Thaksin Returns As Pm

[Plus]

Slimdog,

Don't you see the irony - invoking an article of Consitution is claimed unconstitutional?

Section 63 - ...... or acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution...

Article 7 IS in Constitution and it could not possible provide for overthrowing of democratic regime.

[Siripon]

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.

Apologies for going off on a tangent for a moment but I have to take issue with this battle of the dictionaries, and in a relevant way.

The power of The King can be expressed in the Thai word พระบารมี pra baramee, the word baramee means influence or power, it can even be translated as clout, though obviously in the case of the king that sounds crude or clumsy; but I don't think any word in English can fully describe pra baramee, the word charisma is plainly wrong.

My point regarding language is there are many words in Thai that cannot be directly translated into English due to cultural factors.

From watching interviews on TV I believe the number of words in the vocabulary range of Wayne Rooney and David Beckham number in the low hundreds.

Back to topic - reading the newspaper tonight my questions regarding the factions were answered, Thaksin said,' Use the khanom,(sweets) wisely, don't gamble them away'.

When will consciences override greed?

[hammered]

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.

If you talk to Thai people about who "x" is you will not get just one answer.

Remember:

a. The Thai word has been translated into English misleadingly.

b. Thaksin said he believed "x" was acting alone.

c. Thaksin said that someone wanted to be PM who was outside the constitution, which may have also been a slip.

[Plus]

Yes, that's what was reported today. "Proxy war" was reported last Friday.

Senator Chrimsak claims to know who that person is.

Oh, never mind, it will come out sooner or later.

[hammered]

Yes, that's what was reported today. "Proxy war" was reported last Friday.

Senator Chrimsak claims to know who that person is.

Oh, never mind, it will come out sooner or later.

Just trying to give the clues that matter. Read between the lines. Or if you know some Thai people who should be in the know well enough have a chat with them. I dont think names are going to appear on this board right now. But bear in mind there is some disagreement about who the actual "X" is but there doesnt seem much disagreement about the faction opposing Mr. Thaksin. Well that is from what I have heard anyway.

[Martin]

'plus', in post #1078, said:

"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."

Although I think these points are both a bit over-exaggerated, they are the key to the present situation. And will be with us for decades, maybe generations, yet.

I have been reading Mulder's book "Thai Images", in which he looks at how Thai pupils and students get their understanding of Thai society presented to them in the schools, and by the media, and by the Government.

It shows very clearly that the Thai citizenry are but halfway along the road to being an informed, participatory democracy (which is in the first point made by 'plus').

And it shows how the Government's (and many academics') wish to keep the citizenry in its present (or slightly former??!!) passive state.

I wonder what the trainee-teachers in the Universities are making of all this, and how it will affect what they pass on to the next generation, compared to what was (and was not) passed on to them.

In the political/governmental world there is a concept of "Unforeseen Consequences".

So often, new regulations and laws don't bring about what was expected.

It may be that Thaksin's masterful analysis and implementation of what was needed to get enormous power has just had the effect of getting the country to search for a way of ensuring that no one person ever gets so much power ever again.

But, to keep things in proportion, Thaksin is a very mild manipulator, compared to Bush and Blair, who are supposed to be restrained by more mature democracies.

Thaksin only tried to line his pockets by flogging off a piece of the country's infrastructure to some mates down the road.

He hasn't manipulated the country into an evil, shameful war.

In UK terms, he is "an Arthur Daley, not an Attila The Hun".

[chownah]

[

Thailand is not really a democracy ..................."

I think that Thailand is a democracy....but it is not a perfect one. I don't think there is any country in the world that meets your strict criteria for being considerd a democracy. I think what you are describing is an ideal democracy which in fact has never been established here on earth....as far as I know.

[hammered]

'plus', in post #1078, said:

"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."

Although I think these points are both a bit over-exaggerated, they are the key to the present situation. And will be with us for decades, maybe generations, yet.

I have been reading Mulder's book "Thai Images", in which he looks at how Thai pupils and students get their understanding of Thai society presented to them in the schools, and by the media, and by the Government.

It shows very clearly that the Thai citizenry are but halfway along the road to being an informed, participatory democracy (which is in the first point made by 'plus').

The Thaksin phenomenon is definitely part of a transition in Thai politics. How it will go we will probably get to witness. It is all starting to remind me of stage theories of history.

And it shows how the Government's (and many academics') wish to keep the citizenry in its present (or slightly former??!!) passive state.

I wonder what the trainee-teachers in the Universities are making of all this, and how it will affect what they pass on to the next generation, compared to what was (and was not) passed on to them.

In the political/governmental world there is a concept of "Unforeseen Consequences".

So often, new regulations and laws don't bring about what was expected.

It may be that Thaksin's masterful analysis and implementation of what was needed to get enormous power has just had the effect of getting the country to search for a way of ensuring that no one person ever gets so much power ever again.

But, to keep things in proportion, Thaksin is a very mild manipulator, compared to Bush and Blair, who are supposed to be restrained by more mature democracies.

Thaksin only tried to line his pockets by flogging off a piece of the country's infrastructure to some mates down the road.

He hasn't manipulated the country into an evil, shameful war.

In UK terms, he is "an Arthur Daley, not an Attila The Hun".

[John K]

As long as charisma came up, I have located a list of possible candidates.

So that list may include the following top 10 people who may have more charisma than Thaksin:

(note: They may not be in Thailand at the moment)

Gary Glitter

David Letterman

Saddam Hussain

Michael Jackson

Peewee Herman

Nongsai

sriracha john

Plus

Any former member of “The Spice Girls”

Dr. Jack Kevorkian

[penzman]

Please try and use the quote function, some posts get quite confusing.

Click on QUOTE below the post you want to quote, then ADD REPLY. You can also quote many posts and then ADD REPLY.

Also ADD REPLY allows you to change your font color in order to make it easier to differentiate your comments from the quoted text. FAST REPLY does not allow this.

Thanks

Penz

[penzman]

Please try and use the quote function, some posts get quite confusing.

Click on QUOTE below the post you want to quote, then ADD REPLY. You can also quote many posts and then ADD REPLY.

Also ADD REPLY allows you to change your font color in order to make it easier to differentiate your comments from the quoted text. FAST REPLY does not allow this.

Try it, quite easy.

Thanks

Penz

You can also quote posts this way from pages you have previously viewed and QUOTED in the same or different windows.

[penzman]

A very interesting article from The Nation

Name names,premier is told

Prem not target of charge, say Sudarat, Chavalit

Pressure grew yesterday for caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to name the alleged mastermind behind what he termed as a plot to topple him by unconstitutional means.

Thai Rak Thai Party deputy leader Sudarat Keyuraphan and former prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh dismissed widespread speculation that Thaksin was referring to Privy Council president General Prem Tinsulanonda.

Sudarat said she believed the speculation was aimed at tarnishing the ruling party.

Meanwhile, security has been stepped up for the premier because of fears that certain elements angry with him might resort to violence, a security source said yesterday.

Thaksin has drawn flak rather than sympathy after revealing the alleged plot to overthrow him unconstitutionally. He made the remarks while addressing a gathering of top bureaucrats at Government House on Thursday.

He spent yesterday keeping tight-lipped on a burning question - who is the charismatic individual who wants to replace him by pushing for a royal intervention under Article 7 of the Constitution?

"I will one day sing for you guys," he said, dodging reporters pestering him with questions surrounding the mysterious man out to get his job.

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said Thaksin risked driving a wedge in society if he failed to reveal the identity of his charismatic rival.

"In making such an inflammatory statement, Thaksin may aim at flaunting his power but ends up fanning the climate of distrust which is not conducive to ending the political crisis," he said.

Abhisit said Thaksin was trying to distract the public from the root cause of the political turmoil - the tampering with the system of checks and balances, and not the usurping of power from an elected government as he alleged.

Continued here on The Nation's website

Thaksin urged to name foe

'Charismatic' enemy claim draws flak

POST REPORTERS

Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's remarks about a mysterious ''charismatic individual'' have landed him in trouble, amid increasing demands that he identify who he means.The remarks set off speculation that he was referring to Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, chief of the Privy Council, who is well regarded by the public. Mr Thaksin, who has made similar allegations twice in less than a week, dodged questions about the individual. On Thursday he said the unnamed person was at work to oust him from office. He made the comment during a meeting with top government officials, provincial governors, and military leaders at Government House.

A source close to Gen Prem said the general was taken by surprise by the remarks. According to the source, the Privy Council chairman, who was former army chief and former prime minister, did not think he was the one meant by Mr Thaksin, for he was neither charismatic nor involved in politics.

''Gen Prem is puzzled and wonders why Mr Thaksin would say something like that,'' said the source, who added the prime minister was wrong to assume he did not have Gen Prem's support.

The source said, however, that Mr Thaksin's remarks would add fuel to the political fire and undermine himself.

Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva was among critics who demanded Mr Thaksin clear the air.

He said the prime minister should say who he meant so the allegations could be tested.

At the same time, Democrat deputy secretary-general Thavorn Senniem urged the prime minister to say if he was referring to ''a prominent figure widely respected by people of Songkhla''. Although Mr Thavorn did not name names, it was understood he referred to Gen Prem who is a Songkhla native.

Government sources were saying that two top legal experts, Borwornsak Uwanno and Visanu Krue-ngarm, resigned from the government after being lobbied by this charismatic figure, he said.

''If he [Mr Thaksin] has the courage, he should say what the organisation or who the individual is,'' said Mr Thavorn.

''If we look back, we'll see constant attacks on the Privy Council chief. The government has never found the people responsible for the bomb explosion (at Gen Prem's residence).

''He is the target of constant attacks because it is believed that he stands in the government's way,'' said Mr Thavorn, an ex-MP for Songkhla, referring to the explosion at Gen Prem's Sisao Theves residence in March this year.

Outgoing Bangkok Senator Sophon Supapong said Mr Thaksin's comments sowed hatred and enmity in society, and warned the caretaker prime minister to watch his mouth.

Nipon Boonyamanee, a former MP for Songkhla, said Mr Thaksin was causing disunity and division in society, despite saying he wanted the opposite.

''People in Songkhla have started questioning if he means the very person they respect and admire. He'd better make it clear,'' said Mr Nipon.

Outgoing Senator Chirmsak Pinthong said Mr Thaksin meant ''outside parliament'' rather than outside the constitution.

In his Thursday comments, Mr Thaksin said certain individuals and entities which he branded as ''extra-constitutional'' were interfering with agencies set up under the constitution.

Meanwhile, Gen Pongthep Thesprateep, a close aide to Gen Prem, dismissed reports that Mr Thaksin was referring to Gen Prem.

''It's not something a prime minister would say or do. With his political maturity, I don't think he means Gen Prem,'' he said.

Armed forces leaders, however, declined to comment.

A group of senators yesterday sent a letter to Mr Thaksin, urging him to take responsibility for his words by identifying the person he believed wanted to topple him.

Deputy Thai Rak Thai leader Sudarat Keyuraphan questioned the Democrat party's motive in involving Gen Prem in the debate.

''The Democrat party must say what has led it to identify the person as Gen Prem. But I think the Democrats have nothing in mind other than to discredit Thai Rak Thai,'' she said.

Meanwhile, the People's Alliance for Democracy, which recently resumed its campaign against Mr Thaksin, will next week lodge a complaint with police against Mr Thaksin for malfeasance in connection with his remarks.

Media firebrand Sondhi Limthongkul said Mr Thaksin claimed an individual was trying to topple democracy and the constitution and yet did nothing.

He also called on Mr Thaksin to make it clear who, or what institutions he meant.

''Does he mean Gen Prem or the courts which are resolving the political crisis,'' Mr Sondhi told last night's Muang Thai Rai Sapda forum at Lumpini Park which drew about 500 people.

Bangkok Post

http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/01Jul2006_news01.php

[penzman]

TRT members jumping ship and now job offers from Thaksin turned down

Chavalit says no to offer for him to lead poverty fight

Former prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh said Friday that he had rejected his appointment as head the Centre for the government's Fight Against Poverty because he wanted to focus on a non-political job.

Chavalit said he decided not to accept the job because he was working for the General Prem Tinsulanonda Foundation.

Chavalit, who served as a deputy prime minister in an early administration led by Thaksin Shinawatra, was recently appointed as chairman of the centre.

The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30007723

[penzman]

And, some 20 foreign countries have asked REAL explanations on the political crisis by metting Democrat leader Abhisit.

DEMOCRAZY foreigners.

Has emperor T lost all credibility abroad?

Abhisit briefs political attaches from 20 countries

Political attaches from 20 countries met Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Friday for a briefing on political situation, the party spokesman said.

Democrat spokesman Ong-art Klampaiboon said Abhisit met the envoys and foreign reporters at the party for about one and a half hours.

They included political attaches of China, Japan, France, Sweden, Italy, United Kingdom, Malaysia and India.

Ong-art said the meeting was held because political attaches of some countries asked the party to brief them on the charges against the Democrat.

He said Abhisit explained to the envoys and foreign journalists as to why the Democrat faced the chares and how the party got involved and told that the current political crisis happened from the unrighteous dissolution of the House.

Ong-art said the envoys also asked Abhisit how the Democrat would deal with the situation in the deep South if it became the leader of the next government. Abhisit replied that the Democrat would make the problems in the deep South a public agenda.

The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30007710

[Martin]

".....the current political crisis happened from the unrighteous dissolution of the House."

"Chavalit said he decided not to accept the job because he was working for the General Prem Tinsulanonda Foundation."

"...dodging reporters pestering him with questions surrounding the mysterious man out to get his job."

I get the impression that Thaksin is beginning to fray at the edges.

A flurry of little jabs from all directions will soon have him looking 'not up to it' and his wife will take him away 'for a much-needed rest'.

[penzman]

This evening, Sondhi was showing clips of Thaksin's last meeting on Thursday with government officials. He sure was making some strange gestures, putting on his glasses and taking them off right away, excessive eye blinking etc, desperately trying to convince what looked like a partly deceived and "I've been forced to come here" crowd, give or take a few worshipers.

Looks like he's about to crack, grating that last piece of cheese left up his skull.

[John K]

A few things I want to point out here on Thaksin’s vague comments on charisma.

Newt Gingrich (Former speaker of the house USA) used this tactic to sew confusion or if you would stir the pot, then never clarifying what he meant when asked. Because of his position as 3rd on the power ladder in the USA his word was taken with great weight.

Possibility #1;

It would appear that Thaksin is trying to use the power of suggestion here. I have to go back and carefully read through this huge thread and find his comments. But in any case, he is far from expert at using suggestions. As far as I know you can count the number of experts in Thailand with your fingers and still have some fingers left over. It would appear he is trying to cause suspicion between his rivals hoping for infighting and let them destroy themselves. If he is indeed using this as a tactic he may be at the bottom of his barrel of options.

Possibility #2;

This could be the early signs of mental illness quite possibly schizophrenia. Unable to accurately name his adversary, and if and when he does it may be impossible to substantiate his claim. Consider that roughly for the last eight months his ability to simply squash his opposition has been eroding and it is quite discomforting for him I am sure. He finds himself impotent in that he does not have complete control as he once did. His sudden volley of lawsuits suggests desperation. The fact that the courts are starting to look at his lawsuits in a different light also makes him feel more isolated. This is not to mention the pending criminal case against him. He was no longer able to suppress it and it adds to his feeling of impotence.

Possibility #3;

Things are much worse for Thaksin than s generally know. The people who once stood by him are now taking a wait and see position rater than blindly following him. Their survival instinct is kicking in and Thaksin does not like it. Several have left already and the halls at the government house that once has smiling and happy faces are now filled with faces of anxiety and desperation. I think it is fair to assume that the public may only know about 10% of the dealings of Thaksin at this point. If that much turbulence is visible, imagine what is going on below the surface. If you will recall about September or October last year all the things Thaksin was trying to keep below the surface finally broke through. I made a post to that effect way back then and was greeted with doubt and skepticism about the likelihood of any change.

As many of you know what I do as a profession, you should know that a big part of it is reading body language. Body language does not lie in that it is spoken by the subconscious. The subconscious is incapable of lies.

Over the past seven or eight months I have been watching the Thais I pass on the street and the ones I know. The smile on their faces has disappeared and is now replaced with a face of concern. When I deliberately smile at them to solicit a response, the number of smile replies has dwindled to near nothing. The replies I got were forced and not natural. The way they walk and act is reflective of stress and anxiety and not of contentment. There is also a sense of helplessness. Although Thais by nature are kind, loving, and caring people, they can’t hide what they are enduring emotionally. The last time I saw the smiles return was when Thaksin announced he was quitting. Thais are natural at reading body language, it took me a solid year to master it. Because they are natural at it their subconscious minds are communicating as they pass each other on the street. The messages they are sending each other are not good. This whole episode if not resolved quickly could leave several people with emotional scars. Thaksin is doing far more harm to Thailand that just the country, he is hurting the Thai people too. For the pro Thaksin people who read and contribute to this thread, take a look around and ask yourself where have the smile gone and why. Then ask yourself if it is worth it.

Edited July 1, 2006 by john Krukowski

[Jai Dee]

Senator-elect Rossana Tositrakul calls for fairness in a poll fraud inquiry

Senator-elect Rossana Tositrakul (รสนา โตสิตระกูล) calls on the Election Commission (EC) to treat her fairly in its investigation on allegations she had breached election rules.

Ms. Rossana, elected in Bangkok in April, is one of the 37 winners of upper house seats yet to be endorsed by the EC.

Ms. Rossana denied Paruay Chansakul (พารวย จันทร์สกุล)’s accusation that she had taken advantage of other candidates by posting her biography and achievements on a website. She alleged Mr. Paruay had taken information about her from an old website which had been closed and changed some dates to make it look like she had broken the rules before filing his complaint with the EC. The election law bars campaigning by senate candidates.

Ms. Rossana sued Mr. Paruay for defamation at the Criminal Court yesterday.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 01 July 2006

[hammered]

This evening, Sondhi was showing clips of Thaksin's last meeting on Thursday with government officials. He sure was making some strange gestures, putting on his glasses and taking them off right away, excessive eye blinking etc, desperately trying to convince what looked like a partly deceived and "I've been forced to come here" crowd, give or take a few worshipers.

Looks like he's about to crack, grating that last piece of cheese left up his skull.

He sure is under more pressure than everyone else, and every time he tries to relieve it with a new counteroffensive it either seems to go wrong or be immediately countered by others depending on your perspective. it looks like the pressure has been ratcheted up since then too.

Being asked to give the name must be an impossible position he has been manouvered into. Either, depending on your perspective, the person doesnt really exist, which makes it hard to name them or they are indeed very powerful and virtually impossible to name. I wonder what life is like in the shinawatra household at the moment.

[ando]

I have to wonder if the elusive charismatic person is not just some kind of a red herring to divert attention from more important matters? It certainly seems to have captured the publics imagination though. In the end that person will be whoever Thaksin says he is. Its really just a non-issue that invites speculation. Another diversion in this ongoing soap opera.

Now getting back to one of the real issues at hand, consider this potential future scenario.--

Five or 10 years down the track a real close election ensues. The public are strongly divided and it could go either way, but the polls are showing a narrow win by the Democrats. TRT wants to buy some time and go for another election several months down the line. So they simply pull their candidates in their most secure seats in order to deny the Democrats a win under the 20% rule.

By-elections are run and a couple of seats go to the Democrats, but in others the people wont budge and no candidate can be elected. No government can be formed and a constitutional crisis again ensues.

This is not democracy. This is simply twigging the legal technicalities in order to hinder democracy and gain some political advantage for a political party. It doesn't matter who does it, its still not in the spirit of the democratic process.

If the Constitutional Court finds that the Democrats acted within their rights to pull their candidates and to conspire with other parties to do the same, then it opens up a strategic avenue to potentially cause anarchy in the future. I doubt any thinking person would believe that all political parties of the future would be so ethical so as not to exploit such an opportunity if the need arose. This is a loophole in the electoral process that needs to be closed for the good of the nation. Right now the court has before it a case of grave significance for the future of democracy in Thailand. The precedent they set now may well have ramifications for decades or even centuries for the country.

[lukamar]

.

As many of you know what I do as a profession, you should know that a big part of it is reading body language. Body language does not lie in that it is spoken by the subconscious. The subconscious is incapable of lies.

The last time I saw the smiles return was when Thaksin announced he was quitting.

[For the pro Thaksin people who read and contribute to this thread, take a look around and ask yourself where have the smile gone and why./color]

You forgot one.... Possibility #1; None of the above.

I'm just guessing that your "Research" was done in greater Bangkok, if it was conducted farther afield in the North or Northeast you would have seen the exact opposite reaction from the feedback I got at the time.

If the smiles have gone outside of Bangkok it's not because of your hated nemesis. It's because they feel that a mob in bangkok has rendered their vote useless and may once again be ruled buy a group that has never listened to their needs as the TRT has.

John as much as you want to put the blame for all of Thailand's problems on TS, things like corruption and politicians lining their pockets has been deep seeded and was there long before him and will remain after he is long gone. The next group, with or without TS, will do exactly the same but may be more secretive about it now. When the barrel of apples is rotten from the bottom up to the top, throwing one or two out will make no difference and topping it up with a fresh ones will just get you newer rotten apples. To get true and decent reform you need to clean house alright, from the PM to the land clerk who wants a few baht to process your stuff. Next time you boil water look into the pot, it boils from the bottom - not from the top, just like corruption.

[lukamar]

Five or 10 years down the track a real close election ensues. The public are strongly divided and it could go either way, but the polls are showing a narrow win by the Democrats. TRT wants to buy some time and go for another election several months down the line. So they simply pull their candidates in their most secure seats in order to deny the Democrats a win under the 20% rule.

By-elections are run and a couple of seats go to the Democrats, but in others the people wont budge and no candidate can be elected. No government can be formed and a constitutional crisis again ensues.

This is not democracy. This is simply twigging the legal technicalities in order to hinder democracy and gain some political advantage for a political party. It doesn't matter who does it, its still not in the spirit of the democratic process.

If the Constitutional Court finds that the Democrats acted within their rights to pull their candidates and to conspire with other parties to do the same, then it opens up a strategic avenue to potentially cause anarchy in the future. I doubt any thinking person would believe that all political parties of the future would be so ethical so as not to exploit such an opportunity if the need arose. This is a loophole in the electoral process that needs to be closed for the good of the nation. Right now the court has before it a case of grave significance for the future of democracy in Thailand. The precedent they set now may well have ramifications for decades or even centuries for the country.

Ando I also see a problem in the future. In Canada there are a lot of parties. Canada's version of the EC only recognizes those that receive a certain percentage of the popular vote in every federal election. Some years ago the NDP, 4th largest party, who normally held 10-20 seats lost their official party status because of a landslide vote that got the government party somewhere around 60% and 40% for the main opposition party, leaving the NDP with 1 seat but not enough popular vote%. A similar system, like the one now in place for party funds in Thailand, could be setup where non runners would loose their official status and the perks that go along with winning a percentage of the vote, like being able to use the name of the party for certain things, like filing law suits.

[Jai Dee]

There's an interesting editorial in The Nation today.

Look here.

[John K]

There has been a lot of talk about the courts ruling on The April elections.

Does anyone have the English transcript of the ruling or a link to it? The same for other documents of relevance discussed in this thread.

I think there may be too much speculation on less than perfect facts in this thread.

[tettyan]

This is not democracy. This is simply twigging the legal technicalities in order to hinder democracy and gain some political advantage for a political party. It doesn't matter who does it, its still not in the spirit of the democratic process.

If the Constitutional Court finds that the Democrats acted within their rights to pull their candidates and to conspire with other parties to do the same, then it opens up a strategic avenue to potentially cause anarchy in the future. I doubt any thinking person would believe that all political parties of the future would be so ethical so as not to exploit such an opportunity if the need arose. This is a loophole in the electoral process that needs to be closed for the good of the nation. Right now the court has before it a case of grave significance for the future of democracy in Thailand. The precedent they set now may well have ramifications for decades or even centuries for the country.

I am somewhat sympathetic with your concerns about this loophole, but the fact is, under existing laws, the Democrats didn't do anything wrong with the boycott itself. Rather, I think dissolving the Democrats on the charge of boycotting the election (the other charges are another matter, of course) itself would be setting a dangerous precedent - i.e., making up new laws as you go along, and the dangerous implications this has for the rule of law in general. Yes, the 20% rule can be problematic, but punishing the Democrats the way the EC suggests is the wrong way to go about fixing it. Let the current crisis work its course first. Then when all is settled, let the new government amend the law so that this loophole is closed. I personally suggest lowering the victory threshold for lone candidates to 10%.

Edited July 1, 2006 by tettyan

[hammered]

I have to wonder if the elusive charismatic person is not just some kind of a red herring to divert attention from more important matters? It certainly seems to have captured the publics imagination though. In the end that person will be whoever Thaksin says he is. Its really just a non-issue that invites speculation. Another diversion in this ongoing soap opera.

Now getting back to one of the real issues at hand, consider this potential future scenario.--

Five or 10 years down the track a real close election ensues. The public are strongly divided and it could go either way, but the polls are showing a narrow win by the Democrats. TRT wants to buy some time and go for another election several months down the line. So they simply pull their candidates in their most secure seats in order to deny the Democrats a win under the 20% rule.

By-elections are run and a couple of seats go to the Democrats, but in others the people wont budge and no candidate can be elected. No government can be formed and a constitutional crisis again ensues.

This is not democracy. This is simply twigging the legal technicalities in order to hinder democracy and gain some political advantage for a political party. It doesn't matter who does it, its still not in the spirit of the democratic process.

If the Constitutional Court finds that the Democrats acted within their rights to pull their candidates and to conspire with other parties to do the same, then it opens up a strategic avenue to potentially cause anarchy in the future. I doubt any thinking person would believe that all political parties of the future would be so ethical so as not to exploit such an opportunity if the need arose. This is a loophole in the electoral process that needs to be closed for the good of the nation. Right now the court has before it a case of grave significance for the future of democracy in Thailand. The precedent they set now may well have ramifications for decades or even centuries for the country.

However, whatever comes of this current impasse everyone it seems is now agreed on electoral reform. I dont doubt that there will be changes to make the scenario you suggest at least more difficult. The problem with electoral reform at the moment is that it will be reactive and address the problems seen. There will no doubt be other potential problems from a reformed electoral system while the conflicts and political transitions remain.

Ethically I personally also see nothing wrong with people not voting, spoiling a paper or parties not standing for elections. Democracy is about choices and in many countries the above happen. More to the point though are these things illegal in Thailand? Constitutonally it seems in Thailand spoiling papers and not standing for election are not overtly banned. That is not to say a court cannot interpret a variety of actions as being unconstitutional if it takes a mind to. Most laws come down to judges making calls on interpretation at some point. Lets not foget how Bush won in 2000 as an outside example. And in Thailand, even not voting carries no real personal punishment, which would affect most, just some political ones.

[chownah]

"

I am somewhat sympathetic with your concerns about this loophole, but the fact is, under existing laws, the Democrats didn't do anything wrong with the boycott itself.

.............."

I guess it all depends on how the courts interpret the law. Interpretations of law are not restricted only to the type of logic implicit in the term "the fact is"....maybe this is the way they should be interpreted but in the real world it is not always the way used.

[penzman]

From The Nation's main page My mistake, from Bangkok Post's main page.

For the second time in less than a week, caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra mentioned a “charismatic individual”, who he branded as “extra-constitutional” and said was interfering with or manipulating agencies set up under the constitution. Mr Thaksin also alleged that this “charismatic individual” was behind the successive resignation of two government legal experts, Borwornsak Uwanno and Visanu Krue-ngarm.

I'm not sure about the charismatic part but you'd swear Thaksin is talking about himself.

[ando]

As I see it there are two levels of exploitation available re the 20% law.

1. A party may pull their candidate in a very secure seat in an effort to prevent their opposition from forming a legitimate government.

Probably nothing really illegal about this as as some posters here have pointed out, its a parties legal right to choose to run a candidate or not.

2. A major party can seek to influence smaller parties, through collusion, to withdraw candidates in certain electorates with INTENT to ensure an opposition candidate with less than 20% of the vote is not entitled to represent the electorate. AND, such collusion is carried out with INTENT to prevent the formation of government by an opposition party that would otherwise have that entitlement.

Such a situation is obviously a little more serious than that outlined in example 1 of simply not running a candidate. It amounts to a conspiracy to derail the democratic process through collusion between parties.

I believe it is a situation as outlined in example 2 above that the Democrats are charges with.

[John K]

I think Thaksin must justify why he dissolved Parliament to begin with. It is obvious it was self serving and not for the benefit of the country. Without that justification reason, it would add support to the democrats for not wanting to play Thaksin’s game. Hence the April 2nd action actually helped to strengthen democracy and country and not the opposite.

Cause and effect here guys! Go up one event.