Government And Red Shirt Activists Blamed For 2010 Political Violence

[webfact]

Government and Red Shirt activists blamed for 2010 political violence

BANGKOK, Sept 18 – A commission probing the 2010 political riot that stalled Thailand has released its complete report blaming both the then government and Red Shirt activists for the months-long violence that killed 91 people and injured nearly 2,000 others.

The 276-page report, concluded by the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) after two years of investigation on the political unrest in April-May 2010, gave a chronology of events leading to the violence.

Some of the events included the burning of government offices in Bangkok and other provinces and violence instigated by armed men in black outfits.

The independent commission, appointed by then premier Abhisit Vejjajiva, investigated the case for two years before releasing the report.

The report comprises five parts: 1) primary information on the commission, 2) conclusion of violence and breaches of human rights, 3) causes and origin of conflicts, 4) victims of violence, rehabilitation and 5) recommendations.

TRCT chairman Kanit Na-Nakorn called on the government to create an unbiased mechanism to contribute to successive reconciliation and refrain from interfering in the work of the mechanism.

He cited the formation of a national reconciliation network that includes neutral people and representatives from every sector in society as one of the mechanisms.

The TRCT chairman said then premier Abhisit Vejjajiva and the present government should make public apologies for the violence given the then government’s lack of mechanism to deal with the conflict in a peaceful manner.

Mr Kanit said culprits in the deadly protest must face legal actions without any exemption but the reconciliation principle should be taken into consideration during the legal process since the offences were originated from different political ideologies, and not crime related.

On an amnesty move, he said an attempt to accelerate parliamentary deliberations of the National Reconciliation Act will have a negative impact on the reconciliation nature which needs cooperation from every party concerned, particularly victims and those affected by consequences of amnesty.

“In granting amnesty, charges and conditions for amnesty must be clear and precise. An amnesty is not meant to whitewash a culprit’s offences and easily set him free,” Mr Kanit said.

He also called on the army to take a neutral stand and refrain from staging a coup or involving in politics. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2012-09-18

[55Jay]

The last sentence is the most important one.

Edited September 18, 2012 by 55Jay

[asiawatcher]

It took them all this time to figure this out? And then the blame equally - the Govt - who put up with this rabble for months and then at long last brought in the army? Sorry boys, REDS were the cause and effect of the whole BS run by the puppet master - add that to his charges, revoke his newly issued illegal passport and try to extradite him to face the reality. No chance of this I guess. Talk about white lies and politically correctness justifying the jobs of a bunch of pencil neck public servants. Is there no reality in this country?

[bridge2bridge]

You have got to be kidding me.

HOW was the Government to blame.

They did not rally in the streets and burn down buildings.

But i guess T I T.

LOL.

[bridge2bridge]

It took them all this time to figure this out? And then the blame equally - the Govt - who put up with this rabble for months and then at long last brought in the army? Sorry boys, REDS were the cause and effect of the whole BS run by the puppet master - add that to his charges, revoke his newly issued illegal passport and try to extradite him to face the reality. No chance of this I guess. Talk about white lies and politically correctness justifying the jobs of a bunch of pencil neck public servants. Is there no reality in this country?

NO my friend NO REALITY in Thailand.

What a shame.

[khunken]

IMO the second last sentence is the important one. No whitewash.

[SIamYank]

Its very nice that they allowed one of the ministers kids kindergarten class to make the signage for the event.

Edited September 18, 2012 by SIamYank

[Northwindhermit]

Having followed the 2010 events closely, I think that this commission’s report was much more balanced and objective than had I ever expected. It is pretty much the way I saw the events at the time.

.

For one, the police/Army security forces initially followed recommended international protocol when confronting the Reds on 10 April – unarmed forces with shields and batons in front, backed up by tear gas and rubber bullet units and, only as last resort, armed soldiers. The security forces were then surprised with up-front deadly force, i.e., Col. Romklao and several soldiers killed. This upped the tension and deadly attitudes on both sides. Wild isolated shootings began, which is expected in such chaotic situations if historical examples are to be consulted. If you form a radical mob that turns violent, you must anticipate someone being shot, e.g., the Boston Massacre (1770) and Kent State (1970)

.

Two, from this early time of the protest there were some killings by the security forces, either targeted by rogue individuals or accidental from undisciplined wild live fire at perceived threats. It manifestly appears that the security forces’ orders were to restrain deadly force as much as possible, but history shows us that a small minority of guys with guns and grievances will shoot civilians. Trigger-happy kids in uniform with powerful weapons and not enough discipline or supervision. In the 19 May final push to end the mob entrenchments, the Army showed remarkable restraint, yet individual soldiers appear to have shot non-combatants, especially at the Wat from the Skytrain tracks after all resistance was ended. In all, the Army looks to have caused the majority of casualties simply because they had the majority of weapons on the street.

.

Nothing really surprised me much as these events unfolded, except for the overall disciplined restraint of MOST of the soldiers (in the context of Thai history) – and this points to a very specific order for restraint being given from above, sadly ignored by a small minority. (This scenario rings true with my experience as a combat vet in the Vietnam War as we struggled to obey Executive Orders while defending ourselves from hostile fire; a small minority of our forces did not follow orders and thus hurt non-combatants).

.

I will not even mention the political tensions behind the strife on the streets. Thailand is in a sad way.

.

-Northwindhermit

.

[bigbamboo]

The report seems very balanced but don't expect most of it's critics to be.

Edited September 18, 2012 by bigbamboo

[mrtoad]

I thought they were going to blame Jeff Savage, that way no Thai responsibility.

[looping]

I'm guessing that to maintain credibility they had to blame both sides, otherwise PT would claim that "it's not fair" due to the fact the commission was set up by Abhisit. Shame they couldn't go all out and trace the violence back to the one man who we all know funded the whole shin-dig. Compromise wins over bare truth as usual.

[Artisi]

It was good that they indentified the problem of the government protesting in the streets, trying as hard as they could to esculate it into a conflict on direct instructions of a convicted criminal who skipped bail and ran away like a soi dog when confronted with the likelyhood of a prison sentence.

If it wasn't for the reds trying to achieve peace and calm with their softly softly approach who knows where it might have ended up.

[AleG]

Having followed the 2010 events closely, I think that this commission’s report was much more balanced and objective than had I ever expected. It is pretty much the way I saw the events at the time.

.

For one, the police/Army security forces initially followed recommended international protocol when confronting the Reds on 10 April – unarmed forces with shields and batons in front, backed up by tear gas and rubber bullet units and, only as last resort, armed soldiers. The security forces were then surprised with up-front deadly force, i.e., Col. Romklao and several soldiers killed. This upped the tension and deadly attitudes on both sides. Wild isolated shootings began, which is expected in such chaotic situations if historical examples are to be consulted. If you form a radical mob that turns violent, you must anticipate someone being shot, e.g., the Boston Massacre (1770) and Kent State (1970)

.

Two, from this early time of the protest there were some killings by the security forces, either targeted by rogue individuals or accidental from undisciplined wild live fire at perceived threats. It manifestly appears that the security forces’ orders were to restrain deadly force as much as possible, but history shows us that a small minority of guys with guns and grievances will shoot civilians. Trigger-happy kids in uniform with powerful weapons and not enough discipline or supervision. In the 19 May final push to end the mob entrenchments, the Army showed remarkable restraint, yet individual soldiers appear to have shot non-combatants, especially at the Wat from the Skytrain tracks after all resistance was ended. In all, the Army looks to have caused the majority of casualties simply because they had the majority of weapons on the street.

.

Nothing really surprised me much as these events unfolded, except for the overall disciplined restraint of MOST of the soldiers (in the context of Thai history) – and this points to a very specific order for restraint being given from above, sadly ignored by a small minority. (This scenario rings true with my experience as a combat vet in the Vietnam War as we struggled to obey Executive Orders while defending ourselves from hostile fire; a small minority of our forces did not follow orders and thus hurt non-combatants).

.

I will not even mention the political tensions behind the strife on the streets. Thailand is in a sad way.

.

-Northwindhermit

.

I don't like the "Like" button, I never use it, I prefer to explicitly endorse good, balanced opinions.

Thank you for giving one here, it's a weary task to fend of the constant stream of BS that comes from some posters here.

[asiawatcher]

Hardly a balanced report - simply stating the obvious and laying blame on both sides is no answer for such a protracted load of crap. But then again we would not expect anything different.

Edited September 18, 2012 by asiawatcher

[linuxuser010101]

You have got to be kidding me.

HOW was the Government to blame.

They did not rally in the streets and burn down buildings.

But i guess T I T.

LOL.

Correct because there was no government since Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the legitimate government was overthrown by a coup and replaced by the people they decided should be the government but not elected by the people. The military cancelled the upcoming elections, abrogated the Constitution, dissolved Parliament and Constitutional Court, banned protests and all political activities, suppressed and censored the media, declared martial law nationwide, and arrested Cabinet members. Now if you have a defense for that other than you did not like the prime minister (which is not a defense anyway) you do not believe in justice or democracy which by the way is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives no matter how poor or stupid you think they are.

[philw]

Having followed the 2010 events closely, I think that this commission’s report was much more balanced and objective than had I ever expected. It is pretty much the way I saw the events at the time.

.

For one, the police/Army security forces initially followed recommended international protocol when confronting the Reds on 10 April – unarmed forces with shields and batons in front, backed up by tear gas and rubber bullet units and, only as last resort, armed soldiers. The security forces were then surprised with up-front deadly force, i.e., Col. Romklao and several soldiers killed. This upped the tension and deadly attitudes on both sides. Wild isolated shootings began, which is expected in such chaotic situations if historical examples are to be consulted. If you form a radical mob that turns violent, you must anticipate someone being shot, e.g., the Boston Massacre (1770) and Kent State (1970)

.

Two, from this early time of the protest there were some killings by the security forces, either targeted by rogue individuals or accidental from undisciplined wild live fire at perceived threats. It manifestly appears that the security forces’ orders were to restrain deadly force as much as possible, but history shows us that a small minority of guys with guns and grievances will shoot civilians. Trigger-happy kids in uniform with powerful weapons and not enough discipline or supervision. In the 19 May final push to end the mob entrenchments, the Army showed remarkable restraint, yet individual soldiers appear to have shot non-combatants, especially at the Wat from the Skytrain tracks after all resistance was ended. In all, the Army looks to have caused the majority of casualties simply because they had the majority of weapons on the street.

.

Nothing really surprised me much as these events unfolded, except for the overall disciplined restraint of MOST of the soldiers (in the context of Thai history) – and this points to a very specific order for restraint being given from above, sadly ignored by a small minority. (This scenario rings true with my experience as a combat vet in the Vietnam War as we struggled to obey Executive Orders while defending ourselves from hostile fire; a small minority of our forces did not follow orders and thus hurt non-combatants).

.

I will not even mention the political tensions behind the strife on the streets. Thailand is in a sad way.

.

-Northwindhermit

.

.

[/quote

Entirely agree with you as a calm, factual assessment but it's necessary to add in the witches brew of Thai political ambition, of which Mr Thaksin and a ( large ) number of others have a large and dangerous surfeit.

[whybother]

You have got to be kidding me.

HOW was the Government to blame.

They did not rally in the streets and burn down buildings.

But i guess T I T.

LOL.

Correct because there was no government since Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the legitimate government was overthrown by a coup and replaced by the people they decided should be the government but not elected by the people. The military cancelled the upcoming elections, abrogated the Constitution, dissolved Parliament and Constitutional Court, banned protests and all political activities, suppressed and censored the media, declared martial law nationwide, and arrested Cabinet members. Now if you have a defense for that other than you did not like the prime minister (which is not a defense anyway) you do not believe in justice or democracy which by the way is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives no matter how poor or stupid you think they are.

A ) Does that mean that there is still no government?

B ) There was a care-taker government from early February 2006 when Thaksin dissolved parliament for the April elections.

That election resulted in not enough MPs being elected (due to not getting more than 20% of the vote where there was no opposition), so a new government couldn't be formed, meaning there was still a care-taker government.

Then there was a coup, and a military government was formed. Like it or not, it was a government.

Then the military installed a civilian government. Like it or not, it was also a government.

Then there was an election, and a coalition government was formed. I don't understand why you don't think this was a government.

Then the PM was forced to step down, and a new PM was elected in parliament. Once again ... a government.

Then the PM, along with the party executives, was banned and the party disbanded.

The new party was still in government, and they went to parliament to elect a new PM ... but lost that one, and the new PM formed a new government with a majority coalition. Once again ... a government.

Edited September 18, 2012 by whybother

[55Jay]

You have got to be kidding me.

HOW was the Government to blame.

They did not rally in the streets and burn down buildings.

But i guess T I T.

LOL.

Correct because there was no government since Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the legitimate government was overthrown by a coup and replaced by the people they decided should be the government but not elected by the people. The military cancelled the upcoming elections, abrogated the Constitution, dissolved Parliament and Constitutional Court, banned protests and all political activities, suppressed and censored the media, declared martial law nationwide, and arrested Cabinet members. Now if you have a defense for that other than you did not like the prime minister (which is not a defense anyway) you do not believe in justice or democracy which by the way is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives no matter how poor or stupid you think they are.

I think my "important last line" comment was misconstrued by some.

I had gone a bit further back (circa 2006), as you have done with your comment. That's what I was referring to as well.

[philw]

You have got to be kidding me.

HOW was the Government to blame.

They did not rally in the streets and burn down buildings.

But i guess T I T.

LOL.

Correct because there was no government since Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the legitimate government was overthrown by a coup and replaced by the people they decided should be the government but not elected by the people. The military cancelled the upcoming elections, abrogated the Constitution, dissolved Parliament and Constitutional Court, banned protests and all political activities, suppressed and censored the media, declared martial law nationwide, and arrested Cabinet members. Now if you have a defense for that other than you did not like the prime minister (which is not a defense anyway) you do not believe in justice or democracy which by the way is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives no matter how poor or stupid you think they are.

A ) Does that mean that there is still no government?

B ) There was a care-taker government from early February 2006 when Thaksin dissolved parliament for the April elections.

That election resulted in not enough MPs being elected (due to not getting more than 20% of the vote where there was no opposition), so a new government couldn't be formed, meaning there was still a care-taker government.

Then there was a coup, and a military government was formed. Like it or not, it was a government.

Then the military installed a civilian government. Like it or not, it was also a government.

Then there was an election, and a coalition government was formed. I don't understand why you don't think this was a government.

Then the PM was forced to step down, and a new PM was elected in parliament. Once again ... a government.

Then the PM, along with the party executives, was banned and the party disbanded.

The new party was still in government, and they went to parliament to elect a new PM ... but lost that one, and the new PM formed a new government with a majority coalition. Once again ... a government.

Thank you for that.

And now we a newish government, elected in the old fashioned way and with a Prime Minister who seems to be doing quite well overall and carries a far higher approval rating than her immediate predecessor.

So, once again, a government...........

[whybother]

Correct because there was no government since Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the legitimate government was overthrown by a coup and replaced by the people they decided should be the government but not elected by the people. The military cancelled the upcoming elections, abrogated the Constitution, dissolved Parliament and Constitutional Court, banned protests and all political activities, suppressed and censored the media, declared martial law nationwide, and arrested Cabinet members. Now if you have a defense for that other than you did not like the prime minister (which is not a defense anyway) you do not believe in justice or democracy which by the way is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives no matter how poor or stupid you think they are.

A ) Does that mean that there is still no government?

B ) There was a care-taker government from early February 2006 when Thaksin dissolved parliament for the April elections.

That election resulted in not enough MPs being elected (due to not getting more than 20% of the vote where there was no opposition), so a new government couldn't be formed, meaning there was still a care-taker government.

Then there was a coup, and a military government was formed. Like it or not, it was a government.

Then the military installed a civilian government. Like it or not, it was also a government.

Then there was an election, and a coalition government was formed. I don't understand why you don't think this was a government.

Then the PM was forced to step down, and a new PM was elected in parliament. Once again ... a government.

Then the PM, along with the party executives, was banned and the party disbanded.

The new party was still in government, and they went to parliament to elect a new PM ... but lost that one, and the new PM formed a new government with a majority coalition. Once again ... a government.

Thank you for that.

And now we a newish government, elected in the old fashioned way and with a Prime Minister who seems to be doing quite well overall and carries a far higher approval rating than her immediate predecessor.

So, once again, a government...........

... The old fashioned way, being elected in parliament ... but she formed government.

So I don't know what linuxuser was going on about.

[hellodolly]

The last sentence is the most important one.

It would help a lot if Thailand had a competent police force. The army would not have been called in.

Also a legal system that punishes law breakers even if they are in the house or cabinet.

[hellodolly]

Having followed the 2010 events closely, I think that this commission’s report was much more balanced and objective than had I ever expected. It is pretty much the way I saw the events at the time.

.

For one, the police/Army security forces initially followed recommended international protocol when confronting the Reds on 10 April – unarmed forces with shields and batons in front, backed up by tear gas and rubber bullet units and, only as last resort, armed soldiers. The security forces were then surprised with up-front deadly force, i.e., Col. Romklao and several soldiers killed. This upped the tension and deadly attitudes on both sides. Wild isolated shootings began, which is expected in such chaotic situations if historical examples are to be consulted. If you form a radical mob that turns violent, you must anticipate someone being shot, e.g., the Boston Massacre (1770) and Kent State (1970)

.

Two, from this early time of the protest there were some killings by the security forces, either targeted by rogue individuals or accidental from undisciplined wild live fire at perceived threats. It manifestly appears that the security forces’ orders were to restrain deadly force as much as possible, but history shows us that a small minority of guys with guns and grievances will shoot civilians. Trigger-happy kids in uniform with powerful weapons and not enough discipline or supervision. In the 19 May final push to end the mob entrenchments, the Army showed remarkable restraint, yet individual soldiers appear to have shot non-combatants, especially at the Wat from the Skytrain tracks after all resistance was ended. In all, the Army looks to have caused the majority of casualties simply because they had the majority of weapons on the street.

.

Nothing really surprised me much as these events unfolded, except for the overall disciplined restraint of MOST of the soldiers (in the context of Thai history) – and this points to a very specific order for restraint being given from above, sadly ignored by a small minority. (This scenario rings true with my experience as a combat vet in the Vietnam War as we struggled to obey Executive Orders while defending ourselves from hostile fire; a small minority of our forces did not follow orders and thus hurt non-combatants).

.

I will not even mention the political tensions behind the strife on the streets. Thailand is in a sad way.

.

-Northwindhermit

.

I really have to agree with you on every thing you have said.

I believe the Abhist Government was big time guilty in letting it go as long as they did.

I also believe that all the previous governments and the present one are guilty of not purchasing proper crowd control equipment. A water canon would have cleared a lot of area and people with less loss of life and damage. It is not like the previous governments up to the present one don't know there is a distinct possibility for this to happen. And took no steps to help stem the situation when it arises.

[hellodolly]

You have got to be kidding me.

HOW was the Government to blame.

They did not rally in the streets and burn down buildings.

But i guess T I T.

LOL.

Correct because there was no government since Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the legitimate government was overthrown by a coup and replaced by the people they decided should be the government but not elected by the people. The military cancelled the upcoming elections, abrogated the Constitution, dissolved Parliament and Constitutional Court, banned protests and all political activities, suppressed and censored the media, declared martial law nationwide, and arrested Cabinet members. Now if you have a defense for that other than you did not like the prime minister (which is not a defense anyway) you do not believe in justice or democracy which by the way is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives no matter how poor or stupid you think they are.

A ) Does that mean that there is still no government?

B ) There was a care-taker government from early February 2006 when Thaksin dissolved parliament for the April elections.

That election resulted in not enough MPs being elected (due to not getting more than 20% of the vote where there was no opposition), so a new government couldn't be formed, meaning there was still a care-taker government.

Then there was a coup, and a military government was formed. Like it or not, it was a government.

Then the military installed a civilian government. Like it or not, it was also a government.

Then there was an election, and a coalition government was formed. I don't understand why you don't think this was a government.

Then the PM was forced to step down, and a new PM was elected in parliament. Once again ... a government.

Then the PM, along with the party executives, was banned and the party disbanded.

The new party was still in government, and they went to parliament to elect a new PM ... but lost that one, and the new PM formed a new government with a majority coalition. Once again ... a government.

I really don't think he understands the Parliamentary system. Probably like myself from the states and on moving to Canada it took a long time to understand it. Even though I didn't like it. I like what the French did. Filled all the seats and when there was no clear majoriity picked the two parties with the most seats and ran there leaders for the position of leader. Thatway the people truley had the man they wanted in the job.

[khaowong1]

I agree with you HD.. a water canon works wonders at crowd control, until some one tries to shoot the guy operating the canon. then all bets are off. An adequate police force would also help. not some yahoo's that bought their gun and badge from their local pooyai. You and I have been here long enough to know that Thai's have a whole different outlook on life, politics, religion, etc and etc. I've said before, Thailand reminds me of Mexico back in the 60's and 70's. Mexico has evolved, kind of. Thailand, not so much. I get a little tired of hearing "you farangs just don't understand Thailand". Yes we do. Most of us have seen this kind of nonsense in other developing countries. When we throw in our two cents worth, it's because we've been there, done that, seen that and have the t-shirt.

[tlansford]

I agree with you HD.. a water canon works wonders at crowd control, until some one tries to shoot the guy operating the canon. then all bets are off. An adequate police force would also help. not some yahoo's that bought their gun and badge from their local pooyai. You and I have been here long enough to know that Thai's have a whole different outlook on life, politics, religion, etc and etc. I've said before, Thailand reminds me of Mexico back in the 60's and 70's. Mexico has evolved, kind of. Thailand, not so much. I get a little tired of hearing "you farangs just don't understand Thailand". Yes we do. Most of us have seen this kind of nonsense in other developing countries. When we throw in our two cents worth, it's because we've been there, done that, seen that and have the t-shirt.

"I agree with you HD.. a water canon works wonders at crowd control, until some one tries to shoot the guy operating the canon. "

Then why was the first death a protester?

I think the TVF timeline for the fatalities, which usually begin lobbing grenades and the death of the colonel, need to be updated.

[473geo]

I really have to agree with you on every thing you have said.

I believe the Abhist Government was big time guilty in letting it go as long as they did.

I also believe that all the previous governments and the present one are guilty of not purchasing proper crowd control equipment. A water canon would have cleared a lot of area and people with less loss of life and damage. It is not like the previous governments up to the present one don't know there is a distinct possibility for this to happen. And took no steps to help stem the situation when it arises.

Thing is Dolly you really should get out and read a bit more

I seem to recall both water cannon and tear gas were used in one of the early exchanges, might have been when the government shut down the TV stations of the Red shirts....

Anyway I guess they just ran out of teargas and water later in the protest......

Edited September 18, 2012 by 473geo

[moe666]

You have got to be kidding me.

HOW was the Government to blame.

They did not rally in the streets and burn down buildings.

But i guess T I T.

LOL.

Correct because there was no government since Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the legitimate government was overthrown by a coup and replaced by the people they decided should be the government but not elected by the people. The military cancelled the upcoming elections, abrogated the Constitution, dissolved Parliament and Constitutional Court, banned protests and all political activities, suppressed and censored the media, declared martial law nationwide, and arrested Cabinet members. Now if you have a defense for that other than you did not like the prime minister (which is not a defense anyway) you do not believe in justice or democracy which by the way is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives no matter how poor or stupid you think they are.

You need to back up and check your facts there was no PM at the time of the coup. hehehe another Big T apologist

[123thaibourbon]

pre 2006? then, PM Thaksin allowed thugs to go rampant who were awash in blood money to badmouth him & majority NE populus. (eg Ekayuth Anchanabutra-exiled in UK for good reasons, then return to stir things up.. among other supermen) This was a big mistake as the consequences are still in cadence & cascade. like it or lump it, cannot keep democracy out of Thailand anymore regardless of TS return.

[linuxuser010101]

You have got to be kidding me.

HOW was the Government to blame.

They did not rally in the streets and burn down buildings.

But i guess T I T.

LOL.

Correct because there was no government since Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the legitimate government was overthrown by a coup and replaced by the people they decided should be the government but not elected by the people. The military cancelled the upcoming elections, abrogated the Constitution, dissolved Parliament and Constitutional Court, banned protests and all political activities, suppressed and censored the media, declared martial law nationwide, and arrested Cabinet members. Now if you have a defense for that other than you did not like the prime minister (which is not a defense anyway) you do not believe in justice or democracy which by the way is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives no matter how poor or stupid you think they are.

A ) Does that mean that there is still no government?

B ) There was a care-taker government from early February 2006 when Thaksin dissolved parliament for the April elections.

That election resulted in not enough MPs being elected (due to not getting more than 20% of the vote where there was no opposition), so a new government couldn't be formed, meaning there was still a care-taker government.

Then there was a coup, and a military government was formed. Like it or not, it was a government.

Then the military installed a civilian government. Like it or not, it was also a government.

Then there was an election, and a coalition government was formed. I don't understand why you don't think this was a government.

Then the PM was forced to step down, and a new PM was elected in parliament. Once again ... a government.

Then the PM, along with the party executives, was banned and the party disbanded.

The new party was still in government, and they went to parliament to elect a new PM ... but lost that one, and the new PM formed a new government with a majority coalition. Once again ... a government.

Thank you for that.

And now we a newish government, elected in the old fashioned way and with a Prime Minister who seems to be doing quite well overall and carries a far higher approval rating than her immediate predecessor.

So, once again, a government...........

Precisely! I fail how anyone could see any of the "governments" since 2006 as legitimate up until this currently democratically elected government that seems to take more cheap shots from TV members than the people that elected the government. I suspect most expats live here because it is a lot cheaper (or was anyway in the past) than their own countries but they insist on backing the people that rape the environment and extort the people including the people that staged the coup IT IS ILLEGAL and not a recognized government just like Burma was.

A coup is illegal, that's all there is to it, if you do not like a president or prime minister you impeach them not drive a tank to their house and tell them to leave the country (Thaksin was told to leave he did not run before they could get him). Obviously a lot of you did not like former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra but he was the legally elected leader of this nation and the law was broken meaning justice, freedom and democracy went out the window when it did not suit.

I would be curious what you would have to say if this happened in your country. To spite the animosity between the political parties in my country the people would rise up against a coup on either side because we value justice, freedom and democracy in some twisted way we haven't quite gotten right but nonetheless no coups. So, why do you think Thai people deserve less?

[whybother]

Precisely! I fail how anyone could see any of the "governments" since 2006 as legitimate up until this currently democratically elected government that seems to take more cheap shots from TV members than the people that elected the government. I suspect most expats live here because it is a lot cheaper (or was anyway in the past) than their own countries but they insist on backing the people that rape the environment and extort the people including the people that staged the coup IT IS ILLEGAL and not a recognized government just like Burma was.

A coup is illegal, that's all there is to it, if you do not like a president or prime minister you impeach them not drive a tank to their house and tell them to leave the country (Thaksin was told to leave he did not run before they could get him). Obviously a lot of you did not like former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra but he was the legally elected leader of this nation and the law was broken meaning justice, freedom and democracy went out the window when it did not suit.

I would be curious what you would have to say if this happened in your country. To spite the animosity between the political parties in my country the people would rise up against a coup on either side because we value justice, freedom and democracy in some twisted way we haven't quite gotten right but nonetheless no coups. So, why do you think Thai people deserve less?

Why wasn't the Samak government legitimate?