Pro-Election Rallies Organised In 16 Provinces

[PeterA63]

Indeed, @Robby nz, completely true. This whole rice subsidising system is the base of all current problems. But logically the ricefarmers want to stick to it.

They do not understand that their product will become to expensive on the worldmarket when the governement wants to get it s paid subsidies back by adding it to the sellingprice. They do not see that this is not a subsidy at all, it s money to buy votes. It is corruption on a megascale.

Peter Scheffer

[anselpixel]

There seems to be some confusion about what happened in Chiang Mai. The rally was at Municipal Stadium, not Thapae Gate.

The White Shirt brigade set up registration tables at Thapae and Chang Puack gates, but the reds all gathered at the stadium. They were joined by many wearing the "Respect the Vote," but many of the latter stayed on at the original destinations.

There were far more than 100 in attendance.

The event was orderly, and only a handful of police and military were on hand.

[djjamie]

"...it highlights that all the PTP and UDD want is to win an election so they can practice their undemocratic form of government..........

Suthep on the other hand is fighting for power and civic responsibility being exercised by all citizens, directly or through their freely elected representatives.

Principles and practices that protect human freedom..........

Understanding that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech.......and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.......That democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens........Ensure democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation's unique political, social, and cultural life.

Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform practices.

That citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.

That democratic society is committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise.

Democracies recognize that reaching consensus requires compromise and that it may not always be attainable.

In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”........

In Thailand the being the majority is not a badge of success, but of failure.

Time for some change me thinks!

I wish I had a mere thimbleful of whatever you're on which allows you to "spin" such blatant contradictions and seek the result to be IN SUPPORT of an argument for your and The Democrat Party's form of "democracy".

A thimbleful, in the water supply, would likely be enough to have the whole of Bangkok's population away-with-the-fairies.

Oh yeah..... and it's "methinks" not "me thinks" (one word, not two) dontcha know.

Very vague non descript response AGAIN from the pro "supporting 1 out of 15 principles of democracy aint bad" PT supporters

Drugs? Off with the Fairies? I never mentioned "Woodstock" in my post did I?

You can't really debate any of my points me thinks.

Determined to exercise your "democratic" right to be wrong unto the end, I see (and not simply in misquoting the Bard, methinks).

PS. I'm off to bed now so will read your brainwashed response(s) on the 'morrow. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Still nothing constructive to say about my comments I see. Your saying I am wrong, but cannot give me one single reason to why. Come on. Show me some western educated debating skills. (I'm not talking about the ones Yingluck DIDN'T learn at Kentucky University either) Or did you go to Kentucky University as well?

[djjamie]

I think you should keep looking over your shoulder for a man in a white coat holding a butterfly net. Clearly you are in serious danger of losing the plot.

81% of the Thai population were against an amnesty that eventually passed through the house be a vote of 307-0. The house being the representatives of the people that voted them into the house in the first place. Why did it pass 307-0? Because Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!

I think that is undemocratic yet I am the crazy one compared to people that think the above is democratic!

Go figure.

[Wombat6]

In the main photo, people are holding placards that say "respect my vote". Why would it be written English ???? How could anyone with a bit of intelligence respect a vote that has been bought ??

[anselpixel]

In the main photo, people are holding placards that say "respect my vote". Why would it be written English ???? How could anyone with a bit of intelligence respect a vote that has been bought ??

My guess is that anyone with a bit of intelligence would know it's good PR to feature slogans intelligible to the global media consumer.

As for the other part of your question, I can't address that.

[aimbc]

Sounds to be about the same numbers as those who have gone to BKK from each place.

Wait for another couple of days when the rice farmers have still not been paid then see how many love PT.

Actually you will find its the reverse now.

Most rice farmers I am informed are now really upset, even more than normal, with the Democrats and Suthep and blame the late payments on them in full.

The late payment and the blame put on Suthep and the Democrats for causing all these problems is actually making people more determined than ever to vote and vote PTP, I am quite well informed.

Yes I am sure that is one of the major issues with this dishonest govt. to still want to deceive the people. How sad. I suppose when the truth is exposed, everyone who supported the red shirts will turn on them. But that will take time and the anti-govt group will continue to remind people about their crimes.

How can most people see so clearly and others do not that this govt has taken and used democracy as a tool. The democratic system is truely broken. I guess the fight continues.

[JRThailand]

This, nor any other picture appear to be MASS DEMONSTRATIONS!

[ChrisY1]

In the northeastern region of Nakhon Ratchasima, a group calling themselves ′People of Korat Love Democracy′ staged a rally in front of The Mall department store, which was joined by over 3,000 people from 32 districts. The group was protected by UDD guards and 30 police officers.

Why Bangkok no see our policemen?

So sad...

IN Bangkok in 2009 & 2010 when the red shirts protested the govt sent the army in to clear them out.

In 2008 & 2013/4 when the yellow shirts protest the army will not respond to the govt's orders

Why yellow shirts no see our soldiers?

So sad...

Yes...well the army was used in 2010 against the red shirts to clear them out of their fortresses......but, they were only called upon because the stupid police were busy handing out flowers!

[LevelHead]

Respect my vote...my ass! How much did they get paid for the vote???

That is a very inflammatory post.

If you have any shred of evidence that vote buying went on - you should have reported it to the EC along with the proof and then the politician in question would have been Yellow or Red carded. This is the anti-corruption process during elections.

If you have no evidence at all of any vote buying by any present Member of Parliament then why are you asking this question ?

Either post your evidence of proof against whichever politician you claim purchased votes - or your comments are there fore purely inflammatory reasons.

So evidence of vote buying by an elected MP who has passed the EC's examinations at the end of the last election................ come on. Real evidence please.

[LevelHead]

I think you should keep looking over your shoulder for a man in a white coat holding a butterfly net. Clearly you are in serious danger of losing the plot.

81% of the Thai population were against an amnesty that eventually passed through the house be a vote of 307-0. The house being the representatives of the people that voted them into the house in the first place. Why did it pass 307-0? Because Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!

I think that is undemocratic yet I am the crazy one compared to people that think the above is democratic!

Go figure.

I would like to see specific evidence to back up your claim of "Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!".

If you cannot post actual evidence to back up your claim then your post is purely inflammatory. You are not posting an opinion, your post is worded that you claim fact. So please, post the facts.

Edited January 14, 2014 by LevelHead

[LevelHead]

In the main photo, people are holding placards that say "respect my vote". Why would it be written English ???? How could anyone with a bit of intelligence respect a vote that has been bought ??

So you claim that the person holding the placard had their post bought.

Can you post the evidence to back up this claim you make in the quoted post ? If you cannot post the evidence to prove what you posted and the person holding it had sold their vote, then you have defamed that person and your post is not only defamatory but it is inflammatory as well.

[LevelHead]

I think you should keep looking over your shoulder for a man in a white coat holding a butterfly net. Clearly you are in serious danger of losing the plot.

81% of the Thai population were against an amnesty that eventually passed through the house be a vote of 307-0. The house being the representatives of the people that voted them into the house in the first place. Why did it pass 307-0? Because Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!

I think that is undemocratic yet I am the crazy one compared to people that think the above is democratic!

Go figure.

There was no referendum therefore there is no figure available for how many people were against the amnesty bill.

Your claim that 81% were against it is total and utter nonsense without a referendum and subsequent result.

By the same token we can say that the protests, at their peak, against the amnesty had around 200,000 people. This represents less than 0.5% of the total Thai population. One could therefore make claim if someone so wished that 99.5% of the Thai population supported it by not attending any protest.

[tingtongteesood]

I notice it is "pro elections" not "pro democracy" which they are fighting for. Again it highlights that all the PTP and UDD want is to win an election so they can practice their undemocratic form of government again. You could say, Thaksin adheres to one principle of democracy which is "the principles of majority rule (excluding of course individual and minority rights)"

Suthep on the other hand is fighting for power and civic responsibility being exercised by all citizens, directly or through their freely elected representatives.

Principles and practices that protect human freedom; it is the institutionalization of freedom.

Democracies that guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that local government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.

Understanding that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.

That democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens. Elections in a democracy cannot be facades that dictators or a single family regime or party hide behind, but authentic competitions for the support of the people.

Ensure the rule of law and ensures that all citizens receive equal protection under the law and that their rights are protected by the legal system. Ensure democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation's unique political, social, and cultural life.

Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform practices.

That citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.

That democratic society is committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise.

Democracies recognize that reaching consensus requires compromise and that it may not always be attainable.

In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” (PTP/UDD are intolerant towards World bank, Moody's, UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, the environmentalists, the corn farmer, the rubber farmers, academics, global economists and IMF so much so that Dr Weng of the UDD sent a statement to the UN stating "you are misinformed" and "you are completely incorrect" So in summary the UDD are right and the UN are wrong.)

SO who do you support? The guys that like to hide behind elections so they can abuse every other democratic principle or the guys that don't win the elections but do stand behind every other democratic principle.

In Thailand the being the majority is not a badge of success, but of failure.

Time for some change me thinks!

Let me get this straight: "all the PTP and UDD want is to win an election". And that isn't democracy? Suthep has stated that he wants his mob to creat violence so there will have to be a coup; and that's supposed to create democracy? I honestly cannot believe that anyone of intelligence thinks that an election is undemocratic.

I suggest you learn what the democracy really means, not as a propangada tool used by Suthep. Do you remember the "German Democractic Republic"? That was the official name of the former East Germany. Calling a pig a swan doesn't make it so.

You are very wrong. Suthep doesn't want either violence or a coup. He wants PT to realize they have done a bad job and he wants them to leavcen to let someone else do a better job. He wants reforms to bring real democracy to Thailand. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed. An election is part of democracy but not the be all and end all and when it is carried out in the way it is done here, it is far from what most off us would call really democratic...

[LevelHead]

Indeed, @Robby nz, completely true. This whole rice subsidising system is the base of all current problems. But logically the ricefarmers want to stick to it. They do not understand that their product will become to expensive on the worldmarket when the governement wants to get it s paid subsidies back by adding it to the sellingprice. They do not see that this is not a subsidy at all, it s money to buy votes. It is corruption on a megascale. Peter Scheffer

Corruption ? For there to be corruption someone who is dealing out the money has to steal the money and put it into their own bank account.

Subsidy ? Well yes, the rice pledging scheme is a subsidy. Rice farmers have made big profits on their rice and the government, but way of a subsidy has run a loss making subsidy.

Loss making subsidies are quite common by governments all over the world.

Are governments all over the world buying votes by handing out subsidies ? Well basically the principle of staying in power is to keep the majority of the people happy and subsidies are a method that is approved worldwide as acceptable.

If you have a problem with government subsidies then look all over the world, pretty much all governments subsidize things.

Provided there is no corruption then a rice subsidy scheme is perfectly legitimate.

[tingtongteesood]

Respect my vote...my ass! How much did they get paid for the vote???

That is a very inflammatory post.

If you have any shred of evidence that vote buying went on - you should have reported it to the EC along with the proof and then the politician in question would have been Yellow or Red carded. This is the anti-corruption process during elections.

If you have no evidence at all of any vote buying by any present Member of Parliament then why are you asking this question ?

Either post your evidence of proof against whichever politician you claim purchased votes - or your comments are there fore purely inflammatory reasons.

So evidence of vote buying by an elected MP who has passed the EC's examinations at the end of the last election................ come on. Real evidence please.

rice scheme scam = vote buying. Plenty of evidence of that....

[djjamie]

I think you should keep looking over your shoulder for a man in a white coat holding a butterfly net. Clearly you are in serious danger of losing the plot.

81% of the Thai population were against an amnesty that eventually passed through the house be a vote of 307-0. The house being the representatives of the people that voted them into the house in the first place. Why did it pass 307-0? Because Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!

I think that is undemocratic yet I am the crazy one compared to people that think the above is democratic!

Go figure.

I would like to see specific evidence to back up your claim of "Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!".

If you cannot post actual evidence to back up your claim then your post is purely inflammatory. You are not posting an opinion, your post is worded that you claim fact. So please, post the facts.

To suggest otherwise shows a complete naivety towards the PTP and how it operates. PTP supporters spout at every opportunity that Thaksin runs the show and they always highlight the catch cry "Thaksin Thinks. PTP Acts" So one would have me believe that Thaksin controls every facet of PTP politics and political maneuvering EXCEPT when it comes to an amnesty that will ensure he is back on Thai soil absolved of his crimes. That is when he decides to turn Skype of, but not before he ordered every MP to be in parliament that day or they would be diciplined? So you suggest he said "turn up to parliament and then vote how ever you want!!" Come on. I think we all know Thaksin was behind it. He had to be because the majority certainly weren't. If they were the voting would have reflected their voice accordingly. It didn't. It reflected Thaksins. AND to have to explain this to you epitamizes the UDD supporter to a tee.

[PeterA63]

Quite a Thai worldview

Peter Scheffer

[LevelHead]

I think you should keep looking over your shoulder for a man in a white coat holding a butterfly net. Clearly you are in serious danger of losing the plot.

81% of the Thai population were against an amnesty that eventually passed through the house be a vote of 307-0. The house being the representatives of the people that voted them into the house in the first place. Why did it pass 307-0? Because Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!

I think that is undemocratic yet I am the crazy one compared to people that think the above is democratic!

Go figure.

I would like to see specific evidence to back up your claim of "Thaksin told them to vote that way or else!".

If you cannot post actual evidence to back up your claim then your post is purely inflammatory. You are not posting an opinion, your post is worded that you claim fact. So please, post the facts.

To suggest otherwise shows a complete naivety towards the PTP and how it operates. PTP supporters spout at every opportunity that Thaksin runs the show and they always highlight the catch cry "Thaksin Thinks. PTP Acts" So one would have me believe that Thaksin controls every facet of PTP politics and political maneuvering EXCEPT when it comes to an amnesty that will ensure he is back on Thai soil absolved of his crimes. That is when he decides to turn Skype of, but not before he ordered every MP to be in parliament that day or they would be diciplined? So you suggest he said "turn up to parliament and then vote how ever you want!!" Come on. I think we all know Thaksin was behind it. He had to be because the majority certainly weren't. If they were the voting would have reflected their voice accordingly. It didn't. It reflected Thaksins. AND to have to explain this to you epitamizes the UDD supporter to a tee.

So you have no evidence and what you posted was misleading and designed to be inflammatory (certainly was to me based on the misleading comment) due to it being misleading and based on your opinion, not facts.

Perhaps you should add "in my opinion" in future, as opposed to attempting to make factual statements based on nothing but your opinion.

Edited January 14, 2014 by LevelHead

[Smokemachine]

Indeed, @Robby nz, completely true. This whole rice subsidising system is the base of all current problems. But logically the ricefarmers want to stick to it. They do not understand that their product will become to expensive on the worldmarket when the governement wants to get it s paid subsidies back by adding it to the sellingprice. They do not see that this is not a subsidy at all, it s money to buy votes. It is corruption on a megascale. Peter Scheffer

Corruption ? For there to be corruption someone who is dealing out the money has to steal the money and put it into their own bank account.

Subsidy ? Well yes, the rice pledging scheme is a subsidy. Rice farmers have made big profits on their rice and the government, but way of a subsidy has run a loss making subsidy.

Loss making subsidies are quite common by governments all over the world.

Are governments all over the world buying votes by handing out subsidies ? Well basically the principle of staying in power is to keep the majority of the people happy and subsidies are a method that is approved worldwide as acceptable.

If you have a problem with government subsidies then look all over the world, pretty much all governments subsidize things.

Provided there is no corruption then a rice subsidy scheme is perfectly legitimate.

Provided there is no corruption then a rice subsidy scheme is perfectly legitimate.

You are right, if it is just a subsidy scheme is considered legitimate.

So it's best to ask Nattuwat and his gang to give a full report on the rice scheme. Tax payers are keen to know the outcome.Below are the links of them having conference meeting about the rice scheme. As the govt in-charge of the rice scheme, don't tell us that they can't even provide the profit and loss record? Not even know about the stock account? They can't just simpy give a unknown figure and people probe further abou the related figure. They are unable to provide any details. How to convince people that they are "clean"?

[SebD]

I wish I had a mere thimbleful of whatever you're on which allows you to "spin" such blatant contradictions and seek the result to be IN SUPPORT of an argument for your and The Democrat Party's form of "democracy".

A thimbleful, in the water supply, would likely be enough to have the whole of Bangkok's population away-with-the-fairies.

Oh yeah..... and it's "methinks" not "me thinks" (one word, not two) dontcha know.

Very vague non descript response AGAIN from the pro "supporting 1 out of 15 principles of democracy aint bad" PT supporters

Drugs? Off with the Fairies? I never mentioned "Woodstock" in my post did I?

You can't really debate any of my points me thinks.

Determined to exercise your "democratic" right to be wrong unto the end, I see (and not simply in misquoting the Bard, methinks).

PS. I'm off to bed now so will read your brainwashed response(s) on the 'morrow. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Still nothing constructive to say about my comments I see. Your saying I am wrong, but cannot give me one single reason to why. Come on. Show me some western educated debating skills. (I'm not talking about the ones Yingluck DIDN'T learn at Kentucky University either) Or did you go to Kentucky University as well?

It's not rocket-science and I'll not belabour my reply with fancy, long-winded, prose.

Put simply for you:

You (and all who support The Democrat Party) consistently insist that your Non-Elected Council is democratic and that, conversely, open elections employing a one-person-one-vote electoral system is undemocratic.

You state your demands: "That democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens"

Yet insist a non-elected council is what YOU want (for your own party).

You also state: "That citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system"

Yet YOUR lot have decided to boycott those very "free and fair elections open to all" you mealy-mouthedly claim to champion.

So why don't you tell us wherein lie the contradictions and hypocrisy of your plans versus your hyperbole?...Ooops, silly me, you already have...each and every time you've put thought to paper (so to speak).

Offering up "something constructive to say about [your] comments" was surprisingly easy, as you pretty much drafted it for me, yourself, in almost every line of your own initial post.

As I said at the start, it ain't rocket-science.

Edited January 14, 2014 by SebD

[Robby nz]

Subsidy ? Well yes, the rice pledging scheme is a subsidy. Rice farmers have made big profits on their rice and the government, but way of a subsidy has run a loss making subsidy.

LevelHead

You keep asking for proof from others, please present proof that rice farmers have made big profits.

[lovetotravel]

Subsidy ? Well yes, the rice pledging scheme is a subsidy. Rice farmers have made big profits on their rice and the government, but way of a subsidy has run a loss making subsidy.

LevelHead

You keep asking for proof from others, please present proof that rice farmers have made big profits.

The only ones making the big profits are the politicians and middle men in this scheme. The poor farmers are actually making less money than they did before. At least that's the case in my wife's rice farming village of some 100 families.

[lovetotravel]

So much for supporting democracy and respecting others votes:

[LevelHead]

Subsidy ? Well yes, the rice pledging scheme is a subsidy. Rice farmers have made big profits on their rice and the government, but way of a subsidy has run a loss making subsidy.

LevelHead

You keep asking for proof from others, please present proof that rice farmers have made big profits.

The only ones making the big profits are the politicians and middle men in this scheme. The poor farmers are actually making less money than they did before. At least that's the case in my wife's rice farming village of some 100 families.

Thats interesting. So whilst many appear to accuse the PTP party of vote buying with the rice scheme as farmers get high prices, you are saying they are poorer. So how come people claim that the rice subsidy is vote buying ?

You are saying a few select people are making money and the millions of farmers are worse off.

So the Democrats will be happy there is an election and will win based on what you say............oh........wait a minute...................

[PeterA63]

As today, janauary 15 was supposed to be PAYDAY, and nothing happens, my prediction comes true. I read in the BKK Post and the Nation that the ricefarmers are beginning to see the light, and start blocades themselves now.

What a s..t story about needing an ok from the ELECTION COMMITEE.

Can anyone explain to me what these guys have to do with the export of rice???

[idiot farang]

I count 30.000 people join the pro election demonstrations, thats all? Thats the majority of Thai people.

Just come back from Lad Prao, think about 20-30.000 people only there. Friends from Chiang Mai say, sad about cant enjoy anti-Goverment protests because reds throw stones on people. Now, Im sure the majority of Thais want the corrupt Taksin regime to resign. And I hope, they will all take responsibility in front of the criminal court...

If that were the case, the Dems would be chomping at the bit for the Feb 2 elections. obviously far far from the case, so they're blocking BKK, boycotting the election, and threatening to kidnap the PM.

[lovetotravel]

Subsidy ? Well yes, the rice pledging scheme is a subsidy. Rice farmers have made big profits on their rice and the government, but way of a subsidy has run a loss making subsidy.

LevelHead

You keep asking for proof from others, please present proof that rice farmers have made big profits.

The only ones making the big profits are the politicians and middle men in this scheme. The poor farmers are actually making less money than they did before. At least that's the case in my wife's rice farming village of some 100 families.

Thats interesting. So whilst many appear to accuse the PTP party of vote buying with the rice scheme as farmers get high prices, you are saying they are poorer. So how come people claim that the rice subsidy is vote buying ?

You are saying a few select people are making money and the millions of farmers are worse off.

So the Democrats will be happy there is an election and will win based on what you say............oh........wait a minute...................

It's confusing. The rich scheme is a populist policy. There to benefit a political party, not the people. It's been used in countries all over the world. The philippines were famous for these and caused the downfall of a PM. Since it doesn't really benefit the poor, but sounds good while you are on stage, many call it a vote buying scheme. And they're pretty correct. Much like tablets for kids, first car rebate, etc.

Here's some good articles on the plight of the rice farmer.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/653685-farmers-see-only-a-part-of-rice-schemes-rewards/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/576863-the-future-of-thai-rice-farming-are-thai-rice-farmers-losing-heart/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/568975-flawed-policies-put-thai-farmers-at-a-disadvantage-editorial/

There are many, many more articles on this. The lowly farmer is not getting ahead today.