Latest Developments on the Election Front

[Laulen]

General Election - Thai style?

The Thai election is all rather confusing. Is Thailand a nation of two countries? Bangkokians voting for replacing Thaksin (along with those in the South, although for other reasons), and rural Thais voting to keep him in!

If, as Khun Thaksin proposes, a national government is formed post-election, let us hope that it truly is 'National', and that the long-term interests of Thailand come first, as HM King Bhumipol has consistently advocated throughout his long reign.

[Jai Dee]

Mr. Banharn says too late for him to be political mediator

Chart Thai Party Leader Banharn Silpa-archa (บรรหาร ศิลปอาชา) stated that it is too late for him to be a coordinator for all sides to end the current political situation. He also said that Statesman and Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanond (เปรม ติณสูลานนท์) has exercised his voting right as he has already casted the ballot in advance.

Mr. Banharn disclosed that it is now too late for him to be a political middleman as he earlier volunteered. He said both sides are confronting aggressively, and concerned individuals should end the commotion. He indicated that the government is responsible for solving the issues, and not the Opposition or the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD).

He also referred to Gen. Prem’s decision to cast the ballot in advanced that he has exercised his voting right, and Gen. Prem does not take sides as other people have analyzed earlier.

In the meantime, Mahachon Party Leader Sanan Khajornprasart (สนั่น ขจรประศาสน์) has urged Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to carefully consider the solutions to ease the ongoing tension.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 27 March 2006

[Jai Dee]

Mr. Abhisit has refused to join the premier's offer to form a government of national unity

Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva (อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ) has affirmed that he will not respond to Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s offer to form a government of national unity. He said that the public does not request for the government.

The three leaders of the former Opposition parties, comprising Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, Chart Thai Party Leader Banharn Silpa-archa, and Mahachon Party Leader Sanan Khajornprasart, discussed over the current political situation this morning. They also set the framework of their further political activities.

Mr. Abhisit has informed that he and the other two Opposition leaders have agreed not to join the Premier’s government of national unity. He said Dr. Thaksin wishes people to think that he and the other two leaders would like to occupy the political authority.

He said that the former Opposition leaders have agreed that a demand for an interim Prime Minister and the Cabinet is in line with the Constitutional law. He said that this measure will make the premier to withdraw from his political role, adding that the measure will not affect Thailand’s democratic regime.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 27 March 2006

[Jai Dee]

The Spokeperson of RTP rejects PAD's demand for filing a lawsuit against PM and the Cabinet

The Spokesperson of the Royal Thai Police, Lieutenant-General Achirawit Supanpesat (อชิรวิทย์ สุพรรณเภสัช), has rejected the People’s Alliance for Democracy's (PAD) demand of filing a lawsuit against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the Cabinet. They are deemed that they have neglected their duties since the Constitution has withdrawn the royal decree on privatization of state-owned companies.

He said that the PAD’s demand is over his department’s authority. Even though the PAD’s demand is based on article 157 of the Criminal Code, it violates article 66 of the Constitutional law. According to article 66, the authority who will deal with such matter is the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC). Therefore, he has requested the PAD members to hand their complaint letter to the NCCC instead.

He said that he will send an official letter to the PAD again, adding that he does not intend to shift the subject to other departments, but he just acts in accordance with the laws.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 27 March 2006

[kyselak]

Thailand's post-election crisis - a few scenarios

By Ed Cropley

BANGKOK, March 27 (Reuters) - Thailand heads into uncharted

political waters on April 2 with an election likely to yield a

constitutionally invalid result, the latest twist in a long

street campaign to oust Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Wildly popular with the rural masses, Thaksin called the

snap poll as an effective referendum on his leadership to foil

growing calls for his head from Bangkok's middle classes, who

accuse him of corruption, cronyism and abuse of power.

However, a boycott by the three main opposition parties

means it is unlikely all 500 members of parliament -- required

to form a government -- will be elected because of minimum vote

percentages required for election.

Post-poll deadlock is almost assured. What happens beyond

that is uncertain.

Following are some possible scenarios:

ROLLING BY-ELECTIONS:

- The Election Commission has asked the Constitutional

Court whether it is allowed to hold by-election after

by-election until an uncontested candidate gets the required 20

percent of the eligible vote needed for victory.

The court said it could rule only on real, not

hypothetical, situations.

According to law professor Prinya Thaewanarumitkul of

Bangkok's Thammasat University, poll results from February 2005

suggest at least 60 constituencies are likely to be left empty.

"I can't see the possibility of the party doing better this

time when it has lost most of its urban support," Prinya said.

"Thailand will be trapped in political uncertainties for month

after month."

VIOLENT PROTESTS:

- The anti-Thaksin campaign has amassed crowds of up to

130,000, but there has been no hint of violence. Police and

rally organisers appear to be trying hard to keep it that way.

However, a big election "non-result" could lead to bigger

protests in the capital, especially if Thaksin claims victory.

All eyes will then be on key protest figures like Chamlong

Srimuang, the retired general who led a successful but bloody

people power uprising against military rule in 1992, to see if

they are leaning towards civil unrest to achieve their aims.

PROTEST FATIGUE:

- Opinion polls suggest Bangkok people are wearying of the

protests and the traffic congestion they cause.

April is also the hottest month of Thailand's hot season.

Keeping up the protest momentum and spirit will be a major

challenge with the mercury touching 40 Celsius (104 F).

One 58-year-old man has already died and sit-in

demonstrators outside Government House are complaining of heat

exhaustion, sore throats and fraying tempers.

On Saturday, the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the

ad hoc coalition bent on booting out Thaksin, wanted to amass

one million people. In the end, it only got 50,000, police

said.

ROYAL INTERVENTION:

- Palace sources say revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej called

a special meeting of his Privy Council in keeping with the

"king's keen interest in following the situation".

The 78-year-old monarch has interfered publicly in politics

twice during his 60-year reign -- on both occasions against

military rulers and after bloodshed on the streets of Bangkok.

PAD leaders want the king to appoint an interim successor

to Thaksin, but analysts say that could have disastrous

repercussions for the future of Thai democracy and see it as an

absolute last resort.

"As long as all the feuding camps do not resort to violence

-- and I hope they don't -- there should be no justification

for royal intervention," Thongchai Winichakul of the University

of Wisconsin-Madison wrote in the Nation newspaper last week.

The king could act under the charter's vague "Article 7",

which says unforeseen disputes "shall be decided in accordance

with the constitutional practice in the democratic regime of

government with the king as head of the state".

MILITARY COUP:

The army's top brass are promising to stay neutral and say

the age of coups is over.

But a few small bombs targeting political figures look

designed to stir things up, and in a nation which has had 23

coups or attempted coups in its democratic lifetime, a few

disgruntled officers could take things into their own hands.

STATE OF EMERGENCY:

Emergency rule rumours have rippled through the financial

markets from time to time, even though the army commander in

chief says he sees no justification for one.

Thaksin says he is doing all he can to avoid declaring

martial law, but told Reuters "third parties" might be trying

to stir up trouble.

"We will try not to call an emergency situation," he said,

but added: "We will call it when it is deemed necessary".

THAKSIN QUITS:

The only time the media reported Thaksin might be thinking

about stepping aside, he said he had been misinterpreted.

He says he will never bow to "mob rule" and is fighting for

democracy. He has offered concessions to his opponents -- the

latest being a national unity administration -- but the gesture

of his own political head looks highly unlikely.

REUTERS

271027 Mrz 06

ENDOFMSG

[boppia]

As the people who work in the urban areas move up country over the next month for the election and Songkran more info will get to the countryside. This should have some sort of impact. At the same time if Thaksin wants to crackdown on free speech the Songkran break will be a quiet time int he city so if he plans to do anything it might happen then. Who knows which way things could go in the short term.

Another possibility is that Thaksin may decide to step down after being 'reelected' and so save face.

There's no way Thaksin is going to be looked on favorably over the next year because within the next six months the protestors information should be out to all parts of Thailand by then.

Thaksin could play Santa clause for the remainder of his time in office basically trying to wipe away the evils he has done over the years.

He has to think about his and his families future happiness. Would they rather live in Thailand labeled corrupt forever like Duangchalerm and family or move abroad.

Staying here will take a lot of brown-nosing.

[Jai Dee]

DPM Wissanu says national government may be established should TRT win majority votes in election

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-Ngam (วิษณุ เครืองาม) has indicated that establishing a national government would be doable if Thai Rak Thai won the majority votes after the election, as there is no law against this.

Mr. Wissanu said he did not know if the proposal to establish a national government announced by the prime minister came from the National Economic and Social Development Board as the matter was not forwarded to him.

On the question of whether a coalition government can be established by having parties that did not take part in the election join to form a government with Thai Rak Thai should the latter receive the majority votes, Mr. Wissanu said the law did not specify anything against this. He raised himself as an example, saying he was not a member of a party but was able to join the government.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 27 March 2006

[hammered]

My wife attended this weeks rallies and was telling me of a statement by southern Thais made on the stage, which to the best of my knowledge has gone unreported. They were saying that they would see how things went but the 11 could join the 3. Sondhi begged southerners not to take this route.

[sriracha john]

They were saying that they would see how things went but the 11 could join the 3.

Could you explain this portion of your post, please?

[ColPyat]

They were saying that they would see how things went but the 11 could join the 3.

Could you explain this portion of your post, please?

The 3 changwats in the deep south in a separatist struggle joined by the other southern Changwats.

Demagogue bullshit.

Only shows how split and immature the PAD and their allies are.

[lukamar]

Why is Thailand having snap elections?

And how long will the resulting muddled affair of a non-sitting Parliament last?

Rather than talk around the questions as you are so often doing I'll answer them.

1:- In the constitution it says that the PM can dissolve parliament at any time, it also states that an election must take place from 30 days, if you look at the calender for April and the first part of May you can see there are only so many open slots for an election date. Fast election sure, snap election sure, opposition caught with their pants down sure, but it's also a legal election under the constitution. The answer to your question is because the government wanted to call one, it's that simple.

2:- Who knows. Maybe the government knows something we don't. Maybe the constitutional court will make a ruling that the parliament will sit with less than 500 seats filled. Non of us knows if the house will sit or it won't sit with fewer than 500 seats, so there is no point is speculating on what the EC and constitutional court will come up with.

[lukamar]

He posseses a vast war chest.

So what? TRT is a wealthy party, the other day the PAD said they had spent 10Million on the protests so far, that's not chicken feed either.

The snap election is an abuse of democracy in an attempt to stifle criticism-' you can't criticise me because the majority voted for me'- Parliamentary dictatorship.

The snap election, as you call it, is perfectly legal under the constitution, if the opposition was not ready for it it was their problem.

It's also untrue to say the PAD haven't discussed rural poverty, several speakers have talked about the issue, as have the Democrats.

Maybe they should go to the rural poor rather than discuss it at a rally in Bangkok, because their vision for the poor in Thailand has not gotten out to the rural poor, if anything they feel no connection at all.

[sriracha john]

Why is Thailand having snap elections?

And how long will the resulting muddled affair of a non-sitting Parliament last?

1:- In the constitution it says that the PM can dissolve parliament at any time, it also states that an election must take place from 30 days, if you look at the calender for April and the first part of May you can see there are only so many open slots for an election date. Fast election sure, snap election sure, opposition caught with their pants down sure, but it's also a legal election under the constitution. The answer to your question is because the government wanted to call one, it's that simple.

2:- Who knows. Maybe the government knows something we don't. Maybe the constitutional court will make a ruling that the parliament will sit with less than 500 seats filled. Non of us knows if the house will sit or it won't sit with fewer than 500 seats, so there is no point is speculating on what the EC and constitutional court will come up with.

1. Thank you for explaining how snap elections are held, but I already knew that. I was asking why.

So the answer then is a dispute-on-an-elementary-schoolyard-like response, "because it can".

Very enlightening.

2. Thanks again. That's about as reassuring and precise as Thaksin's response, "don't worry about it." He says the government has "solutions," but has never spelled out what they were.

I guess it's that type of non-speak that has prompted everyone to so much speculating. Of course, honest straight answers are what puts an end to speculating.

[britmaveric]

Sriracha john - its a confidence measure and its done quite often in parlimentary systems. Granted not in 2month time span, but alas this is what Thailand's constitution dictates.

[lukamar]

Why is Thailand having snap elections?

And how long will the resulting muddled affair of a non-sitting Parliament last?

1:- In the constitution it says that the PM can dissolve parliament at any time, it also states that an election must take place from 30 days, if you look at the calender for April and the first part of May you can see there are only so many open slots for an election date. Fast election sure, snap election sure, opposition caught with their pants down sure, but it's also a legal election under the constitution. The answer to your question is because the government wanted to call one, it's that simple.

2:- Who knows. Maybe the government knows something we don't. Maybe the constitutional court will make a ruling that the parliament will sit with less than 500 seats filled. Non of us knows if the house will sit or it won't sit with fewer than 500 seats, so there is no point is speculating on what the EC and constitutional court will come up with.

1. Thank you for explaining how snap elections are held, but I already knew that. I was asking why.

So the answer then is a dispute-on-an-elementary-schoolyard-like response, "because it can".

Very enlightening.

2. Thanks again. That's about as reassuring and precise as Thaksin's response, "don't worry about it." He says the government has "solutions," but has never spelled out what they were.

I guess it's that type of non-speak that has prompted everyone to so much speculating. Of course, honest straight answers are what puts an end to speculating.

1:- that's it. We can speculate over why they called it, but the answer is they called it because as the government they can call it. Read into it what you want.

2:- As I said there is no point speculating on what the Constitutional court will rule. They have stipulated that they will not rule on a speculative problems before they happen, so we just have to wait and see. John run down to the constitutional court, if it is bothering you so much, and tell them you want honest straight answers to put an end to the speculating and then come right back and tell us all their honest straight answer you received. The constitutional court is the one that will end the speculation after April 2, if a problem arises.

[jdinasia]

They were saying that they would see how things went but the 11 could join the 3.

Could you explain this portion of your post, please?

The 3 changwats in the deep south in a separatist struggle joined by the other southern Changwats.

Demagogue bullshit.

Only shows how split and immature the PAD and their allies are.

Demagogue bullshit?

My wife attended this weeks rallies and was telling me of a statement by southern Thais made on the stage, which to the best of my knowledge has gone unreported. They were saying that they would see how things went but the 11 could join the 3. Sondhi begged southerners not to take this route.

dem·a·gogue also dem·a·gog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-g๔g, -gg)

n.

1.A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

2.A leader of the common people in ancient times.

I see no mention of a leader appealing to the emotions or prejudices of the populace. In fact the only leader mentioned spoke out against this unreported incident. I guess maybe you mean Sondhi was immature for speaking out against this? But then again maybe you mean that the person who allegedly said this, is a demagog. Guess maybe so ... if he were speaking to a crowd that would buy into it ... ooops he was speaking(allegedly) <and was not identified as a leader> in BKK and not the South? crud!

though I guess you could accuse some people of being demagogs ... going upcountry and speaking at rallies saying .... "thye want to throw away your vote because you are uneducated farmers"

[lukamar]

Sriracha john - its a confidence measure and its done quite often in parlimentary systems.

If the house has been dissolved and an election has been called a confidence vote is a mute point. You can't have a confidence vote in a dissolved house, the election is the confidence vote.

[sriracha john]

Why is Thailand having snap elections?

And how long will the resulting muddled affair of a non-sitting Parliament last?

1:- In the constitution it says that the PM can dissolve parliament at any time, it also states that an election must take place from 30 60 (*corrected for accuracy sake* SJ) days, if you look at the calender for April and the first part of May you can see there are only so many open slots for an election date. Fast election sure, snap election sure, opposition caught with their pants down sure, but it's also a legal election under the constitution. The answer to your question is because the government wanted to call one, it's that simple.

2:- Who knows. Maybe the government knows something we don't. Maybe the constitutional court will make a ruling that the parliament will sit with less than 500 seats filled. Non of us knows if the house will sit or it won't sit with fewer than 500 seats, so there is no point is speculating on what the EC and constitutional court will come up with.

1. Thank you for explaining how snap elections are held, but I already knew that. I was asking why.

So the answer then is a dispute-on-an-elementary-schoolyard-like response, "because it can".

Very enlightening.

2. Thanks again. That's about as reassuring and precise as Thaksin's response, "don't worry about it." He says the government has "solutions," but has never spelled out what they were.

I guess it's that type of non-speak that has prompted everyone to so much speculating. Of course, honest straight answers are what puts an end to speculating.

1:- that's it. We can speculate over why they called it, but the answer is they called it because as the government they can call it. Read into it what you want.

2:- As I said there is no point speculating on what the Constitutional court will rule. They have stipulated that they will not rule on a speculative problems before they happen, so we just have to wait and see. John run down to the constitutional court, if it is bothering you so much, and tell them you want honest straight answers to put an end to the speculating and then come right back and tell us all their honest straight answer you received. The constitutional court is the one that will end the speculation after April 2, if a problem arises.

1. Thanks just the same, but I did find now why it was called, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak: In a televised address, Mr Thaksin said there were "people who want the government to fall" and an election was "the best way to move forward". (news.bbc.co.uk)

It's interesting that he equates himself with "the government"... as I recall, back in February, no one was voicing a desire for the government to fail... only that there was a desire for him personally to resign... I always considered the government to be a much larger entity than a single person, but with his larger-than-life self image, I can see how he might have confused the two.

2. I look forward to the Constitution Court's ruling or one of the other scenarios depicted in kyselak's post. (btw, thanks to him for posting that)

Of course, it would be nice for the leader of the country, if he has solutions to the stalemate as he says he does, to simply say what they are... but since he's never been all that forthcoming an individual with the truth, I suppose it's more in character for him to just tell everyone, "not to worry."

Edited March 28, 2006 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

EC rejects call for poll postponement

Overseas balloting shows low turn-out

The Election Commission yesterday rejected a call by senators for Sunday's election to be postponed. EC chairman Wassana Permlarp said the commissioners saw no other option than standing by the royal decree calling for elections on April 2. The agency is not authorised to change the date, he said.

The EC meeting yesterday was held after 17 senators approached the EC on Friday to call for the postponement for fear the polls would push the country into a deeper crisis.

The EC began advance voting last Saturday, but only a third of eligible voters exercised their rights.

According to the EC, 276,486 people registered as absentee voters failed to cast their ballots in advance voting over the weekend. The southern region had the largest number of absentee voters.

However, people who registered for early voting in their own constituencies over the weekend but failed to do so are still eligible to vote on Sunday.

Meanwhile, an initial report of overseas ballots received from 71 of 86 polling stations located in 63 countries revealed that only 24,832 people came out to vote during March 17-26, according to Anucha Osathanond, acting chief of the Department of the Consular Affairs. The results from the other 15 polling stations overseas are expected to arrive in Bangkok today and will be forwarded to their respective electoral units across the country.

Although the number of registered voters overseas increased 17% compared with the February 2005 election to 103,604, the actual turn-out when it came to voting was 30% lower than in 2005, he said.

The biggest turn-outs of Thai voters overseas were in the United States, China and Israel. The embassies and consulates in those nations organised three ways for Thai citizens to vote _ by post, by ensuring polling units were close to areas with a large number of Thais in employment or by casting ballots at designated units.

Mr Anucha attributed the poor turn-out to three factors. He said many people were not prepared for the snap election, voters were not clear about the current political situation, while many had paid a return visit to Thailand without cancelling their registration to vote overseas, he said.

- BP

[jdinasia]

Makes me wonder what the results from voting in Canada and Isreal are going to be like versus China.

[thedude]

here's something else that SJ and friends may not like to learn.

the underlying intent in the 60-day rule in the constitution - this was mindfully inserted by Khun Anand's constitutional team precisely to prevent parties from changing sides and forming coalitions so easily.

why?

because in the decade or so prior to its redrafting, the average tenure held by any government in Thailand was something like 18 months, which led to a highly unstable political environment. in an environment where ultimately no one was around long enough to be truly responsible, poor governance prevailed, and this was a large reason for the ensuing crisis in 97.

during those times, no party was strong enough to form a single government, and after each elections, parties would join together to form coalition governments through a political bartering exercise. these parties were there just for the money, and issues of common philosophy, policies and agenda for the country were totally negotiable points.

this meant a few things, firstly, it meant that good policies were often stranded because every faction wanted a cut of the proceeds. it wasn't about the policy itself, but how much money it represented. e.g. the new airport was never decided on because each new government changed its location to benefit landowning friends and family, and the process of dishing out the favoured concessions always outlasted the tenure of the government itself.

foreign investors got sick of changing policy and having to find new palms to grease every 18 months or so. this gave thailand a very bad name. remember Gordon Wu of Hopewell? his 'stone henges' along vibhavadhi rangsit road are testament to the waste, the revolving door of greed, and the utter incompetence of administration before the Thaksin era.

everytime one faction in the coalition was getting more, others would get jealous and would plot to call for a political censure, leading to a no-confidence vote, and ultimately force the prime minister to resign and call for new elections. old enemies would regroup as new political allies and once again the cookie jar is refilled and the goodies redistributed.

no one gained under such a political structure, least of all the farmers and the rural population who were too far removed from even the cookie crumbs that clever city folks would be getting. there was no semblance of certainty in government, which is what is needed for basic infrastructure to get ahead. look at all the motorways, urban rail prjects, suburban township developments sprouting out in the last few decades in Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, even China, and you soon realise how the status quo couldn't continue if Thailand needed to catch up.

even the rampant corruption could be acceptable if only a government was not about playing musical chairs but actually about staying put and being made responsible for policy and carrying out an agenda, this would be good enough for Thailand. and this was the primary aim of the 60-day rule, to prevent parties from playing musical chairs, to make them understand that once they are in, they have to hang around to be responsible for the outcome.

this is why i feel the 60-day rule is not only important, it is a crucial lynch pin in the constitution. people say the TRT has abused this to maintain a stranglehold on power, but in reality it is also ensuring continuity and stability.

the TRT is still operating under the democratic constitution, and the last time i checked, its still one man one vote. if the majority of the people are willing to live with the trt despite its corruption, and continue to vote them in, then so be it. if the populist policies turn out to be bad for Thailand, the economic outcome will come to bear, and people who suffer from it will abandon the TRT by the next elections. this is what democracy is about.

Edited March 28, 2006 by thedude

[ColPyat]

here's something else that SJ and friends may not like to learn.

the underlying intent in the 60-day rule in the constitution - this was mindfully inserted by Khun Anand's constitutional team precisely to prevent parties from changing sides and forming coalitions so easily.

Absolutely true.

I may reminescent a bit about the happy and peaceful days of Chuan 1 government, but due to the inoperable coalitions not much has achieved, especially for the poor. I hope people don't forget that Chuan has refused to enter into substantial negotiations with the Forum of the Poor as well, mainly due to vested interests within his own party. Does anybody remember the dry season camps in front of government house?

MPs have changed parties constantly, offered themselves to the highest bidder. Reverting back to the old sythem is far from a development.

Lets wait out these upcoming elections, lets see how many no votes it will result in, and most likely there will be new elections rather soon. Hopefully by then the opposition parties will be prepared to campaign. And maybe by then the fallout of Thaksinomics will have hit the people and then they might then decide on somebody else. This is democracy.

[phayao]

My extended family in Chiang Rai, Chiang Mai and Phayao can't be bought and all will vote TRT. They are not uneducated, uninformed or farmers - just normal northerners who think Thaksin has done a good job.

I should also add that they would be very upset if he was driven out of office by what they see as a mob.

It is the same case with my Thai family in exactly the same locations.

Taksin is a very smart populist politician; he disregards human rights, freedom of press and public moral; he's going to be in power for many years to come.

[Plus]

Thedude, I think you are completely wrong here:

if the majority of the people are willing to live with the trt despite its corruption, and continue to vote them in, then so be it.

Corrupt politicians cannot stand in the elections and thus cannot be voted in, and if they were voted in, the results are nullified.

Back in February Thaksin could have avoided the whole mess by stepping aside and letting the courts decide on his fate. People accused him of corruption, he should have answered that. Instead he snubbed them with his snap elections and lost all legitimacy in their eyes. It's different from last year - there were people who hated him just as much, but they accepted his legitimacy. Not now. Not anymore. More protests and ultimately civil disobedience will follow.

Your summary about 90 day rule is correct and I believe EVERY constitution expert knows why it was introduced and will remember that when working on Constitution reform. Ten years ago the current situation was unimaginable and it's only natural that some rules have to be adjusted.

There are different ways to ensure that the country doesn't slip back into the chaos of party hopping era and at the same time leaves MPs some room for a choice.

[ColPyat]

Corrupt politicians cannot stand in the elections and thus cannot be voted in, and if they were voted in, the results are nullified.

Then we will really have a problem here as we won't find hardly anyone to be elected.

People may question his legitimacy, but so far the courts have not managed to declare him guilty of anything and, the majority does still support him. Or are those not "the people"?

The PAD does not want the elections happening, mainly because they know that Thaksin will win most definately with a huge majority.

It may have been dirty, but he was within the legal framework to call the snap election.

The PAD as well is within the legal framework to hold demonstrations. They can question Thaksin's legitimacy as much as they want, but fact is that neither the courts nor the palace have supported their claims and petitions. And as long neither happens there is very little that can be done within the democratic framework.

Yet, by now staging the demonstrations in the middle of the central business district the demonstrations do become a major nuisance.

[Rinrada]

and will probably BENEFIT TRT....

Havnt met anyone yet who will vote against them but maybe I talk to the wrong folk....Sunday..Sunday.....

[Thaible]

and will probably BENEFIT TRT....

Havnt met anyone yet who will vote against them but maybe I talk to the wrong folk....Sunday..Sunday.....

I'm voting for him, and so will everyone else.

The other options are pretty weak:

1) Vote "No vote" - Better to stay home and watch TV than waste time waiting in line.

2) Vote for some random person in a party created at the last minute

3) Hang out at Paragon ridiculously waiting for a last-minute appointed PM while shoppers give me dirty looks

Edited March 28, 2006 by Thaible

[dukkha]

JDIA: luvin ya giving 'em heaps..insightful.pithy,intelligent,informed,direct, and this litany of applause to an American Abroad...WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE YOU SIT AT MY TABLE!! Dukkha

[dan10400]

Corrupt politicians cannot stand in the elections and thus cannot be voted in, and if they were voted in, the results are nullified.

Then we will really have a problem here as we won't find hardly anyone to be elected.

People may question his legitimacy, but so far the courts have not managed to declare him guilty of anything and, the majority does still support him. Or are those not "the people"?

the courts? surely you don't stand behind the original constitutional court ruling (and its interpretation) that dismissed Thaksins original assets concealment case where he conveniently forgot about transfering the assets with the maid and the driver? or how about that interpretation - the number of abstains + innocent votes was greater than those who ruled guilty? oh-ho. yep, easy to put a lot of faith in the system here.

if it was my country, i would probably be out in the streets too.

[ColPyat]

the courts? surely you don't stand behind the original constitutional court ruling (and its interpretation) that dismissed Thaksins original assets concealment case where he conveniently forgot about transfering the assets with the maid and the driver? or how about that interpretation - the number of abstains + innocent votes was greater than those who ruled guilty? oh-ho. yep, easy to put a lot of faith in the system here.

if it was my country, i would probably be out in the streets too.

No, i don't exactly support the original ruling.

But then, i know just enough about the law in general that it rarely has anything to do with justice or common sense. That is why you need lawyers who have studied the subject.

Anyhow, there have been recently been several decisions by the courts that have far more wide reaching consequences for Thaksin than the demonstrations:

1) the ruling to allow Khunying Jaruvan back into her job.

2) the ruling to acquit Supinya

3) the EGAT ruling

As i have posted many times, i do not support Thaksin, neither do i sopport the aim of the demonstrators to force him to resign and have a royally appointed interim government (there is far more behind that than what is obvious - i am not allowed to post a rather fascinating link about certain background information in this place, so i would suggest you to google the names 'Thongchai Winichakul' and 'Pramuan Rujanaseri' together, and go reading...).

I believe that the available options within the Thai democratic and legal framework have not been fully used yet by the opposition. Therfore i believe that at first they should do that in order to get rid of Thaksin to avoid the very possible dire consequences these demonstrations have.

Thaible said:

1) Vote "No vote" - Better to stay home and watch TV than waste time waiting in line.

That is actually not correct.

Thais have the duty to vote. Not voting will result in the loss of several very important rights. The 'No' vote option is not a waste of time. Given that no reasonable opposition party stands for election it is the only choice to voice opposition to the government in these elections.

My wife would prefer to travel several hours to vote for the Democrats, but will nevertheless go and use the 'No' vote option. So will many of our friends and relatives.