Thaksin Returns As Pm

[lukamar]

The case before the Constitutional Court is not just a simple one of parties exercising their right not to field a candidate, but rather one of a conspiracy to deny participation in order to gain political advantage outside the the legal parameters of the democratic process.

Is a party that refuses to run candidates in an election, actually still a political party? Why did the Democrats work so hard to campaign in an election against the parties that were running when they were not taking part? Why did the Democrats press the Palace so hard to invoke article 7? Did the Democrats conspire with others to boycott the election with the intent on keeping the TRT from forming a government under the 20% rule. Did the Democrats pay small parties not to run?

These are the questions that the court will ask itself when they make their decision.

[ando]

“The charges that have been made against the Democrats are practically unfounded,” said Surat Horachaikul, political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.

“What they have done and the charges they face do not fit,” he told ThaiDay.

“Suthep [Thaugsuban, Democrat secretary-general]’s muckraking into TRT election fraud is not the same thing as hiring them to smear TRT.”

Surat added that he thought the OAG had a secret political agenda.

“Were the charges against the Democrats built up so that there is no space for the court to rule otherwise?”

Suthep was simply trying to prove that the TRT party had committed election fraud, Surat said. The political scientist added that the Election Commission (EC) had based its findings against the Democrats on circumstantial evidence and accused the EC of having failed to deal decisively with TRT.

“What Suthep did should have been done by the EC,” Surat said.

Surat added that public confidence in various supposedly independent agencies had been justifiably eroded.

“The public does not trust the Constitutional Court, the OAG or the EC because of the way they had interpreted the law,” he said.

“There is actually nothing complicated about the current problems. These agencies are formulating legal conjectures to confuse the public,” he said. “It is like they are trying to find ways to satisfy their political interests, while at the same time trying to maintain their own credibility,” he said, adding that decisions made by these supposedly independent bodies served a political agenda.

“The only positive thing is that problems move to a higher level,” he said. “Eventually, problems will reach a breaking point and the country will be left to pick up the pieces.”

Source: ThaiDay - 30 June 2006

Just another political opinion from a university academic out of touch with the masses really.

“The public does not trust the Constitutional Court, the OAG or the EC because of the way they had interpreted the law,” he said."

This is a fairly bold statement to make considering he has nothing at all to back it up.

Statement from academics who live inside their ivory towers should be taken with a grain of salt.

[ando]

The case before the Constitutional Court is not just a simple one of parties exercising their right not to field a candidate, but rather one of a conspiracy to deny participation in order to gain political advantage outside the the legal parameters of the democratic process.

Is a party that refuses to run candidates in an election, actually still a political party? Why did the Democrats work so hard to campaign in an election against the parties that were running when they were not taking part? Why did the Democrats press the Palace so hard to invoke article 7? Did the Democrats conspire with others to boycott the election with the intent on keeping the TRT from forming a government under the 20% rule. Did the Democrats pay small parties not to run?

These are the questions that the court will ask itself when they make their decision.

Jeeze!

Conspiring to subvert democracy? Could be a really serious charge.

Surely the Democrats, -- guardians of the peoples rights, -- wouldn't do that just to get into power?

[hammered]

As I have said before, it is important to view all of this in the context of a larger power struggle. It is not TRT versus PAD or TRT vs Democrats. Neither the PAD or Democrats on their own are any match for TRT and its backers. This is now a high stakes "game" of old power groups plus an emerging middle class versus the Thaksin led business group. What the courts will decide, if anything, will in all likelihood be some compromise cobbled up between the groups. However, if, as is worryingly looking more likely every day, no compromise can be achieved, we can probably look forward to street violence, coups or some combination of these, or maybe even intervention from above. Who these would benefit God knows.

[penzman]

Chirmsak says Thaksin's Thursday is his swan song

Caretaker Bangkok senator Chirmsak Pinthong said Friday that Thaksin's defiant speech on Thursday was apparently his swan song as he realised that his days were over.

On Thursday, Thaksin called a meeting of top bureaucrats and vowed to fight to protect democracy and blamed someone with charisma but without sanction by the Constitution for a plot to try to remove him from the premiership.

Chirmsak said he knew whom Thaksin was referring to in particular.

"It has been discussed in the Thai Rak Thai and they have been spreading rumours for a while that someone would like to be the prime minister and would like to have Article 7 of the Constitution invoked so that he could be prime minister. That person is believed to be outside parliament, but Thakisn happened to say 'outside Constituotn'," Chirmsak said.

"What happened yesterday [Thursday] was the last moment of his days so he had to rally for support," Chirmsak said.

The Nation

[tettyan]

Is a party that refuses to run candidates in an election, actually still a political party?

I don't know. Should we still consider TRT a political party after they refused to run a candidate for the 2004 Bangkok governor election?

[hammered]

Chirmsak says Thaksin's Thursday is his swan song

Caretaker Bangkok senator Chirmsak Pinthong said Friday that Thaksin's defiant speech on Thursday was apparently his swan song as he realised that his days were over.

On Thursday, Thaksin called a meeting of top bureaucrats and vowed to fight to protect democracy and blamed someone with charisma but without sanction by the Constitution for a plot to try to remove him from the premiership.

Chirmsak said he knew whom Thaksin was referring to in particular.

"It has been discussed in the Thai Rak Thai and they have been spreading rumours for a while that someone would like to be the prime minister and would like to have Article 7 of the Constitution invoked so that he could be prime minister. That person is believed to be outside parliament, but Thakisn happened to say 'outside Constituotn'," Chirmsak said.

"What happened yesterday [Thursday] was the last moment of his days so he had to rally for support," Chirmsak said.

The Nation

Interesting. Hopefully this situation will be resolved soon. The "believed to be acting on his own" comment in Thaksin's remarks when referring to a "charismatic person" was interesting, but probably more hopeful than realistic.

[Old Man River]

The case before the Constitutional Court is not just a simple one of parties exercising their right not to field a candidate, but rather one of a conspiracy to deny participation in order to gain political advantage outside the the legal parameters of the democratic process.

Is a party that refuses to run candidates in an election, actually still a political party? Why did the Democrats work so hard to campaign in an election against the parties that were running when they were not taking part? Why did the Democrats press the Palace so hard to invoke article 7? Did the Democrats conspire with others to boycott the election with the intent on keeping the TRT from forming a government under the 20% rule. Did the Democrats pay small parties not to run?

These are the questions that the court will ask itself when they make their decision.

Lukamar, I highly doubt the Democrates pressed the Palace to invoke Article 7, despite this being one of the charges against them. It was reported (see The Nation, March 25, 2006) during the Democrates rally at Sanam Luang on March 24th that "Abhisit suggested that Thaksin resign and ask HM The King to appoint a Prime Minister and Ministers." Abhisit didn't press the Palace to invoke article 7 (the PAD did). This is exactly as it was reported other places as well, with the main purpose of the Democrat rally on March 24th to explain to its supporters how the Democrates differed from what the PAD was seeking. This seems reasonable since Abhisit would have been advised by the best lawyers in Thailand. Unless Abhisit did a complete about face immediately after this rally (and I haven't heard that he did), then this charge is wrong, although I suspect such things no longer matter.

[Jai Dee]

Democrat Party Leader instructed his members to make understand with people

Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva (อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ) has instructed his party members who are contesting in the members of Bangkok Metropolitan Council (BMC) and District Councils’ elections to create a better understanding with the general public while they are soliciting votes. Mr. Abhisit would like his party members to inform them about the details of the Office of the Attorney-General’s verdict to dissolve five political parties. He would like the members to insist that the Democrat has not done anything wrong.

Mr. Abhisit presided over the meeting to prepare for the upcoming general election. During the meeting, he informed them about the source of the allegation that his party is opposing the democratic regime. He hopes that his members will discuss these details with the people so that they will rely on the Democrat Party. However, he has reaffirmed that his party’s activities are abided by the law, and his party will bring the facts to fight in the Constitutional Court.

At the same time, Mr. Abhisit would like the party members to ask the people in Bangkok to support the Bangkok Governor Aphirak Kosayothin’s works. Thus, his projects to develop Bangkok would be approved.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 30 June 2006

[Plus]

Hey Plus,

how does this sound?

-- Conspiring with other parties to boycott the election with the intent of preventing the TRT candidate from representing the people with less than 20% of the vote and thus denying the TRT the ability to form government.

It sounds unintelligible. "Preventing TRT from representing the people with less than 20% vote" doesn't make any sense.

There's no law forcing paries to run in every election. If, in the absense of Democrats, TRT can't get 20% of votes it's TRT's bloody problem.

If I am not mistaken the charges go further than that. There are allegations that the Democrats actually paid smaller parties to boycott the election. The case before the Constitutional Court is not just a simple one of parties exercising their right not to field a candidate, but rather one of a conspiracy to deny participation in order to gain political advantage outside the the legal parameters of the democratic process.

That may be the case - Democrats paying small parties not to run. We don't have enough details to say for sure it happened. But let's assume for a moment that it did. Is it an offence? If your son decides to enter politics and run for the Senate and you tell him not to and give him something in return, transfer some of your assets, a factory, perhaps, is it an offence?

Also look for a key word: "deny participation". There's a huge gap between "persuade", "entice", even "bribe", and "deny". Those small parties can't say that they have been denied by Democrats or have been prevented from running.

From all the charges against the Demos this one - paying small parties and framing TRT, is the most serious. If they indeed broke the laws, let them be punished. Details will start leaking out in the coming weeks and so we'll see how it develops.

Boycotting elections is totally different charge, and is totally made up in my opinion. Parties are not obliged to run. Just recently two new parties have been formed and they stated that they are not going to run for the first five years.

I don't understand "invalidating the elections by nor running" charge, especially the election that has been ruled unconstitutional on the same grounds that they were boycotting.

“The public does not trust the Constitutional Court, the OAG or the EC because of the way they had interpreted the law,” he said."

This is a fairly bold statement to make considering he has nothing at all to back it up.

EC has been asked to step down countless times by countless people. Do you need the academic to supply all the quotes?

CC has not been trusted even since 2001 Thaksin acquital, and when it refused to take on Shin sale case its credibility went down the drain. Denying people justice left them with no choice but take to streets and eventually HM asked the courts to stop shirking responsibilities and ensure that justice is done.

OAG has become suspicios after it rushed Democrat charge in less than a day, after a meeting with Thaksin. At least they promised to drop the most ridiculous one - wrongfully citing the Constitution.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Plus

[John K]

Boycott, the meaning of the word is very clear, however it is a personal choice. I have seen many unions boycott this or that, but still their members had a choice and many did not boycott.

What I am saying is you can’t put the blame on the Democrats as a whole when it is personal choice that will make or break such an action. This is very different than a strike. Although I have used unions as an example, it can easily be applied to a political party. It is the people that checked no vote, and that is not a boycott. That is a no vote. Boycott means to stay home. So identify what they mean by boycott and then go from there. That is why I said the democrats did not boycott, they voted but did not select what Thaksin wanted. So simply he is pissed. Each politician must decide to run or not. That is their choice as well and I don’t think that is mandated that they must run again. So again it becomes very hard to prove. So getting blamed for doing nothing... please! Section 63 talks about action and not inaction.

Section 63 - No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.... and it ends stating that political parties can be dissolved in Thailand.

Word for word overthrow means more or less to use force. I don’t how the word election can be tied to the word overthrow? Next is Thaksin has done so much to turn what was a young democracy into a dictatorship, I don’t see that this would apply as what remains is just a gutted shell of a democracy. The few laws that hold what is left together are on Thaksin’s hit list such as rewriting the constitution.

I know that if I were king of a country and my PM was doing this such as putting words in my mouth to support his cause, there may be a pig roast in order. As far as I know the King only spoke to the Judges. Please let me know if I am wrong and some royal decrees are floating about.

Sigh.. A lot to read.. This post only addresses the posts on page 70. I have yet to read what is on page 71.

Edited June 30, 2006 by john Krukowski

[Plus]

There's more and more talk about that mysterious charismatic person Thaksin is fighting proxy war with. Any ideas who could that be? I personally don't know of anyone who'd go to war with Thaksin. He certainly doesn't mean the Royal House, hopefully he's not stupid enough to fight against Privy Council either, as they are percieved as most close to HM.

Add charismatic, add proxies - who could that be? Sondhi is charismatic but has no proxies to speak of. Powerful people with deep connections aren't usually in the public eye, and so are not charismatic.

Siripon, please, what do they say on Thai boards?

[John K]

There's more and more talk about that mysterious charismatic person Thaksin is fighting proxy war with. Any ideas who could that be? I personally don't know of anyone who'd go to war with Thaksin. He certainly doesn't mean the Royal House, hopefully he's not stupid enough to fight against Privy Council either, as they are percieved as most close to HM.

Add charismatic, add proxies - who could that be? Sondhi is charismatic but has no proxies to speak of. Powerful people with deep connections aren't usually in the public eye, and so are not charismatic.

Siripon, please, what do they say on Thai boards?

psssst plus......60-20-20 on that one... he is just singing for face

[Jai Dee]

Democrat Party Leader calls for PM to expose the influential people's names

Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva demanded Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to disclose the names of the influential people who are trying to create social disunity.

Earlier, the Prime Minister said this group of people would like Article 7 of the Constitution to be implemented. However, Mr. Abhisit deemed that the premier’s speech will create more conflicts, thus, he would like him clearly identify those influential people. He further said that in the past, the Prime Minister did not have the right to accuse certain people for intervening with independent organizations. He viewed that the present social problems are caused by disrespecting the Constitution’s intention, interfering with independent organizations, and limiting the government’s inspection.

The Democrat Party Leader said everything will have to be worked out justly in order to protect the democratic regime. He considered that the Constitutional Court must consider the five political parties’ dissolution case impartially, quickly, and transparently.

He said the government should urgently issue a royal decree on the election properly, and it should not wait for the verdict of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, all sides could work out the problems together.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 30 June 2006

[ando]

Plus said--

"It sounds unintelligible. "Preventing TRT from representing the people with less than 20% vote" doesn't make any sense.

There's no law forcing paries to run in every election. If, in the absense of Democrats, TRT can't get 20% of votes it's TRT's bloody problem."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK,I will rephrase that so that you might be better able to understand my meaning. However, I see by your following paragraph as quoted above that you do in fact fully understand the meaning of my statement and are just playing games with grammar. Next you will be correcting my spelling.

Here we go.

Conspiring with other parties to boycott the election with intent to prevent TRT candidates who might gain less than 20% of the vote the ability to represent their electorate and thus preventing TRT from forming government.

The key word here is "intent". When multiple parties conspire to withold candidates with intent to prevent an opposing party from forming a government it becomes more than just a free choice not to run a candidate. When multiple parties collude to prevent another party from forming what would otherwise be a legitimate a government, it becomes a conspiracy to derail the democratic process.

The problem here facing the court goes beyond the present situation. If the court sets a precedent and supports such collusion (which is quite obvious to all), then it leaves open the potential for similar episodes to occur at some time in the future.

Edited June 30, 2006 by ando

[penzman]

The "influential people who are trying to create social disunity" mentioned by Thaksin and the charges against the democrats are simply a tactic, smoke and mudslinging to confuse everyone, trying to blame others along for the loss of face they brought on themselves. People are about the see the real face of Thaksin now that he's been cornered like never before.

[hammered]

The "influential people who are trying to create social disunity" mentioned by Thaksin and the charges against the democrats are simply a tactic, smoke and mudslinging to confuse everyone, trying to blame others along for the loss of face they brought on themselves. People are about the see the real face of Thaksin now that he's been cornered like never before.

Usually I agree with you but on this one it is clear there is a power struggle going on, so there are obviosly influetial people lined up against Mr. Thaksin. Who exactly they are, and how influetial they are who knows. No doubt we will find out as this is played out.

By the way, look at the Thai word being translated to influetial people. The translation is quite a poor one as the Thai word implies more power than just this. Also if you know Thai peple well enough you will find they are willing to speculate on who Mr. Thaksin is up against. Personally I wouldnt want to speculate but as I said we will see by how this plays out excactly how much power his opponents have. In the past and more recently we have already seen how much Mr. Thaksin has.

[John K]

Hammered;

Good point, for every Thai word there are 10 English words. So yes translation is a issue.

penzman;

Good point, bring the thread back on track. Just a pile of BS to deal with. Look for what is going on elsewhere.

ando;

Lets just wait and see on this.

[giffarine]

Amazing Thai politic is getting too messy Whoever in the next PM seat shall be very hot!

[John K]

Ahhh a pleasant thought for a change... a hot PM...

[womble]

Thaksin files libel suit against Democrats, seeking Bt1 billion

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra filed a civil defamation lawsuit on Thursday against the Democrat Party and its leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, seeking compensation of Bt1 billion.

Representing Thaksin, Noppadol Meewattana filed the suit with Trang Court. The suit also charged other Democrat executives: Suthep Thueksubhan, secretary general, Kobsak Sapawasuk, a party committee member and Thanin Jaisamut, an MP.

The suit alleged that that the group accused Thaksin in their speeches in Trang province in March this year of cheating taxes in his sale of Shin Corps to Singapore's Tamasek Holdings. Their claims damaged Thaksin's reputation, so the court is requested to rule that they pay compensation of Bt1 billion plus interest of 7.5 per cent per year.

The Court will decide on December 4 whether to accept the case or not.

The Nation

Yawn

[ando]

As I have said before, it is important to view all of this in the context of a larger power struggle. It is not TRT versus PAD or TRT vs Democrats. Neither the PAD or Democrats on their own are any match for TRT and its backers. This is now a high stakes "game" of old power groups plus an emerging middle class versus the Thaksin led business group. What the courts will decide, if anything, will in all likelihood be some compromise cobbled up between the groups. However, if, as is worryingly looking more likely every day, no compromise can be achieved, we can probably look forward to street violence, coups or some combination of these, or maybe even intervention from above. Who these would benefit God knows.

The good thing about democracy is that the power groups behind the parties only get to control the government if the majority of people want them to. Its not a perfect system but a lot better than dictatorships. Even if a government runs off the rails there is always a new election to bring them back into line in a democracy. The old power groups, emerging middle class and Thaksins business groups still have to convince the voters they can do the best job to get into power.

I seriously doubt Sondhi and cohorts would be silly enough to go back on the streets if things don't go their way. The stakes are a lot higher now. The risk of bloodshed and incarceration of the leaders is also much higher now. Military intervention if things turn ugly is only an order away.

[John K]

Thaksin files libel suit against Democrats, seeking Bt1 billion

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra filed a civil defamation lawsuit on Thursday against the Democrat Party and its leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, seeking compensation of Bt1 billion.

Representing Thaksin, Noppadol Meewattana filed the suit with Trang Court. The suit also charged other Democrat executives: Suthep Thueksubhan, secretary general, Kobsak Sapawasuk, a party committee member and Thanin Jaisamut, an MP.

The suit alleged that that the group accused Thaksin in their speeches in Trang province in March this year of cheating taxes in his sale of Shin Corps to Singapore's Tamasek Holdings. Their claims damaged Thaksin's reputation, so the court is requested to rule that they pay compensation of Bt1 billion plus interest of 7.5 per cent per year.

The Court will decide on December 4 whether to accept the case or not.

The Nation

Yawn

just pile it on Mr. T. You know if you use it too much it gets numb and wont work.. so stop trying to (insert your word here) everyone.

[Siripon]

Hammered;

Good point, for every Thai word there are 10 English words. So yes translation is a issue.

penzman;

Good point, bring the thread back on track. Just a pile of BS to deal with. Look for what is going on elsewhere.

ando;

Lets just wait and see on this.

Do you know how many words there are in Thai for the sun or moon? Or for I or you?

A lot more than in English believe me.

Referring to the power struggle, Thaksin would never refer to Sonti Limtongkun as charismatic, that would be granting Sonti too much dignity in Thaksin's view. There are only an handful, if that, of people that Thaksin can be referring to and it's beyond Thai Visa's mandate to get into that.

For the last 2 months Thaksin's been uncharacteristically quiet publicly, though he's been pushing forward his own agenda, ie submitting a royal decree to The Palace for the October 15 election date to be signed. That would have protected the current members of The EC from any current prosecution until the election is over, but there has been no royal endorsement.

In my view Thaksin thinks winning a majority of votes is all that counts in a democracy, all these checks and balances are just irritating sidelines which can be brushed off, now his new catchword is democrazy, he's back on the airwaves tomorrow, my guess is he's going to portray himself as a man desperate to get back to work who's being hampered by spoilsports and sore losers whose real agenda is to get rid of him.

'I'm the real democrat who plays by the rules' is his tune to the majority of Thais who get all their news from the TV which he controls.

He's pinning everything on the upcountry and urbam working class support he still enjoys, is he prepared to risk escalating the current polarisation?

If he reverts back to his usual sarcastic self, taunting others, then street demonstrations and confrontation can't be far behind.

What would be a wonderful thing to see is the faction leaders of TRT realising, and perhaps they have, that Thaksin is a man who divides the nation, he can never be a statesman.

Suriya, Chaturon, Suwat and Somsak could break away, if their factions would follow:'for the sake of the nation', leaving Thaksin alone to be consoled by Nevin Chidchorp!

[John K]

The Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as sub entries.

I think there are about 15000 Thai words.

I think it has become painfully clear to everyone Thaksin views Thailand as a parasite views a host. When all that can be extracted is extracted, then move on. I can only imagine what anguish is being felt in higher places by Thaksin’s actions.

Ando, incarceration? I doubt that would be the case. All threats of that are Thaksin based. The PAD played by the rules and even made extra effort to avoid Thaksin traps. Thaksin has used his legal arm so many times now I doubt judges will turn a blind eye to it as a tactic. Particularly with the King requesting the courts clear the mess up. I suspect the King meant from the top judge down to the low courts. From post #1071 “The Court will decide on December 4 whether to accept the case or not.” I think before it would have been accepted the same day as filed. Choosing the day before the King’s next birthday I think has a significant message for Thaksin.

Edited June 30, 2006 by john Krukowski

[Plus]

Is that all??? Siripon, please, tell who it is. From your reference to Thaivisa mandate it appears that the Royal House is indeed involved.

Can you confirm this much, at least?

Ando, I didn't pick on your grammar, I just said that if TRT can't win 20% it's their own problem. You make it look like it's opposition's duty to help TRT to form the government and they must be dissolved if they refuse. Nonsense.

May I remind you again that the elections have been ruled unconstitutional on exactly the same grounds opposition boycotted them.

[slimdog]

Chownah, your assessment of charges against Democrats is based on one single premise - that it's illegal for political parties to boycott elections, or to persuade others from running in elections. I think you mixed that with persuading voters to boycott elections.

Slimdog left some pointers on the previous page:

I have no problem with your opinion of the TRT party, but as for the Democrats only exercising their rights as outlined by the Law. I think you ought to have a look at the law, in particular the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Section 2 and Section 63. Also the organic law on the election of members of the House of Representatives Section 44/5.

Section 2 - Thailand is a democracy...

Section 63 - No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.... and it ends stating that political parties can be dissolved in Thailand

How did boycotting elections equals to "overthrow the democratic regime", and boycoting is directly opposite to "acquire the power"?

I don't see how Demos broke any of the rules here.

Article 44/5 - Deceiving, forcing, threatening, intimidating, slandering or inducing the misunderstanding in the popularity of any candidate or political party.

What exactly did Demos break here? I don't see anything, at least at first sight.

Plus

The main points of the post I made are that according to the Constitution of Thailand, Thailand is a democracy, and no one should use the constitution (or any part of) to overthrow the government.

Asking that Article 7 is invoked (in order to change the government) is using the constitution to overthrow the government.

In many ways this is one of the more serious charges brought against the Democratic Party, as it does mention that if this is done by a Political party, then the constitutional court should consider dissolving the party. From a previous statement from the OAG, it sounds as though the OAG are considering dropping this charge, in which case it will make a compromise easier.

The full reading of Article 44/5 should read:

Section 44. No candidate nor any person shall commit any act to induce electors to cast a ballot for him or her or other candidate or any political party or to abstain from voting for any candidate or political party by the following means:

(1) Providing, giving, offering, promising to give or preparing to give properties or any other benefits which can be calculated in money value to any person;

(2) Giving, offering or promising to give money, properties or any other benefits whether directly or indirectly to the community, association, foundation, temple, education institution, asylum or any other institution;

(3) Advertising for an election by organizing an entertainment;

(4) Treating or promising to treat any person with meals;

(5) Deceiving, forcing, threatening, intimidating, slandering or inducing the misunderstanding in the popularity of any candidate or political party.

[Plus]

The good thing about democracy is that the power groups behind the parties only get to control the government if the majority of people want them to.

Thailand is not really a democracy as too many people still live under a feudal system and do not understand their responsibilities as citizens. They also do not have access to information, in fact they are denied access to information and brainwashed by government propaganda just like Cubans or North Koreans.

Thaksin's Saturday talk broadcast on every radio channel is a perfect example. In a real democracy opposition parties would be allowed equal opportunity to comment on government's actions.

Another little factoid - Thai government is in the top ten advertisers list, along with Toyota, P&G, Nestle and the likes.

These are three pillars of Thaksin't governement - vote buying, brainwashing propaganda, and populist policies.

[penzman]

Thanks everyone for keeping this thread on topic, a pleasant and informative read.

Couldn't say the same a week ago.

[penzman]

I think it has become painfully clear to everyone Thaksin views Thailand as a parasite views a host. When all that can be extracted is extracted, then move on.

Maybe it was you, someone refered to him before as a "well embeded tick you just can't get rid of"

Ticksin