Foreign media closely monitoring political situation in Thailand

BANGKOK, 10 December 2013 (NNT) – Foreign media have been monitoring the political situation in Thailand, paying very close attention to the Thai House dissolution.

Cable News Network (CNN) reported that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had announced the dissolution of parliament following rising tensions from the weeks-long protests, adding that Miss Yingluck did not want to see any more losses as the conflict had been destructive enough for the country.

Meanwhile, Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera reported that while Miss Yingluck had returned the power to the people and called for a general election, protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban confirmed that he would forge ahead with the protest because his goal had yet to be reached.

An Al Jazeera reporter said the anti-government demonstrators wanted the whole “Shinawatra” family to quit politics, not just for the Prime Minister to resign, because if Miss Yingluck won the next general election, she would definitely continue to fulfill her brother Thanksin Shinawatra’s ambition.

In the meantime, French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP) said the reason why Miss Yingluck dissolved the House and called for elections was that she wanted to resolve the long-drawn-out political crisis in the country, but the protesters insisted on continuing their rally, calling December 9th the “Judgment Day”.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), a German press agency,meanwhile reported that the government’s decision to dissolve parliament could not stop the protesters from marching to the Government House, as they did not want Miss Yingluck’s administration to act as the caretaker government.


-- NNT 2013-12-10

I have lived in Thailand for the last eight years but cannot claim to understand the machinations of Thai politics. I have followed the unfolding saga of Kuhn Sutheep et al with interest and wonder now what will happen.

Thinking out aloud I think the Democrat Party has a two fold problem in that having resigned on-mass fom Parliament if they take part in the up-coming election there is a very strong possibility they will lose again, the current PM will continue as before and nothing has changed so why resign in the first place. Perhaps it was a long shot that the PM would leave the scene.

Secondly if they don't take part, the election will still proceed (I am assuming) and Thailand will end up with a North Korea style Parliament and several miilion Thai citizens who would have voted for them would have been disenfranchised.

Not a happy scenario for the Dems is it. Or am I missing something and am totally wrong in my thinking because as I said at the beginning I know nothing!

I have lived in Thailand for the last eight years but cannot claim to understand the machinations of Thai politics. I have followed the unfolding saga of Kuhn Sutheep et al with interest and wonder now what will happen.

Thinking out aloud I think the Democrat Party has a two fold problem in that having resigned on-mass fom Parliament if they take part in the up-coming election there is a very strong possibility they will lose again, the current PM will continue as before and nothing has changed so why resign in the first place. Perhaps it was a long shot that the PM would leave the scene.

Secondly if they don't take part, the election will still proceed (I am assuming) and Thailand will end up with a North Korea style Parliament and several miilion Thai citizens who would have voted for them would have been disenfranchised.

Not a happy scenario for the Dems is it. Or am I missing something and am totally wrong in my thinking because as I said at the beginning I know nothing!

Your last sentence is correct!

One name - Jonathan Head.

One name - Jonathan Head.

He is too credible to get a mention

Any foreign media following closely apart from the usual jaundiced old hacks and bloggers: Jonathan Head, Dan Rivers, Rachel Harvey, Nick Nostitz, Andrew Walker, Andrew Spooner, Robert Amsterdam et al?

Al Jazeera is the only one that takes its own perspective. The rest are all the same. Thaksin selfless champion of democracy, defender of the poor and weak, etc, etc.

I have lived in Thailand for the last eight years but cannot claim to understand the machinations of Thai politics. I have followed the unfolding saga of Kuhn Sutheep et al with interest and wonder now what will happen.

Thinking out aloud I think the Democrat Party has a two fold problem in that having resigned on-mass fom Parliament if they take part in the up-coming election there is a very strong possibility they will lose again, the current PM will continue as before and nothing has changed so why resign in the first place. Perhaps it was a long shot that the PM would leave the scene.

Secondly if they don't take part, the election will still proceed (I am assuming) and Thailand will end up with a North Korea style Parliament and several miilion Thai citizens who would have voted for them would have been disenfranchised.

Not a happy scenario for the Dems is it. Or am I missing something and am totally wrong in my thinking because as I said at the beginning I know nothing!

Your last sentence is correct!

You are missing something. You're reasoning makes good sense, but in Thailand what makes good sense to us, based on the system's we grew up with, normally isn't what is happening behind the scenes. Things happen differently here.

A quick summary on Crispin's article yesterday is that the NAAC could impeach and criminally convict all PT MP's for supporting what the CC ruled as an illegal amendment to elect all Senators. The NAAC is currently investigating this. Since the Dem's have all resigned, they couldn't step in as the Caretaker government. This creates a void, allowing for a separate Caretaker government.

And the satirical magazine Private Eye said they would really love to cover Thai politics but it's already beyond a joke.

I have lived in Thailand for the last eight years but cannot claim to understand the machinations of Thai politics. I have followed the unfolding saga of Kuhn Sutheep et al with interest and wonder now what will happen.

Thinking out aloud I think the Democrat Party has a two fold problem in that having resigned on-mass fom Parliament if they take part in the up-coming election there is a very strong possibility they will lose again, the current PM will continue as before and nothing has changed so why resign in the first place. Perhaps it was a long shot that the PM would leave the scene.

Secondly if they don't take part, the election will still proceed (I am assuming) and Thailand will end up with a North Korea style Parliament and several miilion Thai citizens who would have voted for them would have been disenfranchised.

Not a happy scenario for the Dems is it. Or am I missing something and am totally wrong in my thinking because as I said at the beginning I know nothing!

Your last sentence is correct!

You are missing something. You're reasoning makes good sense, but in Thailand what makes good sense to us, based on the system's we grew up with, normally isn't what is happening behind the scenes. Things happen differently here.

A quick summary on Crispin's article yesterday is that the NAAC could impeach and criminally convict all PT MP's for supporting what the CC ruled as an illegal amendment to elect all Senators. The NAAC is currently investigating this. Since the Dem's have all resigned, they couldn't step in as the Caretaker government. This creates a void, allowing for a separate Caretaker government.

Now that Yingluck has dissolved parliament, some might say she doesn't have a mandate to lead a caretaker government as her party is no longer in power! It seems the constitution doesn't allow for a cross party caretaker government to be formed and there is no one who could force the Politicians to that end.

I would also suggest that both side are playing with the meaning of the constitution to their own ends, in this case PTP hanging onto power and the Dems resignation form this Parliament to force the current situation!

Thaksin is still in control!

I am not saying one side is better than the other, But surely If Suthep is really about stopping corruption then they should be pushing for a law that bans corrupt politicians from ever being in public service, This would probably reduce the number of party list candidates to a number of political parties and would start to clean up the image of politics in Thailand!

I fear there is no real cross party consensus for such a policy! I wonder why?

$$$$$

Al Jazeera is the only one that takes its own perspective. The rest are all the same. Thaksin selfless champion of democracy, defender of the poor and weak, etc, etc.

Yes I quite enjoyed that interview with Veronica Padrosa the other day...

Al Jazeera is the only one that takes its own perspective. The rest are all the same. Thaksin selfless champion of democracy, defender of the poor and weak, etc, etc.

Yes I quite enjoyed that interview with Veronica Padrosa the other day...

It was a good one. Quite fair too.

They also did a good one of Robert Amsterdam in 2010 which showed him up as only having a very superficial knowledge of the situation in Thailand, despite all his pompous utterances about indicting Abhisit in the ICJ in the Hague. At the same time Jonathan Head, Rachel Harvey and Dan Rivers were presenting a totally unbiased red shirt perspective of the situation and Nick Nostitz was dodging ball bearings fired by militant yellow shirt thugs armed with .45 calibre catapults.

Oh haven't seen that one with Mr Amsterdam Esq!

I must YouTube that one, that will no doubt be as entertaining as Yingluck's

Would tie in well with his recent diatribe stating that there were yellow snipers out last weekend targeting the reds...

A quick summary on Crispin's article yesterday is that the NAAC could impeach and criminally convict all PT MP's for supporting what the CC ruled as an illegal amendment to elect all Senators. The NAAC is currently investigating this. Since the Dem's have all resigned, they couldn't step in as the Caretaker government. This creates a void, allowing for a separate Caretaker government.

Now that Yingluck has dissolved parliament, some might say she doesn't have a mandate to lead a caretaker government as her party is no longer in power! It seems the constitution doesn't allow for a cross party caretaker government to be formed and there is no one who could force the Politicians to that end.

I would also suggest that both side are playing with the meaning of the constitution to their own ends, in this case PTP hanging onto power and the Dems resignation form this Parliament to force the current situation!

Thaksin is still in control!

I am not saying one side is better than the other, But surely If Suthep is really about stopping corruption then they should be pushing for a law that bans corrupt politicians from ever being in public service, This would probably reduce the number of party list candidates to a number of political parties and would start to clean up the image of politics in Thailand!

I fear there is no real cross party consensus for such a policy! I wonder why?

$$$$$

Thaksin is in power now of a government that can no longer initiate things. Hence, right now, he is a paper tiger. Of course, if there is an election, his political influence in Thailand will return to its previous levels.

On Suthep, I am having trouble believing that he, personally, is all about stopping corruption. Maybe that is what he thinks he wants now, but a leopard doesn't change it's spots. i discount his rhetoric.

However, I don't think the current situation is all about Suthep. There are many who are angry about Thaksin's ex-judicial killings, even more against his ability to get voted into power via his populist policies and then use his elected position to slowly dismantle Thailand's checks and balances systems, his ability to practice nepotism at high levels, and of course there are those that want a Royalist government in power for reasons I cannot discuss. I am sure there are other backers for reasons I have never thought of.

In Thailand there are several power brokers. These guys represent swing votes either way (form the coalitions). They are the cross party voters, but it always depends what is in it for them. Thaksin etc. and the Democrats will never see eye to eye. This I am completely sure of (oil and water). Think, Obama and the Tea Party and that equates their relationship.

Crispin's article is one viable outcome. I am sure there are others. My understanding is that a military coup is presently out of the question. It's kind of a "been there, done that" type of a thing. If there is violence and the police can't control it, then to protect Thai citizens, they will step in. At that point they would have no choice.

Al Jazeera is the only one that takes its own perspective. The rest are all the same. Thaksin selfless champion of democracy, defender of the poor and weak, etc, etc.

Yes I quite enjoyed that interview with Veronica Padrosa the other day...

It was a good one. Quite fair too.

They also did a good one of Robert Amsterdam in 2010 which showed him up as only having a very superficial knowledge of the situation in Thailand, despite all his pompous utterances about indicting Abhisit in the ICJ in the Hague. At the same time Jonathan Head, Rachel Harvey and Dan Rivers were presenting a totally unbiased red shirt perspective of the situation and Nick Nostitz was dodging ball bearings fired by militant yellow shirt thugs armed with .45 calibre catapults.

Arkady you owe me a new keyboard! It's covered in coffee now thanks to your suggestion of watching Al Jazeera's interview with Mr Amsterdam Esq.

Talking about live ammunition being used against the Red Shirts when the footage was of the Red Shirts doing the opposite to what he suggested they were doing. Brilliant!

I followed that bit of comedy with another one of his stunts in London... This guy's the full quid, right? Hahahaha...

About 5 mins into the interview Amsterdam blurted out that the Bank of Thailand was an illegitimate institution because it was established as a result of a military coup! Priceless.

I have lived in Thailand for the last eight years but cannot claim to understand the machinations of Thai politics. I have followed the unfolding saga of Kuhn Sutheep et al with interest and wonder now what will happen.

Thinking out aloud I think the Democrat Party has a two fold problem in that having resigned on-mass fom Parliament if they take part in the up-coming election there is a very strong possibility they will lose again, the current PM will continue as before and nothing has changed so why resign in the first place. Perhaps it was a long shot that the PM would leave the scene.

Secondly if they don't take part, the election will still proceed (I am assuming) and Thailand will end up with a North Korea style Parliament and several miilion Thai citizens who would have voted for them would have been disenfranchised.

Not a happy scenario for the Dems is it. Or am I missing something and am totally wrong in my thinking because as I said at the beginning I know nothing!

Your last sentence is correct!

You are missing something. You're reasoning makes good sense, but in Thailand what makes good sense to us, based on the system's we grew up with, normally isn't what is happening behind the scenes. Things happen differently here.

A quick summary on Crispin's article yesterday is that the NAAC could impeach and criminally convict all PT MP's for supporting what the CC ruled as an illegal amendment to elect all Senators. The NAAC is currently investigating this. Since the Dem's have all resigned, they couldn't step in as the Caretaker government. This creates a void, allowing for a separate Caretaker government.

I think the NAAC has the power to indict the MPs but cannot convict them because it is not a court. However, the important which I think Crispin glossed over is that indicting them would result in automatic suspension from duty. Normally they should pass their evidence to the attorney-general for prosecution but I think there is a precedent that they prosecuted themselves in the leftover AEC cases when the attorney-general declined to do so. I am not sure about the impeachment. I think that is the purview of the Senate if enough signatures can be obtained.

Personally I doubt that the NAAC would indict the 312 MPs (and the Senators) for simply following the party whips orders and voting for a bill that was later ruled unconstitutional by 5 to 4 but could have gone the other way. That would be regarded as a judicial coup and would bring the red shirts into town and anyway the Dems are not in place to take over. However, it is very likely, in my opinion, that they will indict the MPs who fraudulently voted for other MPs and the MPs that passed them their votes.

Another bigger time bomb at the NAAC is the case they are investigating into corruption in the rice pledging. That could result in indictment of Yingluck as chairman of the rice pledging committee.

The NACC is due to hand down its findings into the Rice Sheme shenanigans tomorrow is it not? The criminal court has Abhisit & Co. tomorrow as well...

All should prove entertaining (if nothing else)...

If Crispin is to be believed, seems a bit far fetched to be fair, things will be quite interesting. If H.E Palakorn is aware of this intention to install him as PM, he certainly was not giving anything away last week in a speech he gave at a private event.

I have lived in Thailand for the last eight years but cannot claim to understand the machinations of Thai politics. I have followed the unfolding saga of Kuhn Sutheep et al with interest and wonder now what will happen.

Thinking out aloud I think the Democrat Party has a two fold problem in that having resigned on-mass fom Parliament if they take part in the up-coming election there is a very strong possibility they will lose again, the current PM will continue as before and nothing has changed so why resign in the first place. Perhaps it was a long shot that the PM would leave the scene.

Secondly if they don't take part, the election will still proceed (I am assuming) and Thailand will end up with a North Korea style Parliament and several miilion Thai citizens who would have voted for them would have been disenfranchised.

Not a happy scenario for the Dems is it. Or am I missing something and am totally wrong in my thinking because as I said at the beginning I know nothing!

Your last sentence is correct!

You are missing something. You're reasoning makes good sense, but in Thailand what makes good sense to us, based on the system's we grew up with, normally isn't what is happening behind the scenes. Things happen differently here.

A quick summary on Crispin's article yesterday is that the NAAC could impeach and criminally convict all PT MP's for supporting what the CC ruled as an illegal amendment to elect all Senators. The NAAC is currently investigating this. Since the Dem's have all resigned, they couldn't step in as the Caretaker government. This creates a void, allowing for a separate Caretaker government.

I think the NAAC has the power to indict the MPs but cannot convict them because it is not a court. However, the important which I think Crispin glossed over is that indicting them would result in automatic suspension from duty. Normally they should pass their evidence to the attorney-general for prosecution but I think there is a precedent that they prosecuted themselves in the leftover AEC cases when the attorney-general declined to do so. I am not sure about the impeachment. I think that is the purview of the Senate if enough signatures can be obtained.

Personally I doubt that the NAAC would indict the 312 MPs (and the Senators) for simply following the party whips orders and voting for a bill that was later ruled unconstitutional by 5 to 4 but could have gone the other way. That would be regarded as a judicial coup and would bring the red shirts into town and anyway the Dems are not in place to take over. However, it is very likely, in my opinion, that they will indict the MPs who fraudulently voted for other MPs and the MPs that passed them their votes.

Another bigger time bomb at the NAAC is the case they are investigating into corruption in the rice pledging. That could result in indictment of Yingluck as chairman of the rice pledging committee.

As per another thread, on the power of the NACC, you are correct.

Crispin wrote the article prior to the dissolution so I am not sure how important the impeachment would be now. Maybe it is if she were to run again, but she is smart and she has to know this isn't for her. They are a big family, there are many to take her place if they survive this.

As I have written on TV in the past, while everyone focuses on Thaksin, Abhisit and Anupong re the Amnesty Bill, YL was listed seeking amnesty from the rice scheme. There is a reason for this, and I don't think it has anything at all to do with her being enriched by it. Given the government has not paid the farmers since October, simply put, she is stuck being Chairperson of this mess.

She's between a rock and a hard place in big bros brilliant rice scheme. It seems that the govt authorised the Finance Ministry to guarantee bonds to be issued by BAAC to around B80bn to pay farmers but half were unsubscribed and now the caretaker govt has no authority issue more guarantees or lend its own money to BAAC which refuses to dip into its own capital fund for fear of malfeasance charges against its directors. The only way to raise cash now is the old fashioned way - sell the rice fast for cash. Possible corruption charges are another matter.