Thailand's Political Crisis - Compromise Is Still Possible

[jdinasia]

Brit ... Naive? OMG ....

So ... the deliberately misinformed and underinformed (gov't censorship and self censorship by the press due to Gov't influence) and ill-informed are in the same class? As for naivety ... why would it be naive to think that people with more access to information might be in a better position to make an informed decision? How about addressing this?

Democracy in it's truest form IS about one person one vote! That however is not practiced anywhere in the world that I know of. However ..... and this is a HUGE however in this case; Patronage ... vote buying (alleged) ...influencing the courts and independant bodies that oversee and regulate abuse of power etc are NOT part of any democratic process. Thailand is not a Presidential form of democracy ... no-one voted for Thaksin. And this

Democracy is always (in current practice around the globe) practiced with a checks and balances system. In Thailaland the Parlaiment is elected. They put forward the name of the PM. The PM constitutes the Gov't<executive> and the Parlaiment the legislative and there is supposed to be an independant judiciary. One of the powers of the PM is to dissolve Parlaiment in the case of the Government and the Parlaiment not being able to function because they are at odds. And possibly this?

The current situation doesn't fit that bill at all. The PM dissolved Parlaiment the day after his son was indicted for issues around the sale of Shinco .... Strange .. this stops Parlaiment from censuring him ... stops the opposition from having time and opportunity to rally people to the cause of democracy due to the 90 day rule. Oh and the time frame thing ... how about this?

As for your hypothetical ------- If the facts were out AND Thaksin were eligible to be PM again I'd have no problem with it ... after all Thaksin wasn't all that bad for me at all! Sooo how likely do you think that if it were all known and dealt with honestly that Thaksin would be eligible?

Huh Brit? what do you think? ... oh forgot .... if it's not an election it doesn't matter!

[jdinasia]

like I said ... wind-up ... sometimes TiT may not mean This is Thailand ... sometimes it may mean Troll in Training :-)

Seriously now if everyone had the same opinion how boring of a debate would that be? Either of us could be right or wrong, only time will tell.

a debate requires an answer other than "it's not an election"

[lukamar]

[Old Man River,

... the Constitutional Court voted to not take the case as there was no hard evidence that the constitution had been violated.

That's the point of having "friendly" judges - so that they overlook any evidence against you. It doesn't in any way guarantee that independent judicial review will produce the same results.

Section 257. The selection and election of judges of the Constitutional Court under section 255 (3) and (4), shall be proceeded as follows: (1) there shall be a Selective Committee for judges of the Constitutional Court consisting of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, Deans of the Faculty of Law, or the equivalent, of all State higher education institutions, being elected among themselves to be four in number, Deans of the Faculty of Political Science, or the equivalent, of all State higher education institutions, being elected among themselves to be four in number, and representatives of all political parties having a member who is a member of the House of Representatives provided that each party shall have one representative and all such representatives shall elect among themselves to be four in number, as members.

Sorry plus but I can't agree on this. If you look at the selection criteria for election of judges in the constitution, I think you must agree that - it would be hard for TS to fix the selection of constitutional court judges. There have not been many Faculty of Law Deans or Political science Deans on his side for some years and they select the members independently among themselves for a total of 8 of the 13 members. If anything the Constitutional court may be weighted against him.

[sriracha john]

From what i can gather both sides, but especially the PAD, are not willing to compromise. Chamlong, for example, has exressed several times that he will under no circumstances back down from the demand that Thasin resigns. And so have other key people in the PAD.

As mentioned, both sides fail to compromise... the one from Thaksin for refusing to participate in a live, televised debate is one that is difficult to accept.

[sriracha john]

[

Both Aphisit and the PAD have said they are willing to hold open talks with Thaksin but he insists any talks must be private.

Why?

If you had openly televised talks the only outcome will be that both sides will have a debate that speaks to the crowd and solves nothing.

Thailand is in a serious crises that needs constructive behind the door talks with mediators that cannot be doing that in the open. Whatever one may think about Thaksin, he has the majority of the country behind himself, most of what the PAD accuses Thaksin of is true, and that needs careful negotiations and a compromise.

Can you tell me what can come out of open talks other than further aggrevating the situation?

Do you want that people start killing each other? Because that might easily happen if both sides keep doing what they do now.

If a nation-wide televised moderated discussion would be held, the population could then judge for themselves which side they prefer. It would be very educational to many who have only previously heard one-sided propaganda from either side.

The truth is not something to shy away from.

[jdinasia]

Brit ... Naive? OMG ....

So ... the deliberately misinformed and underinformed (gov't censorship and self censorship by the press due to Gov't influence) and ill-informed are in the same class? As for naivety ... why would it be naive to think that people with more access to information might be in a better position to make an informed decision? How about addressing this?

Democracy in it's truest form IS about one person one vote! That however is not practiced anywhere in the world that I know of. However ..... and this is a HUGE however in this case; Patronage ... vote buying (alleged) ...influencing the courts and independant bodies that oversee and regulate abuse of power etc are NOT part of any democratic process. Thailand is not a Presidential form of democracy ... no-one voted for Thaksin. And this

Democracy is always (in current practice around the globe) practiced with a checks and balances system. In Thailaland the Parlaiment is elected. They put forward the name of the PM. The PM constitutes the Gov't<executive> and the Parlaiment the legislative and there is supposed to be an independant judiciary. One of the powers of the PM is to dissolve Parlaiment in the case of the Government and the Parlaiment not being able to function because they are at odds. And possibly this?

The current situation doesn't fit that bill at all. The PM dissolved Parlaiment the day after his son was indicted for issues around the sale of Shinco .... Strange .. this stops Parlaiment from censuring him ... stops the opposition from having time and opportunity to rally people to the cause of democracy due to the 90 day rule. Oh and the time frame thing ... how about this?

As for your hypothetical ------- If the facts were out AND Thaksin were eligible to be PM again I'd have no problem with it ... after all Thaksin wasn't all that bad for me at all! Sooo how likely do you think that if it were all known and dealt with honestly that Thaksin would be eligible?

Huh Brit? what do you think? ... oh forgot .... if it's not an election it doesn't matter!

I guess this thread got lost before you could answer Brit

[britmaveric]

Brit ... Naive? OMG ....

So ... the deliberately misinformed and underinformed (gov't censorship and self censorship by the press due to Gov't influence) and ill-informed are in the same class? As for naivety ... why would it be naive to think that people with more access to information might be in a better position to make an informed decision? How about addressing this?

So the ill informed shouldn't exercise their vote? I assume you'd like to have a poll examination and make sure those who don't fit the elite's criteria will be denied their vote.

Democracy in it's truest form IS about one person one vote! That however is not practiced anywhere in the world that I know of. However ..... and this is a HUGE however in this case; Patronage ... vote buying (alleged) ...influencing the courts and independant bodies that oversee and regulate abuse of power etc are NOT part of any democratic process. Thailand is not a Presidential form of democracy ... no-one voted for Thaksin. And this

Ancient Athens was a pure democracy, however doubt there is a pure democracy today. Corruption is rampant everywhere, and will continue for whoever runs the governement. Unfortunately this is engrained in Thai society and I don't see it ever changing. Vote buying is prevalent on both sides.

Democracy is always (in current practice around the globe) practiced with a checks and balances system. In Thailaland the Parlaiment is elected. They put forward the name of the PM. The PM constitutes the Gov't<executive> and the Parlaiment the legislative and there is supposed to be an independant judiciary. One of the powers of the PM is to dissolve Parlaiment in the case of the Government and the Parlaiment not being able to function because they are at odds. And possibly this?

Whenever a govt is in doubt which obviously it was by the protests, clear way of resolving it is through the electoral process. Clearly if the people are not in favour of what the TRT are doing then its simple, boot them through the electoral process.

The current situation doesn't fit that bill at all. The PM dissolved Parlaiment the day after his son was indicted for issues around the sale of Shinco .... Strange .. this stops Parlaiment from censuring him ... stops the opposition from having time and opportunity to rally people to the cause of democracy due to the 90 day rule. Oh and the time frame thing ... how about this?

Timing is of lil consequence, he was going to get hammered regardless of when he dissolved Parliament. Let's be honest the PAD will never have majority support no matter how much time you give them. Inept comes to mind.

As for your hypothetical ------- If the facts were out AND Thaksin were eligible to be PM again I'd have no problem with it ... after all Thaksin wasn't all that bad for me at all! Sooo how likely do you think that if it were all known and dealt with honestly that Thaksin would be eligible?

Your assuming all the fact aren't out, and perhaps the PM has done no wrong and why shouldn't he stand for his party and assume PM duties?

Huh Brit? what do you think? ... oh forgot .... if it's not an election it doesn't matter!

I guess this thread got lost before you could answer Brit

[jdinasia]

You really should get back to Thailand Brit ... it might help inform your opinions ... but in each section you focused on the minor point and avoided the major one.

But hel_l it was better than your standard 1 line response!

[britmaveric]

You really should get back to Thailand Brit ... it might help inform your opinions ... but in each section you focused on the minor point and avoided the major one.

But hel_l it was better than your standard 1 line response!

Don't need to be in Thailand to see the obvious, better position to have an objective view point.

Guess partial satisfaction should make you happy for a few minutes.