Thai Court Verdict 'May Spark More Violence'

[Arkady]

The push to amend the constitution is ridiculous, as it is purely to benefit one man and to remove all checks and balances designed to reduce corruption. The grounds of the court case also seem rather absurd but these are desperate times and anything is possible.

[lovetotravel]

if the referendum for the constitution written by a military appointed body was rejected then a democratic election would be delayed, delayed until it was accepted.

people had no choice but to accept it or there would be no election, there was no return to the 1997 constitution, that was never an option

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/6568767.stm

How can they have an election if there is no constitution?

http://en.wikipedia....ion_of_Thailand

wow two links in tow posts, I am turning into busholz.

The answer to your question would have been to have a fairer constitution to vote on, or a better alternative, but you know that already.

the link is for anyone that does not understand how the 2007 constitution came about and the objections to it, please read it and understand it.

I guess we are off topic now, a favourite ploy of the forum yellows, derail the conversation away from the facts

Good link. Thanks.

[smedly]

nobody should be above the law including the sitting government - yes they have the ability to make changes to the law but must follow a process which is 100% open and transparent to all - they need to declare their intentions and justify their actions, the charter/constitution is there to protect this process on behalf of the people - if a sitting government is trying to change this protection i.e. the very basis of a countries demcracy then they need to have a dam good reason and justification for doing it - so far all we can see is a rotten motive labeled reconcilliation - a government and a mob that is being directed from a criminal on the run with huge funds - enough money from a single person to influence a countries election by buying votes is no small matter

This government are trying to change the rules and structures that are in place to protect the people from a rogue government and allow them to do just about whatever they feel like - above the law

[Buchholz]

So then, it's at least somewhat reassuring that over the past 2,118 days, there's been "nothing in it" for the Army.

It's too bad if you think posted supporting information or background information or updated news clippings to the news clipping forum is something you find objectionable.

But with as much history revisionism that is attempted here, I can understand your disdain.

How would you know if I made a complaint to the mods? Besides, aren't they entirely capable of making their own decisions? If you have a problem with the rules or moderation, rather than discuss it here, PM them.... as they've directed forum members to do so countless times.

The numbered days was not petty, it was just a reflection to put the tone of your comments in proper perspective. It's akin to the shrill of Jatuporn's voice chanting coup coup "at the drop of a hat" and which has failed to materialize despite it always being right around the proverbial corner.

Where is that broken record smiley

You left it with your coup frothing.

.

[Buchholz]

One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

In regards to the very logical first reply to the OP:

If someone wants the constitution changed, define which part they want changed, define what they want to change it to

Which article(s) of the Constitution are you referring to and what would you, or the PTP, propose it be changed to?

.

Of course they are unlikely to define what they want changed in the Constitution,it would make it obvious that it's all about getting Thaksin off the hook,and back home,sqeaky clean,with no charges to answer to,and not much else!

It's amazing that neither the PTP nor their forum backers are able to elucidate with any specificity.

.

[h90]

Saw the intimidating red mob outside the constitution court on TV last evening, was amused to see in the background the lot in their commy uniforms complete with Mao caps, red arm bands and red shirt cards. Shows what their politics really are.

They are the new 'Loyalty Enhancement Officers'. To make sure everyone is carrying the 'little red book' and the photograph of the Chairman and his most excellant sister. The photo of him giving her a really energetic Heimlich maneuver.

Such is important. As sooner people learn the right way, as less of them must be sent to reeducation centers, later when full power is established.

I just read about Mao, he had real efficient methods to ensure that everyone loves and works for the good of the revolution.

[phiphidon]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

The current constitution was voted on by referendum in 2007. It was appointed by the people. Amendments may be made to clauses but not to the spirit of the constitution. If PTP want to effectively re-write the constitution then they have to hold a referendum, as the current constitution is owned by the people.

The judiciary was NOT appointed by the junta. Members of the judiciary are appointed by the King. The King hires them and fires them, no one else.

The 1997 constitution was written by and for the Thai people. This constitution wasn't taken by the military junta and analysed section by section and only the parts that needed to be changed were changed - No, they abrogated it, ripped it up for a$se paper if you like, and rewrote the whole thing. Then the new constitution was given to the public to vote for or accept the fact that the army could pick any constitution they liked and start again. Even abhisit got involved (suprise)

The Democrats will prepare a statement of charter pros and cons and distribute it to members. "This won't be a campaign for or against the draft but simply information about the good and the bad [points] of the charter," Abhisit said.

He denied the party was trying to curry favour with the junta. "If we wanted to please the Council for National Security we would reject the draft so it could pick a charter of its own choosing.

"If we reject the draft, it will be like handing out power to the council. We have come up with this stand because we care about the national interest and want democracy to be restored soon," he said.

http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/07/09/politics/politics_30039961.php

So along other minor obstacles to a free vote being Martial Law being in place across half the country, educational visits by military units to "explain" the constitution, no negative campaigning allowed, no translation of the draft constitution into Malay etc. etc. the referendum did indeed produce a yes vote.

Your last comment regarding the judiciary is, should I say, somewhat naive.

[Emptyset]

Saw the intimidating red mob outside the constitution court on TV last evening, was amused to see in the background the lot in their commy uniforms complete with Mao caps, red arm bands and red shirt cards. Shows what their politics really are.

They are the new 'Loyalty Enhancement Officers'. To make sure everyone is carrying the 'little red book' and the photograph of the Chairman and his most excellant sister. The photo of him giving her a really energetic Heimlich maneuver.

This 'intimidating red mob' are not red shirts, but rather former communist party members there to 'protect the court'. Interesting the split in the former communists*, because some of them did join the red shirts, of course. It mirrrors the split in the 'October Generation' of student leaders (many of whom later fled to the maquis). On one side you have Dr Weng, Thida, Chaturon, Phrommin, Jaran, Adisorn etc and on the other you've got Phibop, Kaewsan, Chermsak, Chaiwat etc. And those from that generation who're now academics seem similarly divided.

*assuming these guys outside the court are motivated by ideology and not just a little extra cash. probably a bit of both?

Edited July 6, 2012 by Emptyset

[Yunla]

Well therein lies the rub, all elites old or new are used to not worrying about the law.

But the selfmade man sort is less inclined to adhere,

because of the hard scrabble nature of their self-making.

Neuvaux riche tend to be so driven to suplant the old guard, any way they can,

that cutting corners to success is a necessary evil means to that end.

Those with megalomaniacal tendencies all the more so.

"It is rather ironic to see the uber rich capitalist using,

the neo-red guard modern communista leadership,

as a tool to supplant an age old leadership,

with his own eminence front."

It would be droll if so much didn't waver on the line.

"I hate money, if it's old it stinks, if its new it cuts your fingers."

My long-suffering memory forgets where that lines from. Probly a 1980s movie.

I once heard it said that modern politicians with old money are okay, but old politicians with new money are deadly.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Yunla

[philw]

Saw the intimidating red mob outside the constitution court on TV last evening, was amused to see in the background the lot in their commy uniforms complete with Mao caps, red arm bands and red shirt cards. Shows what their politics really are.

They are the new 'Loyalty Enhancement Officers'. To make sure everyone is carrying the 'little red book' and the photograph of the Chairman and his most excellant sister. The photo of him giving her a really energetic Heimlich maneuver.

Such is important. As sooner people learn the right way, as less of them must be sent to reeducation centers, later when full power is established.

I just read about Mao, he had real efficient methods to ensure that everyone loves and works for the good of the revolution.

Yes, Yes, yes, to the barricades...............Long Live the Revolution !!!!

I can just see it happening in Thailand..................

[takatukaland]

So PT wants politicians to be above the law then. Isn't that why we had a coup in the first place?

Wrong!We had a coup because the people above the law worried to loose their status

[takatukaland]

I see from the news thread three of these judges are trying to jump ship, weird that eh?

Given that their addresses and phone numbers have been given out to the red shirts, it's not surprising at all.

Wrong,they tried to leave because they are two of the drafters from 2007 constitution,and the third one made a comment about the amendment what was recorded and is in youtube now,all 3 clear biased

[Yunla]

This 'intimidating red mob' are not red shirts, but rather former communist party members there to 'protect the court'. Interesting the split in the former communists*, because some of them did join the red shirts, of course. It mirrrors the split in the 'October Generation' of student leaders (many of whom later fled to the maquis). On one side you have Dr Weng, Thida, Chaturon, Phrommin, Jaran, Adisorn etc and on the other you've got Phibop, Kaewsan, Chermsak, Chaiwat etc. And those from that generation who're now academics seem similarly divided.

*assuming these guys outside the court are motivated by ideology and not just a little extra cash. probably a bit of both?

Sounds like the redmob. Ideology and a bit of extra cash. Just enough of both, to keep their hopes up for the time being. Until they are next mobilised. Rinse and repeat. Intimidate the dissenters. Pressure your relatives to join. The redmob movement is all about push & shove and maintaining pressure. PTP don't give redmob anything remotely resembling infrastructure-improvement bills in parliament, no kind of lifestyle or education improvements, Some tacky tablets. Scattered minimum wage. Nothing long term or fundamental. That is the Maoist way to keep the people subservient. If you make them smart and affluent they will change the channel during your propaganda show, to look at aspirational middle class programs instead. Keep them poor and stupid thats the way.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Yunla

[ianf]

Thaksin's best mate Hun Sen (Cambodia) is there because of a coup. Double standards as usual with these liars and thieves.

[ianf]

So PT wants politicians to be above the law then. Isn't that why we had a coup in the first place?

Wrong!We had a coup because the people above the law worried to loose their status

Wrong! We had a coup because some powerful people were frightened at the damage being caused by Thaksin and his undemocratic ways.

Edited July 6, 2012 by ianf

[phiphidon]

yes they could have done what the army did and told the people to accept it or suffer worse, the army said accept the charter changes or we wont return the country to the people.

More rubbish. The army said no such thing. What the appointed government (not the army) said was, if the new constitution was rejected, the country would return to the 1997 constitution.

I'm sorry you're wrong - Section 32 of the Interim Constitution 2006 stated that in the event of the 2007 Constitution not being voted for the Army will pick another constitution, any one.

Section 32. In the case where the Constituent Revision of a Assembly is unable to complete the Draft Constitution within Constitution of the period prescribed in section 29 paragraph one, or the the Kingdom Constituent Assembly disapproves the Draft Constitution under of Thailand section 28 paragraph two, or in a referendum under section 31, the people by a majority of the people voting in the referendum disapprove the Draft Constitution, the Constituent Assembly shall be dissolved and the National Security Council shall hold a joint meeting with the Council of Ministers within thirty days as from the date of such referendum in order to consider the revision of a Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand which had once been promulgated and present such Draft Constitution to the King for Royal Signature and subsequent promulgation as the Constitution.

The President of the National Security Council shall preside over the joint meeting under paragraph one. The Prime Minister shall countersign the Royal Command promulgating the Constitution under this section.

http://www.senate.go.th/pdf/const.pdf

[Emptyset]

Thaksin's best mate Hun Sen (Cambodia) is there because of a coup. Double standards as usual with these liars and thieves.

How is Hun Sen there because of a coup? I mean I dislike the guy, but the fact is Rannaridh attacked first in 1997. It was him who attempted a coup. Hun Sen's forces were just much more powerful and crushed them. Although it's probably true that if Rannaridh hadn't moved, Hun Sen would have eventually.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Emptyset

[Yunla]

Such is important. As sooner people learn the right way, as less of them must be sent to reeducation centers, later when full power is established.

I just read about Mao, he had real efficient methods to ensure that everyone loves and works for the good of the revolution.

Totalitarian ideologies are like viruses. The virus that swept China in the 1930's, has been documented and analysed by history, it has been cataloged. To a certain extent we have been vaccinated. But of course viruses mutate to bypass the vaccines. The same is true of politics. In many nations hybridist politics especially corporatocratic dictatorships are the repulsive 21st century offspring of Mao's failed experiment and no-brakes capitalism. Thaksin is the poster child for this type of insane and lawless businessman dictatorship.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Yunla

[phiphidon]

Saw the intimidating red mob outside the constitution court on TV last evening, was amused to see in the background the lot in their commy uniforms complete with Mao caps, red arm bands and red shirt cards. Shows what their politics really are.

They are the new 'Loyalty Enhancement Officers'. To make sure everyone is carrying the 'little red book' and the photograph of the Chairman and his most excellant sister. The photo of him giving her a really energetic Heimlich maneuver.

Oh dear Yunla, in your haste to please your peer group you neglected to check something important, the facts. I know that truth is generally the first casualty in your posts but a little bit of reading goes a long way.

Some 300 ex-Communist activists, led by Thongdee Namsaengkote, rallied near the court building in a gesture of support for the judiciary.

The activists, mainly from the Northeast, have billed themselves as counter forces to the red shirts.

They plan to encamp and "shield" the high court until Friday..................

...........................The red shirts earlier decided not to rally at the high court.

http://www.nationmul...y-30185474.html

[Yunla]

Oh dear Yunla, in your haste to please your peer group you neglected to check something important, the facts. I know that truth is generally the first casualty in your posts but a little bit of reading goes a long way.

Some 300 ex-Communist activists, led by Thongdee Namsaengkote, rallied near the court building in a gesture of support for the judiciary.

The activists, mainly from the Northeast, have billed themselves as counter forces to the red shirts.

They plan to encamp and "shield" the high court until Friday..................

...........................The red shirts earlier decided not to rally at the high court.

http://www.nationmul...y-30185474.html

Ah yes. But you missed one crucial point. I was joking.

[Emptyset]

[This 'intimidating red mob' are not red shirts, but rather former communist party members there to 'protect the court'. Interesting the split in the former communists*, because some of them did join the red shirts, of course. It mirrrors the split in the 'October Generation' of student leaders (many of whom later fled to the maquis). On one side you have Dr Weng, Thida, Chaturon, Phrommin, Jaran, Adisorn etc and on the other you've got Phibop, Kaewsan, Chermsak, Chaiwat etc. And those from that generation who're now academics seem similarly divided.

*assuming these guys outside the court are motivated by ideology and not just a little extra cash. probably a bit of both?

Sounds like the redmob. Ideology and a bit of extra cash. Just enough of both, to keep their hopes up for the time being. Until they are next mobilised. Rinse and repeat. Intimidate the dissenters. Pressure your relatives to join. The redmob movement is all about push & shove and maintaining pressure. PTP don't give redmob anything remotely resembling infrastructure-improvement bills in parliament, no kind of lifestyle or education improvements, Some tacky tablets. Scattered minimum wage. Nothing long term or fundamental. That is the Maoist way to keep the people subservient. If you make them smart and affluent they will change the channel during your propaganda show, to look at aspirational middle class programs instead. Keep them poor and stupid thats the way.

I don't agree. I believe (along with a number of academics) that it's actually largely because people are becoming less subservient and more demanding that they've decided to get involved in the red movement - which is not to say that I agree with all of their actions or goals. Just the thing about them being ignorant and poor doesn't accord with reality. In general they're not the poorest of the poor anyway. They're certainly poorer than your average Democrat or PAD supporter (as studies have shown) but they're generally what Andrew Walker terms 'middle income peasants'. People from rural areas who own small businesses, and farmers who earn enough to have a mobile phone, motorbike or pick-up and perhaps a computer with internet connection. Then in the city they obviously have quite a lot of support amongst street vendors, taxi drivers, motorsai and a segment of the (mostly lower) middle class. The people that came out to fight the army seemed to be mostly folk from the slums of KT etc - the 'lumpen proletariat' - I suppose it makes sense because they have less to lose.

There probably are something like 20% of people that just go to the protests for cash and free food. My friend was talking to me about going to the stage when Veera was ending the protest back in 2009, and seeing these dead-eyed folk moronically sitting there waving their foot-clappers. He said the 'real reds', including the Bangkok red supporters, were genuinely furious and had already given up on Veera and moved elsewhere. But I mean, you'll always have this, it's the same for the PAD. It was the same in 1992, how many people were initially mobilized by Chavalit for a few hundred baht? Just because some were paid doesn't mean that the vast majority of protesters weren't genuinely attached to the cause and willing to put their lives on the line for it.

Anyway, these former communists were apparently mobilized by Surayud who I believe has connections to them going back to the 80s (his father was also a communist, interestingly). I've heard people from Surachai's old group, Red Siam, are claiming these guys are 'fake reds' - e.g. not real ex-communists. But then they would say that, I suppose.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

If you make them smart and affluent they will change the channel during your propaganda show, to look at aspirational middle class programs instead. Keep them poor and stupid thats the way.

Oh, I'm sure they watch those 'aspirational' lakorns just like everyone else here does.

[geriatrickid]

This is simple, and not taking any side, if the court has acted legally and within their boundaries then no problem, if the court has acted outside of its boundaries then someone needs to start asking questions, when you have the AG saying it should have gone through them and the court saying it shouldn't, then someone does now know their job or they do but don't care about regulations.

It is not only the court who should "act legally and within boundaries" and needs "questions asking" about them. PTP do not have the right to pardon serious criminals along nepotistic and favouritism lines, or to unbalance this nation over LM, or along any other lines for that matter. PTP are elected representatives of their voters, elected to discuss matters in parliament relating to the improvement of Thailand, not to pardon guilty criminals, and not to force through their own agenda at high-speed without consulting other parties impartially. PTP are not Judge Dredd determining guilt or innocence and handing out justice on the spot.

For people to criticise the constitution court instead of PTP on this 'reconciliation bill' , is to criticise a brick-wall that a drunken driver has just crashed into. Blame the wall for being in that particular place and for not moving out of the way or yielding to the drunk driver's vehicle. Why not instead try blaming the out-of-control drunk driver and not the wall he crashed into.

And what of the responsible party that built the brick wall in the middle of a road?

That's what happened when one group manipulated the procedures for the appointment of senators and the judiciary.

[geriatrickid]

Very interesting that now the UDD is being called "commies" and "Maoists". In earlier threads they were called rightwing nationalists.

How about a bit of reality and the acceptance that the UDD is an umbrella group comprising multiple groups with divergent political and social views that are united by one political goal, which is to see Thailand freed from the political interference and control of entrenched power groups such as the military?

I also note an interesting historical parallel. 30 yeas ago Canada repatriated its constitution. At the time Canada's constitution was legally controlled in the UK. When the PM of the day launched his initiative, which also included a Charter of Rights, there was serious opposition. Oh no the Conservative party screamed you can't do that, it's criminal, it's wrong blah blah blah. 30 years later, those changes and the Charter of Rights are considered cornerstones of the country's autonomy and judicial process. Thailand's current attempts to remove some of the most egregious avenues for meddling by non elected groups really is no different in concept, save for the fact that it really doesn't change much. The current claims about infringing uon the role of the monarch are spurious and are raised because the opponents really do not have the moral, nor legal basis with which to oppose the changes.

[Thaddeus]

This is simple, and not taking any side, if the court has acted legally and within their boundaries then no problem, if the court has acted outside of its boundaries then someone needs to start asking questions, when you have the AG saying it should have gone through them and the court saying it shouldn't, then someone does now know their job or they do but don't care about regulations.

It is not only the court who should "act legally and within boundaries" and needs "questions asking" about them. PTP do not have the right to pardon serious criminals along nepotistic and favouritism lines, or to unbalance this nation over LM, or along any other lines for that matter. PTP are elected representatives of their voters, elected to discuss matters in parliament relating to the improvement of Thailand, not to pardon guilty criminals, and not to force through their own agenda at high-speed without consulting other parties impartially. PTP are not Judge Dredd determining guilt or innocence and handing out justice on the spot.

For people to criticise the constitution court instead of PTP on this 'reconciliation bill' , is to criticise a brick-wall that a drunken driver has just crashed into. Blame the wall for being in that particular place and for not moving out of the way or yielding to the drunk driver's vehicle. Why not instead try blaming the out-of-control drunk driver and not the wall he crashed into.

And what of the responsible party that built the brick wall in the middle of a road?

They built it there to reduce the number of drunk drivers.

[tlansford]

and the people who write the laws, are called ?? .... Lawmakers.

The elected representatives to parliament.

Courts do not write laws... normally.

Governance is typically formed in 3 parts - the judiciary is one part, but not a superior part. One of my issues with the current charter is that the junta built in a control mechanism to make the judiciary more useful and controllable in running the country outside of the power of an elected government.

The current judiciary has been appointed by the junta, and changes to it go through the senate. The senate in the 2007 charter went from elected to 50% appointed. The senate is charged with the appointment of judges and the judges are charged with the appointment of senators.

Very nice tight circle of control.

Give this situation, it is (1) to be expected that the courts will continue to be "activist courts" and (2) the judges have a self-interest in doing so in order to maintain this leverage over the elected governments.

The current constitution was voted on by referendum in 2007. It was appointed by the people. Amendments may be made to clauses but not to the spirit of the constitution. If PTP want to effectively re-write the constitution then they have to hold a referendum, as the current constitution is owned by the people.

The judiciary was NOT appointed by the junta. Members of the judiciary are appointed by the King. The King hires them and fires them, no one else.

you are pointing out the obvious and the irrelevant point in a constitutional monarchy.

So to be more accurate, the judges and the senators select each other for royal appointment.

The situation doesn't change, just the semantics.

Correct. But Thailand has a Constitutional Monarchy and it is not up for negotiation to change that. If 1997 worked then adopt the pre coup constitution again, but there is no need for another re-write, especially when one of the aims of the re-write is to pardon parliamentary criminals from their wrongdoings. Hardly in the interests of the 'people' is it? The only hope this country has is that someone has the balls to stand up to this and make sure that those charged and found guilty of serious crimes are locked up the same as any other Thai citizen would be.

Well that is the whole point that makes this an exercise among power-brokers. The CDA is what is being setup. That is not overthrowing the constitutional monarchy. And the process under which the CDA operates does not allow them to change the constitution from being a constitutional monarchy. So the court is deciding whether or not the establishment of a body (under the law) is unconstitutional, because that body in the future might do something which would be illegal if they did it which is an absurd situation and why IMO this is not about the constitution, but about playing politics. And make no mistake, the courts are players here, not arbitrators.

The separate issue with amnesty is part of the reconciliation bills, not part of the charter re-write. Why it may be possible to make changes to the charter that would help Thaksin's position, IMO, it would be very difficult to settle all the issues he would need to have settled with changes to the constitution. Just my opinion, but I really don't think that will be his golden bullet. The amnesty bills - that is a different story, that could go a long way toward achieving his conditions for return.

But in the end, he'll still need to cut his own deal in order to come back and not just have laws changed. (IMO)

[Yunla]

It is not only the court who should "act legally and within boundaries" and needs "questions asking" about them. PTP do not have the right to pardon serious criminals along nepotistic and favouritism lines, or to unbalance this nation over LM, or along any other lines for that matter. PTP are elected representatives of their voters, elected to discuss matters in parliament relating to the improvement of Thailand, not to pardon guilty criminals, and not to force through their own agenda at high-speed without consulting other parties impartially. PTP are not Judge Dredd determining guilt or innocence and handing out justice on the spot.

For people to criticise the constitution court instead of PTP on this 'reconciliation bill' , is to criticise a brick-wall that a drunken driver has just crashed into. Blame the wall for being in that particular place and for not moving out of the way or yielding to the drunk driver's vehicle. Why not instead try blaming the out-of-control drunk driver and not the wall he crashed into.

And what of the responsible party that built the brick wall in the middle of a road?

That's what happened when one group manipulated the procedures for the appointment of senators and the judiciary.

Who said the brick wall was in the middle of a road? Remember PTP are out of control drunk-drivers in this analogy. The wall could be on Mars and a drunk will still hit it somehow.

I was talking of the kind of brick wall that keeps convicted violent criminals inside prison, and stops them hurting innocent citizens outside the prison.

For example the type of constitution (brick wall) that stops the sister of a violent criminal, and the PTP (drunk driver), from using a reconciliation bill to over-rule the Supreme Court and get her brother miracle amazing transformation from massmurdering grand-larcenist into an innocent man, thus freed from prison via a big fat hole in the wall.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Yunla

[GentlemanJim]

I see from the news thread three of these judges are trying to jump ship, weird that eh?

So would you if 25000 redshirts had your address and phone numbers of you, your wife and your children, given to them by a member of the cabinet.

[Yunla]

I don't agree. I believe (along with a number of academics) that it's actually largely because people are becoming less subservient and more demanding that they've decided to get involved in the red movement - which is not to say that I agree with all of their actions or goals. Just the thing about them being ignorant and poor doesn't accord with reality. In general they're not the poorest of the poor anyway. They're certainly poorer than your average Democrat or PAD supporter (as studies have shown) but they're generally what Andrew Walker terms 'middle income peasants'. People from rural areas who own small businesses, and farmers who earn enough to have a mobile phone, motorbike or pick-up and perhaps a computer with internet connection. Then in the city they obviously have quite a lot of support amongst street vendors, taxi drivers, motorsai and a segment of the (mostly lower) middle class. The people that came out to fight the army seemed to be mostly folk from the slums of KT etc - the 'lumpen proletariat' - I suppose it makes sense because they have less to lose.

Yes. And their precious PTP have been in power for a year. Their precious Yingluck has avoided almost all debates in parliament, voted on 10% of motions during her visits, and her visits are very very very rare indeed. The number of bills passed by PTP in the last year are shamefully small, and none of them actually fundamentally improve infrastructure, education or anything long-term that would lead to long lasting improvements for the rural people you are talking about. We have been given short term eye-candy, like little drug fixes but no actual long-term reform agenda.

My point is that PTP is an crime-oligarchy and Thaksin is a dictator, not a communist but a modern corporate hybrid who uses maoist agrarian populism (redmob speeches on television and stage 2009/10/11 was very Maoist - down with the elites, burn the decadent capital, power to the farmers etc.) and ultimately just like Mao he never had any intention of making the poor rural people affluent or educated because then they would have no further need for his shady gang any more. PTP have not helped the redmob at all. Thats why the redmob are still angry. And that is what Thaksin wants.

If you or I agree doesn't matter. The PTP agenda has got nothing to do with helping the poor rural people you are writing about (above). PTP agenda is about making the Shinawatras extremely wealthy (far more than today) and making them a permanent feature of the state landscape for generations. You can cheer them on iif you want. Wave your red clappers. Hold aloft your red-rimmed photos of the Great Leader and his Sister. I'll go and be sick in the meantime.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Yunla

[philw]

Very interesting that now the UDD is being called "commies" and "Maoists". In earlier threads they were called rightwing nationalists.

How about a bit of reality and the acceptance that the UDD is an umbrella group comprising multiple groups with divergent political and social views that are united by one political goal, which is to see Thailand freed from the political interference and control of entrenched power groups such as the military?

I also note an interesting historical parallel. 30 yeas ago Canada repatriated its constitution. At the time Canada's constitution was legally controlled in the UK. When the PM of the day launched his initiative, which also included a Charter of Rights, there was serious opposition. Oh no the Conservative party screamed you can't do that, it's criminal, it's wrong blah blah blah. 30 years later, those changes and the Charter of Rights are considered cornerstones of the country's autonomy and judicial process. Thailand's current attempts to remove some of the most egregious avenues for meddling by non elected groups really is no different in concept, save for the fact that it really doesn't change much. The current claims about infringing uon the role of the monarch are spurious and are raised because the opponents really do not have the moral, nor legal basis with which to oppose the changes.

Good stuff and spot on.

Thailand is in transition, or at least the process has started and I doubt can be stopped.

There will be a few "interesting" years ahead but that genie called "awareness" cannot be put back into the bottle.

The stage is being set as we speak and why not ??

The Thai people have a voice and they have the right to use it.

Equally, the C.C. have the power to make a very big mistake in the next few days and I hope they do not.

Let's see what happens.