TRT Attempts To Convene Lower House By May 1

[lukamar]

He resigned, after meeting with HM, btw, in order to prevent any further confrontation.

The only 2 people that were there are TS and the King, and no transcript of the meeting was ever released. Speculation on any conversation that may have taken place, it's content or the intent of that meeting, is defiantly off limits to discuss or comment on.

[Plus]

He did resign, publicly, and he did meet HM just hours before. There's no speculations on what has transpired in that meeting in my post whatsoever.

[Jai Dee]

ACM Kongsak insists govt will not interfere with electoral issues

The Interior Minister, Air Chief Marshal Kongsak Wanthana (คงศักดิ์ วันทนา), has insisted that the government will not use its power to interfere with the electoral issues. He has requested every unit to rely on the mechanism of the constitutional law.

He has also asked all agencies to trust in the government’s implementation, while affirming that it will be implemented in a transparent manner. He has demanded them to cooperate with the government by not criticizing the government’s performance. However, they have to help find ways to solve the problems.

Referring to the People’s Alliance for Democracy’s (PAD) plan for holding a rally again on May 2nd, ACM Kongsak said that people should not be interested in this rally. He has also instructed the PAD to reconsider its plan on whether or not such rally is appropriate at the moment.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 28 April 2006

[ColPyat]

Or 13 million people who ticked "No vote". It was "No" to Thaksin, there's no other way to look at it.

There is another way to look at it.

People like my wife had to use the "No" vote option, not because she supported the demonstrations or the PAD (in fact - she despises them as much as she despises Thaksin, views both sides as rich egomaniac tossers having a fall out), but because her choice - the Democrats - decided to boycot the election, which she was not too happy about. She would not have voted at all, as this election was made a farce by all involved, but she can't afford presently the loss of those civil rights associated with not voting.

So, please - do not make the mistake to conclude that the massive number of "No" votes automatically means support of the PAD, the demonstrations, or even the opposition's decision to boycot the elections.

The high amount of "No" votes means nothing else that those people did not want want to vote for TRT.

[tettyan]

TS and the government would not be nearly as accommodating to those rallies and demonstrations as in the past. TS and the government used everything in their power not to have any confrontation during the last election while being pressured by the PAD and others to have a confrontation. If he is back in as PM due to some kind of legal decree or even a change of heart, bet on his willingness to drop the hammer, hard and fast. He'll sign the martial law decree and send in the army.

And will you be there to cheer the Dear Leader on if he actually does this?

[thedude]

i think what is most remarkabe in hindsight was the mature and objective way in which the government handled the crisis.

the government showed restraint and tolerance in allowing street protests to carry on for months.

thaksin and his ministers repeatedly called for all parties to follow and respect the rule of law.

the courts could find no legal grounds to persecute him and people accused the courts of being stacked with his supporters.

even so, and with a strong mandate only 1 year after the last elections, thaksin heeded the call of demonstrators by giving the whole country a chance to vote him out.

opposition boycott caused the elections to be undemocratic, and thaksin repeatedly urged the opposition to participate in the elections to allow voters an alternative, offering to extend the election date if needed.

even with the boycott, it is clear that thaksin reclaimed the mandate with more than 50% of the vote.

after the elections, thaksin said that the matter was now in the hands of the courts, and that the constitutional court should now take the lead in resolving whatever deadlock quickly.

but no one paid any attention until HM's speech a few days ago. if this matter is not resolved, it will be on the judiciary's head, not the government's.

the government's handling of this crisis has won my respect. in contrast, i have been heavily dissappointed by the Democrats whom i see as immature political spoilers who put themselves ahead of national interest. recent events have really done a huge amount of damage to their credibility.

Edited April 28, 2006 by thedude

[sriracha john]

Or 13 million people who ticked "No vote". It was "No" to Thaksin, there's no other way to look at it.

There is another way to look at it.

The high amount of "No" votes means nothing else that those people did not want want to vote for TRT.

Looks like the two statements are the same... encouraging to find common agreement.

[lukamar]

And will you be there to cheer the Dear Leader on if he actually does this?

Nope.. My stance on non violence is well documented. I just think that the government will not be so accommodating if they have another chance.

I also agree with thedude that the government acted well during the situation, when they could have easily forced a much different outcome.

I have absolutely no respect for the PAD and little respect for the Democrats and at least some of the blame for the entire mess Thailand is in now rests squarely on their shoulders.

[Plus]

even so, and with a strong mandate only 1 year after the last elections, thaksin heeded the call of demonstrators by giving the whole country a chance to vote him out.

Where did you get this from? It's not true. Everyone objected Thaksin's call for elections from the moment he announced it. PAD's point was that Thaksin is not qualified to stand in any elections.

no one paid any attention until HM's speech a few days ago. if this matter is not resolved, it will be on the judiciary's head, not the government's.

PAD and Democrats petitioned the Courts on numerous occasions regarding legitimacy of these elections. No one in the government, or government staffed courts paid any attention, only that much is true.

I don't think many people see the Democrats as the cause of the current mess - it was Thaksin's unilateral decision to dissolve the Parliament without any good reason that caused it. All the PAD and Democrats wanted was he resignation, elections was Thaksin's ill-concieved idea.

He thought he would win and claim innocence to all other charges, PAD and the Opposition called it a whitewash and refused to participate.

The ironic part is that Thaksin resigned anyway. He could have done it without dissolving the House and creating this mess.

[Siripon]

i think what is most remarkabe in hindsight was the mature and objective way in which the government handled the crisis.

the government showed restraint and tolerance in allowing street protests to carry on for months.

thaksin and his ministers repeatedly called for all parties to follow and respect the rule of law.

the courts could find no legal grounds to persecute him and people accused the courts of being stacked with his supporters.

even so, and with a strong mandate only 1 year after the last elections, thaksin heeded the call of demonstrators by giving the whole country a chance to vote him out.

opposition boycott caused the elections to be undemocratic, and thaksin repeatedly urged the opposition to participate in the elections to allow voters an alternative, offering to extend the election date if needed.

even with the boycott, it is clear that thaksin reclaimed the mandate with more than 50% of the vote.

after the elections, thaksin said that the matter was now in the hands of the courts, and that the constitutional court should now take the lead in resolving whatever deadlock quickly.

but no one paid any attention until HM's speech a few days ago. if this matter is not resolved, it will be on the judiciary's head, not the government's.

the government's handling of this crisis has won my respect. in contrast, i have been heavily dissappointed by the Democrats whom i see as immature political spoilers who put themselves ahead of national interest. recent events have really done a huge amount of damage to their credibility.

Have to disagree the Dude, Thaksin mishandled it from day 1, just like the Egat fiasco .

He called a snap election, why? No problems with passing laws with 374 MPs out of 500.

30 days for the Opposition to find 100 Party List MPs and money for the election,(a point you mentioned in a previous post) was unfair and impossible.

The boycott threw Thaksin, the street protests were always legal and far bigger than Thaksin expected, the final straw being 9 million no votes and over a million spoiled ballot papers.

He lost the middle class completely.

Regarding the Constitution Court, Thaksin's always had a soft spot for it since 2001 when 7 judges said he was guilty of asset concealement for putting millions of his baht in the name of his gardener, driver and maid, 4 said he was not guilty and 4 couldn't make up their minds!

Imagine a referee in a game saying he can't decide if it's a foul or not!

And Thaksin said it was an honest mistake on his wife's part! (she must have got the names mixed up!).

LOL

The Democrats will play the game when the independent organisations such as The Election Commission stop moving the goal posts.

The idea for a panel of eminent judges to reform the Constitution is admirable, if they can ensure the checks and balances can truly function without government interference then Thailand will truly move forward.

[ColPyat]

PAD and Democrats petitioned the Courts on numerous occasions regarding legitimacy of these elections. No one in the government, or government staffed courts paid any attention, only that much is true.

Sorry, but the petitions of Sondhi, and then PAD asked for a Royally appointed interim Prime Minister in the first place, and have disregarded the statements of the privy council concerning this. The barrage of petitions started before the dissolution of the house.

Sondhi directly petitioned the Army Commander and Prem, a group of academics petitioned the Palace, and that was already before the dissolution of the house.

I believe the speach of the King should not be distorted and reinterpreted. He was very clear in three points:

1) There will be no Royally appointed interim Prime Minister.

2) The solution of the mess lies with the courts.

3) The King has always acted within the confines of the constitution, and will keep on doing so.

So, what is the PAD to do?

The courts will decide, and we will have to wait and see how the courts will decide. Will the PAD obey if the courts will not decide according their demands, or will they keep demonstrating, as they have already stated?

How will they explain themselves, when it was made clear to them that their proposed solution - a Royally appointed interim Prime Minister - is not going to happen, and that the solution is lying with the courts?

[Plus]

Regarding the Constitution Court, Thaksin's always had a soft spot for it since 2001 when 7 judges said he was guilty of asset concealement for putting millions of his baht in the name of his gardener, driver and maid, 4 said he was not guilty and 4 couldn't make up their minds!

An off-topic clarification, 4 judges said the case was not applicable because it happened before NCCC came into being, 11 judges thought the case was applicable.

Of those eleven judges 7 thought Thaksin was guilty, 4 thought he was not.

More or less along these lines.

[sriracha john]

PAD and Democrats petitioned the Courts on numerous occasions regarding legitimacy of these elections. No one in the government, or government staffed courts paid any attention, only that much is true.

Sorry, but the petitions of Sondhi, and then PAD asked for a Royally appointed interim Prime Minister in the first place, and have disregarded the statements of the privy council concerning this. The barrage of petitions started before the dissolution of the house.

Sondhi directly petitioned the Army Commander and Prem, a group of academics petitioned the Palace, and that was already before the dissolution of the house.

I believe the speach of the King should not be distorted and reinterpreted. He was very clear in three points:

1) There will be no Royally appointed interim Prime Minister.

2) The solution of the mess lies with the courts.

3) The King has always acted within the confines of the constitution, and will keep on doing so.

So, what is the PAD to do?

The courts will decide, and we will have to wait and see how the courts will decide. Will the PAD obey if the courts will not decide according their demands, or will they keep demonstrating, as they have already stated?

How will they explain themselves, when it was made clear to them that their proposed solution - a Royally appointed interim Prime Minister - is not going to happen, and that the solution is lying with the courts?

Just so you don't omit another of the His Majesty The King's very clear point:

4) A one-party system is not democratic

You're also misinforming others as the PAD has already said they would obey the court's decision. Read the reports.

As today ends, the Court has not made a decision on how to proceed.

[Jai Dee]

Just before we get any more comments re HM's speech, a reminder from our Forum Rules:

Discussion of topics concerning the King or other current or deceased members of the Thai Royal Family is forbidden.

Read it again please.

Thanks for your understanding.

[Plus]

PAD and Democrats petitioned the Courts on numerous occasions regarding legitimacy of these elections. No one in the government, or government staffed courts paid any attention, only that much is true.

Sorry, but the petitions of Sondhi, and then PAD asked for a Royally appointed interim Prime Minister in the first place, and have disregarded the statements of the privy council concerning this. The barrage of petitions started before the dissolution of the house.

Sondhi directly petitioned the Army Commander and Prem, a group of academics petitioned the Palace, and that was already before the dissolution of the house.

Colpyat, please read the post you are arguing with - petitions to courts regarding legitimacy of the elections. Do you see that your argument is against something else completely? Second time today.

[sriracha john]

in light of thread:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=730804

A third round is scheduled for tomorrow in several southern provinces.

The law states that Parliament must meet within 30 days of a general election - i.e. May 1 - but also states that all 500 elected MPs must attend.

One of those stipulations will likely be impossible on Monday.

- BP

Thread title:

TRT Attempts To Convene Lower House By May 1

I believe we can stick a fork in this thread, it's done.

[ColPyat]

Just so you don't omit another of the His Majesty The King's very clear point:

4) A one-party system is not democratic

You're also misinforming others as the PAD has already said they would obey the court's decision. Read the reports.

As today ends, the Court has not made a decision on how to proceed.

I am not omitting that fact.

Not even Thaksin would contest that. But it was not him who made the decision to boycot the elections.

I hope you are right that the PAD will obey the courts, whatever their decision may be.

We have reached a point now with this mess where almost every solution is preferrable to continuation of the the infantile power games of all parties involved.

Lets wait and see. I am not so sure yet if the PAD could live with a very possible court decision that will not heed any of their demands. What would they do if Thaksin would decide to be acting PM again?

[sriracha john]

He's STILL acting PM and they've stopped protesting...

but...

as the Court's have just called off tomorrow's election, this thread really IS done. Nothing is being "convened by May 1"

[sriracha john]

*double post deleted*

Edited April 28, 2006 by sriracha john

[ColPyat]

Actually, i just had a look at the Nation website, there, under the article "Thaksin could be back soon" was a PAD statement that did not exactly rule out further demonstrations:

Suriyasai Katasila, a spokesman for the People's Alliance for Democracy, said the conditions under which Thaksin had made his announcement had changed. The caretaker prime minister could come back.

However, it wouldn't be beautiful if he comes back before the completion of political reform, Suriyasai said. If he came back at this time, the PAD wouldn't be able to accept it and would demonstrate to get rid of him.

Nice to leave an open door in case things will not go their way, and somewhat contradicts your statement of the PAD obeying the court's decisions now. What if the courts find nothing wrong with Thaksin?

[sriracha john]

if he breaks his promise to resign, that would justify a return to the rallies... yes, we've established that.

[ColPyat]

if he breaks his promise to resign, that would justify a return to the rallies... yes, we've established that.

Well, that also means that the courts will only be obeyed as long as certain demands of the PAD are met.

Basically, what i see now is just some posturing and empty promises saying in fact nothing whatsoever of all involved, leaving back doors open in case they don't get what they want. Sorry, but i do not see any side - Thaksin, the PAD, and the opposition parties - making any substantial effort in coming to a solution. If they don't change their attitudes, Thailand will be in deep shit very soon.

[jdinasia]

hmmm The PAD isn't a political party ... they are looking for Thaksin out and political reform.

Thaksin has choices open to him ... and he has exhibited enough Hubris in the past to ignore everything and try whatever he wants

I doubt anyone on this forum would think that him stepping up for the PM position in the next government formed would lead to overwhelming problems in Thailand.

I don't see where the courts will be addressing anything to the PAD though .... unless they change the constitution to disallow peaceful protest ... but after the speech the other night .. I don't see that right being abridged in Thailand.

[Plus]

I don't understand anything in the post above...

PAD's point is removing Thaksin. Courts point is getting Parliament and democratic system back.

Courts are not interested in Thaksin's status, and PAD is not interested in how we can get the Parliament back (and Thaksin is somewhere 10,000 km above Mongolia, no one asked what he is interested in so far)

As long as they don't cross eachother, there will be no mass protests.

[ando]

PAD may not be a political party, but they are certainly key players in this debacle.

Their role in creating this crisis and their role in resolving it will not be overlooked by the courts.

Pad has no constitutional right to blockade streets and create civil unrest. We can be sure the courts will have considered contingencies if PAD move to interfere with the smooth progress towards new elections. In these kinds of deadlocks, compromise is the only solution. If PAD refuse to compromise they will simply be removed from the streets by lawfull force if necessary. Their threats to go back on the street are just a bit of huff and puff to try to strengthen their negotiating position. While Thaksin remains silent PAD becomes more irritated and confused. Its just a case of brinkmanship that always occurs in these kinds of stand offs.

[Ricardo]

PAD may not be a political party, but they are certainly key players in this debacle.

Their role in creating this crisis and their role in resolving it will not be overlooked by the courts.

And how about Thaksin's leading-role, in creating this constitutional-crisis, by calling an un-necessary & unwanted national-election at short-notice, in an (apparently) vain attempt to save his own job ?

How should the courts view him ?

[ColPyat]

I don't understand anything in the post above...

PAD's point is removing Thaksin. Courts point is getting Parliament and democratic system back.

Courts are not interested in Thaksin's status, and PAD is not interested in how we can get the Parliament back (and Thaksin is somewhere 10,000 km above Mongolia, no one asked what he is interested in so far)

As long as they don't cross eachother, there will be no mass protests.

So, and why does the PAD still go ahead with their mass protest at the 2nd, as Sondhi has stated? Is it maybe just so Sondhi & Co can show some mob support in order to safe their <deleted> from the rather serious lawsuits?

And, yes, you are right, PAD is not interested in how we can get the parliament back, they risk a collapse of the country in order to get..., well,....what now? Still being in the limelight? Showing that they can still mobilise a huge mob? Or what?

And i don't understand why, according to you, the courts should not be interested in Thaksin's status. Isn't that what it is all about - the question of Thaksin's legitimacy?

If the Thaksin opponents are not able to build a case against Thaksin then of course the courts won't be able to be interested in Thaksin's status. But then that does not mean that demonstrators have the right to judge Thaksin.

Yes, in a democracy people do have the right to demonstrate peacefully. But, Thaksin so far has still not made a move towards returning to his premiership (which he could legally do), and the second demand - the installment of a Royally appointed interim Prime Minister - has been clearly refused. So, presently i do not see any other reason for the demonstration at the 2nd other than being a show of force which will only result in further escalation of the mess.

Which means that the PAD is not that interested in "saving the country", as their headbands say, but demonstrate more for the sake of demonstrating, no matter what harm they do to the country and the people.

[tettyan]

why does the PAD still go ahead with their mass protest at the 2nd, as Sondhi has stated? Is it maybe just so Sondhi & Co can show some mob support in order to safe their <deleted> from the rather serious lawsuits?

And, yes, you are right, PAD is not interested in how we can get the parliament back, they risk a collapse of the country in order to get..., well,....what now? Still being in the limelight? Showing that they can still mobilise a huge mob? Or what?

Perhaps because the PAD has grown from just being a bunch of demonstrators into a fun party. Not a political party, but more like a social club, just another place to have fun. Forget any "cause", why let down the crowd when the fun is just getting started?

You might find some posts about the PAD by this blogger interesting in this respect. Contrary to the first impression you might get from the first post, he's not a huge PAD fan, as the second post shows:

An Impressive Gathering

The Business of Protests

Edited April 29, 2006 by tettyan

[ando]

And how about Thaksin's leading-role, in creating this constitutional-crisis, by calling an un-necessary & unwanted national-election at short-notice, in an (apparently) vain attempt to save his own job ?

How should the courts view him ?

As the democratically elected leader of the most popular political party in Thailand. And the leader of the interim government of the country. How else do you expect them to veiw him?

[ando]

So, and why does the PAD still go ahead with their mass protest at the 2nd, as Sondhi has stated? Is it maybe just so Sondhi & Co can show some mob support in order to safe their <deleted> from the rather serious lawsuits?

And, yes, you are right, PAD is not interested in how we can get the parliament back, they risk a collapse of the country in order to get..., well,....what now? Still being in the limelight? Showing that they can still mobilise a huge mob? Or what?

And i don't understand why, according to you, the courts should not be interested in Thaksin's status. Isn't that what it is all about - the question of Thaksin's legitimacy?

If the Thaksin opponents are not able to build a case against Thaksin then of course the courts won't be able to be interested in Thaksin's status. But then that does not mean that demonstrators have the right to judge Thaksin.

Yes, in a democracy people do have the right to demonstrate peacefully. But, Thaksin so far has still not made a move towards returning to his premiership (which he could legally do), and the second demand - the installment of a Royally appointed interim Prime Minister - has been clearly refused. So, presently i do not see any other reason for the demonstration at the 2nd other than being a show of force which will only result in further escalation of the mess.

Which means that the PAD is not that interested in "saving the country", as their headbands say, but demonstrate more for the sake of demonstrating, no matter what harm they do to the country and the people.

I think you will find that PAD will have substantially lower turnout than during the euphoria of the past protests. They will rant on about their own self importance and how they will bring massive protests if "this or that happens". But in the end they will announce that they are prepared to toe the line and maintain peace and stability in the lead up to the new elections. Just a bit of huff and puff chest beating is all they would be game to do now. They are effectively out of the picture as a political force and will be dealt with if they attempt to derail the up coming elections. PAD leaders know this and will fade away with lots of threats but little action as their followers desert them.