over-react to such words and see an instant dictatorship. But to me it seems that the rhetoric on both sides is going to continue to increase during the current debate.

If the Democrats become politically irrelevant ('eradicated' as it were), that would leave just 39 other parties. Oooooooh, I see Zimbabwe already !

The UDD is as irrelevant as the PAD and neither can win elections on their own. It was only their adoption of the Thaksin agenda that makes them anything other than a marginal player. They're dilemma is whether or not they go down swinging with Thaksin or they break away and form their own party which may end up being a lesser coalition partner to whichever party actually wins elections.

[thaicbr]

It's amazing how people have a short memory.

The junta was quite aware that a democratic election will return Thaksin in power, so they wrote a new constitution that will limit the power of the new government and make sure that the army will firmly stay in charge of the country. That was made very clear, candidly presented as a way to avoid the return of Thaksin. And people were clearly informed that if they don't accept the new constitution, there wouldn't be any democratic election in the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately at that time there was no organized citizen movement to stop a minority of thugs to derail democracy in Thailand. That's why we now have the "reds", to send a clear message to the PAD that this time it won't be as easy as in 2006 and 2008. All the current red's sabre rattling is a reminder for the PAD to stay within the limit of the law or there will be consequences.

The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government.

It's been 5 years since the last charter referendum. The UDD has grown a lot. They are changing the political landscape in a very visible way. Whether one agrees with the UDD or with the PAD, or with neither, the PAD call for the military to come out, and the UDD call for elections. Besides the natural alignment between PAD/Royalists and the military and the UDD/populists, the convenient facts for each is that the UDD will win elections for a while and the PAD has not a chance of coming out the victor in an election. That is just the state of things today.

Come out and launch a political fight to eradicate the Democrat Party from the Thai political platform.

IMO, this is another part of the war of words regarding the charter. It looks like plenty of posters over-react to such words and see an instant dictatorship. But to me it seems that the rhetoric on both sides is going to continue to increase during the current debate.

If the Democrats become politically irrelevant ('eradicated' as it were), that would leave just 39 other parties. Oooooooh, I see Zimbabwe already !

39 other parties BUT with 37 of them connected or affiliated to Phua Thai. Ohhhhh I DO see Zimbabwe already.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Siripon]

Democrats haven't won an election in 30 years. Maybe the Thai people's voice should be respected?????

I would point out a small factual error there, but it wouldn't fit the propaganda you are being fed, so probably little point in doing so.

No harm would have been done if you had pointed out the error.It would also have underlined that once the Democrats were a truly popular national party and not the current compromised and ineffective grouping they are now, dependent for success on the whims of military, courts and feudalists - not the judgement of the Thai people.However notwithstanding the error the poster's main point holds good - ie that for many years the Democrats have been unable to command the electoral support of the Thai people.That's not a matter of being fed propaganda, simply the unvarnished truth.

I don't have the links at hand, but from memory, the last democrat-led coalition in the early 90's (20 years ago, not 30) was a 5 party coalition in which the Democrats won between 21-25% of the vote. Interestingly enough, at the time they the anti-military coalition in the post-coup elections. The comparison with the next coup in 2006 is interesting - post-coup, military opposition politicians are elected. It is speculation on my part of course, but that seems like a reasonable enough response from a population - which perhaps - prefers democracy.

The Democrats and most educated people were opposed to General Sujinda's attempt to hold onto power in 1992.

The same people, to a large extent ,supported the coup in 2006 as they recognized the corruption and authoritarian nature of the Thaksin regime.

Those same people hate Thaksin even more now for the destruction he has caused to Thailand.

Actually the coup in 1991 wasn't seriously opposed, eveyone recognized the corruption of Chartchai's buffet cabinet.

It was Sujinda's u-turn to accept the premiership that sparked the discontent.

The Democrats won 11 million votes in the last election- that is not an 'ineffective grouping'.

[OzMick]

The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government.

It's been 5 years since the last charter referendum. The UDD has grown a lot. They are changing the political landscape in a very visible way. Whether one agrees with the UDD or with the PAD, or with neither, the PAD call for the military to come out, and the UDD call for elections. Besides the natural alignment between PAD/Royalists and the military and the UDD/populists, the convenient facts for each is that the UDD will win elections for a while and the PAD has not a chance of coming out the victor in an election. That is just the state of things today.

Come out and launch a political fight to eradicate the Democrat Party from the Thai political platform.

IMO, this is another part of the war of words regarding the charter. It looks like plenty of posters over-react to such words and see an instant dictatorship. But to me it seems that the rhetoric on both sides is going to continue to increase during the current debate.

If the Democrats become politically irrelevant ('eradicated' as it were), that would leave just 39 other parties. Oooooooh, I see Zimbabwe already !

"The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government."

Having made this clear statement I'm sure you will have no problem pointing us toward them, or admit it is nothing but a personal fantasy or red propaganda.

[lannarebirth]

I would point out a small factual error there, but it wouldn't fit the propaganda you are being fed, so probably little point in doing so.

No harm would have been done if you had pointed out the error.It would also have underlined that once the Democrats were a truly popular national party and not the current compromised and ineffective grouping they are now, dependent for success on the whims of military, courts and feudalists - not the judgement of the Thai people.However notwithstanding the error the poster's main point holds good - ie that for many years the Democrats have been unable to command the electoral support of the Thai people.That's not a matter of being fed propaganda, simply the unvarnished truth.

I don't have the links at hand, but from memory, the last democrat-led coalition in the early 90's (20 years ago, not 30) was a 5 party coalition in which the Democrats won between 21-25% of the vote. Interestingly enough, at the time they the anti-military coalition in the post-coup elections. The comparison with the next coup in 2006 is interesting - post-coup, military opposition politicians are elected. It is speculation on my part of course, but that seems like a reasonable enough response from a population - which perhaps - prefers democracy.

The Democrats and most educated people were opposed to General Sujinda's attempt to hold onto power in 1992.

The same people, to a large extent ,supported the coup in 2006 as they recognized the corruption and authoritarian nature of the Thaksin regime.

Those same people hate Thaksin even more now for the destruction he has caused to Thailand.

Actually the coup in 1991 wasn't seriously opposed, eveyone recognized the corruption of Chartchai's buffet cabinet.

It was Sujinda's u-turn to accept the premiership that sparked the discontent.

The Democrats won 11 million votes in the last election- that is not an 'ineffective grouping'.

Correct:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GD07Ae01.html

[tlansford]

The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government.

It's been 5 years since the last charter referendum. The UDD has grown a lot. They are changing the political landscape in a very visible way. Whether one agrees with the UDD or with the PAD, or with neither, the PAD call for the military to come out, and the UDD call for elections. Besides the natural alignment between PAD/Royalists and the military and the UDD/populists, the convenient facts for each is that the UDD will win elections for a while and the PAD has not a chance of coming out the victor in an election. That is just the state of things today.

Come out and launch a political fight to eradicate the Democrat Party from the Thai political platform.

IMO, this is another part of the war of words regarding the charter. It looks like plenty of posters over-react to such words and see an instant dictatorship. But to me it seems that the rhetoric on both sides is going to continue to increase during the current debate.

If the Democrats become politically irrelevant ('eradicated' as it were), that would leave just 39 other parties. Oooooooh, I see Zimbabwe already !

"The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government."

Having made this clear statement I'm sure you will have no problem pointing us toward them, or admit it is nothing but a personal fantasy or red propaganda.

have you limited yourself to reading only your new quotations book?

[animatic]

I would point out a small factual error there, but it wouldn't fit the propaganda you are being fed, so probably little point in doing so.

No harm would have been done if you had pointed out the error.It would also have underlined that once the Democrats were a truly popular national party and not the current compromised and ineffective grouping they are now, dependent for success on the whims of military, courts and feudalists - not the judgement of the Thai people.However notwithstanding the error the poster's main point holds good - ie that for many years the Democrats have been unable to command the electoral support of the Thai people.That's not a matter of being fed propaganda, simply the unvarnished truth.

I don't have the links at hand, but from memory, the last democrat-led coalition in the early 90's (20 years ago, not 30) was a 5 party coalition in which the Democrats won between 21-25% of the vote. Interestingly enough, at the time they the anti-military coalition in the post-coup elections. The comparison with the next coup in 2006 is interesting - post-coup, military opposition politicians are elected. It is speculation on my part of course, but that seems like a reasonable enough response from a population - which perhaps - prefers democracy.

The Democrats and most educated people were opposed to General Sujinda's attempt to hold onto power in 1992.

The same people, to a large extent ,supported the coup in 2006 as they recognized the corruption and authoritarian nature of the Thaksin regime.

Those same people hate Thaksin even more now for the destruction he has caused to Thailand.

Actually the coup in 1991 wasn't seriously opposed, eveyone recognized the corruption of Chartchai's buffet cabinet.

It was Sujinda's u-turn to accept the premiership that sparked the discontent.

The Democrats won 11 million votes in the last election- that is not an 'ineffective grouping'.

Seconded Quite so.

[OzMick]

The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government.

It's been 5 years since the last charter referendum. The UDD has grown a lot. They are changing the political landscape in a very visible way. Whether one agrees with the UDD or with the PAD, or with neither, the PAD call for the military to come out, and the UDD call for elections. Besides the natural alignment between PAD/Royalists and the military and the UDD/populists, the convenient facts for each is that the UDD will win elections for a while and the PAD has not a chance of coming out the victor in an election. That is just the state of things today.

Come out and launch a political fight to eradicate the Democrat Party from the Thai political platform.

IMO, this is another part of the war of words regarding the charter. It looks like plenty of posters over-react to such words and see an instant dictatorship. But to me it seems that the rhetoric on both sides is going to continue to increase during the current debate.

If the Democrats become politically irrelevant ('eradicated' as it were), that would leave just 39 other parties. Oooooooh, I see Zimbabwe already !

"The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government."

Having made this clear statement I'm sure you will have no problem pointing us toward them, or admit it is nothing but a personal fantasy or red propaganda.

have you limited yourself to reading only your new quotations book?

And there was I thinking Tom might at last actually be supporting one of his spurious claims.

"Life is full of bitter disappointments........." Black Sorrows

And no, I haven't got a book - guess again.

Edited June 18, 2012 by OzMick

[tlansford]

-- deleted --

"The charter has levers which make it easier for the military to cast their veto to any government."

Having made this clear statement I'm sure you will have no problem pointing us toward them, or admit it is nothing but a personal fantasy or red propaganda.

have you limited yourself to reading only your new quotations book?

And there was I thinking Tom might at last actually be supporting one of his spurious claims.

"Life is full of bitter disappointments........." Black Sorrows

And no, I haven't got a book - guess again.

you having a book would have been hoping for too much.

your ability to read multiple posts I have already made regarding the current constitution and potential changes is apparently at the same level as your book purchasing.

your trolling my posts is tiresome, so don't bother responding - I won't see it.

[jayboy]

The Democrats and most educated people were opposed to General Sujinda's attempt to hold onto power in 1992.

The same people, to a large extent ,supported the coup in 2006 as they recognized the corruption and authoritarian nature of the Thaksin regime.

Those same people hate Thaksin even more now for the destruction he has caused to Thailand.

Actually the coup in 1991 wasn't seriously opposed, eveyone recognized the corruption of Chartchai's buffet cabinet.

It was Sujinda's u-turn to accept the premiership that sparked the discontent.

The Democrats won 11 million votes in the last election- that is not an 'ineffective grouping'.

Not much of substance I disagree with here but some points to make.

1.All educated people are educated but not all educated people are Democrats and all Democrats are certainly not all educated people.

2.The very use of the word "educated" in this context is very Thai.I don't think it would be used this way in any other democracy or even in countries like China or Russia.Semantics perhaps but the increase in higher education among the Thai working and lower middle class makes definitions harder to pin down.

3.Slightly facetiously, the use of the word "educated" in Thailand (often from people of very dubious scholastic achievement) is used to distinguish themselves from those they deem "uneducated".Comical examples of this were the barely literate banners carried on some of the PAD marches sneering at "uneducate" rural people.I think the confusion is avoided by simply using the term "middle class" instead of "educated".

4.The irony is that in Thailand those who are truly "educated" - by which I mean the finest intellects with appropriate academic pedigree tend to be on the centre left or left.In many countries there is an equivalent intellectually powerful grouping on the right but that doesn't appear to be the case in Thailand.I suppose the mandatory rquirement to believe in fairy tales must be something of a disincentive.

5.I agree your comments both on the Suchinda episode and the 2006 coup.What you fail to mention is that, middle class views apart, there was very powerful elite support for Suchinda which only ebbed away when it became clear he was compromising their security.Much myth making about that period which will have to wait a few years before being dispelled.As for 2006 you fail to mention that middle class support for the coup-which I agree - dropped off very quicky in reaction to the incompetence, indolence and sheer mediocrity of the junta's puppet government.

6.You seem confused about the Democrats' position.It is perfectly possible to win millions of votes and still be an ineffective grouping.Abhisit's leadership has been disastrous and the party is no nearer to becoming a credible successor to the current government.

Edited June 18, 2012 by jayboy

[Siripon]

young husband- as patronising as ever-'you seem confused....' is your favourite phrase, are you a retired schoolmaster?

Most midlle class people didn't become disillusioned with the coup, to this day they see it as necessary, I agree they were disappointed with Surayud's old men government, though.

I think Apisit has done a fine job the last few years,considering the forces both inside and outside Parliament against him. Would anybody else like his job?

[ThaiOats]

Please inform us the changes to the previous constitution that you find objectionable. IMHO there are none except the coup amnesty clause, and the only objection is to the proposers rather than the document itself.

Which makes the argument that the proposers were bad because of the document circular, invalid and weaker than fizzy drink.

Well said Mick, no need to fuss about a little amnesty clause........

So lets get the current constitutional bill passed passed, after all the amnesty clause for some silly reason appears to be the only major obstacle.....

So that's it for you as well? The only problem with the 2006 constitution is the amnesty clause?

It seems you think the 2 amnesties are equivalent - one for the peaceful removal of a corrupt government, the other for a violent insurrection that lead to the death of 90+ people and mass arson. What a maroon!

And there we have it, the now apparently obligatory insult accompanies the lack of peripheral vision, and selective memory. wallow in your own ignorance if you must......

You believe the two amnesties are the same and that's where you are wrong. The general amnesty granted after the coup was just that, 'general'. People who gathered and protested, committed some violence such as throwing rocks, sling shots, makeshift weapons and so forth were given amnesty since it was a bloodless coup. Under this new amnesty they've included clauses to wipe out EVERYTHING no matter what they've done including corruption, court cases under review, arson, murder etc. Please tell me how do pending court cases for corruption, murder, and arson bring about reconciliation.

Did you know the state had to pay to repair damages done to the burnt buildings? Why do tax payers have to pay for those damages? Supposedly, the person who burned and incited the arson are to pay for the damages done and the money is to be deducted from their account. Instead they want to get away scott-free and before you bring up the Suvarnabhumi Airport, no damages were done even though revenue were affected.

To show how far they're willing to go, a Red leader proclaimed that if the Constitutional Court decides that the Reconciliation Bill is illegal, which might bring about the dissolution of the PTP, they would bring down the Democrats and the courts with them even if it costs 100 more bodies. That's intimidation right there. Now the court is in a predicament.

If the court rules it legal, the opposition might think the court officials were intimidated. If the court rules it illegal, well, I already explained what the Reds will do. Now let's look at why the courts might seem bias.

Banyat gave an analogy comparing the Constitutional Court and political parties with cops and residents. Imagine there are 2 houses, one is occupied with drug dealers, and gang members and the next door neighbor is a regular John Doe. Police often visits the former house because it's likely that they would commit crimes and makes some arrests. A gang member would say 'Why do you keep coming to our house and arrest us?', the answer is very simple, that's because John Doe hasn't done anything wrong that warrants an arrest. You can't claim the police being bias and charge John Doe for crimes he didn't commit.

There were many instances where the Constitutional Court voted in favor for the PTP party. One example would be the emergency relief funds for 350 billion baht for projects on Flood Prevention. The Democrats argued that the funds were NOT an emergency because they knew that the government DIDN'T have a laid out plan to utilize all that money. Sure enough, up till this date only 10% of those funds were used. So how can you claim the CC being biased? The PTP complain when the courts vote against them, but when the court votes in favor, they stay silent.

Let's look at the CC's acceptance of the dissolution of the Democrats. The court accepted the petition but again, they're in a predicament in which if they decide that there are no grounds for dissolution the PTP would complain bias again. It's a lose, lose situation where the PTP can stir up more trouble. If you want me to explain why there are no grounds, I will gladly do so in another post. Getting tired.

Edited June 18, 2012 by ThaiOats

[473geo]

You believe the two amnesties are the same and that's where you are wrong. The general amnesty granted after the coup was just that, 'general'. People who gathered and protested, committed some violence such as throwing rocks, sling shots, makeshift weapons and so forth were given amnesty since it was a bloodless coup. Under this new amnesty they've included clauses to wipe out EVERYTHING no matter what they've done including corruption, court cases under review, arson, murder etc. Please tell me how do pending court cases for corruption, murder, and arson bring about reconciliation.

Did you know the state had to pay to repair damages done to the burnt buildings? Why do tax payers have to pay for those damages? Supposedly, the person who burned and incited the arson are to pay for the damages done and the money is to be deducted from their account. Instead they want to get away scott-free and before you bring up the Suvarnabhumi Airport, no damages were done even though revenue were affected.

To show how far they're willing to go, a Red leader proclaimed that if the Constitutional Court decides that the Reconciliation Bill is illegal, which might bring about the dissolution of the PTP, they would bring down the Democrats and the courts with them even if it costs 100 more bodies. That's intimidation right there. Now the court is in a predicament.

If the court rules it legal, the opposition might think the court officials were intimidated. If the court rules it illegal, well, I already explained what the Reds will do. Now let's look at why the courts might seem bias.

Banyat gave an analogy comparing the Constitutional Court and political parties with cops and residents. Imagine there are 2 houses, one is occupied with drug dealers, and gang members and the next door neighbor is a regular John Doe. Police often visits the former house because it's likely that they would commit crimes and makes some arrests. A gang member would say 'Why do you keep coming to our house and arrest us?', the answer is very simple, that's because John Doe hasn't done anything wrong that warrants an arrest. You can't claim the police being bias and charge John Doe for crimes he didn't commit.

There were many instances where the Constitutional Court voted in favor for the PTP party. One example would be the emergency relief funds for 350 billion baht for projects on Flood Prevention. The Democrats argued that the funds were NOT an emergency because they knew that the government DIDN'T have a laid out plan to utilize all that money. Sure enough, up till this date only 10% of those funds were used. So how can you claim the CC being biased? The PTP complain when the courts vote against them, but when the court votes in favor, they stay silent.

Let's look at the CC's acceptance of the dissolution of the Democrats. The court accepted the petition but again, they're in a predicament in which if they decide that there are no grounds for dissolution the PTP would complain bias again. It's a lose, lose situation where the PTP can stir up more trouble. If you want me to explain why there are no grounds, I will gladly do so in another post. Getting tired.

Tak Bai, no accountability.....you guys really need to broaden your thought patterns away from the obvious, instead of attempting to explain what you think I believe.....you are so wrapped up with taking sides.....if john doe has done no wrong, why an amnesty at all?

[Crushdepth]

Democrats haven't won an election in 30 years. Maybe the Thai people's voice should be respected?????

By 'eradicating' those that 'the people' elected to Parliament?

Good idea comrade. Jeez...

[ThaiOats]

You believe the two amnesties are the same and that's where you are wrong. The general amnesty granted after the coup was just that, 'general'. People who gathered and protested, committed some violence such as throwing rocks, sling shots, makeshift weapons and so forth were given amnesty since it was a bloodless coup. Under this new amnesty they've included clauses to wipe out EVERYTHING no matter what they've done including corruption, court cases under review, arson, murder etc. Please tell me how do pending court cases for corruption, murder, and arson bring about reconciliation.

Did you know the state had to pay to repair damages done to the burnt buildings? Why do tax payers have to pay for those damages? Supposedly, the person who burned and incited the arson are to pay for the damages done and the money is to be deducted from their account. Instead they want to get away scott-free and before you bring up the Suvarnabhumi Airport, no damages were done even though revenue were affected.

To show how far they're willing to go, a Red leader proclaimed that if the Constitutional Court decides that the Reconciliation Bill is illegal, which might bring about the dissolution of the PTP, they would bring down the Democrats and the courts with them even if it costs 100 more bodies. That's intimidation right there. Now the court is in a predicament.

If the court rules it legal, the opposition might think the court officials were intimidated. If the court rules it illegal, well, I already explained what the Reds will do. Now let's look at why the courts might seem bias.

Banyat gave an analogy comparing the Constitutional Court and political parties with cops and residents. Imagine there are 2 houses, one is occupied with drug dealers, and gang members and the next door neighbor is a regular John Doe. Police often visits the former house because it's likely that they would commit crimes and makes some arrests. A gang member would say 'Why do you keep coming to our house and arrest us?', the answer is very simple, that's because John Doe hasn't done anything wrong that warrants an arrest. You can't claim the police being bias and charge John Doe for crimes he didn't commit.

There were many instances where the Constitutional Court voted in favor for the PTP party. One example would be the emergency relief funds for 350 billion baht for projects on Flood Prevention. The Democrats argued that the funds were NOT an emergency because they knew that the government DIDN'T have a laid out plan to utilize all that money. Sure enough, up till this date only 10% of those funds were used. So how can you claim the CC being biased? The PTP complain when the courts vote against them, but when the court votes in favor, they stay silent.

Let's look at the CC's acceptance of the dissolution of the Democrats. The court accepted the petition but again, they're in a predicament in which if they decide that there are no grounds for dissolution the PTP would complain bias again. It's a lose, lose situation where the PTP can stir up more trouble. If you want me to explain why there are no grounds, I will gladly do so in another post. Getting tired.

Tak Bai, no accountability.....you guys really need to broaden your thought patterns away from the obvious, instead of attempting to explain what you think I believe.....you are so wrapped up with taking sides.....if john doe has done no wrong, why an amnesty at all?

Here go read http://www.ias.chula..._A_155628_P.pdf . Under whose command, orders and influences did it happen and why the military wanted the amnesty after the coup. If you want accountability, start with him. FYI, you're again thinking the Democrats = Military and PAD. They are independent of each other. If the military wants an amnesty, that's their business. The Democrats didn't ask for an amnesty for the military did they?

Edited June 19, 2012 by ThaiOats

[473geo]

Tak Bai, no accountability.....you guys really need to broaden your thought patterns away from the obvious, instead of attempting to explain what you think I believe.....you are so wrapped up with taking sides.....if john doe has done no wrong, why an amnesty at all?

Here go read http://www.ias.chula.ac.th/file_dl/Articles/RCRA_A_155628_P.pdf . Under whose command, orders and influences did it happen and why the military wanted the amnesty after the coup. If you want accountability, start with him. FYI, you're again thinking the Democrats = Military and PAD. They are independent of each other. If the military wants an amnesty, that's their business. The Democrats didn't ask for an amnesty for the military did they?

"If the military wants an amnesty, that's their business"...............enough said.....

[lannarebirth]

This new direction by the Red Shirts makes perfect sense in a Machiavellian, Sun Tzu sort of way. Couldn't co-opt the Democrats by solicitations through Suthep, consequently you eradicate them. Next!

[473geo]

This new direction by the Red Shirts makes perfect sense in a Machiavellian, Sun Tzu sort of way. Couldn't co-opt the Democrats by solicitations through Suthep, consequently you eradicate them. Next!

"Poitically eradicate".....I think the Dems are actually doing a rather good job themselves.....still a way to go as at the moment as there is no viable alternative to challenge PTP......but one must applaud the Dems efforts to become the 'unelectable'

If Thaksin steps back they have no platform....

Edited June 19, 2012 by 473geo

[thaicbr]

This new direction by the Red Shirts makes perfect sense in a Machiavellian, Sun Tzu sort of way. Couldn't co-opt the Democrats by solicitations through Suthep, consequently you eradicate them. Next!

"Poitically eradicate".....I think the Dems are actually doing a rather good job themselves.....still a way to go as at the moment as there is no viable alternative to challenge PTP......but one must applaud the Dems efforts to become the 'unelectable'

If Thaksin steps back they have no platform....

If Thaksin steps back it is easy enough to find a platform. Based on the their time in government I would say that would be education and country development. But Thaksin will never step back. The Democrats are just doing the job of an opposition party for the general good of the country more than can be said for Phua Thai.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[473geo]

This new direction by the Red Shirts makes perfect sense in a Machiavellian, Sun Tzu sort of way. Couldn't co-opt the Democrats by solicitations through Suthep, consequently you eradicate them. Next!

"Poitically eradicate".....I think the Dems are actually doing a rather good job themselves.....still a way to go as at the moment as there is no viable alternative to challenge PTP......but one must applaud the Dems efforts to become the 'unelectable'

If Thaksin steps back they have no platform....

If Thaksin steps back it is easy enough to find a platform. Based on the their time in government I would say that would be education and country development. But Thaksin will never step back. The Democrats are just doing the job of an opposition party for the general good of the country more than can be said for Phua Thai.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Unfortunately not enough people agreed with your observations when it came to voting time at the last election.........so why don't we let PTP serve their term and then accept the voters opinion next time around.......this is how it works.......it is not all about Thaksin

[thaicbr]

This new direction by the Red Shirts makes perfect sense in a Machiavellian, Sun Tzu sort of way. Couldn't co-opt the Democrats by solicitations through Suthep, consequently you eradicate them. Next!

"Poitically eradicate".....I think the Dems are actually doing a rather good job themselves.....still a way to go as at the moment as there is no viable alternative to challenge PTP......but one must applaud the Dems efforts to become the 'unelectable'

If Thaksin steps back they have no platform....

If Thaksin steps back it is easy enough to find a platform. Based on the their time in government I would say that would be education and country development. But Thaksin will never step back. The Democrats are just doing the job of an opposition party for the general good of the country more than can be said for Phua Thai.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Unfortunately not enough people agreed with your observations when it came to voting time at the last election.........so why don't we let PTP serve their term and then accept the voters opinion next time around.......this is how it works.......it is not all about Thaksin

That's how it should be. And I'm sure that IF this government actually thought the same then tge Dems would as you say "just let them get on with running the country " but it is fairly obvious that is not the case and Thaksin is firmly on the Phua Thai agenda.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[Siripon]

This new direction by the Red Shirts makes perfect sense in a Machiavellian, Sun Tzu sort of way. Couldn't co-opt the Democrats by solicitations through Suthep, consequently you eradicate them. Next!

"Poitically eradicate".....I think the Dems are actually doing a rather good job themselves.....still a way to go as at the moment as there is no viable alternative to challenge PTP......but one must applaud the Dems efforts to become the 'unelectable'

If Thaksin steps back they have no platform....

If Thaksin steps back it is easy enough to find a platform. Based on the their time in government I would say that would be education and country development. But Thaksin will never step back. The Democrats are just doing the job of an opposition party for the general good of the country more than can be said for Phua Thai.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Unfortunately not enough people agreed with your observations when it came to voting time at the last election.........so why don't we let PTP serve their term and then accept the voters opinion next time around.......this is how it works.......it is not all about Thaksin

Unfortunately Pheua Thai have made it all about Thaksin with their push for the bill to whitewash him.

Withdraw the bills and concentrate on running the country for the people.

But they can't do that and the PM is only there because she's Thaksin's sister.

[Moruya]

This new direction by the Red Shirts makes perfect sense in a Machiavellian, Sun Tzu sort of way. Couldn't co-opt the Democrats by solicitations through Suthep, consequently you eradicate them. Next!

"Poitically eradicate".....I think the Dems are actually doing a rather good job themselves.....still a way to go as at the moment as there is no viable alternative to challenge PTP......but one must applaud the Dems efforts to become the 'unelectable'

If Thaksin steps back they have no platform....

The PTP will implode sooner or later.

You can only tell so many lies to so many people before the penny drops.

You can only spend so much money and borrow so much money before the baht drops

[tlansford]

This new direction by the Red Shirts makes perfect sense in a Machiavellian, Sun Tzu sort of way. Couldn't co-opt the Democrats by solicitations through Suthep, consequently you eradicate them. Next!

"Poitically eradicate".....I think the Dems are actually doing a rather good job themselves.....still a way to go as at the moment as there is no viable alternative to challenge PTP......but one must applaud the Dems efforts to become the 'unelectable'

If Thaksin steps back they have no platform....

If Thaksin steps back it is easy enough to find a platform. Based on the their time in government I would say that would be education and country development. But Thaksin will never step back. The Democrats are just doing the job of an opposition party for the general good of the country more than can be said for Phua Thai.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Unfortunately not enough people agreed with your observations when it came to voting time at the last election.........so why don't we let PTP serve their term and then accept the voters opinion next time around.......this is how it works.......it is not all about Thaksin

If democracy in Thailand is allowed to get to another election without a political crisis, then it will be interesting to see how the political parties will have developed. While many here see a need for an alternative to the PTP, maybe there is a need to have an alternative to the Dems. That is not a biased, blinded statement, just an observation about a party which can't pull together a coalition.

Anyway, my vote doesn't count.