Thaksin Announces House Dissolution, New Election

[lukamar]

To use a reversal of a line from Hamlet - "doth protest too much" is to insist so strongly about something being true, that people begin to suspect maybe it is not true.

Doth the protesters protest too much? Using Shakespeare's thinking maybe they do. Maybe the protesters have not made as much ground as they feel they have, possibly they have actually lost ground with the populace demanding change but offering little to replace it. Could the populace relate these political protests with terror in the deep south, if they do then they have lost well before any ballot is cast.

They called for a resignation and they got an election, from their reaction they hadn't even considered that alternative and are in no way ready for it. They got blindsided. Love him or hate him, TS is one smart bugger. He's called them in the latest political card game and you have to think he knows the next card well before it's dealt.

Now some want to boycott the election. That's a good way to make sure your views have zero representation. they are like a child that wants candy but knows their parents won't give it to them. Laying on the floor flailing their appendages and screaming but knowing all the time the outcome will be the same - no candy. Could it be that they have pole results showing they may get wiped out if they run?

[ColPyat]

Update:

Opposition parties to boycott election

From a bad situation we are rapidly slipping into a catastrophy.

This is shocking. As bad as Thaksin is, the situation that might develop out of such a strategy is possibly far worse than Thaksin winning the coming elections. I have a feeling that this is a gamble to force Thaksin to back down and resign. Given Thaksin's track record and personality, he might easily go ahead anyhow with the elections.

It is somewhat understandable that the opposition parties consider such a move as they have very little chance to win the coming elections after Thaksin's not very moral master stroke to dissolve the parliament. But to a large part they have to blame themselves as they missed not only to properly campaign upcountry during the last two elections, but also to educate the villagers about their programs and to why Thaksin is destroying the economy long term.

One side has to back down, and i am rather sure that Thaksin won't. Legally he won't have to as well. And i believe for the good of the country he won't either. But for the opposition not to stand for elections is equally bad for the country.

This is a powergame that is not good for the country, and immature to the extreme from both sides. Thaksin does have the votes, the opposition has failed to bring their valid points across to the majority of the country.

As much as i am against Thaksin, the opposition cannot do such a move without losing credibility and moral highground. They lower themselves to the same dirty methods Thaksin has been using all along.

It is better to live with Thaksin for a bit longer, than risking severe, long lasting civil unrest.

What are the scenarios?

-Thaksin backs down, and the millions of Thaksin supporters will not sit idle.

-Thaksin goes ahead with the elections, has 100% majority, and a government that is not representative.

-The opposition parties back down, and have lost face and credibility for a long time to come, making Thaksin's rule even longer.

-The king comes out and calls all sides in like the small children they apparently are. Therfore showing the whole world how immature and volatile Thailand still is. Which will do enormous harm to future long term investments as the whole world knows that the king is getting on in age and appears to be the only moral authority this country has, leaving a vacuum after his passing.

This situation is the making of both sides:

Thaksin's consistent arrogance and inability to take any form of criticism has caused many of his former supporters such as Sondhi and Chamlong to switch sides.

The opposition still carries the old arrogance to take the upcountry population for granted, it was their fault that Thaksin was elected in the first place.

And both sides appear to be so immature that they cannot accept their failings.

I am truly shocked, very worried and disgusted by the whole cluster######. It's a disgrace for anyting that Thailand has achieved since '92. I hope in the next days i can think of any positive scenario that i might not have thought about now.

[sriracha john]

Artists work on campaign paintings that say 'The big thief is coming back in 30 days'.

[lukamar]

-Thaksin goes ahead with the elections, has 100% majority, and a government that is not representative

I am truly shocked, very worried and disgusted by the whole cluster######.

If no one runs against TRT and they win 100% majority it's still representative unfortunately. It's not a good situation but if no one runs against TRT, they get voted in by acclimation. That's democracy in action. No one is forced to run in an election and no one is forced to withdraw because of no opposition candidates. Is this a good situation for Thailand. No it is not. There would be no winners and the losers in the end would be the Thai people.

It is a defiant cluster###### and hopefully some sane heads prevail in the end.

It is exactly because of a fear of a situation like this that I moved my family back to Canada 2 years ago. Next year my wife (my son is Thai/Canadian already) can get her Canadian citizenship. Then in the event something radical happens while we were living in Thailand and we had the option to leave as a family.

[lukamar]

campaign paintings that say 'The big thief is coming back in 30 days'.

That's proclaiming you have lost before you even start. Nothing like asking the voters "Vote for us even though we are defiantly going to loose in 30 days." Great concept. Someone needs to rethink their campaign strategy - fast.

[Plus]

Somehow people forget where their democracy comes from.

For thousands of years people have trusted their rulers to take care of them. Then, as the kings grew less and less trustworthy, people came up with constitutional monarchy. Thailand is a perfect case study.

Ultimately the King is the power, but he is not burdened with day to day affairs, and that protects him from making mistakes that always happen when you mess with politics. His power comes from his complete and total dedicaton to the welfare of the nation. Not so with politicians . They are expected to be self-serving and corrupt. The King doesn't take sides because every side is tainted.

Politicians' power comes from votes - how many they attract. It doesn't come from any moral or religious, or national principles, but it's expected that the majority of population is mature enough to choose politicians worth serving the King in guiding the country.

What happens if people aren't mature? What if they sell their voice in guiding the country for hot meals and transportation expenses?

What if politicians that have won the popular voice do not intend to serve the country? Who will take responsibility for that? The democracy fails in this case, and there's a lot evidence that Thailand is just made it to the failed democracy club.

[Jai Dee]

Thaksin blaming 'all but himself'

PM accused of 'instigating hatred' with 'ill-mannered distortion of the facts', failure to take responsibility for conflict

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's announcement of a House dissolution drew heavy fire from political scientists and analysts, who described it as "one-sided and unfair", "instigating hatred and socially divisiveness" and even an "ill-mannered distortion of the facts".

Thaksin's explanation blamed everybody but himself for the escalating political confrontation that led to the dissolution, law lecturer Somchai Preechasilpakul of Chiang Mai University pointed out.

"The statement is ill-mannered because it is one-sided and a distortion of the facts," Somchai said. "Thaksin passes all the blame on to other people. He fails to accept that the conflict is all about his leadership. He did not address any question the country has raised as to his legitimacy."

The PM's Office statement announcing the move speculated that dissatisfaction with Thaksin's leadership on the part of "some dissenting parties" and their planned mass rally today would lead to "violent confrontation between opponents and supporters of the premier". It also accused the protesters as well as some senators and members of Parliament of not playing by democratic rules.

The statement not only reflected his usual arrogance but sent a divisive message of hatred to the nation, said political scientist Surat Horachaikul of Chulalongkorn University, setting his opponents and supporters at each others' throats.

"House dissolution is just another time-buying tactic by Thaksin, but [by it] he is sowing hatred and division among the people," he said.

Thaksin's assertion on Friday that he "can't stand it when mob rule tries to override the law" reflected his shallow understanding of democracy, Somchai added. Peaceful rallies of citizens to demonstrate their frustration are a prominent element of democracy, he said.

"For Thaksin democracy is simply elections," Somchai said. "If he really believes this is mob rule, why is he running away from it [by dissolving the House]? Why won't he stay and fight it? The fact that he's shying away means he accepts that the people's protests are legitimate. Now he wants to whitewash himself with another election."

Dr Puangthong Pawakapan of Chulalongkorn University's Political Science Faculty agreed the statement was "unfair" because it contained not a single word of honest explanation at to why tens of thousands of people were attending public rallies against the government in the first place.

The political scientists added that if there were indeed riots or clashes during the public protest against the government, Thaksin would be half to blame because it would be his people mobilising government supporters to challenge its opponents.

Puangthong agreed with Somchai that the coming election was Thaksin's attempt to whitewash himself in the face of public accusations.

"The rallies and all the probes have tainted the credibility of the '19 million' [the number of people who voted for him last year]," Puangthong said. "Now Thaksin calls for a snap election because he needs a new number."

Many analysts say the election will see Thaksin returned to power, but even if he returns with 50 million votes, those votes will not answer all the doubts about him, said Surat of Chulalongkorn.

"Those votes would not be an amnesty for him. He needs to stay away from politics and face investigation," he said.

Election watchdog Poll Watch Foundation for Democracy yesterday warned that Thailand might see the "greatest" vote-buying in its recent history because of the government's desperation to return to power.

Historian Thammrongsak Petchlertanan noted a precedent in Thai political history for an illegitimate leader seeking legitimacy by the ballot box and ending up facing political turmoil in office because of public mistrust.

He cited Field Marshal Pibulsongkram's 1957 "dirty election" to legitimise his rise to the premiership by military coup.

"Field Marshal Pibul won his dubious election only to face several rounds of protest by students and mounting political crises. Sanam Luang was their protest ground too. He was ousted six months later by a military coup led by his subordinate Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat."

Source: The Nation - February 26, 2006

[marshbags]

One man can change all the sad events that are now being forced onto Thailand.

This man has far more money than he or his family would ever need.

Admitted he is a power control maniac and his need for this is huge.

If he has any love/respect for Thailand , it,s institutions and it,s people, let him demonstrate this

and get something his money will never get him........genuine respect for at last doing something that is unselfish and just.

Money does not buy you respect in the hearts of any decent human being, only phoney admiration form those whose god is " only money ".

He can bring everybody back from the brink of the chaos and tradgedy that will surely follow what is about to happen.

Debate the rights and wrongs with a panel of academics and lawyers chosen by a respected panel for the Thai people to witness if he really thinks he has done no wrong.........then let everybody decide.

This situation reminds me of a scenario taking place elsewhere in as much as the leader had the opportunity to walk away with all the wealth he had acquired, did not and is now being judged accordingly.

He thought he was indestructable and immune from failure and wouldn,t walk away.

For once do something that is really meaningful to your fellow citizens and Thailand.

You could even go down in history with a favourable addition to your c.v. and the acknowledgement that you stood aside to benefit the new beginning that will surely come, it has begun already

But then again one can only dream...........................................................................

...

marshbags

Edited February 26, 2006 by marshbags

[Jai Dee]

Three former opposition parties fail to reach agreement on election

The Democrat, Chat Thai and Mahachon parties Saturday failed to reach a common stand on the snap election.

Chat Thai leader Banharn Silapa-archa, Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and Mahachon leader Sanan Kachornprasat held a meeting Saturday evening but failed to reach an agreement whether to join or boycott the April 2 election.

Sanan announced at 8 pm that the three party leaders would hold another meeting on Sunday and try to reach a common stand.

Source: The Nation - February 26, 2006

[gurkle]

Somehow people forget where their democracy comes from.

Politicians' power comes from votes - how many they attract. It doesn't come from any moral or religious, or national principles, but it's expected that the majority of population is mature enough to choose politicians worth serving the King in guiding the country.

What happens if people aren't mature? What if they sell their voice in guiding the country for hot meals and transportation expenses?

What if politicians that have won the popular voice do not intend to serve the country? Who will take responsibility for that? The democracy fails in this case, and there's a lot evidence that Thailand is just made it to the failed democracy club.

[2 paragraphs removed by poster for brevity]

Democracy is not perfect, but it's the best system out there.

Again, all I hear from anti-Thaksin people are complaints with no systematic solutions. If you don't like democracy, which system do you prefer? Oligarchy? Tyranny?

Maybe the protestors prefer a false-Democracy where you will only support the principles of democracy if they elect your favorite person. And if someone else is elected, you try and overthrow the government and boycott any calls for a re-election.

Other anti-Thaksins seem to prefer an oligarchy where only middle- and upper-class people can vote. They seem to believe poor people are immature and can be bought off easily. I prefer to give these noble people more credit than others apparently. And in a democracy, it is still their right to vote for who they want. If it only takes a meal to get someone to vote for Thaksin, then the opposition obviously doesn't have any viable candidates and the people don't really think Thaksin is all that bad. And the opposition is free to employ the same exact tactics, so it doesn't give either side any advantage and is thus a moot point.

So which type of government do the complainers prefer over democracy?

Edited February 26, 2006 by gurkle

[Jai Dee]

Opposition to boycott election

April 2 snap poll seen as a government tactic to whitewash misconduct allegations against Thaksin

The three opposition parties are expected to announce a boycott of the April 2 election _ a tactic that was widely speculated upon yesterday following the dissolution of the House by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. A boycott is favoured by politicians in the Democrat and Mahachon parties who see the snap poll as a government tactic to whitewash allegations of misconduct against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The Chart Thai party was reluctant, but agreed last night their candidates would not run.

While the politicians have yet to confirm the move, the anti-Thaksin campaign groups remain adamant on demanding the prime minister's resignation.

At a press conference which took place an hour late, the Democrats' Abhisit Vejjajiva, Chart Thai's Banharn Silpa-archa and Mahachon's Sanan Kachornprasart told reporters that they would discuss the next move with party members. The three parties are expected to announce their final decision today.

Mr Abhisit said the parties agreed that the House dissolution missed the point, lacked legitimacy and tried to shift public attention. It was being used as a tool by Mr Thaksin, he said. Mr Abhisit said boycotting the poll was one option but the parties still had to explore other possibilities allowed by the constitution.

The Democrat leader said the House dissolution plus the prime minister's statement was exposing the country to a new political system, the Thaksin system, which bent the constitution. ''The charter was once the people's charter. Now it has been hijacked,'' he said.

Mr Banharn said there was something strange about the snap election, which would give an edge to Thai Rak Thai.

''The election will take place quickly, which leaves political parties no time to prepare a list of constituency candidates and list candidates. Only Thai Rak Thai is well-equipped with wealth, people and power,'' he said.

Maj-Gen Sanan expressed confidence that the election would not take place on April 2 as planned. He said the people wanted Mr Thaksin to step down, instead of staying on as caretaker prime minister, and would continue with their campaign.

When the press conference plan was announced, it was reported that the Democrat and Mahachon parties resolved to boycott the polls, while Chart Thai's initial reluctance was said to have been linked to a lobby. It was believed the party was offered ammunition for the election campaign and cabinet seats. Chart Thai's Nikorn Chamnong denied any lobbying, saying this was an attempt to discredit the party. Around 10 MPs felt it was necessary for the party to stand in the election.

The Democrat party spent six hours in a heated debate on the poll boycott. Members opposing the idea believe a boycott would be akin to rejecting democratic principles. Those favouring it said an election would only whitewash Mr Thaksin.

The People's Alliance for Democracy yesterday denounced the House dissolution.

Leaders including Chamlong Srimuang, Sondhi Limthongkul, Suriyasai Katasila, Somkiat Pongpaiboon and Pibhop Dhongchai read out a statement. It said that the only way to lift the country out of the crisis was to get to the root cause _ the prime minister himself. It was Mr Thaksin who abused power to distort and destroy democracy and to violate the constitution, said the statement.

''We insist that Thaksin Shinawatra resign from the premiership without condition to pave the way for a second round of political reforms,'' Mr Suriyasai read out from the statement

Source: Bangkok Post - February 26, 2006

[Jai Dee]

Corruption questions still unanswered, says Prawase

House dissolution no solution, he says

Dissolving the House of Representatives does nothing to help Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra disprove allegations that he defrauded the country, said leading social critic Prawase Wasi. A long-time mentor of Mr Thaksin, Dr Prawase said yesterday the House dissolution ''missed the point'' and left many questions about the prime minister's misconduct unanswered.

What needs establishing is whether Mr Thaksin is corrupt, he said. Mr Thaksin, his family and cronies had faced a slew of allegations that they were involved in graft, believed to have cost the country more than 200 billion baht.

Dr Prawase said a modern saying had been coined to describe how corruption traces back to previous generations.

He said a ''bandit chief'' lived on ill-gotten gains from the multi-billion-baht Suvarnabhumi airport construction. Land around the new airport was bought by a powerful family hoping to reap enormous profits from a resale.

Rampant corruption is making the country several hundred billion baht poorer, he said.

Turning to the controversial Shin-Temasek share deal, he said Singapore has a huge reserve of investment funds at its disposal and is taking over many businesses, including telecoms, hotels and airlines, in Thailand.

The Shin share sell-off to Singapore's Temasek Holdings aroused suspicion that politicians were conspiring to defraud the country. He said the House dissolution is irrational and does not present a solution because the corruption accusations against the prime minister have not gone away.

''Given the gravity of the allegations, if this had happened in the old days [the offender] and his family would have had their heads cut off,'' he said.

''But in this day and age, he should at least be jailed and have his assets confiscated,'' he added.

Dr Prawase said the government did not play by the rules, forcing people to take to the streets to demand a new leadership. A rally, he said, is an expression of political reform which is perfectly constitutional. ''The energy to carry a nation through must come from ethics, not a chunk of money without morality attached to it,'' he said

Source: Bangkok Post - February 26, 2006

[LaoPo]

Opposition to boycott election

April 2 snap poll seen as a government tactic to whitewash misconduct allegations against Thaksin

The three opposition parties are expected to announce a boycott of the April 2 election _ a tactic that was widely speculated upon yesterday following the dissolution of the House by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. A boycott is favoured by politicians in the Democrat and Mahachon parties who see the snap poll as a government tactic to whitewash allegations of misconduct against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The Chart Thai party was reluctant, but agreed last night their candidates would not run.

Source: Bangkok Post - February 26, 2006

I wonder if that option (boycott) was in HM The King's mind, when he invited (commanded?) the PM a few days ago to the Palace and after which visit the PM announced the new elections.

Only a massive -continued-for-the-next-35-days- demonstration by more than 1 or 2 million people will bring down TS, just my guess.

Boycotting the 2nd April elections by the opposition is not really helping the country and its people from a democatric point of view.

LaoPo

[h90]

I agree most of your posting.....

Just want to add that such a catastrophy for a short time is sure better than a political situation like in the Philippines or Indonesia.

Beside the King, my wife told that often the army has big influence, because they often visit premiers in the past and told to resign or get a bullet in your head. But I don't know, it is only what my wife told me.....

my 2 cents are: better have some civil unrest for a short time, kick out Thaksin. If Thailand can show that it can clean itself it is also good for the long term economic. Anyway Thailand is far away from beeing a democracy. There a few rich familys who are controlling everything and sometimes they fight for domination, or does anyone honestly think that a "normal" thai citicien (without beeing rich, or promise something for the right people?) can get any political power).

I just remember the car with the speaker, telling that everyone get 200 Baht (for voting for Thaksin), the truck with Heineken (vote Thaksin, get Heineken) and the system of letting the poor stupid (school quality) so they can be controlled easy.....

From a bad situation we are rapidly slipping into a catastrophy.

This is shocking. As bad as Thaksin is, the situation that might develop out of such a strategy is possibly far worse than Thaksin winning the coming elections. I have a feeling that this is a gamble to force Thaksin to back down and resign. Given Thaksin's track record and personality, he might easily go ahead anyhow with the elections.

It is somewhat understandable that the opposition parties consider such a move as they have very little chance to win the coming elections after Thaksin's not very moral master stroke to dissolve the parliament. But to a large part they have to blame themselves as they missed not only to properly campaign upcountry during the last two elections, but also to educate the villagers about their programs and to why Thaksin is destroying the economy long term.

One side has to back down, and i am rather sure that Thaksin won't. Legally he won't have to as well. And i believe for the good of the country he won't either. But for the opposition not to stand for elections is equally bad for the country.

This is a powergame that is not good for the country, and immature to the extreme from both sides. Thaksin does have the votes, the opposition has failed to bring their valid points across to the majority of the country.

As much as i am against Thaksin, the opposition cannot do such a move without losing credibility and moral highground. They lower themselves to the same dirty methods Thaksin has been using all along.

It is better to live with Thaksin for a bit longer, than risking severe, long lasting civil unrest.

What are the scenarios?

-Thaksin backs down, and the millions of Thaksin supporters will not sit idle.

-Thaksin goes ahead with the elections, has 100% majority, and a government that is not representative.

-The opposition parties back down, and have lost face and credibility for a long time to come, making Thaksin's rule even longer.

-The king comes out and calls all sides in like the small children they apparently are. Therfore showing the whole world how immature and volatile Thailand still is. Which will do enormous harm to future long term investments as the whole world knows that the king is getting on in age and appears to be the only moral authority this country has, leaving a vacuum after his passing.

This situation is the making of both sides:

Thaksin's consistent arrogance and inability to take any form of criticism has caused many of his former supporters such as Sondhi and Chamlong to switch sides.

The opposition still carries the old arrogance to take the upcountry population for granted, it was their fault that Thaksin was elected in the first place.

And both sides appear to be so immature that they cannot accept their failings.

I am truly shocked, very worried and disgusted by the whole cluster######. It's a disgrace for anyting that Thailand has achieved since '92. I hope in the next days i can think of any positive scenario that i might not have thought about now.

[sriracha john]

I have mixed feelings about a boycotted election. I can see the points of Jai Dee's last post that it doesn't address the root cause. Initially, I would have opposed a boycott, but on the other hand, if there are significant numbers of boycotters, it taints the validity of the election, just like Nepal's elections last week.

I find the ever-increasing number of TRT Party members quitting/resigning EXTREMELY interesting, knowing full well it means giving up their MP seats due to the 90 day rule.

[thaigene2]

Q and A Time - by Professor ThaiGene..

Q: Why did Thaksin call the snap election?

A: To silence his opponents who claimed Thaksin was 'undemocratic' and to stop the hemoraging of his own outer cabinet and various TRT factions who, by law, cannot leave and join another party in such a short period of time.

Q: Did it work? Did he silence them and stop the hemorage?

A: Er..well he made it more difficult for them to say he's undemocratic..he's letting the people decide which is what democracy is all about. But it hasn't silenced the critics who say he hasn't addressed the central complaint - that he has used the government and the constiution as his own family's play thing to enrich the Shin family. It has stopped the hemorage of former-party-faithfuls, who'se only option now appears to be quit politics or stay on the TRT ticket.

Q: Can he win the election?

A: Of course, and probably be a landslide again, because those who oppose him tend to be only the (relatively) small number of middle-class establishment families in Bangkok who've lost their privileged access to the civil service largesse (bureaucrats on 40,000 B/month salaries who built their 2nd homes in Hua Hin and own 2 Mercedes Benz' via procurement skimming). It looks like he's given up on winning any seats in BKK but that doesn't really matter cause the farmers of Isaan will lead him right back to Govt House.

Q: You're pretty cynical aren't you? People are outraged over his undemocratic ways aren't they?

A: Yes and Yes. I am cynical but with good reason, because people tend to pretend that the governments that came before were somehow honest hard working. Most of these politicians - then and now - have lifestyles far beyond their apparent incomes. So where do they get the money for that? And yes people are outraged over the disregard to democracy. But until the country reflects on itself a bit deeper, and demands transparency and accountablity, thnen I think there will be little if any change no matter who is elected.

Q: Aren't there any good people out there willing to put things right and clamp down on all the corruption and investigate these rich families on all sides of the political divide?

A: Yes. But they're scared. And who wouldn't be.

Q: Are we in for more trouble after the election - especially since the opposition parties are boycotting it?

A: It's becoming scary isn't it..

[Heng]

One thing about the countryside vs. city vote, the lines aren't that clearly drawn. It's hardly elite against Thaksin and all the poor for him either.

Heng, I usually differ with you but I absolutely agree with you on this one. The so-called Bangkok-countryside divide is sort of an urban legend perpetuated by the Bangkok-dominated media. The whole issue is rather complex, but it's hard for city-dwellers to see through it since the media (which tends to look down upon rural people anyway) doesn't really make much of an effort to understand the political mood of the provinces. It's rather frustrating, but also one of the reasons why I visit this forum to seek information!

I'm not sure where/when we've disagreed, but I don't think the issue is perpetuated by any group in particular. I was merely referring to a common (and IMO inaccurate) generalization found on this very web board.

[Terminator]

the point is all politicians are self centred crooks, only interested in filling their cookie jars either now or after politics. bush, toxin, hamas, blair, they're all the same!

<deleted> them all, thats why i've moved away into freedom, rather being stateless and save my taxes for my own personal use!

suckers, welcome to the club!!!

Edited February 26, 2006 by Terminator

[penzman]

the point is all politicians are self centred crooks, only interested in filling their cookie jars either now or after politics. bush, toxin, hamas, blair, they're all the same!

<deleted> them all, thats why i've moved away into freedom, rather being stateless and save my taxes for my own personal use!

suckers, welcome to the club!!!

A moderator has been quickly appointed in case Thaksin signs up as a member or reveals his identity asking for help, since he won't make sense of your post.

Edited February 26, 2006 by penzman

[haha]

the point is all politicians are self centred crooks, only interested in filling their cookie jars either now or after politics. bush, toxin, hamas, blair, they're all the same!

<deleted> them all, thats why i've moved away into freedom, rather being stateless and save my taxes for my own personal use!

suckers, welcome to the club!!!

would you rather we all joined up with the ayatolahs, read the koran, become good obediant islamic fundamentalists?

..maybe we should go around murdering people because of some cartoons?

I think democracy is the better option. ..even if it is not perfect.

[lukamar]

I think democracy is the better option. ..even if it is not perfect.

As a government, no matter where you are, if you give in to the demands of terrorists, special interest groups or protesters you can easily fall into a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. It's called anarchy. A shallow democracy, even if only the TRT runs , is better than the alternatives. No one wants history to repeat itself at this stage because the military has in the past and may in the future just jump in if the situation gets out of hand.

1976 Military resumed control in response to mounting strikes and political violence.

1978 Gen Kriangsak Chomanan introduced constitution with mixed civilian–military government.

1980 Gen Prem Tinsulanonda assumed power.

1983 Prem relinquished army office to head civilian government; martial law maintained.

1988 Chatichai Choonhavan succeeded Prem as prime minister.

1991 A military coup imposed a new military-oriented constitution despite mass protests.

1992 A general election produced a five-party coalition; riots forced Prime Minister Suchinda Kraprayoon to flee; Chuan Leekpai formed a new coalition government.

1995–96 The ruling coalition collapsed.

1996 A general election resulted in a new six-party coalition led by Chavalit Yongchaiyudh.

1997 A major financial crisis led to the floating of currency. An austerity rescue plan was agreed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Chuan Leekpai was re-elected prime minister.

[bulmercke]

thaigene2 wrote: "Q: Why did Thaksin call the snap election?

A: To silence his opponents who claimed Thaksin was 'undemocratic' and to stop the hemoraging of his own outer cabinet and various TRT factions who, by law, cannot leave and join another party in such a short period of time."

Yes, again if Thaksin had played by the rules in the spirit they were obviously intended, he would have allowed 90 days to precede the election date. But, he didn't.....and didn't allow for this period, for the reasons thaigene2 gives above.

Again, another sly and underhand move....no different to all the others he's recently been associated with, and in particular, the shady and murky transactions that characterised the Shin "Sale Of The Century".....

He seems incapable of doing anything in an open and honest way.

[plachon]

Interesting how some people associate the right to peaceful, law-abiding, constitutionally permitted protest, with terrorism. And you appear not to even be from the US! Is protesting forbidden in Canada then?

I think democracy is the better option. ..even if it is not perfect.

As a government, no matter where you are, if you give in to the demands of terrorists, special interest groups or protesters you can easily fall into a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. It's called anarchy. A shallow democracy, even if only the TRT runs , is better than the alternatives. No one wants history to repeat itself at this stage because the military has in the past and may in the future just jump in if the situation gets out of hand.

1976 Military resumed control in response to mounting strikes and political violence.

1978 Gen Kriangsak Chomanan introduced constitution with mixed civilian–military government.

1980 Gen Prem Tinsulanonda assumed power.

1983 Prem relinquished army office to head civilian government; martial law maintained.

1988 Chatichai Choonhavan succeeded Prem as prime minister.

1991 A military coup imposed a new military-oriented constitution despite mass protests.

1992 A general election produced a five-party coalition; riots forced Prime Minister Suchinda Kraprayoon to flee; Chuan Leekpai formed a new coalition government.

1995–96 The ruling coalition collapsed.

1996 A general election resulted in a new six-party coalition led by Chavalit Yongchaiyudh.

1997 A major financial crisis led to the floating of currency. An austerity rescue plan was agreed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Chuan Leekpai was re-elected prime minister.

[ColPyat]

my 2 cents are: better have some civil unrest for a short time, kick out Thaksin. If Thailand can show that it can clean itself it is also good for the long term economic. Anyway Thailand is far away from beeing a democracy.

No, i believe violence is completely unacceptable. Especially now.

What many opponents of Thaksin disregard is, that this is a different situation than there ever was in Thailand. Thaksin has not just bought the votes upcountry, but because his easy loan scemes and consistent presence he has created a huge following. The vast majority of people in most parts of isaarn and the north genuinly see him as their savior. This was never before in modern Thai history, where previously most people upcountry were rather apathetc regarding politics. Politics was made in Bangkok, and politicians were for them almost all the same.

Thaksin has managed to bring politics into the villages. If he is brought down by violence in the city this is going to create a far more dangerous rift in the society than another election win of Thaksin.

He has to be brought down by peaceful means, even if that means that we have to live a bit longer with him. The people upcountry cannot be disregarded anymore this way. Accusing them to only vote for Thaksin because he bought their votes is highly arrogant.

He has to be brought down by the collapse of his party, and by the opposition spreading their political message upcountry, convincing people that Thaksin is cheating them. It is very short sighted by the parliamentary opposition if it joins the demonstartors by boycotting the election, because those parties have to accept that it was to a large part their fault that Thaksin has been elected in the first place. They have to come up with the tactics to get Thaksin elected out of office. And that should not be too difficult, it only takes a bit longer, because they have not yet started to do the job they should have been supposed to do a very long time ago.

Thaksin has created a genuine following of millions. Violence is not going to take this support away. Only peaceful, democratic means will. Violence is only creating counterviolence, and this is a vicious circle that Thai society does not need.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

I think democracy is the better option. ..even if it is not perfect.

As a government, no matter where you are, if you give in to the demands of terrorists, special interest groups or protesters you can easily fall into a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. It's called anarchy. A shallow democracy, even if only the TRT runs , is better than the alternatives. No one wants history to repeat itself at this stage because the military has in the past and may in the future just jump in if the situation gets out of hand.

1976 Military resumed control in response to mounting strikes and political violence.

1978 Gen Kriangsak Chomanan introduced constitution with mixed civilian–military government.

1980 Gen Prem Tinsulanonda assumed power.

1983 Prem relinquished army office to head civilian government; martial law maintained.

1988 Chatichai Choonhavan succeeded Prem as prime minister.

1991 A military coup imposed a new military-oriented constitution despite mass protests.

1992 A general election produced a five-party coalition; riots forced Prime Minister Suchinda Kraprayoon to flee; Chuan Leekpai formed a new coalition government.

1995–96 The ruling coalition collapsed.

1996 A general election resulted in a new six-party coalition led by Chavalit Yongchaiyudh.

1997 A major financial crisis led to the floating of currency. An austerity rescue plan was agreed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Chuan Leekpai was re-elected prime minister.

Surely you can't forget Anand Panyarachand and his prime ministership

[lukamar]

Interesting how some people associate the right to peaceful, law-abiding, constitutionally permitted protest, with terrorism.

Read it again. I did not associate terrorism with protest, you did. I Quote "if you give in to the demands of terrorists, special interest groups or protesters you can easily fall into a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority." I associated a state of political unrest with the history of recent Thai politics and the military, who could very easily get involved if things get out of hand like they have in the past.

Your hatred for the present government seems give you tunnel vision and the inability or willingness to see differing views, even if they are similar to your own. I'm trying to stay somewhat nutral.

If you want to change the government you run candidates and work hard to get them elected. You can protest until the cows come home but if you don't get the majority of the vote you don't form the government no matter how many peaceful, law-abiding, constitutionally permitted protests you have. When those peaceful, law-abiding, constitutionally permitted protest turn nasty and the stability of the government is threatened then that's the scenario I was pointing out could happen.

[bulmercke]

Here's the link to the manager site live video feed -

http://broadcast.manager.co.th/11news1

However, they appear to be experiencing technical problems.

Has anyone else had any luck getting pictures?

Up-date.....OK now.

Edited February 26, 2006 by bulmercke

[Siripon]

Are you saying that the middle class mob has no access to free TV? What are you saying? I can't make sense of it.

If you believe in democracy then you will applaud his decision to have vote. The opposition has been saying that he no longer represents the views of a majority of the voters....so....let's find out......but no...now they don't want it because they know that their rhetoric is wrong....Toxin does have the support of the majority of the voters....ooops....so I guess the only thing to do now is for their true colors to be shown....they are anti-democratic....thery are for tyranny of the middle class Bangkok resident over the rest of the nation I guess. Maybe I'm wrong though. All you anti toxin people out there helpl to educate me.....who should decide who the next PM should be and who should not be allowed to be PM? It is clear that you do not think that the law should prevail in this matter...so how then?...who then?...you then?

Chownah

I am saying that ever since Taksin first came to power all opposing voices have been removed from TV from talkshow hosts such as Dr Chermsak to news coverage where it's hard for the Opposition to get a mention.

Radio has faced the same fate, newspapers too, The Thai Rath, until recently, rarely ran an article critical of Taksin.His monologue on Saturday morning radio is pure propaganda; would he give Apisit an hour a week, too please?

I would applaud his decision to have a vote in 3 years time when the election should be held, he has a 75 percent majority for Pete's sake! But no, holding it now traps dissident TRT MPs and 30 days for Opposition Parties to find candidates for every constituency and Party List, print posters ,Tshirts, etc is a tall order.

Having said that, I think Apisit is making a grave mistake if the Democrats boycott the election, rather they should take the chance to show how unnecessary the election is and ask Taksin to debate with Apisit on TV.

[Upcountry]

Im surprised that we can read as much as we do in the Bangkok Post, etc. Censorship will play a big role in the snap election as controlled by TRT (Thais Love Thaksin).

I agree that boycotting the election is admitting defeat. It's insane. The answer is for Sondhi and others to put their money where their mouths are and begin an education campaign via alternatives to TV, etc. I hate the speaker trucks, but that's one way to counter the speakers on the telephone poles.

Since many teachers country-wide are against Thaksin, maybe they will influence voters through the children and young adults they teach. Same goes for the students now involved in the movement.

It may be too early to declare defeat! If Thaksin wins, despite the opposition's best efforts, the obvious explanation is vote buying and censorship. Without those two things, Mr. T would have been voted out last time.

The other issue of course is who would take his place? Would the cure be worse than the desease?

Edited February 26, 2006 by Upcountry

[lukamar]

The other issue of course is who would take his place? Would the cure be worse than the desease?

As I just got called a Canuck. Canada just had an election, same sort of thing, huge government corruption & the PM had his fleet of ships registered offshore to avoid Canadian taxes. We voted out the minority Liberal government and voted in a minority Conservative Government. And you know what Same old -Same old. Life is no better and no worse. One thing is for certain. we'll be voting again shortly and we'll probably change again.