11 Feb Anti-Thaksin Demonstration Thread

[Jai Dee]

Mr. Sondhi has confirmed that King Rama 5th statue will be used as venue for Saturday's demonstration

Anti-government demonstration leader Sondhi Limthongkul (สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล) has affirmed that the upcoming demonstration on February 11th would be held at the previously used venue, at the King Rama 5th Equestrian Statue.

Manage Newspaper Founder Sondhi said he would not be leading the demonstration on Saturday as this role has ceased since last Sunday, and he will only be among the participants. He has also challenged Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to a televised encounter where both will have to exchange questions and answers within a limited timeframe.

Prime Minister's Office Spokesperson Suraphong Suebwonglee (สุรพงษ์ สืบวงศ์ลี) said the demonstrators can use the venue at the King Rama 5th Equestrian Statue, but must ask for permission. He said that as for Mr. Sondhi's request of a meeting with the prime minister, the premier was ready to talk with him at Government House. And should Mr. Sonthi be concerned of having no press coverage, then the media would also be allowed to observe the encounter.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 Febuary 2006

[george]

Govt backs down on rally venue ban

Royal Plaza crowds urged to stay orderly

BANGKOK: -- The government yesterday backed down on its earlier insistence that arch-critic Sondhi Limthongkul not hold his next rally at the Royal Plaza, but says he should seek permission first. Government spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee said the organisers can use the ground for Saturday's rally but advised them to seek permission from the Metropolitan Police Bureau and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, which supervise the Royal Plaza.

He said the government's suggested venue at Sanam Luang was playing host to Maka Bucha Day activities that day. He also urged people who turned up to rally in an orderly fashion.

On Monday, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said the Royal Plaza could not be used, after last weekend's protest which brought together at least 50,000 people from Bangkok and the provinces. He said the Royal Plaza was in the royal residential area, and such a large gathering would cause traffic jams.

The ban sparked criticism from academics and opposition parties that the government was trying to block freedom of expression.

Last weekend's protest led by Mr Sondhi was countered yesterday by the prime minister's backers who flooded to Government House urging the prime minister to resist pressure to resign.

The Santi Maitree and Thai Khu Fah buildings were opened to receive supporters, some of whom made the trip all the way from Kanchanaburi province.

Addressing the cheering crowds who chanted ''PM Fight!, PM Fight!,'' Mr Thaksin said he would not resign or dissolve the House.

''A person who defaulted on bank loans can't possibly save the nation. If he wants to restore the nation, he should pay off his debts,'' he said, referring to Mr Sondhi, who revived his media empire with a capital injection and debt reduction from a state-owned bank.

Mr Thaksin said that in the past it took just tens of thousands of people to oust political leaders because they did not have public support.

But he could not afford to give in to pressure and leave people who pinned their hopes on him to fend for themselves alone.

''Several of those who came today are taxi drivers and truckers. They told me they would come at my beck and call, but I asked them not to come,'' he said.

He said he would wash his hands of politics when the country and its people were on the road to prosperity.

Mr Thaksin also lashed out at the opposition for joining a campaign to bring down democracy using shameful means.

Mr Sondhi said he would hand over responsibility to civic associations while he himself would be just another participant at the next rally.

''The Royal Plaza is a public location and a rallying point for political movements, where members of this administration themselves had held activities at various times in the past,'' he said.

The media firebrand said that in 1996 Mr Thaksin turned up at a political rally there and in 2003 sponsored and took part in social gatherings there as prime minister.

The constitution guaranteed the freedom to act in a non-violent fashion against state abuse, and the right to express different political beliefs, he said.

Mr Sondhi said he would not lead the rally as his duty ended last Saturday. He had promised the crowd weeks beforehand that it would be the last ''Thailand Weekly'' on-tour talk show.

State-owned Channel 9 took Mr Sondhi's talk show, which criticised the government, off the air last year, prompting him to take the programme on the road, culminating in a rally to oust the government last week.

''The People's Alliance for Democracy, formed by various civic groups and anti-corruption unions across the country with myself as a partner, will meet today to express its stand on the issue.

''This has turned into a public outcry, so people themselves should express their opinions,'' he said.

Mr Sondhi also challenged the prime minister to debate with him on live television to prove who is speaking the truth.

''He [Mr Thaksin] can boast about his so-called economic success and campaigns, while I can say how they went wrong and we can let the public decide.

''If I lose, then there is no point in continuing, but if Mr Thaksin loses he must be prepared to suffer the consequences.'' he said.

Mr Sondhi said he would not meet the prime minister behind closed doors, as people could accuse him of trying to strike a deal.

--Bangkok Post 2006-02-09

[Jai Dee]

Interior Permanent Secretary said that Mr. Sondhi should rethink whether the rally this Saturday is appropriate

Permanent Secretary of the Interior Ministry Sujarit Patchimnan (สุจริต ปัจฉิมนันท์) has said that the letter expressing support for the premier to continue his administration of the country serve as a reminder for Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul (สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล) to reconsider whether the rally this Saturday is appropriate.

Mr. Sujarit commented on the letter signed by officials from 10 ministries to expreses support for Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, saying that the circulating letter should prompt Mr. Sondhi to reconsider whether the rally on February 11 will be appropriate. He added that since Mr. Sondhi had already submitted a royal petition through Chair of the Privy Councilor General Prem Tinsulanonda (เปรม ติณสูลานนท์) last Saturday, he should wait for His Majesty the King’s response instead of coming out to create more confusion in the country.

Mr. Sujarit added that officials from the Interior Ministry, provincial governors, as well as the general public have signed in the letter to support the Prime Minister.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 Febuary 2006

[tettyan]

There are desperately poor people in Thailand to be sure....but I do not think that people should start to think that the bulk of village life is dire poverty. I would say that villagers would rather buy whiskey than a newpaper....don't worry about food because Thailand is half farmers and Thai farmers need never worry about food. Even very poor people often have adequate nutrition here....don't make the mistake that there are alot of poor people starving in Thailand. Thai people have evolved a culture that is especially well adapted at taking whatever is available in nature and creating wonderful meals from it.

Another post was suggesting that there are alot of people in Thailand who are too poor to go to school...I think this is not correct. The percentage of school attendance is extremely high in Thailand from what I've heard (maybe what I've heard is wrong).

As I said before, I don't know about your village in particular. But one survey I read said that 1/4 of children in the Northeast grow up malnourished. They may still be able to live and go on with their lives, but it does have negative impacts on mental development and health problems they'll experience later.

As for being fed in general - what happens when there is drought?

As for education, this is a topic I try to follow closely. Although the Constitution guarantees universal, free education, in practice, this is not the case. Even for public schools, students' parents are often forced to pay "donations", which are de-facto tuition fees. In rural areas, competition for secondary school slots can be so severe that many have to pay hefty bribes to ensure their child a slot. The costs of books and school supplies is also a pretty heavy burden for your avg rural family.

I'd be happy to hear any examples from your village that you can recollect.

And if enough believe that, then hopefully future administrations won't have to deal in handouts at all. These handouts can be redirected to where they have always been, directly into the hands of the elite.

So do you support vote-buying because it involves the "elite" redistributing their wealth to the poor?

[Ricardo]

Part of that response may have been a long statement, of which edited portions were seen on this morning's Channel-3 News, by HE Prem Tinsulanonda.

Hopefully english-language translations may be available on the Nation/Bangkok-Post web-sites, or as a press-release from the Thai National News Bureau, shortly ?

Meanwhile I feel it's good that Sondhi, having successfully called for a final all-out demonstration of public-support at last Saturday's rally, is now stepping back from organising what is increasingly a political action. This might be seen as evidence that he isn't, as his detractors claim, merely interested in taking over the PM job for himself.

[thedude]

jezchesters remarks in the previous thread are needlessly provocative

people like myself are not pro-thaksin, we are pro-stability

many wide-eyed idealists may not appreciate this, but graft and corruption has been a part of this country long before Thaksin came into the scene.

if there's anything proven through this country's history (and that of others), its that a stable country promotes economic growth.

economic growth is not just good for money grabbing investors, its also good for the people, because it puts food on the table and provides certainty and security.

for those who've been here longer than a few years, you will know what we went through during the crisis, thailand cannot afford to fall further behind at this crucial juncture

far more important things are happening outside its borders at this time, china and india are reshaping competition, thailand needs to be stable in order to position itself in strategic industries, i think it is doing pretty well, but the window of opportunity will not stay open forever

for all the bad this government has done, surprisingly, it has also done a lot of positive things. this is definitely not the worst government thailand can have. the status quo for the remaining 3 years of this admistration is not going to bring the country down.

deep down we all know there is nobody else who is capable of stepping up to the plate right now.

my position is to let the government serve out its term, and hopefully somebody else better, perhaps a more mature, educated and honest Democrat Party leader, will take over from there.

people power and revolution is romantic, i know, but i'll be damned if i'm gonna live in another philippines, where utter poverty prevails at shameful levels, and yet the media drums up another street party for the masses to impeach yet another president whom they put in power barely 18 months before. it is a tragic farce. believe me, investors are not going back to the philippines anytime soon, meanwhile, their educated middle class are working overseas as maids and engineers in order to earn enough foreign currency to pay back the almost insurmountable public debt. believe me, you do not want that for thailand.

[Jai Dee]

Mr. Bhokin disagrees with the Opposition to gather the votes from government’s MPs to file a no-confidence motion

House Speaker Bhokin Bhalakula (โภคิน พลกุล) disagrees with the Opposition Party's decision to gather votes from the government’s MPs so that it would be able to launch a no-confidence debate against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

He personally sees that such action is against the intentions of the Constitution where every party should be strong and members of the political parties should have discipline.

He said the Opposition has claimed that it will take such action for the nation. He said this is inappropriate since it could cause trouble to the political system, which has been established since the beginning.

Mr. Bhokin stated that he is unworried about the gathering on the 11th of February, as people have the rights to carry out such task. However, he said the rally should proceed in peace, and the criticisms should be made from the facts. Further, there should not be any usage of verbal abuse.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 Febuary 2006

[tettyan]

jezchesters remarks in the previous thread are needlessly provocative

people like myself are not pro-thaksin, we are pro-stability

many wide-eyed idealists may not appreciate this, but graft and corruption has been a part of this country long before Thaksin came into the scene.

if there's anything proven through this country's history (and that of others), its that a stable country promotes economic growth.

economic growth is not just good for money grabbing investors, its also good for the people, because it puts food on the table and provides certainty and security.

for those who've been here longer than a few years, you will know what we went through during the crisis, thailand cannot afford to fall further behind at this crucial juncture

far more important things are happening outside its borders at this time, china and india are reshaping competition, thailand needs to be stable in order to position itself in strategic industries, i think it is doing pretty well, but the window of opportunity will not stay open forever

for all the bad this government has done, surprisingly, it has also done a lot of positive things. this is definitely not the worst government thailand can have. the status quo for the remaining 3 years of this admistration is not going to bring the country down.

deep down we all know there is nobody else who is capable of stepping up to the plate right now.

my position is to let the government serve out its term, and hopefully somebody else better, perhaps a more mature, educated and honest Democrat Party leader, will take over from there.

people power and revolution is romantic, i know, but i'll be damned if i'm gonna live in another philippines, where utter poverty prevails at shameful levels, and yet the media drums up another street party for the masses to impeach yet another president whom they put in power barely 18 months before. it is a tragic farce. believe me, investors are not going back to the philippines anytime soon, meanwhile, their educated middle class are working overseas as maids and engineers in order to earn enough foreign currency to pay back the almost insurmountable public debt. believe me, you do not want that for thailand.

Sorry, the record of world history does not show that political "stability" itself is correlated with economic growth. If so, how did Argentina manage to solidfy its fall from First World to Third World status under Juan Peron's decade-long rule? Mobutu's 30-year rule in Congo didn't work wonders for their economy either. And you've got to be crazy to bring up the example of the Philippines! So if Marcos did stick around, would the Philippines would be a far richer country now? The problems there are far more complex - for one, they have an entrenched, quasi-feudal landed elite (something Thailand is forunate enough not to have) that prevents their state from functioning properly.

If political instability is inherantly detrimental to economic growth, how do you explain Italy's economic miracle of the 50s and 60s, when governments on avg lasted less than 2 years and where they came close several times to actually electing a Communist government? In Japan, although the same party has held power for most of the last 50 years, the avg prime minister lasts for only 2 years. And the Swiss, with their crazy system of "direct democracy" and frequent referandums havn't been getting poorer the last time I checked.

Admirers of Lee Kuan Yew seem to think a trade-off exists between political pluralism and economic growth. I'd say such an assertion is bogus. Sure, I we might be better off economically if more countries were ruled by dictators like Lee. But who's to guarantee that your dictator doesn't turn out to be a Mobutu, or a Hitler?

Edited February 9, 2006 by tettyan

[Jai Dee]

ACM Kongsak is willing to resign from his post if any suitable person will be replaced

Interior Minister Kongsak Wanthana (คงศักดิ์ วันทนา) says he is willing to resign from his post if a suitable person will be replaced and believes the rumours were not caused by the conflicts between him and Thai Rak Thai MPs.

Air Chief Marshall Kongsak referred to the rally which will take place on February 11th that it’s the responsibility of Bangkok Metropolitan Administration to approve the rally to use the Royal Plaza as the venue.

As for the installation of the loud speakers at the venue, ACM Kongsak stated that the matter will under the consideration of the Metropolitan Police Bureau.

He insisted that Royal Plaza is considered as a Royal Precinct, however, he would check on the issue again.

Interior Minister said that if the media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul (สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล) still insists to use Royal Plaza for the rally, he will have to ask his deputy Mr. Sermsak Pongpanit (เสริมศักดิ์ พงษ์พานิช) to consider since he is taking care of the matter.

ACM Kongsak touched upon the news reported that there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the post of Interior Minister that he would continue to work his best and that he is willing to give the opportunity for those who are talented and more suitable.

He believes there are no one that would intend to harm him since he never had conflict with anyone and the party MPs are cooperating well.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 Febuary 2006

[tettyan]

Oh yes, and on the apparent lack of an alternative to Thaksin -

That's exactly the kind of sentiment George W. Bush played off on to win re-election.

[Heng]

There are desperately poor people in Thailand to be sure....but I do not think that people should start to think that the bulk of village life is dire poverty. I would say that villagers would rather buy whiskey than a newpaper....don't worry about food because Thailand is half farmers and Thai farmers need never worry about food. Even very poor people often have adequate nutrition here....don't make the mistake that there are alot of poor people starving in Thailand. Thai people have evolved a culture that is especially well adapted at taking whatever is available in nature and creating wonderful meals from it.

Another post was suggesting that there are alot of people in Thailand who are too poor to go to school...I think this is not correct. The percentage of school attendance is extremely high in Thailand from what I've heard (maybe what I've heard is wrong).

As I said before, I don't know about your village in particular. But one survey I read said that 1/4 of children in the Northeast grow up malnourished. They may still be able to live and go on with their lives, but it does have negative impacts on mental development and health problems they'll experience later.

As for being fed in general - what happens when there is drought?

As for education, this is a topic I try to follow closely. Although the Constitution guarantees universal, free education, in practice, this is not the case. Even for public schools, students' parents are often forced to pay "donations", which are de-facto tuition fees. In rural areas, competition for secondary school slots can be so severe that many have to pay hefty bribes to ensure their child a slot. The costs of books and school supplies is also a pretty heavy burden for your avg rural family.

I'd be happy to hear any examples from your village that you can recollect.

And if enough believe that, then hopefully future administrations won't have to deal in handouts at all. These handouts can be redirected to where they have always been, directly into the hands of the elite.

So do you support vote-buying because it involves the "elite" redistributing their wealth to the poor?

I don't support vote-selling and then complaining about who you sold your vote to.

[sriracha john]

Sorry, the record of world history does not show that political "stability" itself is correlated with economic growth. If so, how did Argentina manage to solidfy its fall from First World to Third World status under Juan Peron's decade-long rule? Mobutu's 30-year rule in Congo didn't work wonders for their economy either. And you've got to be crazy to bring up the example of the Philippines! So if Marcos did stick around, would the Philippines would be a far richer country now? The problems there are far more complex - for one, they have an entrenched, quasi-feudal landed elite (something Thailand is forunate enough not to have) that prevents their state from functioning properly.

If political instability is inherantly detrimental to economic growth, how do you explain Italy's economic miracle of the 50s and 60s, when governments on avg lasted less than 2 years and where they came close several times to actually electing a Communist government? In Japan, although the same party has held power for most of the last 50 years, the avg prime minister lasts for only 2 years. And the Swiss, with their crazy system of "direct democracy" and frequent referandums havn't been getting poorer the last time I checked.

Admirers of Lee Kuan Yew seem to think a trade-off exists between political pluralism and economic growth. I'd say such an assertion is bogus. Sure, I we might be better off economically if more countries were ruled by dictators like Lee. But who's to guarantee that your dictator doesn't turn out to be a Mobutu, or a Hitler?

Great history lesson, tettyan. thedude thanks you and so do I.

It saves me making other points, but in regards to the Philippines, I would just add that while living there under Marcos' rule for 2 years and having family there ever since, I can attest that his rule was not something Thailand wants to emulate. ANY difficulties that the Philippines have experienced since his downfall, pale in comparison to life under his regime and it's atrocities. That life experience definitely colors me against the present situation in Thailand because of the growing number of similarities I see.

=========================================

....and we now to return you to our normally scheduled programming and topic discussion,

I direct your attention to the 700% (If my math is wrong, just call me daleyboy.. ) increase, from last week, in the number of police officers to be in attendance at the rally...

20,000 police mobilised for Sondhi's rally

The Metropolitan Police will deploy 20,000 policemen to keep law and order at Sanam Luang on February 4 when media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul will organise a massive rally against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Pol Lt Gen Wiroj Jantarangsri said 20,000 policemen would be deployed to prevent any untoward incident.

Sondhi called his audience to come out to Sanam Luang and he would march to the Royal Plaza to submit a petition to His Majesty through Privy Council Chairman Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, calling for constitutional amendments and political reform as well as ouster of Thaksin.

- The Nation (btw, they have a whole new website layout just since this morning)

-------------------------

math check...??

3,000 cops last week

20,000 cops this week

= 700% increase?

[thedude]

jezchesters remarks in the previous thread are needlessly provocative

people like myself are not pro-thaksin, we are pro-stability

many wide-eyed idealists may not appreciate this, but graft and corruption has been a part of this country long before Thaksin came into the scene.

if there's anything proven through this country's history (and that of others), its that a stable country promotes economic growth.

economic growth is not just good for money grabbing investors, its also good for the people, because it puts food on the table and provides certainty and security.

for those who've been here longer than a few years, you will know what we went through during the crisis, thailand cannot afford to fall further behind at this crucial juncture

far more important things are happening outside its borders at this time, china and india are reshaping competition, thailand needs to be stable in order to position itself in strategic industries, i think it is doing pretty well, but the window of opportunity will not stay open forever

for all the bad this government has done, surprisingly, it has also done a lot of positive things. this is definitely not the worst government thailand can have. the status quo for the remaining 3 years of this admistration is not going to bring the country down.

deep down we all know there is nobody else who is capable of stepping up to the plate right now.

my position is to let the government serve out its term, and hopefully somebody else better, perhaps a more mature, educated and honest Democrat Party leader, will take over from there.

people power and revolution is romantic, i know, but i'll be damned if i'm gonna live in another philippines, where utter poverty prevails at shameful levels, and yet the media drums up another street party for the masses to impeach yet another president whom they put in power barely 18 months before. it is a tragic farce. believe me, investors are not going back to the philippines anytime soon, meanwhile, their educated middle class are working overseas as maids and engineers in order to earn enough foreign currency to pay back the almost insurmountable public debt. believe me, you do not want that for thailand.

Sorry, the record of world history does not show that political "stability" itself is correlated with economic growth. If so, how did Argentina manage to solidfy its fall from First World to Third World status under Juan Peron's decade-long rule? Mobutu's 30-year rule in Congo didn't work wonders for their economy either. And you've got to be crazy to bring up the example of the Philippines! So if Marcos did stick around, would the Philippines would be a far richer country now? The problems there are far more complex - for one, they have an entrenched, quasi-feudal landed elite (something Thailand is forunate enough not to have) that prevents their state from functioning properly.

If political instability is inherantly detrimental to economic growth, how do you explain Italy's economic miracle of the 50s and 60s, when governments on avg lasted less than 2 years and where they came close several times to actually electing a Communist government? In Japan, although the same party has held power for most of the last 50 years, the avg prime minister lasts for only 2 years. And the Swiss, with their crazy system of "direct democracy" and frequent referandums havn't been getting poorer the last time I checked.

Admirers of Lee Kuan Yew seem to think a trade-off exists between political pluralism and economic growth. I'd say such an assertion is bogus. Sure, I we might be better off economically if more countries were ruled by dictators like Lee. But who's to guarantee that your dictator doesn't turn out to be a Mobutu, or a Hitler?

the relation between political stability and economic growth is undeniable, from roman times to the rennaissance to the modern era. the idea that economies thrive in times of peace and certainty is not a radical one.

your examples on the other hand....

argentina's century long decline cannot be attributed to peron alone.

mobutu?!?

this may surprise you, but i've had philipino friends tell me that they quietly reminisce over the good old marcos years. not that anyone thinks marcos was good, but they miss the stability under that regime. marcos wasn't shooting people in the streets unlike mobutu, even if he was insanely corrupt. there was even a time when there was a thriving and emerging middle class in the philippines. nonetheless, i think the first revolution was good. i think fidel ramos was an excellent president, but after that the media circus came to town and they are still there.

political change has a lesser effect on advanced economies like japan and switzerland, where their civil bureaucracy is strong and not corrupt and can operate undisturbed amidst political change. i think everybody aspires to be like japan and switzerland, but lets accept the reality that we are not there yet.

for the record i am not in support of any dictatorship. i am in support of a country following the basic precept of its very own constitution. to the best of my knowledge, this government was legitimately elected under constitutional law. if it is in breach of anything, then let the legal process take its due course, otherwise, it has every right to continue to serve out its term.

Edited February 9, 2006 by thedude

[haha]

Oh yes, and on the apparent lack of an alternative to Thaksin -

That's exactly the kind of sentiment George W. Bush played off on to win re-election.

this cartoon controversy, and the fact that it has been proven that saddam supported al-queda pretty much vindicates bush position.

if people then knew what they know now, it would have been a landslide victory for bush.

personally, I didn't vote. but the events after the election show he was right.

we have some really crazy people out there, and they are willing to murder others for no more than a drawing.

abdul khan, the murdered danish movie director, this cartoon controversy, and now we get the news about the devices that iran is trying to get which are not necessary for a nuclear plant, but necessary for a nuclear bomb.

what more does it take to convince you bush is doing the right thing?

[chownah]

I direct your attention to the 700% (If my math is wrong, just call me daleyboy.. ) increase, from last week, in the number of police officers to be in attendance at the rally...

20,000 police mobilised for Sondhi's rally

The Metropolitan Police will deploy 20,000 policemen to keep law and order at Sanam Luang on February 4 when media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul will organise a massive rally against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Pol Lt Gen Wiroj Jantarangsri said 20,000 policemen would be deployed to prevent any untoward incident.

Sondhi called his audience to come out to Sanam Luang and he would march to the Royal Plaza to submit a petition to His Majesty through Privy Council Chairman Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, calling for constitutional amendments and political reform as well as ouster of Thaksin.

- The Nation (btw, they have a whole new website layout just since this morning)

-------------------------

math check...??

3,000 cops last week

20,000 cops this week

= 700% increase?

Could it be that the perimeter around Sanam Luang is 7 times (700%) longer than the perimeter around the Royal Plaza? Seems to me that Sanam Luang is a very big open space and is probably alot larger than the Royal Plaze but I'm not sure.

Also, what is the significance of this increase....are you suggesting that the police will start or aggravate or escalate violence? There were suggestions of this in the first rally and it did not come to pass. It makes great anti-Toxin rhetoric to hint at such things but no reasons to actually think that it will happen. Why would Toxin want the police to cause trouble?...Why would Toxin want violence...it is clearly not in his interests to have violence occur at these gatherings...it is, however in the interest of the demonstrators...frankly I'm surprised that some of the domonstrators haven't caused provocative violence. If violence does happen it will not matter how or why it started, many of anti-Toxin people will put on the blinders and blame the police regardless...I would want to see clear evidence of what happened before I would blame anyone or conclude that anyone was innocent.

[chownah]

As I said before, I don't know about your village in particular. But one survey I read said that 1/4 of children in the Northeast grow up malnourished. They may still be able to live and go on with their lives, but it does have negative impacts on mental development and health problems they'll experience later.

As for being fed in general - what happens when there is drought?

As for education, this is a topic I try to follow closely. Although the Constitution guarantees universal, free education, in practice, this is not the case. Even for public schools, students' parents are often forced to pay "donations", which are de-facto tuition fees. In rural areas, competition for secondary school slots can be so severe that many have to pay hefty bribes to ensure their child a slot. The costs of books and school supplies is also a pretty heavy burden for your avg rural family.

I'd be happy to hear any examples from your village that you can recollect.

And if enough believe that, then hopefully future administrations won't have to deal in handouts at all. These handouts can be redirected to where they have always been, directly into the hands of the elite.

So do you support vote-buying because it involves the "elite" redistributing their wealth to the poor?

I want to reassert that there are desperately poor people in Thailand and especially in Isaan. Alot of the reason for the extreme poverty there is that it is so dry there in the dry season that life is a struggle. I live in the north and there is enough rainfall all year round that if there is nothing to eat, you can always go out to a rice field (which are mostly empty during the dry season) and catch crabs, frogs, snakes, insects, fish (from rivers and irrigation canals), wild vegetables and herbs of a variety of types....you can actually live off the land here fairly easily...by easily I mean the it is alot of work but that it is very do-able. I believe that almost the same thing can be done in Isaan but it is so dry (in my understanding) alot of the year that the natural food supply is alot thinner. However, please remember that aside from this, Thai people are kind and good people. I can not imagine any of the Thai people refusing to gladlly give food to any truly starving person....and the people in Isaan are famous throughtout Thailand for their kindness and friendly attitude. Historically a dought could wipe out the entire food source from a large region in Isaan and ther was no relief but within the last 20 years or so infrastructure and awareness of situations has increased that MOSTLY people have access to food.

Education: Around here the village schools are mostly of low quality. I'm not sure of this but I think that the expenses to attend (got to have a uniform at least) are fairly minimal. If you want to go to a better school you have more expenses....not the least of which is the expense of transportation. Education is almost universally available but of low quality. I think that the people who have the least opportunity for education are the hill tribe people but even this is changing rapidly mostly because H.M. The King and the Royal Family have focused very strongly on the unmet needs of this population. From the standpoint of politics, I think that alot of these hilltribe people are not allowed to vote anyway....but I believe that most of their children will.

[ilyushin]

He said he would wash his hands of politics when the country and its people were on the road to prosperity.

Thought that was one of his claims to fame as the PM.

With more years behind him he had better resign now.

Good time to go ahead and wash those dirty hands.

[Jai Dee]

Thaksin dodges Sondhi’s challenge

Sondhi at Baan Phra Arthit: the media mogul wants to debate mano a mano.

At a press conference yesterday afternoon, staunch government critic Sondhi Limthongkul challenged Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yet again to face him in an equal-time televised debate – anytime, anywhere, on any channel.

Sondhi noted that Thais love a real man-to-man debate. If it is aired, it will make television history, he said. It will also settle all public questions about unscrupulousness in government, he added.

“If Thaksin fails to make his point, he will die,” Sondhi said. “But so will I, if I fumble. The public will decide.”

In a swift response through Government Spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee, Thaksin accepted the dare on the condition that Sondhi meet him at Government House.

The media will be invited to listen to the discourse, Surapong said, but did not commit himself to confirming whether it will be broadcast live on television, or even whether it will be taped.

Kitti Singhapat, a well-known iTV anchorman, last night offered to host a live TV debate, if both sides agree.

Meeting the press for the first time since leading the massive anti-government demonstration over the weekend at the Royal Plaza, Sondhi appeared vigorous but not yet fully recovered from the hours of exhausting speeches delivered at the rally. He apologized for his creaking voice.

Accompanied by Sarosha Pornudomsak, his co-host on the Thailand This Week talk show, and his lawyer Suwat Apaipak, at his office on Phra Arthit Road, Sondhi responded to questions on his role in future attempts to oust Thaksin.

He also said that the next anti-Thaksin rally, planned for Saturday, February 11, will be staged at the Royal Plaza despite Thaksin’s efforts to thwart it. He will not lead it, however.

“My leadership of demonstrations ended with the event at the Royal Plaza on Sunday,” he said.

“I said before it was held that Sunday’s demonstration would be the first and last time I would lead a public demonstration. Its objective was to submit a petition to His Majesty the King [through Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, president of the Privy Council], and that has been accomplished.”

“A network of civic organizations has agreed to carry on the fight, by forming the People for Democracy Alliance, and it is their task to solve the country’s problems, starting with the rally on Saturday,” Sondhi said. “I am now only an alliance member.”

The leaders of the other groups in the alliance will identify themselves, and announce the stand of the coalition, today, Sondhi said.

Sondhi confirmed that the rally on Saturday will be staged at the Royal Plaza, despite Thaksin’s explicit declaration that the area is off-limits to demonstrations.

Gatherings will intrude on the adjoining royal grounds and cause traffic jams, Thaksin said on Monday.

Sondhi contended that the ban violates several constitutional provisions and diminishes the prime minister’s rectitude and stature.

“Articles 30, 40 and 44 of the Constitution guarantee the people’s right to assemble and express their concerns,” Sondhi said. “Besides, the Royal Plaza has been the venue for countless demonstrations.”

Sondhi produced a list of dates on which public assemblies have been held at the plaza on at least 43 occasions since 1992. “Thaksin himself used it for political activities on January 31 last year, and as recently as January 3 this year,” Sondhi said, “I do not want him to be a man without standards.”

Sondhi added that the boundary between the rally compound and the palace on Saturday will be increased up to 40 meters.

Referring to Thaksin’s offer on Monday to meet people who are unhappy with him, as long as they come as humans and not tigers, Sondhi said: “Thaksin is the tiger, because he has been eating the flesh and blood of the country.”

He ended the press conference by saying: “I do not want it to be a private meeting, as he might say that I met him secretly to ask for business favors.

Source: ThaiDay - 9 February 2006 14:22

[thedude]

I direct your attention to the 700% (If my math is wrong, just call me daleyboy.. ) increase, from last week, in the number of police officers to be in attendance at the rally...

20,000 police mobilised for Sondhi's rally

The Metropolitan Police will deploy 20,000 policemen to keep law and order at Sanam Luang on February 4 when media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul will organise a massive rally against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Pol Lt Gen Wiroj Jantarangsri said 20,000 policemen would be deployed to prevent any untoward incident.

Sondhi called his audience to come out to Sanam Luang and he would march to the Royal Plaza to submit a petition to His Majesty through Privy Council Chairman Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, calling for constitutional amendments and political reform as well as ouster of Thaksin.

- The Nation (btw, they have a whole new website layout just since this morning)

-------------------------

math check...??

3,000 cops last week

20,000 cops this week

= 700% increase?

Could it be that the perimeter around Sanam Luang is 7 times (700%) longer than the perimeter around the Royal Plaza? Seems to me that Sanam Luang is a very big open space and is probably alot larger than the Royal Plaze but I'm not sure.

Also, what is the significance of this increase....are you suggesting that the police will start or aggravate or escalate violence? There were suggestions of this in the first rally and it did not come to pass. It makes great anti-Toxin rhetoric to hint at such things but no reasons to actually think that it will happen. Why would Toxin want the police to cause trouble?...Why would Toxin want violence...it is clearly not in his interests to have violence occur at these gatherings...it is, however in the interest of the demonstrators...frankly I'm surprised that some of the domonstrators haven't caused provocative violence. If violence does happen it will not matter how or why it started, many of anti-Toxin people will put on the blinders and blame the police regardless...I would want to see clear evidence of what happened before I would blame anyone or conclude that anyone was innocent.

that is a very good observation chownah. unfortunately there are not going to be any referees around to hand out yellow cards to those protestors who are falling over faking it. any percieved police aggression is going to put the government in a very precarious situation.

[sriracha john]

this may surprise you, but i've had philipino friends tell me that they quietly reminisce over the good old marcos years. not that anyone thinks marcos was good, but they miss the stability under that regime. marcos wasn't shooting people in the streets unlike mobutu, even if he was insanely corrupt. there was even a time when there was a thriving and emerging middle class in the philippines. nonetheless, i think the first revolution was good. i think fidel ramos was an excellent

president,

Well, they say memory is forgiving... You might point your Filipino friends here to help them recall the history:

A Century of Crimes Against Filipino People

A portion is here:

The finding of culpability against Ferdinand Marcos by the U.S. Federal Court in Honolulu in the landmark class suit filed by 10,000 human rights martial law victims attested to such crimes by the dictatorship.

Those illegally arrested and imprisoned without charges for at least one week totaled about 500,000 while those incarcerated for one month to several years were 70,000. A best estimate places the number of persons summarily executed and disappeared at more than 100,000.

A real sweetheart he was... and yes, martial law was very stablizing. If you don't miss freedom.

for the record i am not in support of any dictatorship. i am in support of a country following the basic precept of its very own constitution. to the best of my knowledge, this government was legitimately elected under constitutional law. if it is in breach of anything, then let the legal process take its due course, otherwise, it has every right to continue to serve out its term.

Are peaceful protest and impeachment within constitutional law? If the rallies prompt public outcry and results in defections in the TRT Party to such an extent that they actually have the numbers to initiate impeachment, then the entire process is completely constitutional.

========================================================

Oh yes, and on the apparent lack of an alternative to Thaksin -

That's exactly the kind of sentiment George W. Bush played off on to win re-election.

this cartoon controversy, and the fact that it has been proven that saddam supported al-queda pretty much vindicates bush position.

if people then knew what they know now, it would have been a landslide victory for bush.

personally, I didn't vote. but the events after the election show he was right.

hey, what's one more derailment in this thread, right? Got the Philippines going, might as well bring USA in, too.

If people knew then what they now about an ugly, protracted, budget-busting war with 2,000+ dead American youths, I think George would be selling souveneirs at a truck stop in Texas.

Edited February 9, 2006 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

Could it be that the perimeter around Sanam Luang is 7 times (700%) longer than the perimeter around the Royal Plaza? Seems to me that Sanam Luang is a very big open space and is probably alot larger than the Royal Plaze but I'm not sure.

Also, what is the significance of this increase....are you suggesting that the police will start or aggravate or escalate violence? There were suggestions of this in the first rally and it did not come to pass. It makes great anti-Toxin rhetoric to hint at such things but no reasons to actually think that it will happen. Why would Toxin want the police to cause trouble?...Why would Toxin want violence...it is clearly not in his interests to have violence occur at these gatherings...it is, however in the interest of the demonstrators...frankly I'm surprised that some of the domonstrators haven't caused provocative violence. If violence does happen it will not matter how or why it started, many of anti-Toxin people will put on the blinders and blame the police regardless...I would want to see clear evidence of what happened before I would blame anyone or conclude that anyone was innocent.

I'm not sure of the significance other than it seems quite a jump and seems they are expecting significantly more people to attend, not merely because it's a larger area.

Did they feel under-manned at last week's rally?

It would seem that simply announcing they are assigning that many officers is, in a way, escalating the situation.

I agreed early on it's not in Thaksin's interest to actually start any violence. If violence does occur, just as many pro-Toxin people (perhaps his magical number 19 million??) will put on blinders and blame the demonstrators, irregardless of the truth.

[marshbags]

Oh yes, and on the apparent lack of an alternative to Thaksin -

That's exactly the kind of sentiment George W. Bush played off on to win re-election.

this cartoon controversy, and the fact that it has been proven that saddam supported al-queda pretty much vindicates bush position.

if people then knew what they know now, it would have been a landslide victory for bush.

personally, I didn't vote. but the events after the election show he was right.

we have some really crazy people out there, and they are willing to murder others for no more than a drawing.

abdul khan, the murdered danish movie director, this cartoon controversy, and now we get the news about the devices that iran is trying to get which are not necessary for a nuclear plant, but necessary for a nuclear bomb.

what more does it take to convince you bush is doing the right thing?

I cannot see the connection of the demonstration of the 11th and your post, can you explain it please.

If your comparison is connected to freedom of speech then sure it is part of the Thai problem, but again you refer to G.W.Bush so where does he come into it.

This thread is a news topic that is of interest to many T.Visa members relating to the next demonstration.

Surely if you want to discuss something else and give it air time and get comments it,s best to start a new topic.

Otherwise we will finish up commenting on something completely O.T.

Re. the cartoon situation.

It,s not really worthy of giving it creditability by highlighting it here anyway in my humble opinion.

No offence

marshbags

Edited February 9, 2006 by marshbags

[haha]

Oh yes, and on the apparent lack of an alternative to Thaksin -

That's exactly the kind of sentiment George W. Bush played off on to win re-election.

this cartoon controversy, and the fact that it has been proven that saddam supported al-queda pretty much vindicates bush position.

if people then knew what they know now, it would have been a landslide victory for bush.

personally, I didn't vote. but the events after the election show he was right.

we have some really crazy people out there, and they are willing to murder others for no more than a drawing.

abdul khan, the murdered danish movie director, this cartoon controversy, and now we get the news about the devices that iran is trying to get which are not necessary for a nuclear plant, but necessary for a nuclear bomb.

what more does it take to convince you bush is doing the right thing?

I cannot see the connection of the demonstration of the 11th and your post, can you explain it please.

If your comparison is connected to freedom of speech then sure it is part of the Thai problem, but again you refer to G.W.Bush so where does he come into it.

This thread is a news topic that is of interest to many T.Visa members relating to the next demonstration.

Surely if you want to discuss something else and give it air time and get comments it,s best to start a new topic.

Otherwise we will finish up commenting on something completely O.T.

It,s not really worthy of giving it creditability by highlighting it here anyway in my humble opinion.

No offence

marshbags

first you guys bash thaksin, then, you bash bush. then, you tell me to shut up after one of your fellow anti-thaksin guys brings bush into it?

...give me a break.

evidently, you just want a one sided discussion with mostly people who side with you, right?

there is a word for that. ..it's called propaganda.

maybe you should tell the other guy that he should not have brought bush into this discussion. then, I would never have made a comment. right?

[sriracha john]

Just like last week, the inevitable American Embassy Bangkok email warning:

Attention American Citizens:

Thailand has recently experienced a number of large, unrelated public demonstrations in Bangkok and Chiang Mai. These protests have been mainly peaceful in nature, and have targeted, among other issues, the Thai-US Free Trade Agreement, the listing on the stock exchange of a large brewery, and opposition to Thai Prime Minister Thaksin. The crowds often include several diverse groups of demonstrators which assemble with no set starting or ending times.

As stated above, these demonstrations are usually peaceful in nature, but all demonstrations are unpredictable and conditions can change unexpectedly. The Royal Thai Police attempt to have sufficient officers on hand to maintain public order, but unforeseen events can lead any demonstration to turn violent without warning.

For this reason, the Embassy encourages all Americans in Thailand to monitor local media for announcements of future demonstrations and to avoid the area where demonstrations are held whenever possible. Should you find yourself among or near the demonstrators, move indoors for shelter until the demonstration has passed, or ask for police assistance to leave the area. If a demonstration is expected to pass near U.S. Embassy facilities, Embassy entrances and functions may be restricted depending on circumstances.

For the latest security information, Americans living and traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet web site at http://travel.state.gov, where the current Worldwide Caution, Public Announcements, and Travel Warnings can be found. Up-to-date information on security can also be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the U.S., or, for callers outside the U.S. and Canada, a regular toll line at 1-317-472-2328. These numbers are available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal holidays).

[marshbags]

Oh yes, and on the apparent lack of an alternative to Thaksin -

That's exactly the kind of sentiment George W. Bush played off on to win re-election.

this cartoon controversy, and the fact that it has been proven that saddam supported al-queda pretty much vindicates bush position.

if people then knew what they know now, it would have been a landslide victory for bush.

personally, I didn't vote. but the events after the election show he was right.

we have some really crazy people out there, and they are willing to murder others for no more than a drawing.

abdul khan, the murdered danish movie director, this cartoon controversy, and now we get the news about the devices that iran is trying to get which are not necessary for a nuclear plant, but necessary for a nuclear bomb.

what more does it take to convince you bush is doing the right thing?

I cannot see the connection of the demonstration of the 11th and your post, can you explain it please.

If your comparison is connected to freedom of speech then sure it is part of the Thai problem, but again you refer to G.W.Bush so where does he come into it.

This thread is a news topic that is of interest to many T.Visa members relating to the next demonstration.

Surely if you want to discuss something else and give it air time and get comments it,s best to start a new topic.

Otherwise we will finish up commenting on something completely O.T.

It,s not really worthy of giving it creditability by highlighting it here anyway in my humble opinion.

No offence

marshbags

first you guys bash thaksin, then, you bash bush. then, you tell me to shut up after one of your fellow anti-thaksin guys brings bush into it?

...give me a break.

evidently, you just want a one sided discussion with mostly people who side with you, right?

there is a word for that. ..it's called propaganda.

maybe you should tell the other guy that he should not have brought bush into this discussion. then, I would never have made a comment. right?

haha, i reckon you are off target

Far from wanting a one sided discussion i am encouraging you to take your comments further as i do not see there relevance to the topic on this thread.

Different views that are relevant make the topic interesting.

Where in my post do a tell you to shut up or give G.W. a bashing please highlight it for me.

As for propaganda, come on please.

All T.Visa members are encouraged to make comments on all topics that are relevant and

not inflammatory.

This is a healthy democratic way of doing things and we are all lucky enough to have this platform

on which to do it, don,t you think.

The cartoon reference for one doesn,t deserve even a mention as it only gives it creditability not applicable to this topic.

( in my humble opinion once again. )

There is no political agenda i,m sure from any members that is not relevant to what ever topic is being discussed.

T.Visa admin. do a very good job if this becomes offensive and keep topics running in an agreeable way for all of us.

Otherwise with out them chaos would take over.

This is why i reckon some of your observations should be in another topic ( that you are allowed to do if you want feed back and further discussion/ comments. )

marshbags

Edited February 9, 2006 by marshbags

[tettyan]

this cartoon controversy, and the fact that it has been proven that saddam supported al-queda pretty much vindicates bush position.

if people then knew what they know now, it would have been a landslide victory for bush.

personally, I didn't vote. but the events after the election show he was right.

we have some really crazy people out there, and they are willing to murder others for no more than a drawing.

abdul khan, the murdered danish movie director, this cartoon controversy, and now we get the news about the devices that iran is trying to get which are not necessary for a nuclear plant, but necessary for a nuclear bomb.

what more does it take to convince you bush is doing the right thing?

I did happen to vote in the last election, but since I don't want my American politics to become a topic on this board, I won't reveal my choice.

Regardless of whether Bush is doing the right thing, certainly the argument that there were no "alternatives" in the last election who could be "trusted to fight terror" is shaky at best.

I am a believer in rule by institutions, not men - ultimately, it is them, and not individual politicians that maintain stability and protect our rights. In a proper liberal democracy, no one person is INDISPENSABLE.

Let me give you another example. At one time, in the midst of a social an economic crisis, many citizens of a certain country became convinced that there was no alternative to their strong, decisive leader. When was this? The 1930s. Where? Germany. Who was the leader? Adolf Hitler.

Edited February 9, 2006 by tettyan

[tettyan]

the relation between political stability and economic growth is undeniable, from roman times to the rennaissance to the modern era. the idea that economies thrive in times of peace and certainty is not a radical one.

Don't conflate "political stability" with a stable environment necessary for economic growth. F. A. Hayek says that stability is necessary for growth, but the stability he's talking about is the RULE OF LAW. Why is the rule of law important? To protect people and property from ARBITRARY RULE. Why? Because with arbitrary rule, people cannot conduct economic transactions with confidence.

So, you can have a regime that keeps one man in power for a long time. Does that make the regime any more predictable or less arbitrary? Absolutely not (look at Burma). Though I guess you could argue that Thai government agencies are consistent in arbitrarily enforcing the laws in favor of Thaksin's family. But that only undermines the rule of law.

So Thailand does have a problem with stability. But I think it's not the stability of political leadership - Thailand's problem (and the Philippines' problem to a greater degree) is the respect for and enforcement of the rule of law.

argentina's century long decline cannot be attributed to peron alone.

I never said that. What I said was that Peron did much to punch the final nails into the coffin.

this may surprise you, but i've had philipino friends tell me that they quietly reminisce over the good old marcos years. not that anyone thinks marcos was good, but they miss the stability under that regime. marcos wasn't shooting people in the streets unlike mobutu, even if he was insanely corrupt. there was even a time when there was a thriving and emerging middle class in the philippines. nonetheless, i think the first revolution was good. i think fidel ramos was an excellent president, but after that the media circus came to town and they are still there.

This doesn't surprise me, as I have Filipino friends as well, some of whom are rather bitter about the EDSA revolution. Of course, I have nothing against them personally, but these friends come from the type of elite families that are the source of much of the country's problems.

political change has a lesser effect on advanced economies like japan and switzerland, where their civil bureaucracy is strong and not corrupt and can operate undisturbed amidst political change. i think everybody aspires to be like japan and switzerland, but lets accept the reality that we are not there yet.

Japan was not always an advanced economy, having been welcomed into that club less than a half-century ago. Not all liberal democracies started out as advanced economies. So how did they get there, without having the kind of "stable" politics that you are so in favor of?

Any comments on Italy?

[chownah]

Could it be that the perimeter around Sanam Luang is 7 times (700%) longer than the perimeter around the Royal Plaza? Seems to me that Sanam Luang is a very big open space and is probably alot larger than the Royal Plaze but I'm not sure.

Also, what is the significance of this increase....are you suggesting that the police will start or aggravate or escalate violence? There were suggestions of this in the first rally and it did not come to pass. It makes great anti-Toxin rhetoric to hint at such things but no reasons to actually think that it will happen. Why would Toxin want the police to cause trouble?...Why would Toxin want violence...it is clearly not in his interests to have violence occur at these gatherings...it is, however in the interest of the demonstrators...frankly I'm surprised that some of the domonstrators haven't caused provocative violence. If violence does happen it will not matter how or why it started, many of anti-Toxin people will put on the blinders and blame the police regardless...I would want to see clear evidence of what happened before I would blame anyone or conclude that anyone was innocent.

I'm not sure of the significance other than it seems quite a jump and seems they are expecting significantly more people to attend, not merely because it's a larger area.

Did they feel under-manned at last week's rally?

It would seem that simply announcing they are assigning that many officers is, in a way, escalating the situation.

I agreed early on it's not in Thaksin's interest to actually start any violence. If violence does occur, just as many pro-Toxin people (perhaps his magical number 19 million??) will put on blinders and blame the demonstrators, irregardless of the truth.

I don't know if they felt under-manned at last week's rally.....I don't think that they would discuss this openly. You think that the announcement is a way to escalate what situation? There has been not even a suggestion of violence so far...I can't see what situation would be escalated by the presence of more police officers....especially that the plans were being made for policing a much larger area....this takes alot more officers. In the event of touble (let's face it...it is the police dep't's job to anticipate trouble...if they weren't prepared for trouble they would be being negligent) they need to be able to mobilize enough officers to any location very very quickly to contain minor incidents and keep them from escalating....a vastly larger area to police takes a vastly larger force of officers to establish control quickly in the event of a problem...or problems. I would think that the presence of more officers would make people feel safer after the last assemblage went so peacefully.

As for Toxin's supporters putting on blinders if the police should cause trouble....I thought it was your opinion that Toxin had lost most of his supporters and that is why these rallies are needed and are being so effective.

[thedude]

the relation between political stability and economic growth is undeniable, from roman times to the rennaissance to the modern era. the idea that economies thrive in times of peace and certainty is not a radical one.

Don't conflate "political stability" with a stable environment necessary for economic growth. F. A. Hayek says that stability is necessary for growth, but the stability he's talking about is the RULE OF LAW. Why is the rule of law important? To protect people and property from ARBITRARY RULE. Why? Because with arbitrary rule, people cannot conduct economic transactions with confidence.

So, you can have a regime that keeps one man in power for a long time. Does that make the regime any more predictable or less arbitrary? Absolutely not (look at Burma). Though I guess you could argue that Thai government agencies are consistent in arbitrarily enforcing the laws in favor of Thaksin's family. But that only undermines the rule of law.

So Thailand does have a problem with stability. But I think it's not the stability of political leadership - Thailand's problem (and the Philippines' problem to a greater degree) is the respect for and enforcement of the rule of law.

argentina's century long decline cannot be attributed to peron alone.

I never said that. What I said was that Peron did much to punch the final nails into the coffin.

this may surprise you, but i've had philipino friends tell me that they quietly reminisce over the good old marcos years. not that anyone thinks marcos was good, but they miss the stability under that regime. marcos wasn't shooting people in the streets unlike mobutu, even if he was insanely corrupt. there was even a time when there was a thriving and emerging middle class in the philippines. nonetheless, i think the first revolution was good. i think fidel ramos was an excellent president, but after that the media circus came to town and they are still there.

This doesn't surprise me, as I have Filipino friends as well, some of whom are rather bitter about the EDSA revolution. Of course, I have nothing against them personally, but these friends come from the type of elite families that are the source of much of the country's problems.

political change has a lesser effect on advanced economies like japan and switzerland, where their civil bureaucracy is strong and not corrupt and can operate undisturbed amidst political change. i think everybody aspires to be like japan and switzerland, but lets accept the reality that we are not there yet.

Japan was not always an advanced economy, having been welcomed into that club less than a half-century ago. Not all liberal democracies started out as advanced economies. So how did they get there, without having the kind of "stable" politics that you are so in favor of?

Any comments on Italy?

by political stability, i mean political stability.

people are not going to be rioting and looting on the streets and flouting the RULE OF LAW irregardless of whether we are changing government. Thai people are not savages. what i mean simply is that when you change a government in an unplanned (therefore unstable) way, or in this case, an unconstitutional way, or even more specifically, in an undemocratic way, economic growth is impaired. the reason is simple, because when people do not know who is going to be in power, and what the future policies are, they put their investment plans on hold, they delay discretionary spending, ratings agencies upgrade the political risk, institutional funds have to pull out, contracts get suspended, banks call on marginal loans, the market panics, and so on. law and order can still be maintained on the streets but the economy is affected. not every country is like sierra leone or mogadishu. Thailand may be a developing third world economy, but it actually has an advanced civilisation. do you even live here?

the formation of a democratic constitution is a good thing, the philippines moved towards it with the overthrow of marcos, but they failed to progress much further because they forget that the whole point about democracy is not democracy. the whole point about democracy is so that it allows the formation of a stable government that would be representative of the people, and that would govern for a determinable period until the next election process, and given the right policies, would encourage growth and progression.

[tettyan]

by political stability, i mean political stability.

people are not going to be rioting and looting on the streets and flouting the RULE OF LAW irregardless of whether we are changing government. Thai people are not savages. what i mean simply is that when you change a government in an unplanned (therefore unstable) way, or in this case, an unconstitutional way, or even more specifically, in an undemocratic way, economic growth is impaired. the reason is simple, because when people do not know who is going to be in power, and what the future policies are, they put their investment plans on hold, they delay discretionary spending, ratings agencies upgrade the political risk, institutional funds have to pull out, contracts get suspended, banks call on marginal loans, the market panics, and so on. law and order can still be maintained on the streets but the economy is affected. not every country is like sierra leone or mogadishu. Thailand may be a developing third world economy, but it actually has an advanced civilisation. do you even live here?

the formation of a democratic constitution is a good thing, the philippines moved towards it with the overthrow of marcos, but they failed to progress much further because they forget that the whole point about democracy is not democracy. the whole point about democracy is so that it allows the formation of a stable government that would be representative of the people, and that would govern for a determinable period until the next election process, and given the right policies, would encourage growth and progression.

Yes I have lived in Thailand before and happen to also hold a Thai passport. Nice try in trying to discredit a poster though...

I don't see how exercising one's democratic rights in peacefully protesting a government constitutes an "unconstitutional" or "undemocratic" means of effecting regime change. Personally, I think Thaksin should resign for the good of the country. Of course, if he doesn't want to, he's entitled to remain put as long as he commands the confidence of the House, . In the meantime, what's wrong with getting the word out on alternative points of view on Thaksin that are NOT aired on state television?

The replacement of Neville Chamberlain with Winston Churchill in 1940 was an "unplanned" change of government. So was the replacement of Margaret Thatcher with John Major in 1990. Shame on those crazy English!

Maybe we should applaud Deng Xiaoping for his decision to row down those troublesome Tiananmen demonstrators with tanks. After all, their activities could have had serious implications for China's credit rating!