How about when the court has long since lost any moral authority it might have had, by making dodgy decisions that favour the judge's political backers?

Like in 2001 when the they judged in favour of Thaksin?

How about when the court has long since lost any moral authority it might have had, by making dodgy decisions that favour the judge's political backers?

Like in 2001 when the they judged in favour of Thaksin?

How about December 2008? That decision alone is enough to reduce their credibility to zero.

How about when the court has long since lost any moral authority it might have had, by making dodgy decisions that favour the judge's political backers?

Like in 2001 when the they judged in favour of Thaksin?

How about December 2008? That decision alone is enough to reduce their credibility to zero.

The PPP executives were caught red handed handing over a case of cash weren't they?

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 11:34, said:

Yes I support Thaksin's "threat". Let's face it, the reason the Thai people voted a "clone" of Thaksin in as PM is because they want her to bring him back. If the Constitutional Court (which has hardly shown itself to be a neutral, impartial umpire in the past) ties the government's hands in red tape to prevent it from doing what the people elected it to do, then it is only fair for there to be mass rallies.

I see no reason why the amendment would not easily win a referendum here. Even if it has been unspoken, it has always been the aim of the Pheu Thai party to bring Thaksin back to Thailand. The Thai electorate knows this, and yet still voted them in. Forcing a referendum on the issue is nothing more than a delaying tactic by the Constitutional Court, for the benefit of the Yellow Shirts.

The PTP couldn't even get a majority of the vote in the election. What makes you think they could get a majority of the vote in a referendum? People voted for PTP for a number of reasons, not just to get Thaksin back. Some who voted for them don't want Thaksin back, but preferred PTP for other reasons.

Your post is flawed on all three counts.

The last election was won outright by a landslide. A very good source who writes political commentary for the CIA and is drinking buddy of mine, who does not support the Red Shirts, tells me that this means Peua Thai won more than 50% of the popular vote, and that translated into 53% of the seats in parliament.

The referendum route has not been taken; not because they are concerned about losing, but because the people's will does not have to be measured. After all, Peua Thai won more than 50% of the vote - they are the Will of the People.

And you say people did not vote in Peua Thai to get Thaksin back? That's ridiculous. I have heard some of the elite, of which there are none who support Peua Thai, question this at Starbuck's. They remind me that Peua Thai promised a bunch of election pledges like subsidies for 1st cars and houses, minimum wages, justice for all and, above all, that they would be putting the interests of the country and its people ahead of any particular person... but Peua Thai told us within a month of winning that election promises might not be implemented, so this was obviously a "white lie" (which is acceptable). After all, one particular person does own Peua Thai - Thaksin. Moreover, as Peua Thai are the Will of the People, surely it is not unreasonable to allow them the choice of ignoring the Law (as long as they aren't seen and heard to be actively breaking it)?

I suggest you attend a political school where you can learn something about political theory and recent Thai political history. I've heard there are some good ones being set up around the country by a reformed communist lady, I've heard she's very nice.

"The referendum route has not been taken; not because they are concerned about losing, but because the people's will does not have to be measured. After all, Peua Thai won more than 50% of the vote - they are the Will of the People."

Pi Sek

Left wing fascist

Fits you well.

Hint, PTP didn't, as a matter of fact, win over 50% of the votes of the electorate.

How about when the court has long since lost any moral authority it might have had, by making dodgy decisions that favour the judge's political backers?

Like in 2001 when the they judged in favour of Thaksin?

How about December 2008? That decision alone is enough to reduce their credibility to zero.

The PPP executives were caught red handed handing over a case of cash weren't they?

My quibble was with the fact that elections weren't called to replace to MPs that were banned from politics.

My quibble was with the fact that elections weren't called to replace to MPs that were banned from politics.

Your quibble should be with PTP then. It was them that chose not to call general elections. They instead went to parliament to elect a new PM, as they did when Samak was forced to step down and Somchai was elected PM. Unfortunately for them, a large faction of the previous PPP decided not to support them.

By-elections were called to replace MPs that were banned.

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 11:34, said:

Yes I support Thaksin's "threat". Let's face it, the reason the Thai people voted a "clone" of Thaksin in as PM is because they want her to bring him back. If the Constitutional Court (which has hardly shown itself to be a neutral, impartial umpire in the past) ties the government's hands in red tape to prevent it from doing what the people elected it to do, then it is only fair for there to be mass rallies.

I see no reason why the amendment would not easily win a referendum here. Even if it has been unspoken, it has always been the aim of the Pheu Thai party to bring Thaksin back to Thailand. The Thai electorate knows this, and yet still voted them in. Forcing a referendum on the issue is nothing more than a delaying tactic by the Constitutional Court, for the benefit of the Yellow Shirts.

The PTP couldn't even get a majority of the vote in the election. What makes you think they could get a majority of the vote in a referendum? People voted for PTP for a number of reasons, not just to get Thaksin back. Some who voted for them don't want Thaksin back, but preferred PTP for other reasons.

Your post is flawed on all three counts.

The last election was won outright by a landslide. A very good source who writes political commentary for the CIA and is drinking buddy of mine, who does not support the Red Shirts, tells me that this means Peua Thai won more than 50% of the popular vote, and that translated into 53% of the seats in parliament.

The referendum route has not been taken; not because they are concerned about losing, but because the people's will does not have to be measured. After all, Peua Thai won more than 50% of the vote - they are the Will of the People.

And you say people did not vote in Peua Thai to get Thaksin back? That's ridiculous. I have heard some of the elite, of which there are none who support Peua Thai, question this at Starbuck's. They remind me that Peua Thai promised a bunch of election pledges like subsidies for 1st cars and houses, minimum wages, justice for all and, above all, that they would be putting the interests of the country and its people ahead of any particular person... but Peua Thai told us within a month of winning that election promises might not be implemented, so this was obviously a "white lie" (which is acceptable). After all, one particular person does own Peua Thai - Thaksin. Moreover, as Peua Thai are the Will of the People, surely it is not unreasonable to allow them the choice of ignoring the Law (as long as they aren't seen and heard to be actively breaking it)?

I suggest you attend a political school where you can learn something about political theory and recent Thai political history. I've heard there are some good ones being set up around the country by a reformed communist lady, I've heard she's very nice.

"The referendum route has not been taken; not because they are concerned about losing, but because the people's will does not have to be measured. After all, Peua Thai won more than 50% of the vote - they are the Will of the People."

Pi Sek

Left wing fascist

Fits you well.

Hint, PTP didn't, as a matter of fact, win over 50% of the votes of the electorate.

Possibly I should have written "Satire" at the top.

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 11:20, said:

How is it a half truth? Quotes like this come directly from the horses mouth. These are things that "hi so" Thai supporters of the Yellow Shirts have said to me. Even if you don't want to take me word for it, look at public statements by the Yellow Shirt leadership. Chamlong Srimueang's (a key figure in the Yellow Shirts) proposal to have a parliament where only 30% of the MPs are elected, with the remaining 70% appointed, springs to mind here.

You talk about vote buying, and I agree with you that it is not an ideal situation, but isn't a democracy with vote buying better than no democracy at all?

And I put it to you that corruption and nepotism are just as bad if not worse under the Democrats than Pheu Thai.

You talk about the need for an independent judiciary, yet I would hardly call the Constitutional Court of Thailand independent. Look at their decision in 2008 that brought Abhisit to power. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it was justified to ban the MPs from power, given that doing so caused the ruling government to no longer have a majority, the court should have also dissolved parliament and triggered fresh elections. By doing otherwise they lost all of their moral authority, and proved themselves to be nothing more than a tool of the Yellow Shirts.

I totally agree with you that rich criminals should receive the same treatment as the poor. When are the coup makers going to go on trial? What about the thugs that took over the airport in 2008? Why has no-one in the army been convicted over the atrocities that took place in April and May 2010?

I also totally agree with you that intimidation should be stopped. Topping the list of cases of intimidation over the past 7 years would be the 2006 military coup. How about we begin by trying and convicting everyone that was behind that?

Even in Western countries, it tends to be the norm that appointed high-ranking officials are told what to do by the government that appoints them. That's why it's so important that governments are chosen by people voting in elections rather than generals launching coups or judges issuing decrees.

The 2008 court decision wasn't the thing that lost the then coalition government their majority. It was the defection of a large faction of their MPs that cost them their majority.

The remaining PPP MPs that became the PTP where in power after the PPP were disbanded and their executives banned. A new PM need to be elected and the PTP chose to go to a parliamentary vote instead of calling a new election.

Don't you read the news? Yellows shirts have been charged with taking over the airports.

Why should the army be convicted for trying to keep law and order? Do police get charged when armed bank robbers shoot at them and people are killed?

.

Thanks for calling out the bogus aspects of the post.

Can add the nonsense he posted about 70% appointed to his erroneous aspects. He got it wrong in what was said and how long the notion lasted.

I did like the bit about his conversing with hi-so Thais.

As if.

.

Edited April 13, 201313 yr by Buchholz

.

< moderator-deleted post removed >

.

.

"irresistible power" - Money?

.

.

Most likely.

.

.

< moderator-deleted post removed >

.

.

"irresistible power" - Money?

.

Amulets?

Som tum?

Lao khao?

Black magic?

.

Yes, it could be those too.

.

< moderator-deleted post removed >

.

.

"irresistible power" - Money?

.

Whereas the irresistible force of the Shinawatra/Damapong dynasty is what? The ability to racketeer!

.

and money.

.

.

< Off topic comments removed >

.

.

This all is so far off topic so to get back:

How come a convicted crim on the run has any right to make any threats, and yes it is a threat, against any court?

.

He doesn't have any right, and yes, given the context of his previous threats against the courts, the latest is another threat.

.

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 11:34, said:

Yes I support Thaksin's "threat". Let's face it, the reason the Thai people voted a "clone" of Thaksin in as PM is because they want her to bring him back. If the Constitutional Court (which has hardly shown itself to be a neutral, impartial umpire in the past) ties the government's hands in red tape to prevent it from doing what the people elected it to do, then it is only fair for there to be mass rallies.

I see no reason why the amendment would not easily win a referendum here. Even if it has been unspoken, it has always been the aim of the Pheu Thai party to bring Thaksin back to Thailand. The Thai electorate knows this, and yet still voted them in. Forcing a referendum on the issue is nothing more than a delaying tactic by the Constitutional Court, for the benefit of the Yellow Shirts.

The PTP couldn't even get a majority of the vote in the election. What makes you think they could get a majority of the vote in a referendum? People voted for PTP for a number of reasons, not just to get Thaksin back. Some who voted for them don't want Thaksin back, but preferred PTP for other reasons.

Your post is flawed on all three counts.

The last election was won outright by a landslide. A very good source who writes political commentary for the CIA and is drinking buddy of mine, who does not support the Red Shirts, tells me that this means Peua Thai won more than 50% of the popular vote, and that translated into 53% of the seats in parliament.

The referendum route has not been taken; not because they are concerned about losing, but because the people's will does not have to be measured. After all, Peua Thai won more than 50% of the vote - they are the Will of the People.

And you say people did not vote in Peua Thai to get Thaksin back? That's ridiculous. I have heard some of the elite, of which there are none who support Peua Thai, question this at Starbuck's. They remind me that Peua Thai promised a bunch of election pledges like subsidies for 1st cars and houses, minimum wages, justice for all and, above all, that they would be putting the interests of the country and its people ahead of any particular person... but Peua Thai told us within a month of winning that election promises might not be implemented, so this was obviously a "white lie" (which is acceptable). After all, one particular person does own Peua Thai - Thaksin. Moreover, as Peua Thai are the Will of the People, surely it is not unreasonable to allow them the choice of ignoring the Law (as long as they aren't seen and heard to be actively breaking it)?

I suggest you attend a political school where you can learn something about political theory and recent Thai political history. I've heard there are some good ones being set up around the country by a reformed communist lady, I've heard she's very nice.

Re: Moreover, as Peua Thai are the Will of the People, surely it is not unreasonable to allow them the choice of ignoring the Law

You might want this, but you can't have it.

However that is not the essential thrust of your position. Your position is that of a Thaksin apologist who has abandoned any pretence if it 'not being about Thaksin' and lining up with the threat of extra-parliamentary violence and intimidation by the reds directed by Thaksin in order to enforce the 'Will of The People' (ie return of Thaksin) over and above parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. In short the operation of a PTP government has never been anything other than a means to an end and if Thaksin cannot return he will threaten state power by using the reds to either force action by the PTP or if they fail (which they have up to now) go over their heads to secure the main prize. As per usual Thaksin the overreacher and some forum acolytes to sell the damaged goods.

Whatever the hi-so think, they are not relevant. Since PAD came out with their solution to political corruption, by getting rid of politicians, their support has evaporated.

Now the reds solution to get rid of double standards in courts is to get rid of the courts. It's the same self serving cynical drivel as PAD's 'solution', and deserves the same level of support.

I could only wish that the hi-so were no longer relevant in Thai politics, or at least had their influence limited to be proportionate with the fraction of the Thai population that they comprise. I'll wager that they'll start launching demonstrations and moving towards another coup as soon as Thaksin returns to the country.

I strongly support the reds' criticism of the courts. The Constitutional Court judges have shown themselves to be biased in the past (towards the vested interests that got them there in the first place), and should be replaced with a more impartial judiciary.

So do you think that the PT will replace the courts with an impartial judiciary? The answer is where the problem lies.

Thaksin seeks and offers forgiveness

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday used the occasion of Songkran, the Thai New Year, to apologise to those seniors whom he had "hurt" and also forgave those who had "hurt" him, while sending his good wishes to Thais on his Facebook page.

"I am a Buddhist and grew up in the environment and culture of Northerners, so I always want to uphold this value [apologise and forgive],'' he said.

But Thaksin, who many believe to be the de facto leader of the ruling Pheu Thai Party, also expressed nostalgia and said he was homesick.

"I am well, living abroad, but I miss home sometimes, though I'm starting to get used to it. It is during Songkran that I feel more homesick,'' he said.

Thaksin said Songkran Day is a good time to remove inauspiciousness from the body and mind.

"We should at least have a day when we can start life afresh, in an auspicious way, and forget bad things and prejudices for the sake of the country and countrymen,'' he wrote.

His sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, also sent wishes to Thais via her Facebook page and through her weekly programme "Yingluck Government Meets the People", stressing on upholding family values, Thai culture and tradition.

"Thais have worked hard the whole year. They can recharge their battery during Songkran,'' she said.

She urged Thais to celebrate Songkran without alcohol and dress discreetly.

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva wished all Thais safe travel during the Songkran festival, saying he believed Thai politics in April would be calm if the government does not push for the speedy passage of the amnesty bills and charter amendment.

Parliament will close on April 20 and reconvene at the end of May. He urged the government to let the legal procedure move step by step, saying he believed the government will campaign for national reconciliation after Parliament closes.


-- The Nation 2013-03-14

The constitutional court is simply doing its job too well, and old big baht doesn't like it.

As for his threat, an empty threat IMHO - as the people (or the force he reckons they are) are not quite into the mass rioting at this moment in time, as they know it would be a threat to the leader! And they're more on HER side than his currently, because SHE doles out the restructuring now, and the guys at the top want a piece of the action and keep their own supporters at peace...... so far.

I reckon dementia is setting in, either that or he's a Skype addict....

-mel.

His supporters, the massive part of the electorate who ticked the indicated box, don't know or care about politics.

Not an opinion, but an observation of total apathy in the red heartland.

They know their 'god' Thaksin, is the poor suffering victim of the baddies, but haven't a clue why he's deemed wrong. He 'takes care of them'.

So don't even hint at the 'people' preferring the person with the title of PM. She is the pretty face of Thaksin.

Is this a threat to invoke violence against a legaly appointed court of Thailand by the people in his pay ( red shirts ) if so surley

this is a treasonable act and should be treated as such.

N.Korean top banana threatens missile launches - to get the attention he craves.

Thaksin threatens to unleash Red mobs - to get the attention he craves.

N.Korean top banana threatens missile launches - to get the attention he craves.

Thaksin threatens to unleash Red mobs - to get the attention he craves.

There are more than a few similarities between those families.

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 11:20, said:

How is it a half truth? Quotes like this come directly from the horses mouth. These are things that "hi so" Thai supporters of the Yellow Shirts have said to me. Even if you don't want to take me word for it, look at public statements by the Yellow Shirt leadership. Chamlong Srimueang's (a key figure in the Yellow Shirts) proposal to have a parliament where only 30% of the MPs are elected, with the remaining 70% appointed, springs to mind here.

You talk about vote buying, and I agree with you that it is not an ideal situation, but isn't a democracy with vote buying better than no democracy at all?

And I put it to you that corruption and nepotism are just as bad if not worse under the Democrats than Pheu Thai.

You talk about the need for an independent judiciary, yet I would hardly call the Constitutional Court of Thailand independent. Look at their decision in 2008 that brought Abhisit to power. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it was justified to ban the MPs from power, given that doing so caused the ruling government to no longer have a majority, the court should have also dissolved parliament and triggered fresh elections. By doing otherwise they lost all of their moral authority, and proved themselves to be nothing more than a tool of the Yellow Shirts.

I totally agree with you that rich criminals should receive the same treatment as the poor. When are the coup makers going to go on trial? What about the thugs that took over the airport in 2008? Why has no-one in the army been convicted over the atrocities that took place in April and May 2010?

I also totally agree with you that intimidation should be stopped. Topping the list of cases of intimidation over the past 7 years would be the 2006 military coup. How about we begin by trying and convicting everyone that was behind that?

Even in Western countries, it tends to be the norm that appointed high-ranking officials are told what to do by the government that appoints them. That's why it's so important that governments are chosen by people voting in elections rather than generals launching coups or judges issuing decrees.

The 2008 court decision wasn't the thing that lost the then coalition government their majority. It was the defection of a large faction of their MPs that cost them their majority.

The remaining PPP MPs that became the PTP where in power after the PPP were disbanded and their executives banned. A new PM need to be elected and the PTP chose to go to a parliamentary vote instead of calling a new election.

Don't you read the news? Yellows shirts have been charged with taking over the airports.

Why should the army be convicted for trying to keep law and order? Do police get charged when armed bank robbers shoot at them and people are killed?

.

Thanks for calling out the bogus aspects of the post.

Can add the nonsense he posted about 70% appointed to his erroneous aspects. He got it wrong in what was said and how long the notion lasted.

I did like the bit about his conversing with hi-so Thais.

As if.

.

Call me a liar if you want, but these people actually told me this.

ThailandNoob, on 13 Apr 2013 - 11:20, said:

How is it a half truth? Quotes like this come directly from the horses mouth. These are things that "hi so" Thai supporters of the Yellow Shirts have said to me. Even if you don't want to take me word for it, look at public statements by the Yellow Shirt leadership. Chamlong Srimueang's (a key figure in the Yellow Shirts) proposal to have a parliament where only 30% of the MPs are elected, with the remaining 70% appointed, springs to mind here.

You talk about vote buying, and I agree with you that it is not an ideal situation, but isn't a democracy with vote buying better than no democracy at all?

And I put it to you that corruption and nepotism are just as bad if not worse under the Democrats than Pheu Thai.

You talk about the need for an independent judiciary, yet I would hardly call the Constitutional Court of Thailand independent. Look at their decision in 2008 that brought Abhisit to power. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it was justified to ban the MPs from power, given that doing so caused the ruling government to no longer have a majority, the court should have also dissolved parliament and triggered fresh elections. By doing otherwise they lost all of their moral authority, and proved themselves to be nothing more than a tool of the Yellow Shirts.

I totally agree with you that rich criminals should receive the same treatment as the poor. When are the coup makers going to go on trial? What about the thugs that took over the airport in 2008? Why has no-one in the army been convicted over the atrocities that took place in April and May 2010?

I also totally agree with you that intimidation should be stopped. Topping the list of cases of intimidation over the past 7 years would be the 2006 military coup. How about we begin by trying and convicting everyone that was behind that?

Even in Western countries, it tends to be the norm that appointed high-ranking officials are told what to do by the government that appoints them. That's why it's so important that governments are chosen by people voting in elections rather than generals launching coups or judges issuing decrees.

The 2008 court decision wasn't the thing that lost the then coalition government their majority. It was the defection of a large faction of their MPs that cost them their majority.

The remaining PPP MPs that became the PTP where in power after the PPP were disbanded and their executives banned. A new PM need to be elected and the PTP chose to go to a parliamentary vote instead of calling a new election.

Don't you read the news? Yellows shirts have been charged with taking over the airports.

Why should the army be convicted for trying to keep law and order? Do police get charged when armed bank robbers shoot at them and people are killed?

.

Thanks for calling out the bogus aspects of the post.

Can add the nonsense he posted about 70% appointed to his erroneous aspects. He got it wrong in what was said and how long the notion lasted.

I did like the bit about his conversing with hi-so Thais.

As if.

.

Call me a liar if you want, but these people actually told me this.

I hope you treated them all to a bottle of Leo to thank them.

Thug, nothing more.

Great leader, nothing more.

Thug, nothing more.

Great leader, nothing more.

Thaksin, despite his plethora of flaws, was a leader. He was very good at leading, so I can understand him being a "great leader". I won't begrudge him that. (Kim Il-sung was the "Great Leader" - so I suppose that moniker's taken!)

Nothing more? That's debatable. Lots agree he was much more, whichever way you swing... either he's a folk hero or an ultra-villain.

Great leaders don't run away when the going gets tough.

Thug, nothing more.

Great leader, nothing more.

Thought about it, I'll stick with thug thanks.

A few other words/descriptions did come up, most of them starting with mur, psy and meg, but Thug sums it up, he wants it all, and he wants it now, and he will sacrifice friends and family to get it, he cares about no one but himself.

I hope that Thailand never has to pay the price for satisfying that need.

Thug, nothing more.

Great leader, nothing more.

Thaksin, despite his plethora of flaws, was a leader. He was very good at leading, so I can understand him being a "great leader". I won't begrudge him that. (Kim Il-sung was the "Great Leader" - so I suppose that moniker's taken!)

Nothing more? That's debatable. Lots agree he was much more, whichever way you swing... either he's a folk hero or an ultra-villain.

When you mention Kim Il-sung, it is worthy to note that he is President of DPRK despite being dead nearly 20 years, having appointed himself President Forever. Egos such as his are rarely beneficial to others.

If you put a skirt and lipstick on a pig, lots will agree that it is much more attractive - realists will tell you it's still a pig.

Thug, nothing more.

Great leader, nothing more.

Great thug leader. Nothing less.

Thug, nothing more.

Great leader, nothing more.

Great thug leader. Nothing less.

He is not a great leader, he does not the strength to dominate the country in the way he wants and lacks the finesse required to deal with this short-fall, as a consequence we had the clusterxxxx of last few years.

Edited April 17, 201313 yr by metisdead

Thaksin said there are three branches of power - the executive, the legislative and the judiciary and the three branches should be separate. There should also be checks and balances among the three branches.

However, he said the judiciary was violating the power of the executive and legislative branches, and thus damaging the country's credibility and the people's confidence in the system.

he is totally right about that.

the peoples force is the electorate. those who vote for the parliament that put the legislative in power. part of their job is it to pass, amend, and repeal laws.

Well not totally. Yes part of their job is to pass, amend and repeal laws. Where this goes awry is that this is to be done for the country as a whole for everyone. Not for one exPM or is minions.

I agree. It's one thing to make laws, within the framework of the Constitution, but this government can't play by the rules (Constitution) so they want to change the rule book. Why don't they hold a nationwide referendum and explain to the people why these parts of the Constitution should be changed with the opposition giving their views why it shouldn't? The answer is the ruling party cannot defend its position and the People won't vote for it in a high enough percentage. There are very few things left to stop him and if he can change the Constitution then he is home free. Dr. Thaksin doesn't care how he gets back into power; by hook or by crook.

Thaksin seeks and offers forgiveness

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday used the occasion of Songkran, the Thai New Year, to apologise to those seniors whom he had "hurt" and also forgave those who had "hurt" him, while sending his good wishes to Thais on his Facebook page.

"I am a Buddhist and grew up in the environment and culture of Northerners, so I always want to uphold this value [apologise and forgive],'' he said.

But Thaksin, who many believe to be the de facto leader of the ruling Pheu Thai Party, also expressed nostalgia and said he was homesick.

"I am well, living abroad, but I miss home sometimes, though I'm starting to get used to it. It is during Songkran that I feel more homesick,'' he said.

Thaksin said Songkran Day is a good time to remove inauspiciousness from the body and mind.

"We should at least have a day when we can start life afresh, in an auspicious way, and forget bad things and prejudices for the sake of the country and countrymen,'' he wrote.

His sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, also sent wishes to Thais via her Facebook page and through her weekly programme "Yingluck Government Meets the People", stressing on upholding family values, Thai culture and tradition.

"Thais have worked hard the whole year. They can recharge their battery during Songkran,'' she said.

She urged Thais to celebrate Songkran without alcohol and dress discreetly.

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva wished all Thais safe travel during the Songkran festival, saying he believed Thai politics in April would be calm if the government does not push for the speedy passage of the amnesty bills and charter amendment.

Parliament will close on April 20 and reconvene at the end of May. He urged the government to let the legal procedure move step by step, saying he believed the government will campaign for national reconciliation after Parliament closes.

-- The Nation 2013-03-14

Shows you how Dr. Thaksin's schizophrenia is getting worse.