Opposition Dumps Thaksin's Election Plans

[marshbags]

Actually I think its a smart move. It will allow the MP's that want out of TRT to bail and still be in the election. All they have to do is jump ship now and delay the election for 30 days. You may start hearing about MP's jumping ship soon.

greg

[/quote...........................................................................

.....................ended

Hopefully the election will be a non starter do to other developments

It is a smart move with a clear message that the opposition will not give legitamacy/creditability to this attempt to dodge the real issues and let him off the hook.

By doing this they are putting the concentration on the main points of contention that have led up to this situation.

A relevant news item to further enforce the accusations on corruption and transparency this morning

Did anyone watch the BBC,s Asia business program today ?

The whole Asia Pacific region has improved there standards on corruption apart from one country.

Yes you,ve guessed it, Thailand.

They say that it has snowballed under this government and gives a particular mention to the Kamoy in chief,s personal contributions re shin sat. ect.

They went as far as to say even Indonesia has made good progress and what happened to Thailand.

Hope the last piece isn,t considered O.T.

marshbags

Edited February 28, 2006 by marshbags

[chownah]

Have I missed something? Is there some evidence that there was some corruption involved in the sale of the company? I thought that it was all done totally legally and that mostly it was a question of ethics and not legality. Am I wrong about this?..and if so what law was broken? I know that the law about percentage of foreign ownership had just gone into effect when the business was sold but it was pointed out that the low percentage allowed for foreign ownership was probably unrealisically low for this type of enterprise and that the legal action to liberalize the percentage had been in the works for a number of years and had finally gotten approved....so....naturally the owners of the shares (Toxin didn't own any shares as far as I know) saw thier opportunity when the law went into affect and sold their interest...a move that has been described by many as a good sense move given the direction that the communications infrastructure is moving. This doesn't really have the flavor of corruption to me....mostly it seems that for some reason the opposition feels that they have some rights to ownership of the shares that were sold....I don't know why they have this feeling.

[marshbags]

Have I missed something? Is there some evidence that there was some corruption involved in the sale of the company? I thought that it was all done totally legally and that mostly it was a question of ethics and not legality. Am I wrong about this?..and if so what law was broken? I know that the law about percentage of foreign ownership had just gone into effect when the business was sold but it was pointed out that the low percentage allowed for foreign ownership was probably unrealisically low for this type of enterprise and that the legal action to liberalize the percentage had been in the works for a number of years and had finally gotten approved....so....naturally the owners of the shares (Toxin didn't own any shares as far as I know) saw thier opportunity when the law went into affect and sold their interest...a move that has been described by many as a good sense move given the direction that the communications infrastructure is moving. This doesn't really have the flavor of corruption to me....mostly it seems that for some reason the opposition feels that they have some rights to ownership of the shares that were sold....I don't know why they have this feeling.

................................................................................

...........ended

Come on chownah, when the international press ( respected intitutions ) are making observations surely this isn,t the opposition making remarks and crying because they do not benefit.

It,s the thoughts outside Thailand, that are the just as important on this situation and investment will seriously effect for all honest Thai,s in the long term as you will know.

Marshbags

Edited February 28, 2006 by marshbags

[Plus]

Chownah, do you seriously believe that Taksin had nothing to do with the Shin sale and it was his children who planned it all along? Even when the boy himself said that it's all Poo Yais decisions "if they say sell, I'll sell" quoted in the news.

The kids were acting as his nominees, which is illegal, like the shares held by his driver and gardener, or stacked away in British Virgin islands. It would be fairly easy to establish that they have no clue as to what has actually happened with the shares - just interview them. The Court, of course, refused the petition.

And the law on foreign ownership - the same group of senators voted twice on it - first time "no" when it was Dtac's turn to sell, and second time "yes" when Shin deal was in the works. Can it be proven that Taksin meddled with Senate decisions?

Somehow Taksin hopes that winning the election is the right way to clear those specific allegations. Who is he fooling?

And then there's a point about the legitimacy of calling snap elections - there's no crisis of any kind in parlament, TRT didn't lose any MPs, the governement is as stable as ever. Taksin dissolved the house for personal reasons, as if it's his playtoy.

[britmaveric]

Taksin dissolved the house for personal reasons, as if it's his playtoy.

HRH approved PM actions, so I dare say you are incorrect with that point.

[TAWP]

you really don't get it, do you?

someone declared war on the usa. they bombed us. ..for the past 75 years, these islamic fanatics have been murdering americans and british citizens at their leisure.

and then, you say we don't have the right to fight back? the leaders in iraq and afganistan were supporting those a##holes, and you say we shouldn't fight back at those supporting the guys who declared war on us?

and before you say that they never proved that saddam was supporting bin laden. let me remind you that that al zaqawi dude is over there leading the resistence as we speak. what more proof do you need?

yeah. I know. your saying - there were "innocents". so then, what do you think we should do? sit on our butts while those a##holes keep murdering our citizens?

oh. I see, maybe we should walk into their homeland and search door to door for the murderers? is that what you think we should do?

...talking about innocents. there were over 3000 of them on 9/11. why don't you complain to the muslims about their deaths?

how about the innocents murdered in london by those suicide bombers?

now we have these fanatics murdering people over cartoons. and not one complaint out of you on that, right?

if one of those countries drops an atom bomb on us, the next thing I expect to hear from you is quote, "the usa, england and all the western powers deserve it."

we now have some fanatics in iran talking about blowing up people, and you still persist in your criticism on the west?

get real.

http://www.almidfarah.fanspace.com/islamic_terr_even.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

It's a sad state of affairs when people get so brainwashed.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with Al Qaida. To even assume that as a fact is beyond comprehension of stupid.

The goverment under Saddam was sequlare socialistic. He fought AGAINST the religious groups that wanted more power. Yes, the man was a dictator and a criminal in many way, but he was NOT supporting terrorism.

[britmaveric]

Tawp - Saddam was supporting terrorists I'm afraid and there is little doubt about it. For starters....

-Payment for Hamas martyers

-Allowing AQ refuge and training bases in Iraq (Northern Iraq)

However whether its to the extend the yanks would like to believe, prob not.

Edited February 28, 2006 by britmaveric

[TAWP]

No, he paid money to martyrs familys after the events. And it only started a year before the invasion, when he went on his "I'm a proud arabic muslim and you should help against the US of A"-campain. Which ofcourse failed.

(Watch how he faked going out to pray during the 60 minutes-intervue the months before the invasion. It was all an act to gain sympathy from the arabic world, which didn't really see him as a brother...)

The northern Iraq houses the majority of kurds, that are at war with Turkiy.

But Saddam has NO connection to 9/11. Saudi Arabia has a lot more...

Ps. Hamas has nothing to do with AQ. If the broad term 'terrorist' should be used, then the US should invade itself for supporting terrorists. Ds.

Ps2. I thought the invasion was about WMD. That didn't exist. Ds.

Edited February 28, 2006 by TAWP

[p_brownstone]

Taksin dissolved the house for personal reasons, as if it's his playtoy.

HRH approved PM actions, so I dare say you are incorrect with that point.

Sorry - that's nonsense.

Constitutionally the Prime Minister of the day has to ask permission from the Monarch to dissolve Parliament, however it would be impossible to withold permission since that would be seen as involving the Monarchy in the Political arena, something which the King has steadfastly avoided - except in the situation in 1992 whe he eventually called in Chamlong and Suchinda and advised them to settle their differences, specifically to avoid further danmage and deaths.

Giving permission in such a case in no way equates to "approval".

Patrick

[h90]

you really don't get it, do you?

someone declared war on the usa. they bombed us. ..for the past 75 years, these islamic fanatics have been murdering americans and british citizens at their leisure.

and then, you say we don't have the right to fight back? the leaders in iraq and afganistan were supporting those a##holes, and you say we shouldn't fight back at those supporting the guys who declared war on us?

and before you say that they never proved that saddam was supporting bin laden. let me remind you that that al zaqawi dude is over there leading the resistence as we speak. what more proof do you need?

yeah. I know. your saying - there were "innocents". so then, what do you think we should do? sit on our butts while those a##holes keep murdering our citizens?

oh. I see, maybe we should walk into their homeland and search door to door for the murderers? is that what you think we should do?

...talking about innocents. there were over 3000 of them on 9/11. why don't you complain to the muslims about their deaths?

how about the innocents murdered in london by those suicide bombers?

now we have these fanatics murdering people over cartoons. and not one complaint out of you on that, right?

if one of those countries drops an atom bomb on us, the next thing I expect to hear from you is quote, "the usa, england and all the western powers deserve it."

we now have some fanatics in iran talking about blowing up people, and you still persist in your criticism on the west?

get real.

http://www.almidfarah.fanspace.com/islamic_terr_even.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

It's a sad state of affairs when people get so brainwashed.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with Al Qaida. To even assume that as a fact is beyond comprehension of stupid.

The goverment under Saddam was sequlare socialistic. He fought AGAINST the religious groups that wanted more power. Yes, the man was a dictator and a criminal in many way, but he was NOT supporting terrorism.

you forgot that Saddam was the best mate, when he was in war with the iran. And sure at this time he had WMD because the USA delivered them. After Saddam told he want to trade his oil in euro his country got destroyed by the USA, without UNO mandat and so illegal. But thats off topic and discussions from the US/UK war crime fans against the rest of the farangs is the best way to make a topic closed....

[marquess]

I wonder if Thaskin is fearful of ending up in jail once he loses office?

[Roger_JG]

you really don't get it, do you?

someone declared war on the usa. they bombed us. ..for the past 75 years, these islamic fanatics have been murdering americans and british citizens at their leisure.

and then, you say we don't have the right to fight back? the leaders in iraq and afganistan were supporting those a##holes, and you say we shouldn't fight back at those supporting the guys who declared war on us?

and before you say that they never proved that saddam was supporting bin laden. let me remind you that that al zaqawi dude is over there leading the resistence as we speak. what more proof do you need?

yeah. I know. your saying - there were "innocents". so then, what do you think we should do? sit on our butts while those a##holes keep murdering our citizens?

oh. I see, maybe we should walk into their homeland and search door to door for the murderers? is that what you think we should do?

...talking about innocents. there were over 3000 of them on 9/11. why don't you complain to the muslims about their deaths?

how about the innocents murdered in london by those suicide bombers?

now we have these fanatics murdering people over cartoons. and not one complaint out of you on that, right?

if one of those countries drops an atom bomb on us, the next thing I expect to hear from you is quote, "the usa, england and all the western powers deserve it."

we now have some fanatics in iran talking about blowing up people, and you still persist in your criticism on the west?

get real.

http://www.almidfarah.fanspace.com/islamic_terr_even.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

It's a sad state of affairs when people get so brainwashed.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with Al Qaida. To even assume that as a fact is beyond comprehension of stupid.

The goverment under Saddam was sequlare socialistic. He fought AGAINST the religious groups that wanted more power. Yes, the man was a dictator and a criminal in many way, but he was NOT supporting terrorism.

To what it must be added that all those "islamic fanatic" have been on the CIA payroll for the past 20 years... as are the warlords who have now restored drug trafficking in Afghanistan...

~S

[ovenman]

I wonder if Thaskin is fearful of ending up in jail once he loses office?

I can't imagine that the day would come when Mr. Big would do any jail time, but it is not at all a stretch to picture a situation under which his assets get seized. An editorial in the Bangkok Post a number of weeks back suggested the sale of Shin was being done at this moment so as to enable him to get his assets out of the country. Hard to seize what one cannot get their hands on...

[mogoso]

The first notion you need to disabuse yourselves of, is the fallacy that my country, Thailand, is a democracy. It is not.

No populace that is as uneducated about the value of enfranchisement as the Thai rural poor can be regarded as a democratic constituency. They are many years from understanding the value and meaning of democracy, or the obligations that come with their ability to vote.

................................................................................

.............................................................

We've many poor undereducated people in our country that know the value of their vote, you keep voting for those candidates you think will give you the most same same in Thailand. Why put down your own people

................................................................................

..............................................................

Thai Ruk Thai is the largest, richest organisation ever to hit the Thai political scene. Most of those in high places there are many-times disgraced dinosaurs of Thai politics. The only successes they have enjoyed have been lining their own pockets over many incarnations.

Let us look at some of the many vaunted “successes” of TRT’s governance:

The 30 Bt. medical scheme. Every hospital involved is crying foul and desperate to find the funds to continue in operation.

................................................................................

...............................................................

Same same here, public hospitals who don't even get their $.75 cents from patient toward operating cost complain, sure its a hassle getting money from the goverment, but they've been operating for many years, paying their workers, buying supoplies and taking care of their patients. No hospital can turn an emergency away regardless of ability to pay. Non emergencies and continued care go towards the public hospitals. Our southern borders states are inudated with hispanics that clog up hospitals and use others monies to pay. yet manage to stay in business. A problem Thailand doesn't have. Hospitals that take care of public patients always complain and with good reason, its the nature of the beast, all goverment agencies always complain to obtain greater funding .

................................................................................

..............................................................

The 1 M-Bt. Village fund. A blatant act of bribing and purchasing votes from the rural population, possible only through legal loopholes. Most individual beneficiaries of these funds are now deeper in debt than they ever were before. They have to repay their loans at the end of each year. To do so, they need to borrow, at exorbitant rates, from local leeches, repay the loan and then hope they can re-borrow at the start of the new year, leaving the 20-50% “leech fee” to be repaid over time.

The multiple mega-projects are al, without exception, ill conceived and riddled with corruption.

Dinosaurs lining their personal nests at the cost of you, me and all the other citizens of our potentially great Kingdom.

................................................................................

.........................................................

As anywhere when you borrow money, you need to repay. Many whom have thought out what they needed to borrow, to obtain what goal, and how they could repay with a reasonable certainly do well. Those who borrow just to get money, without a real idea of how to repay, get in trouble. Not a Thai problem but a human problem. Many here owe credit card companies huge sums and pay outrageous interest legally to the issueing banks. They went for instant gratification in most cases, and now are paying the cost. I've credit cards for convience, but pay balance monthly, and actually make a few bucks doing this.

................................................................................

............................................................

The last "election" was won, not through a "democratic process" but through corruption, fraud and practices that would declare any Western, (apart from, perhaps, the USA) poll invalid and have the perpetuators sent away at his Majesty’s pleasure for appreciable prison sentences.

................................................................................

.................................................................

T The USAs elections were(are) fraudulent. Spoken like a true democrat. The ones crying foul (and I assume you refer to the 2000 election) were democrats and as it be shown on this board many titimes the claim is baseless, but a useful tool by demo leaders for explaining why they lost the election to their constituents, rather than saying we haven't a clue.

................................................................................

..............................................................

Throughout most of the rural areas, voters, in deep hock to the state through the 1M-Bt. village fund, were told their loans would be called in if TRT failed to win their local seat. Local officials, Poo-Yai Baan and others, were told they would lose their jobs. Those who could not be threatened into giving their “Free” vote to TRT were bribed in other ways. The result, a landslide.

This next election, if it went ahead normally, would be no different. No opposition party could possibly ever win on this, possibly the least flat playing field on the planet.

................................................................................

.............................................................

To you the only election results that you would accept would be a demo victory, which would of course have been election without fraud, while if the opposition wins its fraudulent. Typical democratic thought, only we can lead well.

I do not like Thaksin but he is at least democratically elected!

Democratically elected?

My partner's familly in far Issan got 100 baht per person to vote for the candidate of the opposition last time, and then 200 to vote for Thaksin....

~S

Truly a democratic election, vote for who will give you the most

[bulmercke]

BBC NEWS 28.02.06 13.00 Bangkok

Thai protesters issue ultimatum

Sondhi Limthongkul started the anti-Thaksin campaign

Campaigners hoping to oust Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra have demanded that he resign by next Sunday.

The People's Alliance for Democracy, a coalition of anti-Thaksin groups, said if he ignored the ultimatum he could be forced from office by mass protests.

Mr Thaksin has faced mounting calls for his resignation in recent weeks, causing him to dissolve parliament on Friday and announce a snap election.

The three main opposition parties have decided to boycott the poll.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva made the announcement on Monday night, flanked by members of the Chart Thai and Mahachon parties.

He said Mr Thaksin had refused to agree to their proposals for constitutional changes.

"This means the government is not sincere about political reforms," Mr Abhisit is quoted as telling a news conference.

'Biggest show of opposition'

"We give Thaksin until [sunday] 5 March to resign or face the biggest show of opposition ever," Sondhi Limthongkul, a media tycoon who began the anti-Thaksin campaign, told supporters in the early hours of Tuesday morning.

He was addressing a gathering in a large open area called Sanam Luang, near Bangkok's royal palace, which was the site of a huge rally on Sunday evening.

The majority of demonstrators have now left the area, but supporters of Chamlong Srimuang, a former general who led a successful uprising against a military-led government in 1992, have said they will stay until Sunday.

Analysts say Mr Thaksin's announcement of early elections is designed to quell the growing discontent amid various groups who have called for his resignation.

Only a year ago his Thai Rak Thai party won 375 out of 500 seats in the general election.

Before the opposition boycott was announced, he was widely expected to retain power in the April snap poll, but with a reduced majority.

Mr Thaksin has faced calls to resign since late last year - calls which have grown since his family sold its stake in Shin Corp, the company he built up before he entered politics, last month.

The sale, which netted the family members and others $1.9bn, has angered many urban Thais, who complained the family avoided paying tax and passed control of an important national asset to Singaporean investors.

Edited February 28, 2006 by bulmercke

[gurkle]

The funniest thing about the opposition is that they will end up making Thaksin more powerful than ever:

-They refuse a democratic election, bringing their intentions into question. And I don't buy the 60-day rule excuse. They had several years to challenge this law, but now they only want to change it when it suits their purpose.

-They claim the poor voted for him because they are uneducated and were bought off. This will make the poor hate the opposition more than ever for calling their intelligence and morals into question.

-They are boycotting the election, paving the way for a parliament stacked in favor of Thaksin with no real opposition.

-They have made it IMPOSSIBLE for him to resign at this point. With the opposition as fanatical as they are, there is no telling what they would do to him if they had the ability.

So to all the anti-Thaksins, please keep telling me about how stupid the poor are and how they can be bought off. It only helps Thaksin that much more.

Edited February 28, 2006 by gurkle

[asd]

Tension rises as opposition alliance boycotts election

By ThaiDay

Protesters at Sanam Laung wave national flags as the mass rally calling for the ouster of Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra entered its second day. Opposition parties have decided to boycott the April 2 general election.

*********************************

Accusing caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of being insincere about making political reforms, the opposition alliance announced last night it was boycotting the April 2 general election.

"It has become clear that the [caretaker] premier does not genuinely intend to effect political reforms, which is central to resolving the current political crisis," the opposition leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva, said last night.

"He is just trying to play a political game to prolong his stay in power."

The toughened stance by the opposition alliance - which comprises the Democrat, Chat Thai and Mahachon parties - came after Thaksin rejected their proposal to sign a joint-declaration binding all four parties to making constitutional amendments to pave the way for crucial political reforms.

After keeping the opposition alliance waiting for much of the day, Thaksin announced his rejection of the proposed four-party pact at a news conference held at about 4pm.

Instead, Thaksin invited the three opposition parties - together with about two dozen small parties that are legally registered but were not represented in the former Parliament - to meet at 6pm last night to discuss how best to proceed with political reforms.

In what is being seen as political posturing by both sides, the opposition alliance quickly rejected the 6pm meeting and instead returned to their respective headquarters.

Meanwhile, Thaksin met representatives from about 15 little-known parties at the Senate building. "I have tried my best. It's up to each party to decide what to do," he told reporters.

From the four-point statement Thaksin read to the press, it is clear the Thai Rak Thai party's perception of how best to proceed with political reforms differs from that held by the opposition alliance.

Whereas the opposition wants a joint declaration by the four parties that were represented in the former House, TRT wants all registered parties to have a say.

More significantly, while the Democrat party wants a small panel of seven neutral people to be appointed by His Majesty the King to take charge of amending the Constitution, TRT wants a larger panel, similar to the 1997 Constitution-drafting assembly, or another similarly large assembly of charter drafters chosen from various professional affiliations.

And while the opposition wants specific changes to specific provisions in the present Constitution, Thaksin suggested that parties competing in the upcoming election should make "public pledges" of their preferred amendments while campaigning.

Meanwhile, the opposition's boycott was cautiously welcomed by protest leaders at Sanam Luang.

"It's good that the opposition still has some conscience," said anti-Thaksin crusader Sondhi Limthongkul.

"They [opposition parties] know if they play along with the TRT's games, they will end up supporting a dictatorship in the guise of democracy."

[Greer]

The snap election cannot be democratic as it prevents sufficient time being taken to mount a proper campaign on behalf of the various opposition parties.

The opposition has been complaining about many of the laws, but TRT have the power to prevent change.

There is no "claim" that the poor are uneducated and bought off - it is a fact - the education in most country areas is poor to almost non-existent, and the children often have to spend more time working on the farm or around the home than at school, and that's if the parents can afford to send them there at all.

TRT promised a million baht per village if they won the election....

If the situation was fairly close to normal, then the various parties boycots certainly would play into the hands of the government, but the situation is anything but normal, and I fully expect that the peoples outrage and demonstrations will force the PM from power.

It is not only possible, but absolutely essential for the safety and peace of the kingdom that this situation is resolved urgently.

It seems that the majority of Thai people in Bangkok with whom I have spoken, want the PM to resign now - from what I have seen I don't think there is a choice in it any more.

On one hand I do feel sorry for him, but "you make your bed..."

[britmaveric]

Hmmm when did Bangkok make up the entire country? It's clear to me that the PM will not resign.

[sushiman]

Here's a brilliant Journalist from the Nation with a really "hitting the nail on the right spot-artlicle"

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/03/01...on_20001743.php

Quote

STOPPAGE

Hello and goodbye from Democracy scorned

Dear Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra:

I am not sure whether this is supposed to be a greeting or a farewell. It could be both, though, because while we've never talked before, I may not have a chance to write again. No, I'm not going anywhere, but you might be. Politics is funny, huh? Although you may not be laughing, for obvious reasons.

I was tempted to write a long time ago, when you made that world-renowned statement about me in December 2003. "Democracy is not my goal," you said. In your opinion, one "can't drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and fix people's problems", and there are times when "a pickup or good off-road vehicle will do". I was said to be just a "tool", something that was "good and beautiful" but which should not be the nation's ultimate aspiration.

Great speech! But here's my take: you don't miss the water until the well runs dry. It seems the Sanam Luang crowd and the opposition bloc don't want to use a Rolls-Royce at the moment, either.

I must confess that the election boycott hurts me like hel_l, but let me tell you a little secret: I've gone through this kind of "surgery" before, in other countries with leaders like you.

I'm not one to harbour a grudge. In fact, I'm the most accommodating and forgiving of the lot. Check out my counterparts like Fascism or Communism or even Socialism. Yes, you might have flourished with some of them, but when it comes to downfall, you would never find a place for a soft landing. My point, however, is that the leader of a socialist or communist country could be hanged if he insulted his nation's overriding ideology the same way you did.

I'm not boasting that I'm the best. But it pains me to be insulted by people like you, those who are given opportunities that are hard to come by in other countries, to climb from rags to riches. I had to fight back tears every time you invoked those "19 million votes" to defend your actions, knowing full well that deep in your heart, you never really appreciated my real merits and principles. Without me, your assets-concealment scandal would not have gone through the National Counter Corruption Commission, where they allowed you to defend yourself, and then the Constitution Court, where you again could defend yourself. Without me, you could have easily ended up in a summary investigation like the one launched against the Chatichai administration in 1991.

To be fair to you, I'm different things to different people. Leaders who shared your belief that I'm just a "tool", not an inspiration, have often used me as a stepping stone. Once they got what they want, they forgot all about me. They all have one thing in common though: whenever their backs were against the wall, they called for me.

I'm fed up with those losers, you know. The pattern is all too familiar. They order drug suspects or alleged militants shot in the morning, force news outlets to sack editors in the afternoon, buy off those employed in checks and balances in the evening and come to me with flowers when they have nowhere to go. They don't really know me or my essence. I'm only their springboard and last resort, nothing else.

So, don't be surprised if I act like a woman scorned from time to time. Before asking what's wrong with Thailand's "democracy", following the announced election boycott and considerable public support for it, ask yourself these questions: do you recognise the rights of the Sanam Luang demonstrators to air their disappointment with you? Do you think it's justified for your Shin Corp to sue someone for hundreds of millions of baht for simply questioning its alleged profits from government decisions? Do you honestly think it's right for the government to help provinces that supported your political party first? And when members of the public criticise you, are they "stupid", or are they just performing their duty as Thai citizens?

If you think you can break the rules, then so can I. And don't worry about me, because I can take care of myself. You can go on and complain about anything you like, but please don't pretend this is the end of me. I exist in places where they cherish and foster my real values and spirit.

You said on Monday that you had done your best. Well, sorry, my friend, your best wasn't good enough.

Goodbye from someone you never really knew,

Democracy

Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation

Unquote

what can you say more?

Sushiman

[lukamar]

Little known parties ignore boycott move Feb28 BKK Post

At least 15 little known political parties yesterday ignored the decision by three major opposition parties to boycott the April 2 snap election, saying they will join the race.

The parties, none of which currently have a single seat in parliament, joined Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra for talks on political reform, which were shunned by the Democrat, Chart Thai and Mahachon parties.

Representatives of the Palang Prachachon and Cheewit Tee Dee Kwa parties held a press conference at parliament yesterday, saying they would be fielding candidates in the election.

Kan Thienkaew, chief adviser of Palang Prachachon, said the party would uphold democracy and "play by the rules".

According to Mr Kan, two other small parties, Thai Chuay Thai and the Social Action party, had also agreed to contest the election.

Mr Kan said Palang Prachachon was ready to unveil a candidate for Bangkok's constituency 1.

Currently, there are 30 registered political parties. Of these, two cannot field candidates because the parties have been registered for less than 90 days before the April 2 election was called.

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

Now these are the bright guys because thy might pick up a couple of seats because of the boycott and form the opposition.

[asd]

It is not only possible, but absolutely essential for the safety and peace of the kingdom that this situation is resolved urgently.

It seems that the majority of Thai people in Bangkok with whom I have spoken, want the PM to resign now - from what I have seen I don't think there is a choice in it any more.

I can not agree with you anymore.

You Know You're Right.

[asd]

Thaksin's options keep dwindling

By Daniel Ten Kate

Ruling party officials will continue wheeling and dealing today in an effort to convince the opposition parties to participate in the April 2 election.

The tit-for-tat exchanges between the three main opposition parties and the Thai Rak Thai since the House dissolution last Friday have jeopardized Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's future and raised the prospect of a potential constitutional crisis that could lead to intervention by the Palace.

Though Thaksin's position is critical, party officials still believe they can convince at least Chat Thai, and possibly the Democrats and Mahachon, to participate in the election. Thaksin?s problem so far, aides say, is that he has relied too much on expert lawyers who have spent their time scouring the details of opposition proposals while missing the big picture.

"Thaksin will lose if he doesn't get the opposition parties in the game," said a top government official last night, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's not too late. But his choices become very limited as time goes on."

Analysts and aides say Thaksin made a tactical misstep on Monday when he failed to accept the opposition's proposal that the Palace select an independent committee to amend the Constitution. The opposition parties then followed through on boycott threats, prompting Thaksin to tell their leaders yesterday: "I am ready to do anything; just tell me what you want."

Thaksin's proposal to push back the election date did not impress the opposition parties or analysts. Besides, since the Constitution requires that elections occur within 60 days of a House dissolution, it would only push back the election by about three weeks and disrupt the Senate election scheduled for April 19.

"The compromise offered on the election date came too late," said Prudhisan Jumbala, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University. "What difference will a few weeks make? The Election Commission can't hold two elections at the same time, and it would be very confusing for the electorate."

Meetings between party officials continued late into the night and more are expected today. In a last ditch effort to save the election and prevent a crisis, Thaksin may decide to step down as caretaker prime minister and appoint someone like Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Chitchai Wannasathit to replace him. "Chitchai has a clean reputation," the official said. "He's not the political type and the prime minister trusts him."

The change would be accompanied by an appeal for all parties to join the election as a show of national unity on the 60th anniversary of His Majesty the King's coronation. If the opposition parties still refuse, they will be branded as national traitors bent on undermining the Constitution.

Without the opposition parties, the April 2 election will be widely viewed as a sham. In addition, it has the potential to create constitutional problems that could lead to even more elections.

Every lawmaker must be elected by at least 20 percent of the voters in the district, which could be tough for Thai Rak Thai lawmakers running in Bangkok or some parts of the South. That could prevent 500 MPs from being elected, requiring a series of subsequent elections until the new House of Representatives is legally in place and able to elect a new prime minister.

That would be a lengthy process and, if it is finally successful, the government would have trouble getting anything done as protests would continue indefinitely. Though Thai Rak Thai would be stronger than ever, it would have no legitimacy.

"Our government would be a big joke, and everybody in the world would laugh," said Kanin Boonsuwan, a constitutional expert who helped draft the 1997 charter. "Khun Thaksin turned blind when the opposition offered him that proposal on Monday. His advisers, Bhokin [bhalakula] and Pongthep [Thepkanjana] might be efficient lawyers, but under the circumstances they should have told him to sign anything. It was a stupid move. That was the way out."

With the People's Alliance for Democracy now threatening to march through the streets and demand Thaksin's resignation on Sunday, the likelihood of violence increases. And given the country's penchant for military coups in the past, that option cannot be ruled out either.

The situation would be diffused immediately if Thaksin decides to quit politics, but that is unlikely to happen until he has absolutely no other option. Still, with the prospect of an illegitimate election and massive street protests increasingly threatening to turn violent, Thaksin?s chances of squirming out as prime minister diminish by the hour.

Thaksin's position is all the more untenable because he has so much to lose. The Democrats and other parties can quietly sit on the sidelines and wait for the Palace to step in before wasting their money on an election they cannot win anyway.

"Thaksin's problem now is that every concession he makes becomes insufficient," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University. "He'll now try to put the onus back on the opposition parties...But they have staked out their position, and it will be very difficult for them to go back on the boycott now."

[lukamar]

It seems that the majority of Thai people in Bangkok with whom I have spoken, want the PM to resign now

Even if 100% of the entire 9 million in Bangkok wants the PM to resign and would vote against him and TRT, that's less than 15% of the population of Thailand.

BUT if you take age demographics into account, those too young to vote and those too old to protest, you are down to less than 10% even if everyone who is eligible to vote actually votes and only votes against TRT and TS, which will not logically be the case. In actual fact the majority, that you state, is nothing more than a very visible localized vocal minority.

[Jai Dee]

The opposition will not negotiate with the premier and insist on boycotting the election.

The opposition said it will not negotiate with the Prime Minister and insisted that it will boycott the election, adding that the Prime Minister should step down.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra earlier made an offer that he would follow the opposition’s offer, including postponing the election date. However, he refused to step down from the premiership. Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva (อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ), Chart Thai party leader Banharn Silapa-archa (บรรหาร ศิลปอาชา), and Mahachon party leader Sanan Kajornprasart (สนั่น ขจรประศาสน์), said after a meeting that the three parties agreed not to accept any offer made by the premier, saying that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is no longer reliable. Mr. Abhisit added that the Democrat party has not been contacted by Thai Rak Thai party about the offer, adding, however, that the step of negotiations has already passed.

In addition, Mr. Abhisit said that the party will not field candidates in the April 2nd election, while calling for the premier’s resignation and proposing that Article 7 of the Constitution be applied in selection of the new prime minister.

Mr. Banharn said that it is now to late for a discussion with the Prime Minister. He said that his party members will explain to the people in their areas why the party will not field candidates in the election.

The opposition parties will explain their decision to boycott the election to Bangkok residents on March 4 at the Royal Plaza.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 01 March 2006

[penzman]

you really don't get it, do you?

someone declared war on the usa. they bombed us. ..for the past 75 years, these islamic fanatics have been murdering americans and british citizens at their leisure.

and then, you say we don't have the right to fight back? the leaders in iraq and afganistan were supporting those a##holes, and you say we shouldn't fight back at those supporting the guys who declared war on us?

and before you say that they never proved that saddam was supporting bin laden. let me remind you that that al zaqawi dude is over there leading the resistence as we speak. what more proof do you need?

yeah. I know. your saying - there were "innocents". so then, what do you think we should do? sit on our butts while those a##holes keep murdering our citizens?

oh. I see, maybe we should walk into their homeland and search door to door for the murderers? is that what you think we should do?

...talking about innocents. there were over 3000 of them on 9/11. why don't you complain to the muslims about their deaths?

how about the innocents murdered in london by those suicide bombers?

now we have these fanatics murdering people over cartoons. and not one complaint out of you on that, right?

if one of those countries drops an atom bomb on us, the next thing I expect to hear from you is quote, "the usa, england and all the western powers deserve it."

we now have some fanatics in iran talking about blowing up people, and you still persist in your criticism on the west?

get real.

http://www.almidfarah.fanspace.com/islamic_terr_even.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

It's a sad state of affairs when people get so brainwashed.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with Al Qaida. To even assume that as a fact is beyond comprehension of stupid.

The goverment under Saddam was sequlare socialistic. He fought AGAINST the religious groups that wanted more power. Yes, the man was a dictator and a criminal in many way, but he was NOT supporting terrorism.

Tawp - Saddam was supporting terrorists I'm afraid and there is little doubt about it. For starters....

-Payment for Hamas martyers

-Allowing AQ refuge and training bases in Iraq (Northern Iraq)

However whether its to the extend the yanks would like to believe, prob not.

No, he paid money to martyrs familys after the events. And it only started a year before the invasion, when he went on his "I'm a proud arabic muslim and you should help against the US of A"-campain. Which ofcourse failed.

(Watch how he faked going out to pray during the 60 minutes-intervue the months before the invasion. It was all an act to gain sympathy from the arabic world, which didn't really see him as a brother...)

The northern Iraq houses the majority of kurds, that are at war with Turkiy.

But Saddam has NO connection to 9/11. Saudi Arabia has a lot more...

Ps. Hamas has nothing to do with AQ. If the broad term 'terrorist' should be used, then the US should invade itself for supporting terrorists. Ds.

Ps2. I thought the invasion was about WMD. That didn't exist. Ds.

you really don't get it, do you?

someone declared war on the usa. they bombed us. ..for the past 75 years, these islamic fanatics have been murdering americans and british citizens at their leisure.

and then, you say we don't have the right to fight back? the leaders in iraq and afganistan were supporting those a##holes, and you say we shouldn't fight back at those supporting the guys who declared war on us?

and before you say that they never proved that saddam was supporting bin laden. let me remind you that that al zaqawi dude is over there leading the resistence as we speak. what more proof do you need?

yeah. I know. your saying - there were "innocents". so then, what do you think we should do? sit on our butts while those a##holes keep murdering our citizens?

oh. I see, maybe we should walk into their homeland and search door to door for the murderers? is that what you think we should do?

...talking about innocents. there were over 3000 of them on 9/11. why don't you complain to the muslims about their deaths?

how about the innocents murdered in london by those suicide bombers?

now we have these fanatics murdering people over cartoons. and not one complaint out of you on that, right?

if one of those countries drops an atom bomb on us, the next thing I expect to hear from you is quote, "the usa, england and all the western powers deserve it."

we now have some fanatics in iran talking about blowing up people, and you still persist in your criticism on the west?

get real.

http://www.almidfarah.fanspace.com/islamic_terr_even.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

It's a sad state of affairs when people get so brainwashed.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with Al Qaida. To even assume that as a fact is beyond comprehension of stupid.

The goverment under Saddam was sequlare socialistic. He fought AGAINST the religious groups that wanted more power. Yes, the man was a dictator and a criminal in many way, but he was NOT supporting terrorism.

you forgot that Saddam was the best mate, when he was in war with the iran. And sure at this time he had WMD because the USA delivered them. After Saddam told he want to trade his oil in euro his country got destroyed by the USA, without UNO mandat and so illegal. But thats off topic and discussions from the US/UK war crime fans against the rest of the farangs is the best way to make a topic closed....

you really don't get it, do you?

someone declared war on the usa. they bombed us. ..for the past 75 years, these islamic fanatics have been murdering americans and british citizens at their leisure.

and then, you say we don't have the right to fight back? the leaders in iraq and afganistan were supporting those a##holes, and you say we shouldn't fight back at those supporting the guys who declared war on us?

and before you say that they never proved that saddam was supporting bin laden. let me remind you that that al zaqawi dude is over there leading the resistence as we speak. what more proof do you need?

yeah. I know. your saying - there were "innocents". so then, what do you think we should do? sit on our butts while those a##holes keep murdering our citizens?

oh. I see, maybe we should walk into their homeland and search door to door for the murderers? is that what you think we should do?

...talking about innocents. there were over 3000 of them on 9/11. why don't you complain to the muslims about their deaths?

how about the innocents murdered in london by those suicide bombers?

now we have these fanatics murdering people over cartoons. and not one complaint out of you on that, right?

if one of those countries drops an atom bomb on us, the next thing I expect to hear from you is quote, "the usa, england and all the western powers deserve it."

we now have some fanatics in iran talking about blowing up people, and you still persist in your criticism on the west?

get real.

http://www.almidfarah.fanspace.com/islamic_terr_even.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

It's a sad state of affairs when people get so brainwashed.

Saddam had NOTHING to do with Al Qaida. To even assume that as a fact is beyond comprehension of stupid.

The goverment under Saddam was sequlare socialistic. He fought AGAINST the religious groups that wanted more power. Yes, the man was a dictator and a criminal in many way, but he was NOT supporting terrorism.

To what it must be added that all those "islamic fanatic" have been on the CIA payroll for the past 20 years... as are the warlords who have now restored drug trafficking in Afghanistan...

~S

Wasn't this topic titled : " Opposition Dumps Thaksin's Election Plans"?

In what I've quoted above, not a single word relates to this topic...

[lukamar]

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra earlier made an offer that he would follow the opposition’s offer, including postponing the election date.

after a meeting that the three parties agreed not to accept any offer made by the premier, saying that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is no longer reliable.

If the opposition leaders were to win an election and run Thailand in the same way they are running their boycott, Thailand would loose all credibility on the world stage and would be the laughing stock of SE Asia. The joint opposition leaders need a reality check and to realize that they are beginning to loose credibility with their non wavering stand. They ask for something and when it is granted they ask for something else, sometimes you have to cut your losses and run with what you have gained or you may loose it all.

[Plus]

And I don't buy the 60-day rule excuse. They had several years to challenge this law, but now they only want to change it when it suits their purpose.

It was actually the problem for TRT factions that wanted to defect (Sanoh and Co.), and they brought the issue up on many occasions but never had sufficient numbers to go against Taksin. You must be aware that in TRT going against the party line is prohibited (so much for representing people). Sanoh even tried to get himself expelled, so that he wouldn't lose his MP status if he proved in the courts that he acted in the country's interests.

How can you blame Democrats for this?

Hmmm when did Bangkok make up the entire country?

Ten years ago when Chavalit bought off the entire North East in the elections and devalued the baht afterwords, it wasn't Isan farmers who forced him to resign. And in 1992 it wasn't Isan farmers who ousted Suchinda, and in 1973 it wasn't Isan farmers who ousted Tanom, and in 1976 it wasn't Isan farmers who got hung on the trees around Sanam Luang. Oh, wait there were there, in the Red Gours crowd, lynching the students.

I read they have a saying here - Isan elect governments, and Bangkokians dislodge them.

[cclub75]

The joint opposition leaders need a reality check and to realize that they are beginning to loose credibility with their non wavering stand. They ask for something and when it is granted they ask for something else, sometimes you have to cut your losses and run with what you have gained or you may loose it all.

On the contrary, it's Thaksin who lost all credibility. He changes his mind daily, and even on a hour to hour basis.

He has only one agenda : to buy time. It's crystal clear now.

It's too easy to say : "okay, let's postpone 2 weeks elections" or "OK don't boycott my elections and I promise you that we will set after a comittee to review what we can do to amend the Constitution" etc.

The guy is a player.

The only way to "play" with him is to stand straight and to boycott elections. I believe that the opposition has understood that.

[sriracha john]

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra earlier made an offer that he would follow the opposition’s offer, including postponing the election date.

after a meeting that the three parties agreed not to accept any offer made by the premier, saying that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is no longer reliable.

If the opposition leaders were to win an election and run Thailand in the same way they are running their boycott, Thailand would loose all credibility on the world stage and would be the laughing stock of SE Asia.

Due to Thaksin, they already are. Whether it's the worsening corruption reported yesterday by Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (Perc), or his tapioca for submarines (or whatever his latest laughable military barter trade schemes is putting forth). From his flat-out lying about the existence of bird flu in Thailand to telling the UN off ("not my father") or going against universal opinion with his Burmese commerce, the credibility of Thailand as a nation on the world stage is in shambles.

The joint opposition leaders need a reality check and to realize that they are beginning to loose credibility with their non wavering stand. They ask for something and when it is granted they ask for something else, sometimes you have to cut your losses and run with what you have gained or you may loose it all.

All he needs to do is grant their initial and most important demand and that is to resign... and I don't think you'd hear many other demands still put forth from the opposition... except maybe insisting that he leaves the silverware at Government House when he goes.

Edited March 1, 2006 by sriracha john