Contentious Case Against Abhisit Marks A New Era

[Soi Dog]

A sad new chapter in the continuing confusion by both sides of the concepts of reconciliation and retribution. Reconciliation, like transparency, is just another English word that is difficult for Thais to pronounce.

[Rich teacher]

The coup government exited the scene in 2007 after the elections. Abhisit came to power after the PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The then new PTP (caretaker government) decided not to call an election.

Samak never won an election either. He needed a coalition to form government. Abhisit (an elected MP) also formed a coalition government after he was elected PM in parliament (as were Samak and Somchai).

Yes, but Samak & Somchai's parties had by far the highest amount of MPs. That's how coalitions are formed; when the party with the most votes sides with smaller parties in order to have a parliamentary mandate.

On the other (under)hand, when AV formed his coalition the Dems had a paltry 165 MPs compared to PPP's 233 (only 18 off an absolute majority). There has been no precedent in world democratic political history (that I have been able to uncover) of a party with substantially less MPs than another party leading a coalition government.

[khunken]

The case doesn't really mark a new era at all. It is just a continuation of Thaksin's orders to his henchmen (& women) to remove any opposition that is a threat to his 'triumphant' return. Journalists were the main target when he was in power (legally) & now it's the opposition after a failed attempt by his heavies to intimidate the Constitutional Court (not for the first time).

Two simple strategies: intimidate or use the lunch-box method. I wonder who advised who on the effectiveness of the strategies - Thaksin or Chalerm.

[whybother]

The coup government exited the scene in 2007 after the elections. Abhisit came to power after the PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The then new PTP (caretaker government) decided not to call an election.

Samak never won an election either. He needed a coalition to form government. Abhisit (an elected MP) also formed a coalition government after he was elected PM in parliament (as were Samak and Somchai).

Yes, but Samak & Somchai's parties had by far the highest amount of MPs. That's how coalitions are formed; when the party with the most votes sides with smaller parties in order to have a parliamentary mandate.

On the other (under)hand, when AV formed his coalition the Dems had a paltry 165 MPs compared to PPP's 233 (only 18 off an absolute majority). There has been no precedent in world democratic political history (that I have been able to uncover) of a party with substantially less MPs than another party leading a coalition government.

The PPP did have 233 MPs. They lost about 40 of those with Newin's lot abandoning them.

Besides, it isn't about the most votes. It's about a majority. If a majority of MPs can get together, then they represent of majority of the electorate.

[Rich teacher]

You're right. The airport seizure and Ratchaprasong are not comparable. The airport seizure was a basically unarmed protest that lasted 9 days.

Comparing the yellow shirts at government house to Ratchaprasong, might be more relevant. Given Abhisits charge of murder, should we be expecting Somchai to be charged for murder for the deaths of yellow shirt protesters from the dodgy tear gas canisters. We can't be having any "double standards" can we?

Basically unarmed included; ping pong bombs, Uzi sub machine gun, homemade guns and bombs & ammunition,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Alliance_for_Democracy

Somchai unlike AV did not sign authorisation for the deadly use of war weapons.

[Rich teacher]

The coup government exited the scene in 2007 after the elections. Abhisit came to power after the PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The then new PTP (caretaker government) decided not to call an election.

Samak never won an election either. He needed a coalition to form government. Abhisit (an elected MP) also formed a coalition government after he was elected PM in parliament (as were Samak and Somchai).

Yes, but Samak & Somchai's parties had by far the highest amount of MPs. That's how coalitions are formed; when the party with the most votes sides with smaller parties in order to have a parliamentary mandate.

On the other (under)hand, when AV formed his coalition the Dems had a paltry 165 MPs compared to PPP's 233 (only 18 off an absolute majority). There has been no precedent in world democratic political history (that I have been able to uncover) of a party with substantially less MPs than another party leading a coalition government.

The PPP did have 233 MPs. They lost about 40 of those with Newin's lot abandoning them.

Besides, it isn't about the most votes. It's about a majority. If a majority of MPs can get together, then they represent of majority of the electorate.

They lost members after Anupong refused to act on Somchai's orders and told him to step down, the courts disbanded PPP and then Anupong began hosting coalition formation meetings at his personal residence. Very democratic.

[Skywalker69]

The case doesn't really mark a new era at all. It is just a continuation of Thaksin's orders to his henchmen (& women) to remove any opposition that is a threat to his 'triumphant' return. Journalists were the main target when he was in power (legally) & now it's the opposition after a failed attempt by his heavies to intimidate the Constitutional Court (not for the first time).

Two simple strategies: intimidate or use the lunch-box method. I wonder who advised who on the effectiveness of the strategies - Thaksin or Chalerm.

Good post.

[Skywalker69]

You're right. The airport seizure and Ratchaprasong are not comparable. The airport seizure was a basically unarmed protest that lasted 9 days.

Comparing the yellow shirts at government house to Ratchaprasong, might be more relevant. Given Abhisits charge of murder, should we be expecting Somchai to be charged for murder for the deaths of yellow shirt protesters from the dodgy tear gas canisters. We can't be having any "double standards" can we?

Basically unarmed included; ping pong bombs, Uzi sub machine gun, homemade guns and bombs & ammunition,

http://en.wikipedia....e_for_Democracy

Somchai unlike AV did not sign authorisation for the deadly use of war weapons.

How many was killed? Was the airport set afire?

[Rich teacher]

You're right. The airport seizure and Ratchaprasong are not comparable. The airport seizure was a basically unarmed protest that lasted 9 days.

Comparing the yellow shirts at government house to Ratchaprasong, might be more relevant. Given Abhisits charge of murder, should we be expecting Somchai to be charged for murder for the deaths of yellow shirt protesters from the dodgy tear gas canisters. We can't be having any "double standards" can we?

Basically unarmed included; ping pong bombs, Uzi sub machine gun, homemade guns and bombs & ammunition,

http://en.wikipedia....e_for_Democracy

Somchai unlike AV did not sign authorisation for the deadly use of war weapons.

How many was killed? Was the airport set afire?

Was the army sent in with loaded war weapons?

[khunken]

You're right. The airport seizure and Ratchaprasong are not comparable. The airport seizure was a basically unarmed protest that lasted 9 days.

Comparing the yellow shirts at government house to Ratchaprasong, might be more relevant. Given Abhisits charge of murder, should we be expecting Somchai to be charged for murder for the deaths of yellow shirt protesters from the dodgy tear gas canisters. We can't be having any "double standards" can we?

Basically unarmed included; ping pong bombs, Uzi sub machine gun, homemade guns and bombs & ammunition,

http://en.wikipedia....e_for_Democracy

Somchai unlike AV did not sign authorisation for the deadly use of war weapons.

How many was killed? Was the airport set afire?

Was the army sent in with loaded war weapons?

No, only after the protestors have armed men who start shooting & lobbing grenades at civilians, police & military with no bullets in their guns.

Also, the statement about the airport protestors is fiction.

[Skywalker69]

You're right. The airport seizure and Ratchaprasong are not comparable. The airport seizure was a basically unarmed protest that lasted 9 days.

Comparing the yellow shirts at government house to Ratchaprasong, might be more relevant. Given Abhisits charge of murder, should we be expecting Somchai to be charged for murder for the deaths of yellow shirt protesters from the dodgy tear gas canisters. We can't be having any "double standards" can we?

Basically unarmed included; ping pong bombs, Uzi sub machine gun, homemade guns and bombs & ammunition,

http://en.wikipedia....e_for_Democracy

Somchai unlike AV did not sign authorisation for the deadly use of war weapons.

How many was killed? Was the airport set afire?

Was the army sent in with loaded war weapons?

Was the army sent in after nine days in central Bangkok?

[monkfish]

Did they put the lives of several thousand Internationale passengers as risk?

In most countries that would have been enough reason to declare a SOE and send armed forces in.

[Rich teacher]

No, only after the protestors have armed men who start shooting & lobbing grenades at civilians, police & military with no bullets in their guns.

Also, the statement about the airport protestors is fiction.

No signs of 'armed men' before AV turned on his word & sent the army in with live ammo. Reports of grenade attacks on various sites, but 0 evidence.

Also the statement about the airport protesters http://www.ipsnews.net/2008/11/politics-thailand-violence-shakes-elite-myth-of-thai-unity/

[valerian]

The coup government exited the scene in 2007 after the elections. Abhisit came to power after the PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The then new PTP (caretaker government) decided not to call an election.

Samak never won an election either. He needed a coalition to form government. Abhisit (an elected MP) also formed a coalition government after he was elected PM in parliament (as were Samak and Somchai).

Yes, but Samak & Somchai's parties had by far the highest amount of MPs. That's how coalitions are formed; when the party with the most votes sides with smaller parties in order to have a parliamentary mandate.

On the other (under)hand, when AV formed his coalition the Dems had a paltry 165 MPs compared to PPP's 233 (only 18 off an absolute majority). There has been no precedent in world democratic political history (that I have been able to uncover) of a party with substantially less MPs than another party leading a coalition government.

How about looking at the foremost democracies in the world?

Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Denmark are the worlds top democracies. And have a long history of minority governments.

As well as of governments where the largest party wasn't part of the coalition government.

An example:

Sweden 1979: (http://en.wikipedia...._election,_1979)

Socialdemokraterna: 154 MPs (largest party)

Moderaterna: 73 MPs. (second largest party)

Is that substantial enough for you? (took about 5 minutes to find on Wiki)

Edit: The party actually leading the coalition government after the election -79 was the third largest party, with 64 MPs.

Edited December 10, 2012 by valerian

[Rich teacher]

How about looking at the foremost democracies in the world?

Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Denmark are the worlds top democracies. And have a long history of minority governments.

As well as of governments where the largest party wasn't part of the coalition government.

An example:

Sweden 1979: (http://en.wikipedia...._election,_1979)

Socialdemokraterna: 154 MPs (largest party)

Moderaterna: 73 MPs. (second largest party)

Is that substantial enough for you? (took about 5 minutes to find on Wiki)

Quite misleading indeed. In this case there were very clear political leanings in the coalition groups; one side centre-right and the other socialist/ communist.

[khunken]

No, only after the protestors have armed men who start shooting & lobbing grenades at civilians, police & military with no bullets in their guns.

Also, the statement about the airport protestors is fiction.

No signs of 'armed men' before AV turned on his word & sent the army in with live ammo. Reports of grenade attacks on various sites, but 0 evidence.

Also the statement about the airport protesters http://www.ipsnews.n...-of-thai-unity/

You continue to post the lie that the army were armed before the red & black-shirts killed the army colonel and others. Why - what is your agenda? Grenades were the main weapon of choice by the protestors there.

As for the link - one-sided rubbish. All quotes anti-PAD. Police reported confiscating the UZIs etc - yet no real proof (& we know which side they were on). Even this article doesn't pretend that the group who occupied the airport were armed in any way. More propaganda.

[Rich teacher]

You continue to post the lie that the army were armed before the red & black-shirts killed the army colonel and others. Why - what is your agenda? Grenades were the main weapon of choice by the protestors there.

As for the link - one-sided rubbish. All quotes anti-PAD. Police reported confiscating the UZIs etc - yet no real proof (& we know which side they were on). Even this article doesn't pretend that the group who occupied the airport were armed in any way. More propaganda.

The army entered the area with armed war weapons before Romklao was attacked. How else were they there to be attacked?

And regarding one-sided rubbish and no real proof...how about all of your unproven assertions. Reds did this, reds did that, Thaksin ordered this, Thaksin paid for that...well almost all of your claims are just that, unproven accusations.

[lungmi]

You're right. The airport seizure and Ratchaprasong are not comparable. The airport seizure was a basically unarmed protest that lasted 9 days.

Comparing the yellow shirts at government house to Ratchaprasong, might be more relevant. Given Abhisits charge of murder, should we be expecting Somchai to be charged for murder for the deaths of yellow shirt protesters from the dodgy tear gas canisters. We can't be having any "double standards" can we?

Basically unarmed included; ping pong bombs, Uzi sub machine gun, homemade guns and bombs & ammunition,

http://en.wikipedia....e_for_Democracy

Somchai unlike AV did not sign authorisation for the deadly use of war weapons.

How many was killed? Was the airport set afire?

Was the army sent in with loaded war weapons?

Thaksin's Army was.

[AleG]

No signs of 'armed men' before AV turned on his word & sent the army in with live ammo. Reports of grenade attacks on various sites, but 0 evidence.

Also the statement about the airport protesters http://www.ipsnews.n...-of-thai-unity/

That is, quite simply, a lie.

Not only the daily grenade attacks are an indisputable fact (at least to non pro-bono Red Shirt propagandists) but the culprits of many of those attacks are known.

Thailand: 2 red-shirt security guards confess to bombing Bhum Jai Thai.

Thai terror suspect confesses to attacking Bangkok hotel

Police arrest 5 suspects in grenade attacks in Chiang Mai, Bangkok

Suspect in Thai explosion linked to ‘Red Shirt’ anti-government protest group

Man arrested for allegedly lobbing grenade at Bangkok Bank HQ

So PPD, I mean, Rich Teacher () stick to the truth if you can.

[philw]

No signs of 'armed men' before AV turned on his word & sent the army in with live ammo. Reports of grenade attacks on various sites, but 0 evidence.

Also the statement about the airport protesters http://www.ipsnews.n...-of-thai-unity/

That is, quite simply, a lie.

Not only the daily grenade attacks are an indisputable fact (at least to non pro-bono Red Shirt propagandists) but the culprits of many of those attacks are known.

Thailand: 2 red-shirt security guards confess to bombing Bhum Jai Thai.

Thai terror suspect confesses to attacking Bangkok hotel

Police arrest 5 suspects in grenade attacks in Chiang Mai, Bangkok

Suspect in Thai explosion linked to ‘Red Shirt’ anti-government protest group

Man arrested for allegedly lobbing grenade at Bangkok Bank HQ

So PPD, I mean, Rich Teacher () stick to the truth if you can.

Nearly right.............( sorry, i don't use smileys, too trite.)

[indyuk]

Well gentlemen you've given me a good laugh today.

Most of your comments could when added together make for a great comedy or slapstick event on TV.

The facts are that the instruments of governance in Thailand are trying to proceed in a rational and lawful manner without prejudice in the expectation that all law breakers will be brought to book.

Then we the public can understand what transpired and who the transgressors are.

[monkfish]

Back on subject I wonder if Abhisit and Suthep will get instant bail?

Red shirts charged on lesser serious crimes than murder have been refused bail until now

and all Red shirt leaders of spent time in a cell with chains.

Edited December 10, 2012 by monkfish

[khunken]

You continue to post the lie that the army were armed before the red & black-shirts killed the army colonel and others. Why - what is your agenda? Grenades were the main weapon of choice by the protestors there.

As for the link - one-sided rubbish. All quotes anti-PAD. Police reported confiscating the UZIs etc - yet no real proof (& we know which side they were on). Even this article doesn't pretend that the group who occupied the airport were armed in any way. More propaganda.

The army entered the area with armed war weapons before Romklao was attacked. How else were they there to be attacked?

And regarding one-sided rubbish and no real proof...how about all of your unproven assertions. Reds did this, reds did that, Thaksin ordered this, Thaksin paid for that...well almost all of your claims are just that, unproven accusations.

Twisting the truth again. Of course the army entered the area - the colonel was the army leader there. The weapons of the army were not armed (you know bullets & the like) and that very incident rightly allowed the army to protect themselves against armed men.

None of your claims are proven either and are just your opinion. My opinion differs because I don't swallow the propaganda that this was a simple poor vs rich or left vs right. This is the simplistic opinion put out by many of the western media who couldn't be bothered to delve a bit deeper into the real reason behind the protests in 2010. Gullability permeates the shallow thinking of pro red-PTP-Thaksin farang who cannot change their western stereotype view of politics into an understanding of Thai-style politics.

[culicine]

Not sure it is fair to charactise Ahbisit as the democraticall lected leader at that time. He was the leader of the democratics which lost the Dec 2007 election. Samak was installed by parliament as the prime minister. He was then removed for taking a payment to appear on a cooking show. After that Somchai was prime minister. It was democratic party members who setup the PAD movement and started the protests. Abhisit can to power through the support of Newin's party after the coup government exited the scene. Abhisit never won an election!

The coup government exited the scene in 2007 after the elections. Abhisit came to power after the PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The then new PTP (caretaker government) decided not to call an election.

Samak never won an election either. He needed a coalition to form government. Abhisit (an elected MP) also formed a coalition government after he was elected PM in parliament (as were Samak and Somchai).

Which I might add are still part of the democratic process.......democracy isn't only about elections!

[FarangTalk]

As for the link - one-sided rubbish. All quotes anti-PAD. Police reported confiscating the UZIs etc - yet no real proof (& we know which side they were on). Even this article doesn't pretend that the group who occupied the airport were armed in any way. More propaganda.

I was at the airport when they first started setting up the barricades. I flew out on one of the last flights.

I saw quite clearly that the first wave was of young, armed men who were blocking the main road to the airport. I drove through their barricade and I mistook them for bonafide security officials. Most had clubs, machetes and some had firearms. They were there well ahead of the main body of protesters obviously to secure the roads.

I also returned to the airport several days later to collect my car (I returned to BKK overland out of necessity), when the little old ladies and other stooges had arrived, and our taxi driver was extremely scared. As we drove through the barricades once more I noticed the armed men were still there (more intimidating this time as there was far more of them), and they were screening vehicles for weapons. Our taxi was searched. I also saw one of them with a pistol in his waistband.

During both times I was there it was apparent these were thuggish young men who were ready for violence.

[lungmi]

The carnival session is open. Tarit is the leader with his foolsscap. TVposters follow him.

[Rich teacher]

Twisting the truth again. Of course the army entered the area - the colonel was the army leader there. The weapons of the army were not armed (you know bullets & the like) and that very incident rightly allowed the army to protect themselves against armed men.

None of your claims are proven either and are just your opinion. My opinion differs because I don't swallow the propaganda that this was a simple poor vs rich or left vs right. This is the simplistic opinion put out by many of the western media who couldn't be bothered to delve a bit deeper into the real reason behind the protests in 2010. Gullability permeates the shallow thinking of pro red-PTP-Thaksin farang who cannot change their western stereotype view of politics into an understanding of Thai-style politics.

"The weapons of the army were not armed (you know bullets & the like) and that very incident rightly allowed the army to protect themselves against armed men." <deleted>? Are you confused or are your writing skills limited?

LOL- re the swallowing propaganda cos it looks like you've swallowed the army/Dem propaganda against TS all the way. 'Western stereotype of politics' double LOL. Your take on the millions of pro-red/PTP/Thaksin falangs/Thais/ educated/uneducated/ rich/poor.... is what is simplistic

Edited December 10, 2012 by Rich teacher

[valerian]

How about looking at the foremost democracies in the world?

Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Denmark are the worlds top democracies. And have a long history of minority governments.

As well as of governments where the largest party wasn't part of the coalition government.

An example:

Sweden 1979: (http://en.wikipedia...._election,_1979)

Socialdemokraterna: 154 MPs (largest party)

Moderaterna: 73 MPs. (second largest party)

Is that substantial enough for you? (took about 5 minutes to find on Wiki)

Quite misleading indeed. In this case there were very clear political leanings in the coalition groups; one side centre-right and the other socialist/ communist.

"Misleading"? Wow. Is that your neural pathways you're talking about?

Please try to keep your comments on the subject.

Which, btw, was a supposed precedence in coalitionbuilding by strength of MP count.

Something PPP back in the days claimed to have too.

But otherwise never given much weight in the foremost democracies of the world.

Or did you actually have a point with the political leanings mumble?

Edited December 10, 2012 by PoorSucker
----Flame removed----

[Meetoo]

The offer was not rejected. There was a counter-offer which was not responded to. This fact exposes that televised discussion as being simply for public consumption, with no intention to negotiate toward an agreement.

This wrongfull spin of "offer rejection" is often used as a way of justifying the attack at R'song.

If Abhisit was under pressure to act, A political act was called for in this instance of political upheavals. It was perfectly reasonable for these protesters to be against a coup, needing to undo it in order to return to electoral politics. They knew they were in the electoral majority as the subsequent election proved, and had every right to be governed accordingly. A politically negotiated conclusion was very possible, as these protesters wanted nothing worse than to go home.

To send in the troops in the face of an easily achievable political solution was unconscionable.

The so-called paralysis of the Capital paled in comparison to the paralysis of the country via a coup. To characterize the protesters as an anarchic, non-political rabble outside the context of a coup is reprehensible.

May coup's be relegated to the "dustbin of history" and may Electoral Democracy reigh supreme, in spite of its' obvious Thailand deficiencies.

They wanted an election "Now". Abhisit rejected that. They were offered an election "Later". They rejected that.

Abhisit was legally in office. He compromised by offering an earlier election than was required.

Should Yingluck step down if 100,000 people come out to protest?

Yingluck needs to step up before she can step down.

Good point.

But... But.. She's very sick no...?? Well so I hear?? ... and attending weddings for the past 6 days...she can't step up at this point as would be detrimental to her weak health// .. later .. later...! As they say " When you are in deep shit better to keep quiet" and she's doing a good job at that right now ... so maybe that is her way of stepping up?? Or is she organising the next big move in private conferences with big Bro...??

[Thait Spot]

And Thaksin's ATM clicks ever down

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App