Pm Thaksin Resigns

[lukamar]

Caretaker PM cleared of violating electoral law

BANGKOK, April 10 (TNA) -

A panel investigating the activities of caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family concluded that he was found to have done nothing wrong, despite allegations by his political opponents that he broke electoral law, according to a source.

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), a coalition of groups campaigning for Mr.Thaksin exit from politics, petitioned the Election Commission (EC) late last month asking that he be disqualified from running in the April 2 general election, accusing him of breaking the electoral laws.

Along with the petition, the PAD presented photographs and digital copies of evidence to support the group's allegation that Mr. Thaksin used his position to woo electoral support in a manner that they said may have violated the country's electoral law.

For example, the caretaker Prime Minister promised villagers in the northeastern province of Khon Kaen on March 6 that they would receive funds under the government policy on village fund if he was elected as the next prime minister.

However, a source said the probe found that Mr.Thaksin's statement was merely a statement of government policy regarding the Village Fund, and the promised money was considered as state funds, not money allocated by himself nor by his Thai Rak Thai party.

In addition, witnesses were called to probe whether the prime minister gave money to a student at an event in Bangkok last month, the panel agreed that the money was given to subscribe a magazine not for any political gain.

Regarding the gathering of the "Caravan of the Poor", a farmer-based group of Thaksin supporters from the North and Northeast recently, the panel found that the group had the right to gather peacefully in line with freedom of expression as stated in the Constitution.

However, the source said the panel has yet concluded whether Mr. Thaksin's mother-in-law violated the electoral law. Potchanee Na Pomphet distributed T-shirts and headbands bearing the message "Thakin fights on" to members of Caravan of the Poor.

Citing lack of evidence as no television stations have yet provided the panel with footage as requested, the panel suggested that Mrs. Potchanee may not have committed any wrongdoing if she did not urge voters to vote for her son-in-law.

The findings have been reported to EC chairman Vasana Puemlarp, according to the source. (TNA)-E001

[Tolley]

Those who are opposed to Thaksin and the TRT party need to defeat them via the democratic process.

PAD and their supporters can jump up and down and make all sort of accustions but at the end of the day is it incumbent upon them to prove via policy initiatives and electoral campaigning that they are the ones to lead the country.

They haven't done that. Where are the policies? Where are the leaders? Where are the votes?

It is all well and good saying that Thaksin is a crook and a despot etc but he is the one who got the votes.

THe US which is a more developed democracy has a guy like Bush in charge who has run rampant during his two terms but as he was democratically elected it is up to the incumbents the Democrats in the US to prove they are a viable opposition.

The many people who support Thaksin in Thailand probably feel that whilst he is corrupt and has been feathering his own nest he is still a better option than his opponents.

So until such time as the oppostion does the hard yards they can jump up and down as much as they like but they need to be able to prove they are not just good at demonstrating but are a viable and effective alternative and to do this they need to provide policies and to get amongst all the people and get themselves democratically elected at the next plebiscite.

[Jai Dee]

Gen. Sonthi is concerned over the emotional state of general public

Army Commander-in-Chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin (สนธิ บุญยรัตกลิน) said that he is concerned about the feelings of the general public as the on-going situation has not ceased yet.

Gen. Sonthi was talking in response to the current political situation as he said people in general want to live in peace and harmony.

He said the army is also willing to cooperate to bring harmony in the country. He assured that the army will stay neutral and will not take sides to create divisions, and that the army will not take any drastic action against or for the movement.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 10 April 2006

[sushiman]

Top PAD leaders face arrest

Security authorities will soon issue arrest warrants against core members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) which has led an anti-government movement for several months, caretaker Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Pol. Gen. Chidchai Vanasatidya said.

He did not specify charges.

Pol Gen Chidchai, who was assigned by outgoing Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to hold the premier's post until parliament meets, told journalists that the authorities concerned were accelerating the process.

He said he would follow up the matter at a meeting of security agencies here on Monday.

Responding to suggestions that a highest profile PAD leader, Sondhi Limthongkul, a local media magnate turned Mr. Thaksin arch critic, might flee overseas and an arrest warrant should be issued against him before the anticipated escape, the caretaker deputy premier said Mr. Sondhi had asserted that he would never flee.

"It's considered normal that a person fly in and out the country," he added, refering to Mr Sondhi's trips to China recently.

Commenting over Mr Sondhi's attacks against the Thai government on a Chinese TV recently, Pol Gen Chidchai said the administration was not serious about the matter.

He added, however, that he believed Thai citizens must love their motherland

Source: Bangkok Post - 10 April 2006: Visit Bangkok Post - to view above news

Edited April 10, 2006 by sushiman

[thedude]

I believe the legitimacy of the TRT has been upheld through the democratic process.

The 38 seats that are in question are a technicality everyone foresaw as a result of the Oppositions' boycott. There are no surprises there, so there is no need to gloat on that account.

I think the EC and the constitutional courts will weigh in carefully the interests of the country and the need to form a functioning government, against upholding a pre-meditated technical trip-up.

Thaksin was clever to re-establish legitimacy before stepping down.

Now the ball is back in PAD's court.

Their continued protests play into Thaksin's hands, 87% of Bangkokians are already against continued protests.

They may be arrested when most of Bkk gets tired of them.

What will happen next?

People are fickle.

[Heng]

I know I'd prefer to run the show from behind the scenes. Why put on a suit when you can wear pajamas all day?

[Plus]

The Constitution Court might allow the House to sit without 100 party list MPs, but I doubt they can justify constituencies not being represented.

The best scenario is when the elections don't produce the full House by May and the King is asked to intervene. I suppose we'll have a new round of elections, the Opposition ends boycott, and perhaps MPs will be allowed to switch parties (though it's not the primary concern for now).

The House where MPs were voted in by barely 2% of voters will be always be in trouble and more demonstrations will follow, this time on issues of the day - FTAs, privatisations, Chang listing etc.

If Thaksin doesn't hide well enough and meddles in the new PM's business, PAD will probably return in force.

Unless there are new elections with outcome accepted by all parties, instability will continue.

The second best option is new snap elections by called by the new PM.

Most of the posts here are specualations about the future and general political devolopments, and the topic itself - Thaksin's resignation, barely mentioned. I think the thread should be moved to some newer "News Clipping".

Any new visitor can't be expected to read through 30+ pages.

[sushiman]

Any new visitor can't be expected to read through 30+ pages.

Why not change the subject in a new thread such as:

1. Thailand in troubles

or

2. Thailand on fire

or

3. Waiting for the new government

or

4. Thailand today (Election News , PM resigns?, PAD in trouble?)

or so....

any other ideas, so all these merged interrelated topics have a new fresh home?

I think he's right, "PM Thaksin Resigns", is anyhow not a title which reflects the truth

[jdinasia]

i agree with almost all of that Plus ...

I mean really ... all these guys crying about Democracy but want to have a parlaiment and leave people unrepresented ......

Am not sure about HM intervening ... but if the Constitution Court said "There is no way we can seat a new Parlaiment" that that would be exactly what HM's job would be in that case.

I don't think an election in less than 120 days would be acceptable to all parties but who knows ... I've been wrong before :-)

[Old Man River]

ColPyat, you are really to critical, you sound like TS sometimes, trying to pick a little brown grass in a whole field, and make a fuss about it and turn a whole story around! If you mean that maniac who was running into the rally and shouting like mad, they by the way just pushed him out, because he was trying to make some trouble, as there were trying to listen to someone speaking on the stage.

.....

PS/ Try to get some sun, and look at it and stop black-washing all actions in this country I suggest you

Well, the situation we have here right now is nothing to be happy about - a parliament that cannot be opened, nobody knows who possibly could be next prime minister, nobody knows when, and if there might be elections again, nobody knows when, how and if the constitution is going to be amended, and by whom. The population is more polarized than in over 30 years (when Thailand had a civil war). Infrastructure projects especially in Bangkok are put on hold. Possible foreign investors stay away until the situation is resolved, but there is no end in sight.

I know the situation looks bleak, but it has looked bleak in the past as well. Remember 1991 and 1992? Perhaps what we need every 15 years or so is Khun Anand Panyarachun to run a caretaker government for a few months while he and others put the country back together and aimed in the right direction. In this regard, on and off there has been talk of a national caretaker government until elections could be held should the TRT not be able to put together enough seats for a parliament to be held by May 2nd. During this period the constitution could also be amended. Of course the TRT would want to head this caretaker government, should it ever come about, and the opposition parties would obviously prefer someone else, perhaps non-partisan.

Have faith ColPyat, when things look the bleakest the Thais always pull through.

[Plus]

Very true

[sushiman]

Positiv vibes, that's cool.

That's also what the demonstraters here want, who said they just want to overrun the whole parlament and put all upside down? That's basically not true.

They all want to have a stable goverment too.

Above suggestions by plus and jdinasia give hope and will most propably be the scenarios once

the new caretaker will be open for reforms.

Long life Thailand!

Edited April 10, 2006 by sushiman

[ColPyat]

I know the situation looks bleak, but it has looked bleak in the past as well. Remember 1991 and 1992? Perhaps what we need every 15 years or so is Khun Anand Panyarachun to run a caretaker government for a few months while he and others put the country back together and aimed in the right direction. In this regard, on and off there has been talk of a national caretaker government until elections could be held should the TRT not be able to put together enough seats for a parliament to be held by May 2nd. During this period the constitution could also be amended. Of course the TRT would want to head this caretaker government, should it ever come about, and the opposition parties would obviously prefer someone else, perhaps non-partisan.

Have faith ColPyat, when things look the bleakest the Thais always pull through.

I think the huge difference between '91/'92 and today is that 15 years ago it was a hickup that touched basically only Bangkok, while the countryside was more or less business as usual, did not take any particular side. Not that much long term damage, especially because this part of the world was not as much involved in the global economy as it is now.

Today though the whole country is emotionally involved, and the potential for desaster is far greater. The economical repercussions in todays globalised world with enormous competition in the region for foreign investment makes it a whole different ballgame.

[Rinrada]

The Constitution Court might allow the House to sit without 100 party list MPs, but I doubt they can justify constituencies not being represented.

The best scenario is when the elections don't produce the full House by May

Ideal situation now would be to ask for say 100 volunteer bar girls from Soi Cowboy (the T love T Wild West Party)and get them to form an opposition in the House as party list members.

They might not make much of an impression within political circles but with their vast knowledge and understanding of worldly affairs ...particulary western behavioural patterns they couldnt do any worst that the present incumbants.....

Might do something about visa runs........like abolish em.....

Also Thailand could also show off to the rest of the world that they would have over 20% political representation by femail MPs....positive discrimination in the making......probably giving them more than any other first world democratically elected government...

Could it "appen.........

[ColPyat]

Might do something about visa runs........like abolish em.....

What's your problem with visa runs?

When i still had to do them i always enjoyed them, great fun.

[Plus]

I think the huge difference between '91/'92 and today is that 15 years ago it was a hickup that touched basically only Bangkok, while the countryside was more or less business as usual, did not take any particular side. Not that much long term damage, especially because this part of the world was not as much involved in the global economy as it is now.

Today though the whole country is emotionally involved, and the potential for desaster is far greater. The economical repercussions in todays globalised world with enormous competition in the region for foreign investment makes it a whole different ballgame.

What does "emotional involvement" has got to do with economy? Do you mean that whole country's interest in the political development is bad for investments?

The current situation is not really bad yet, in fact if not for recent developments Thaksin would plunged into his ill-thought mega-projects and enourmous sums of money would be spent with little return and ballooning account deficit. FTAs would be signed without any public input, EGAT would be privatised with long term consequences and so on.

It's about time to stop all this madness and let professionals take over from politicians (would never happen under TRT).

[Siripon]

I believe the legitimacy of the TRT has been upheld through the democratic process.

The 38 seats that are in question are a technicality everyone foresaw as a result of the Oppositions' boycott. There are no surprises there, so there is no need to gloat on that account.

I think the EC and the constitutional courts will weigh in carefully the interests of the country and the need to form a functioning government, against upholding a pre-meditated technical trip-up.

Thaksin was clever to re-establish legitimacy before stepping down.

Now the ball is back in PAD's court.

Their continued protests play into Thaksin's hands, 87% of Bangkokians are already against continued protests.

They may be arrested when most of Bkk gets tired of them.

What will happen next?

People are fickle.

Yeah, did you notice Dude how Bangkokians voted NO to Thaksin in nearly every constituency. The protest really played into his hands! The man had a majority of 374 MPs to 124, now he's resigned

as PM in the next Parliament which is fast becoming a farce and his factions are starting to bark. So clever!

If the s--t hits the fan it could be Article 7 of the constitution.

[Bryan in Isaan]

Have protesters destroyed democracy in Thailand?

2006/4/7 The China Post

By Frank Zeller BANGKOK, AFP

<clip>

(quoting James Klein, head of the Asia Foundation in Thailand)

"We have an elected prime minister who has been forced to step down due to a lack of legitimacy, despite an overwhelming mandate," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

"It says winning a big landslide does not allow a prime minister to engage in corruption, to violate the constitution. You cannot just do anything you want because you won the election."

<clip>

Practically speaking, the PM was forced to step down due to the fact that the protesters happened to live in the nation's capital, also the economic center of the nation. The protesters might have been motivated by a perception of "lack of legitimacy", but lack of legitimacy is not what forced the PM out. What forced the PM out was the protesters' strategic position. They live inside their enemy's fort.

Imagine a scenario in which 100,000 rice farmers camp out in front of the farmer's coop in Surin for a month, accusing the elected Democratic Prime Minister of corruption, and demanding that he resign. The farmers even march around the Big C for a couple of days, preventing the farangs from doing their grocery shopping.

If this actually happened, it would be laughable. The authorities might humor the protesting farmers for a while and then send them home. It wouldn't matter. Nobody would care.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Bryan in Isaan

[Siripon]

Have protesters destroyed democracy in Thailand?

2006/4/7 The China Post

By Frank Zeller BANGKOK, AFP

<clip>

(quoting James Klein, head of the Asia Foundation in Thailand)

"We have an elected prime minister who has been forced to step down due to a lack of legitimacy, despite an overwhelming mandate," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

"It says winning a big landslide does not allow a prime minister to engage in corruption, to violate the constitution. You cannot just do anything you want because you won the election."

<clip>

Practically speaking, the PM was forced to step down due to the fact that the protesters happened to live in the nation's capital, also the economic center of the nation. The protesters might have been motivated by a perception of "lack of legitimacy", but lack of legitimacy is not what forced the PM out. What forced the PM out was the protesters' strategic position. They live inside their enemy's fort.

Imagine a scenario in which 100,000 rice farmers camp out in front of the farmer's coop in Surin for a month, accusing the elected Democratic Prime Minister of corruption, and demanding that he resign. The farmers even march around the Big C for a couple of days, preventing the farangs from doing their grocery shopping.

If this actually happened, it would be laughable. The authorities might humor the protesting farmers for a while and then send them home. It wouldn't matter. Nobody would care.

If the farmers had evidence the PM would have to resign. Would Thaksin have resigned if there was nothing to the accusations?

Would he have dissolved Parliament if he had nothing to hide?

Bryan, you don't get the majority of Bangkokians to vote no if there's no smoke to the fire, generally Thais are apathetic politically.

[Plus]

Thakins resigned because he is/was totally corrupt and couldn't hide it anymore. Period.

[Bryan in Isaan]

Have protesters destroyed democracy in Thailand?

2006/4/7 The China Post

By Frank Zeller BANGKOK, AFP

<clip>

"We have an elected prime minister who has been forced to step down due to a lack of legitimacy, despite an overwhelming mandate," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

"It says winning a big landslide does not allow a prime minister to engage in corruption, to violate the constitution. You cannot just do anything you want because you won the election."

<clip>

Practically speaking, the PM was forced to step down due to the fact that the protesters happened to live in the nation's capital, also the economic center of the nation. The protesters might have been motivated by a perception of "lack of legitimacy", but lack of legitimacy is not what forced the PM out. What forced the PM out was the protesters' strategic position. They live inside their enemy's fort.

Imagine a scenario in which 100,000 rice farmers camp out in front of the farmer's coop in Surin for a month, accusing the elected Democratic Prime Minister of corruption, and demanding that he resign. The farmers even march around the Big C for a couple of days, preventing the farangs from doing their grocery shopping.

If this actually happened, it would be laughable. The authorities might humor the protesting farmers for a while and then send them home. It wouldn't matter. Nobody would care.

If the farmers had evidence the PM would have to resign. Would Thaksin have resigned if there was nothing to the accusations?

Would he have dissolved Parliament if he had nothing to hide?

Bryan, you don't get the majority of Bangkokians to vote no if there's no smoke to the fire, generally Thais are apathetic politically.

The "no" vote in Bangkok and in the south looks more like Democratic party loyalty to me - which also influences one's viewpoint on issues. Thaksin might still have resigned whether or not there was evidence behind the accusations. He might have resigned to keep the peace or knowing that the PAD would continue to harrass him if he didn't, not necessarily because of guilt. It had been said several times on the forum that Thaksin would be powerless to defend himself against accusations if he resigns. I don't know about the dissolution of parliament - whether or not that had to do with the accusations.

Speaking of the south, there has been a lot of anger against Thaksin for a long time now, and with that, various accusations. Yet, it didn't force the PM to do anything, other than being one of many factors weighing him down and perhaps contributing to his recent resignation.

Things happening in the south, the NE, most places outside the capital are out of sight, out of mind. large protests in Bangkok are not. Regardless of the substance of their issues or accusations, the PAD could not be ignored.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Bryan in Isaan

[Old Man River]

I know the situation looks bleak, but it has looked bleak in the past as well. Remember 1991 and 1992? Perhaps what we need every 15 years or so is Khun Anand Panyarachun to run a caretaker government for a few months while he and others put the country back together and aimed in the right direction. In this regard, on and off there has been talk of a national caretaker government until elections could be held should the TRT not be able to put together enough seats for a parliament to be held by May 2nd. During this period the constitution could also be amended. Of course the TRT would want to head this caretaker government, should it ever come about, and the opposition parties would obviously prefer someone else, perhaps non-partisan.

Have faith ColPyat, when things look the bleakest the Thais always pull through.

I think the huge difference between '91/'92 and today is that 15 years ago it was a hickup that touched basically only Bangkok, while the countryside was more or less business as usual, did not take any particular side. Not that much long term damage, especially because this part of the world was not as much involved in the global economy as it is now.

Today though the whole country is emotionally involved, and the potential for desaster is far greater. The economical repercussions in todays globalised world with enormous competition in the region for foreign investment makes it a whole different ballgame.

That 1992 hiccup in Bangkok, as you call it, left many people dead. To those people and their families, I don't think it mattered where they were living.

I have been wrong before, but I do have experience on economic and FDI issues as it relates to Thailand. I understand what you are saying, but honestly ColPyat, long term investors do not see the countryside as a threat to their investments. This is understandable since they never have been a threat. That could change, and I realize you see this as a real possibility. Let's all hope it doesn't happen, as the poor people upcountry will, again, ultimately be the losers. If there is a violent blow up, you watch how quickly their political support cuts and runs.

[Plus]

Last year Democrats won 6, lost 30 seats in Bangkok. Judging by "no vote" they won 30, lost 6 this time.

Surely Bangkokians have more power than farmers, that's the way it is. Bangkok attracts the best and the brightest, and it's Bangkokians who decide the fate of the country.

Farmers just follow whatever they have been sold.

Decentralisation of power is one of the goals of Constitution, but Thaksin of course wouldn't have none of it. He, in fact, stregthened the central government through his non-elected CEO governors, and he delayed transferring 35% of the budget to local bodies.

Week local government is the main reasons for teacher's protest against decentralisation, and it's unsolvable, IMO, unless the local TAOs are cleaned up and properly developed. Something you'd never see with TRT in charge.

[Bryan in Isaan]

I have to agree with you, for the most part about how Bangkok leads the country, but were the Democrats or other administrations preceding the TRT any better at decentralization?

Also - ignorant question - What's a TAO?

[Plus]

TAO - Tamboon Administrative Organisation.

I mentioned them because they are the ones who are supposed to take over school management from the Ministry of Education.

There's a timeframe in the Constitution regarding decentralisation, and it the budget transfers were not on Democrat's watch. There's no reason to believe that they would have stalled it like Thaksin did. Education reform was developed under Democrats, but Thaksin made a complete mockery of it.

[lukamar]

What forced the PM out was the protesters' strategic position. They live inside their enemy's fort.

Imagine a scenario in which 100,000 rice farmers camp out in front of the farmer's coop in Surin for a month, accusing the elected Democratic Prime Minister of corruption, and demanding that he resign. The farmers even march around the Big C for a couple of days, preventing the farangs from doing their grocery shopping.

I agree with you, a big protest in the North would not be newsworthy. The PM's resignation was a strategic move on his part to blunt the spearhead of the demonstrators and quiet the media. It's hard to get people to run around and take their anger out on someone that's no longer there and it makes for lousy press. If for some reason new elections were to be held, ask yourself who would emerge as the PM in the next parliament when the TRT would once again have a majority.

Although the Nation may have headlines like, " Farang blocked from beer run by angry farmers, moves back to Bangkok."

Surely Bangkokians have more power than farmers, that's the way it is. Bangkok attracts the best and the brightest, and it's Bangkokians who decide the fate of the country.

Farmers just follow whatever they have been sold.

Plus your elitist attitude is showing through. The fact is the rural poor hold the majority of the vote and the power base in Thailand no matter how unworthy they are of the it.

[ColPyat]

That 1992 hiccup in Bangkok, as you call it, left many people dead. To those people and their families, I don't think it mattered where they were living.

I have been wrong before, but I do have experience on economic and FDI issues as it relates to Thailand. I understand what you are saying, but honestly ColPyat, long term investors do not see the countryside as a threat to their investments. This is understandable since they never have been a threat. That could change, and I realize you see this as a real possibility. Let's all hope it doesn't happen, as the poor people upcountry will, again, ultimately be the losers. If there is a violent blow up, you watch how quickly their political support cuts and runs.

As horrible as the deaths were in '92, it did not leave long term instability as it was sorted out quickly. The 4000 - 5000 deaths during the drugwar, far more than in '92, did not make one bit of difference. I am not saying that this is "good", but this is unfortunately how the world works.

Today the situation is different. Today there is a real fear of long term instability, and that is what investors fear most. The most important international magazines have been rather critical of the PAD, and that is noted. Several very important analysts are very critical of the demonstrations, and that will have an impact Thailand can hardly afford.

The xenophobic tones of many PAD speakers have been noted as well.

[lukamar]

Mob Rule Usurps Democracy in Thailand

Last week Thaksin Shinawatra won over 54 percent of the vote. Then he was tossed out

Tom Pauken II (pauken) Ohmy news

In a democracy, voters elect their leaders but in Thailand protestors determine the fate of their prime minister. On April 2, 2006 a parliamentary election was held in Thailand and voters could decide if Thaksin Shinawatra should remain in office. He promised to step down if his affiliated party Thai Rak Thai failed to receive more than 50 percent of the vote. People could cast a "no" which would count against him. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra won over 54 percent of the overall vote. Ironically, two days later in front of a nationally televised audience he announced his resignation.

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra gained popularity in the rural regions of Thailand for his government programs. He provided universal health care for the poor, generous loans to farmers and those wanting to start small businesses in their villages, and his welfare subsidies alleviated poverty.

Yet, many of Bangkok's citizens including the middle class, academics, extreme leftists and turncoat cronies formed a bitter alliance against Thaksin Shinawatra. They accused him of corruption, restricting the media and excessive violence against Muslim insurgents and drug dealers. Consequently, a business deal caused his downfall.

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had been a billionaire tycoon. His family-owned Shin Corp. a telecomm business was highly regulated by the government. He sold Shin Corp to Tamesek Holdings of Singapore for $1.8 billion to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He sold it tax free because it was conducted through the stock market and Thailand doesn't impose capital gains taxes.

In dismay, his opponents rallied together to protest against the tax-free business deal. They called themselves People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). PAD held large demonstrations in front of the of the prime minister office every night. As many as 100,000 Bangkok citizens joined in the rallies demanding Thaksin Shinawatra resign. He refused to step down but willing to accept a compromise.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand proposed a parliamentary election. He wanted the voters to decide if Thaksin Shinawatra should keep his job. The prime minister's enemies opposed the election. The three main opposition parties staged a boycott. A majority of Thai voters supported Thaksin Shinawatra so their demands for resignation would go unheeded. They repudiated the will of the majority and believed their voices deserved greater priority than the voters.

Accordingly, they lost the election on April 2 but continued their protests. They vowed not to stop until Thaksin Shinawatra quit his post. A stalemate seemed likely until King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand held an emergency meting with the prime minister. Shortly afterwards, Thakshin Shinawatra bowed to pressure and announced his resignation. His supporters were stunned and in his speech he said, "It's not that I'm not willing to fight, but when I fight, the nation loses." Maybe, Thaksin Shinawatra was not the best prime minister of Thailand or the most virtuous but voters wanted him to stay in power. His departure and unwillingness to fight represents a defeat against democracy and a victory for mob rule.

[LaoPo]

What does "emotional involvement" has got to do with economy? Do you mean that whole country's interest in the political development is bad for investments?

The current situation is not really bad yet, in fact if not for recent developments Thaksin would plunged into his ill-thought mega-projects and enourmous sums of money would be spent with little return and ballooning account deficit. FTAs would be signed without any public input, EGAT would be privatised with long term consequences and so on.

It's about time to stop all this madness and let professionals take over from politicians (would never happen under TRT).

Sorry, but it is bad...far worse than many realize.

Read this (posted by Srirach in the news thread "The Baht.....etc.")**

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HC30Ae04.html

** http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?ac...=45#entry711965

LaoPo

Edited April 10, 2006 by LaoPo

[Bryan in Isaan]

Surely Bangkokians have more power than farmers, that's the way it is. Bangkok attracts the best and the brightest, and it's Bangkokians who decide the fate of the country.

Farmers just follow whatever they have been sold.

Plus your elitist attitude is showing through. The fact is the rural poor hold the majority of the vote and the power base in Thailand no matter how unworthy they are of the it.

Sad, but I think Plus might be right. Bangkok's 44% may trump the rest of the country's 56%. I hope that turns around and democracy becomes election-based again.

The best and the brightest from the N. and NE. often do move to Bangkok, where the jobs are. However, that does not mean that they automatically become PAD missionaries, as some have suggested.