Election Special – How did we end up here? From Thaksin to today

[Lite Beer]

Election Special – How did we end up here? From Thaksin to today
Phuket Gazette -

PHUKET: Yingluck Shinawatra's journey from political nobody to prime minister was breathtakingly swift. Her premiership's descent into crisis has been just as rapid.

A political neophyte when she took office in 2011, the 46-year-old former business executive surprised many observers by steadying Thailand after years of often bloody political unrest.

Then she leaned over and pushed a button marked:

Self-destruct

Behind Thailand's lurch into its worst crisis in years was a disastrous intervention by Yingluck's billionaire brother Thaksin, who was deposed in a 2006 military coup and now lives abroad to escape a corruption conviction.

Thaksin's meddling turned a bill that would have freed ordinary Thais charged with protest-related crimes into a controversial wider amnesty for politicians such as himself, say senior members of Yingluck's ruling Puea Thai Party.

The passing of the bill last November sparked street protests and unrest that have killed 10 people, wounded hundreds and dramatically changed Yingluck's political fortunes.

A Reuters reconstruction, based on interviews with senior Puea Thai members and its "red shirt" allies, reveals how Thaksin's intervention shattered two years of relative calm.

It also highlights how quickly political missteps can spiral into violence in Thailand, a warning sign ahead of a general election on Sunday that protesters have vowed to disrupt.

On one side is Thaksin and his younger sister Yingluck. Thaksin redrew the political map by courting rural voters in the north and northeast to gain an unbeatable electoral mandate that he then used to advance the interests of major companies, including his own. Thaksin-backed parties have convincingly won every general election since 2001.

On the other are the traditional Bangkok elites threatened by his meteoric rise, mainly the military, palace and bureaucracy, who see Thaksin as corrupt and his sister as his proxy.

Let's push this through

Thaksin once famously described Yingluck as a "clone" who could make decisions on his behalf. Her party's election slogan was "Thaksin thinks, Puea Thai acts".

But after her landslide victory in July 2011, Thailand's first female prime minister often set her own agenda, say analysts. She refused to reshuffle her Cabinet on Thaksin's demand, and deployed her formidable charm to soothe relations with her divisive brother's opponents in the establishment, particularly the military that had removed him from office.

The previous six years of unrest, which culminated in a military crackdown on Thaksin's red-shirted supporters that killed 91 people in 2010, began to fade.

But the self-exiled Thaksin wanted to come home, and would not take no for an answer.

The vehicle for his return would be a draft bill that sailed through the Puea Thai-majority parliament last August. It would grant amnesties to protesters - but not leaders - charged and jailed in waves of unrest between 2006 and 2011.

Before the bill's second reading, Thaksin's aides told Puea Thai MPs that the former prime minister wanted to radically expand it to absolve leaders on both sides, say senior Puea Thai members.

A parliamentary scrutiny committee, also dominated by Puea Thai and its coalition allies, passed a revised draft of the bill on October 18.

The amnesty now extended to murder charges laid against former Democrat Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy, Suthep Thaugsuban, for ordering the 2010 crackdown. Abhisit led an unelected government for nearly three years after a pro-Thaksin administration was removed from office by the courts in 2008.

It also quashed hundreds of corruption cases and nullified the two-year jail sentence against Thaksin, allowing the return of $1.4 billion of his seized wealth – and a ticket back to Thailand.

Yingluck had reservations about the blanket amnesty, particularly about dropping the charges against Abhisit and Suthep, said her chief of staff Suranand Vejjajiva. "But in the end the MPs agreed, 'Let's push this through'," he said.

Growing crisis

The revised bill electrified Thaksin's opponents and split his supporters. Leaders of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), a pro-government red shirt group, soon made public their anger with the party, seeing the new bill's forgiveness of Abhisit and Suthep as a denial of justice for slain protesters. At the same time, small protests by Thaksin's opponents began gathering steam.

More than half of Puea Thai MPs disagreed with the bill, but few dared to speak up, said a senior Puea Thai MP who spoke on condition on anonymity. "The way they put it, if you want to help Thaksin, support the bill. If you don't support the bill, you don't want to help Thaksin."

But Suranand denied the MPs were coerced. "No one put a gun to their head and said, 'You have to vote'," he said.

Even so, many Puea Thai insiders feared Thaksin and his sister were blind to the growing crisis, underestimating the ability of his enemies to exploit public anger against the bill, said the senior party member.

At 4 a.m. on November 1, a buzzer rang through the hall of Thailand's House of Representatives. After 19 hours and the abstention of the Democrats, bleary-eyed MPs unanimously passed the amnesty bill.

Protests against the bill, now headed for the senate, dramatically picked up. On Monday November 4, thousands of largely middle class Bangkokians gathered sporting Thai flag paraphernalia and whistles. Leading the pack was Suthep.

Snowball effect

Faced with public outrage, Yingluck quickly ordered the bill to be pulled from the Senate. Her advisors now spin this as proof that she listens to the public and admits her mistakes, and shift the blame for the bill onto Puea Thai and its MPs.

"As a political party, we didn't anticipate the very negative feedback from the public," Noppadon Pattama, a Puea Thai strategist who advises both Thaksin and Yingluck, told Reuters.

The aborted bill provided Yingluck's long-dormant enemies with the ammunition they needed. On November 12, Suthep resigned from parliament along with eight other Democrat MPs. The protests began their evolution into an uprising against, first, the "Thaksin regime", and then Thailand's system of electoral democracy itself.

"Once they were participating in the rallies against Thaksin, people who were against the bill became people against the system," the Puea Thai MP told Reuters. "They got their critical mass and snowball effect."

Jatuporn Prompan, a UDD leader and senior Puea Thai member, said he could see that Suthep and other establishment figures had long been planning a fresh uprising. He warned party leaders that the amnesty bill was just the trigger they needed.

"Suthep Thaugsuban and his team took two years to prepare for this to happen," Jatuporn Prompan, a leader of the UDD and senior Puea Thai member, told Reuters. "He was preparing with the support of a network of elite bureaucrats."

The protests unleashed by the aborted bill have added to a perfect storm of crisis for Yingluck, who has been a caretaker prime minister - with limited powers - since dissolving parliament on December 9 to call a snap election.

Thailand's anti-corruption commission has launched an impeachment investigation into her role as head of a wasteful and opaque rice-pledging scheme. Farmers waiting payment under the multi-billion-dollar scheme are blocking provincial highways in protest.

Thousands of protesters still occupy major intersections in an attempt to "shut down" Bangkok. The capital is braced for violence during Sunday's election, which the Democrat Party is boycotting.

Protesters want the election postponed until parliament is replaced by an unelected "people's council" to reform Thai politics. They also demand Yingluck's resignation and the exile of the entire Shinawatra clan.

Yingluck refuses to go. Even today, said Suranand, she broadly stands by the amnesty bill that might yet destroy her.

"She sees it as: If you can forgive everyone, and everyone accepts that forgiveness, then you can reset everything and move on," he said. "Of course, it didn't turn out that way."

Source: http://www.phuketgazette.net/thailandnews/2014/Phuket-Gazette-Thailand-News-Election-Special-How-did-we-end-up-here-From-Thaksin-to-today-24479.html

-- Phuket Gazette 2014-02-02

[londonthai]

on a hindsight - her mistake was resigning and dissolving parliament, believing, that it would diffuse situation and that opposition will stick to their word. However, Democrats decided not to contest an election and thus pulling all their power behind suthep. She had a chance to use police and military to remove protesters from the streets, prevent bangkok shutdown and protection for polling stations, voting papers and boxes.

still, it's not an end for her - she will be elected pm for the second term. And it's not end for thaksin.

thailand needs reforms holded up for a generation. Reds and thaksin will play a significant role in it, no matter how the nearest future plays out

Edited February 2, 2014 by londonthai

[whybother]

on a hindsight - her mistake was resigning and dissolving parliament, believing, that it would diffuse situation and that opposition will stick to their word. However, Democrats decided not to contest an election and thus pulling all their power behind suthep. She had a chance to use police and military to remove protesters from the streets, prevent bangkok shutdown and protection for polling stations, voting papers and boxes.

still, it's not an end for her - she will be elected pm for the second term

She didn't resign, and the protesters didn't call for an immediate election.

She was naive if she thought that an election would diffuse the situation. How was it supposed to diffuse the situation when the protesters were demanding that she (and Thaksin) get out of politics?

[ginjag]

on a hindsight - her mistake was resigning and dissolving parliament, believing, that it would diffuse situation and that opposition will stick to their word. However, Democrats decided not to contest an election and thus pulling all their power behind suthep. She had a chance to use police and military to remove protesters from the streets, prevent bangkok shutdown and protection for polling stations, voting papers and boxes.

still, it's not an end for her - she will be elected pm for the second term

Crazy isn't it ??? if then she is elected the courts will most likely take her out with most of the PTP. So what happens then ????

Waste of public money Thailand is short of, What will Issan do when this lot is out ???? who will they vote for the ghosts ???

[DocN]

From Thaksin to today?

This dilemma has not started with Thaksin and it will not end with him.

[Costas2008]

Even today, said Suranand, she broadly stands by the amnesty bill that might yet destroy her.

She never wanted to be a PM, her brother forced her to, for his own benefit.

She dreams of the day that she will be released from the burden and go back to her everyday life.

She knows her capabilities are limited, but she still hangs there, even against her will, but to the command of a self centered man.

[whybother]

From Thaksin to today?

This dilemma has not started with Thaksin and it will not end with him.

The protests since 2005 have mainly been about or heavily involved Thaksin. It would be a huge step towards the end if Thaksin and his family stepped away from politics.

[kurtgruen]

Yep. It all boils down to the Amnesty Bill and she still insists, that it is a good idea.

[londonthai]

after dissolving parliament her duty was to call new election. So money for election is not wasted.

we can only wait for the courts, but the reds won't go away, only because some of them would be disquolified, as they have survived same moves in the past

[focus27]

Some interesting comments. I have often told some Thai friends that Thaksin and the redshirts seem to make unlikely bedfellows and that, apart from the perks of being in power, are ideologically different - somewhat along the lines of my enemy's enemy is my friend. If Thaksin were ever to become a liability, then Thailand would have to face a genuine proletarian revolution. However, where would the money come from? Well, if the foreign supporters of Thaksin also start to see him as a liability, then they could back their redshirts directly. That would lead to the kind of faux revolutions seen across the Arab world. And that would turn the current mess into a full-blown tragedy.

Just saying that there comes a point when a financial asset becomes a political liability.

Just to add, the people of Lanna and Isaan could still support their local politicians - whatever colour they choose to wear - but, honestly, how many prole revolutions have there been around the world that didn't have some covert backing? Can't think of any.

Edited February 2, 2014 by focus27

[geriatrickid]

From Thaksin to today?

This dilemma has not started with Thaksin and it will not end with him.

What? You expect the PDRC and its supporters to abandon a simplistic explanation for a problem that they shared in creating?

Suthep talks of the evil of corruption and yet there he is the poster boy for all that is rotten in Thailand

I don't think your position, even if correct, will be too popular.

[whybother]

after dissolving parliament her duty was to call new election. So money for election is not wasted.

we can only wait for the courts, but the reds won't go away, only because some of them would be disquolified, as they have survived same moves in the past

Why did she bother dissolving parliament when it wasn't going to solve the problems that the anti-government were protesting about?

[Snig27]

on a hindsight - her mistake was resigning and dissolving parliament, believing, that it would diffuse situation and that opposition will stick to their word. However, Democrats decided not to contest an election and thus pulling all their power behind suthep. She had a chance to use police and military to remove protesters from the streets, prevent bangkok shutdown and protection for polling stations, voting papers and boxes.

still, it's not an end for her - she will be elected pm for the second term

Crazy isn't it ??? if then she is elected the courts will most likely take her out with most of the PTP. So what happens then ????

Waste of public money Thailand is short of, What will Issan do when this lot is out ???? who will they vote for the ghosts ???

This democracy thing seems to be quite an issue for some here - a complicated concept. What would you rather do? Maybe install a council appointed by a deeply corrupt former deputy PM with worse democratic credentials than PTP and a human rights record that's as dark as Thaksin? Maybe she should not have called an election? But the problem with that is that it was democratically probably the right thing to do given the vocal dissatisfaction voiced by the whistle blowing Bangkok minority - when there is doubt you go for a mandate, you ask the people. Tricky concept I know, but it works worldwide hence the universal support for this election from the international community. What else would you suggest? Most of Thailand sees Suthep as a raving, dangerous nutter. Given that (and argue it if you want but it's a fact), then maybe he might not be the best person to take control - if we are to avoid a civil war. And he has zero mandate to do so.

Nope, the smart thing to do is to call an election and get the people to decide (and Thailand is not THAT broke - unless Moody's have it wrong). The dumb, dumb, thing was for the opposition to abstain. By doing so they no longer have a right to collectively call themselves anything in a democracy. The Dems have politically ceased to exist today. Idiots.

And even if YS and many PT MPs face legal sanction, the list then ensures that others move up. You are stuck with them.

If Suthep was a band they'd be called The Failures and the past few months would be their Greatest Hits culminating in today.

[Snig27]

after dissolving parliament her duty was to call new election. So money for election is not wasted.

we can only wait for the courts, but the reds won't go away, only because some of them would be disquolified, as they have survived same moves in the past

Why did she bother dissolving parliament when it wasn't going to solve the problems that the anti-government were protesting about?

Can you remind us of the mandate the protesters have? A few thousand noisy people in 6 intersections in Bangkok and two marches with a few hundred thousand - in a country of 70 or so million.

The smart thing to do, given that there was some dissent out there, was to ask the electorate. That's what she did and that was the correct procedure in a democracy.

[londonthai]

Some interesting comments. I have often told some Thai friends that Thaksin and the redshirts seem to make unlikely bedfellows and that, apart from the perks of being in power, are ideologically different - somewhat along the lines of my enemy's enemy is my friend. If Thaksin were ever to become a liability, then Thailand would have to face a genuine proletarian revolution. However, where would the money come from? Well, if the foreign supporters of Thaksin also start to see him as a liability, then they could back their redshirts directly. That would lead to the kind of faux revolutions seen across the Arab world. And that would turn the current mess into a full-blown tragedy.

Just saying that there comes a point when a financial asset becomes a political liability.

proletarian revolution would rather start somewhere else than in thailand. The level of political education and class conscious is very low in thailand, with religion, nationalism, poor education, censorship, semi-feudal social structure playing a big role in shaping thai culture

[Roadman]

after dissolving parliament her duty was to call new election. So money for election is not wasted.

we can only wait for the courts, but the reds won't go away, only because some of them would be disquolified, as they have survived same moves in the past

Why did she bother dissolving parliament when it wasn't going to solve the problems that the anti-government were protesting about?

Can you remind us of the mandate the protesters have? A few thousand noisy people in 6 intersections in Bangkok and two marches with a few hundred thousand - in a country of 70 or so million.

The smart thing to do, given that there was some dissent out there, was to ask the electorate. That's what she did and that was the correct procedure in a democracy.

Correct....in a functioning democracy that is the correct thing to do. Only issue is where is the functioning democracy in Thailand?

[Snig27]

Yep. It all boils down to the Amnesty Bill and she still insists, that it is a good idea.

Nope it all boils down to the fact that she heads an elected government which had a policy. It may not have been a good one or a wise one but it was still a policy. That policy was tested in parliament and did not survive that test. It is called democracy and that's how it works.

Why is this simple stuff so hard for some people?

[whybother]

after dissolving parliament her duty was to call new election. So money for election is not wasted.

we can only wait for the courts, but the reds won't go away, only because some of them would be disquolified, as they have survived same moves in the past

Why did she bother dissolving parliament when it wasn't going to solve the problems that the anti-government were protesting about?

Can you remind us of the mandate the protesters have? A few thousand noisy people in 6 intersections in Bangkok and two marches with a few hundred thousand - in a country of 70 or so million.

The smart thing to do, given that there was some dissent out there, was to ask the electorate. That's what she did and that was the correct procedure in a democracy.

I'm not saying they had a mandate. I'm just asking why she bothered calling an election when it wasn't going to change anything as far as the protesters were concerned. Asking the electorate doesn't answer specific questions. Dissolving parliament whenever people protest isn't the correct procedure in a democracy.

[whybother]

Yep. It all boils down to the Amnesty Bill and she still insists, that it is a good idea.

Nope it all boils down to the fact that she heads an elected government which had a policy. It may not have been a good one or a wise one but it was still a policy. That policy was tested in parliament and did not survive that test. It is called democracy and that's how it works.

Why is this simple stuff so hard for some people?

The only reason that the amnesty bill didn't survive was because of the protests (although it is actually still on the table and can be passed by a vote in parliament ... if there is a parliament in about 120 days now).

[Snig27]

after dissolving parliament her duty was to call new election. So money for election is not wasted.

we can only wait for the courts, but the reds won't go away, only because some of them would be disquolified, as they have survived same moves in the past

Why did she bother dissolving parliament when it wasn't going to solve the problems that the anti-government were protesting about?

Can you remind us of the mandate the protesters have? A few thousand noisy people in 6 intersections in Bangkok and two marches with a few hundred thousand - in a country of 70 or so million.

The smart thing to do, given that there was some dissent out there, was to ask the electorate. That's what she did and that was the correct procedure in a democracy.

Correct....in a functioning democracy that is the correct thing to do. Only issue is where is the functioning democracy in Thailand?

And yet the last election was regarded by observers as relatively clean. The democracy only stops functioning when the elected government is tossed out by a coup or similar.

Who decides whether the government is a good one? A noisy minority (supported last night by sub-machine guns etc) or the people. You don't like 'em? Throw them out via the ballot box. You want reforms? Hold a referendum. The problem is reforms are not what Suthep wants, he just wants power for himself and his backers. There is more likelihood of reform when the government has mandated pressure to comply. However, repeated attempts by PT to advance this democratically have been continuously rebuffed by Suthep - because reform is not part of his agenda, it's power grab using compliant, chanting whistle blowers.

[ginjag]

From Thaksin to today?

This dilemma has not started with Thaksin and it will not end with him.

Maybe not but he put the petrol on the fire to create much of this. out of the kindness of his warm heart for the poor people of Thailand---or his bank.??

[Snig27]

Yep. It all boils down to the Amnesty Bill and she still insists, that it is a good idea.

Nope it all boils down to the fact that she heads an elected government which had a policy. It may not have been a good one or a wise one but it was still a policy. That policy was tested in parliament and did not survive that test. It is called democracy and that's how it works.

Why is this simple stuff so hard for some people?

The only reason that the amnesty bill didn't survive was because of the protests (although it is actually still on the table and can be passed by a vote in parliament ... if there is a parliament in about 120 days now).

And here am I thinking that the media were reporting correctly that the senate refused to pass it. You clearly have better information?

The bill was a stupid thing to do, at least with that scope, and the public uproar was the primary reason the senate dropped it. Once again, that's called democracy and it worked. PT have already said it will not be re-presented.

And if PT was planning to, or if you thought they might, then you vote against them. If they are returned to power, they do - whether you like it or not - have a mandate to proceed with their platform.

[Snig27]

From Thaksin to today?

This dilemma has not started with Thaksin and it will not end with him.

Maybe not but he put the petrol on the fire to create much of this. out of the kindness of his warm heart for the poor people of Thailand---or his bank.??

Have you read any Thai history? Do you know the background to what's happening today? Fact is - like it or not - PT and their predecessors are far and away the most popular political grouping in Thailand. They almost took Bangkok last time too. The bigger problem Thailand needs to resolve is the inability of people who don't win to accept this, as they need to if the country stands any hope of moving forward. That's the petrol on the fire.

[whybother]

And here am I thinking that the media were reporting correctly that the senate refused to pass it. You clearly have better information?

The bill was a stupid thing to do, at least with that scope, and the public uproar was the primary reason the senate dropped it. Once again, that's called democracy and it worked. PT have already said it will not be re-presented.

And if PT was planning to, or if you thought they might, then you vote against them. If they are returned to power, they do - whether you like it or not - have a mandate to proceed with their platform.

After the senate refused it, it went back to parliament and sits there for 180 days, after which time the parliament can pass it with a majority vote.

PT have said that it will be dropped, but they also said that the amnesty bill wouldn't whitewash Thaksin's crimes. Not a very good track record.

[whybother]

From Thaksin to today?

This dilemma has not started with Thaksin and it will not end with him.

Maybe not but he put the petrol on the fire to create much of this. out of the kindness of his warm heart for the poor people of Thailand---or his bank.??

Have you read any Thai history? Do you know the background to what's happening today? Fact is - like it or not - PT and their predecessors are far and away the most popular political grouping in Thailand. They almost took Bangkok last time too. The bigger problem Thailand needs to resolve is the inability of people who don't win to accept this, as they need to if the country stands any hope of moving forward. That's the petrol on the fire.

The people who don't win accept the election results. What they don't accept is when the elected government try to whitewash Thaksin's crimes. Both the PPP and the PTP were accepted until they introduced bills related to Thaksin.

[DirtFarmer]

I tried... I really tried Not to respond to this but it begs swatting at...once again the simplistic view of reform.. the problem is not going to disappear even if the Shins were to step completely out of politics ( which will not happen me thinks).....Thaksin did not invent corruption here.... he was enabled by a system that was basking in it for decades..... this endless demonizing of a single figure in order to keep the hot button burning is the most ridiculous premise to argue... corruption and abuse of power and position ...It is something that is endemic here and has been for a generation...(at least)...it is prevalent in most every walk of life here.. every agency public and private... it just is.. so it cannot be addressed by attacking the most recent or most popular target of the moment but perhaps rather by cognitive thought, education... and personal integrity and a willingness from all the people to reform...that is a huge undertaking... to un-learn something that has been custom forever...?...COME ON... will take at least one generation... these quick fix addicts are either fooling themselves or serving another unveiled agenda waiting in the wings to fill the void should it occur...how in the wide world of sports can we get every corrupt player to reform...? it will not happen in a brief period of time ...it has to start somewhere but to limit the acknowledgement of the cancer by a view of a single tumor is to stick your head even deeper in the sand,,,and ignore the other million festering cells... in the hope that if you can't see THAT tumor you don't have the cancer... yet when you pull your head out of the pit... lo and behold.. there is another tumor ...different face...same trough...progress, innovation, and technology have enabled the masses of people so often limited by lack of status, money, name and other social graces afforded the old money... to participate... but no more.. everybody has a shot now... the field may be becoming a bit more level.. if the writer of this piece would look at all the other times and places in history and the relevance of those historically, he/she might might gain some insight and perspective...and the clarity to know that the very very narrow view only fuels a useless fire.... take the blinders off....and remember that whomever the poster boy for corruption is at the moment won't be down the road...it will be someone else...but if the focus stays only on excising the single tumor,, there will be no success in eradicating the entire disease... polarization through narrow focus targets is the ammunition of those whose only goal is to create and enlarge the divide... there has to be the inclusion of the entire picture and there has to be participation by every person no matter what the color or side they start on...and there has to be an agreement that the end result is more than just a shift in power bases... you CANNOT RELY ON THE WORD OF A SINGLE MAN NOT WHEN YOU ARE DECIDING FOR THE MASSES... gonna be a long time coming when most people cannot see past the end of their own nose over the rim of the noodle bowl...

[Snig27]

And here am I thinking that the media were reporting correctly that the senate refused to pass it. You clearly have better information?

The bill was a stupid thing to do, at least with that scope, and the public uproar was the primary reason the senate dropped it. Once again, that's called democracy and it worked. PT have already said it will not be re-presented.

And if PT was planning to, or if you thought they might, then you vote against them. If they are returned to power, they do - whether you like it or not - have a mandate to proceed with their platform.

After the senate refused it, it went back to parliament and sits there for 180 days, after which time the parliament can pass it with a majority vote.

PT have said that it will be dropped, but they also said that the amnesty bill wouldn't whitewash Thaksin's crimes. Not a very good track record.

So you don't like their track record? You have an option there: vote against them.

[Mentors]

This mess has started long before Thaksin even was born.

[Valentine]

Can you remind us of the mandate the protesters have? A few thousand noisy people in 6 intersections in Bangkok and two marches with a few hundred thousand - in a country of 70 or so million.

The smart thing to do, given that there was some dissent out there, was to ask the electorate. That's what she did and that was the correct procedure in a democracy.

Correct....in a functioning democracy that is the correct thing to do. Only issue is where is the functioning democracy in Thailand?

And yet the last election was regarded by observers as relatively clean. The democracy only stops functioning when the elected government is tossed out by a coup or similar.

Who decides whether the government is a good one? A noisy minority (supported last night by sub-machine guns etc) or the people. You don't like 'em? Throw them out via the ballot box. You want reforms? Hold a referendum. The problem is reforms are not what Suthep wants, he just wants power for himself and his backers. There is more likelihood of reform when the government has mandated pressure to comply. However, repeated attempts by PT to advance this democratically have been continuously rebuffed by Suthep - because reform is not part of his agenda, it's power grab using compliant, chanting whistle blowers.

PTP's previous mandate was to bring back Mr T which seems to have been their main focus & seemingly tried through underhand means right at the last minute. They also had a mandate to tackle corruption which was a spectacular failure considering the mammoth losses the rice scheme has incurred. Winning a "relatively clean election" does not give them the right to absolve people of some very serious crimes.

BTW a few hundred thousand people in a protest march at one time is quite something as I am quite sure the red shirts never managed that many even at their peak considering they were allowed free entry to Bangkok whilst many of the anti govt protesters were blocked from coming.

[pipkins]

From Thaksin to today?

This dilemma has not started with Thaksin and it will not end with him.

What? You expect the PDRC and its supporters to abandon a simplistic explanation for a problem that they shared in creating?

Suthep talks of the evil of corruption and yet there he is the poster boy for all that is rotten in Thailand

I don't think your position, even if correct, will be too popular.

Phuket is the most corrupted part of Thailand after Surathani. The place stinks from top to bottom. Read PG letters and web page. It is a litanly of complaints of corruption, taxi mafia, tuk tuk beating people up on the streets, Organised hits over property, court cases etc. Even had 2 mafia gangs engage in a broad daylight gunfight on the beach... that went unpunished.

Ironically the expats there blame Governer, but the Governer in Phuket is on a death list that is reviewed week by week accoring to what he DOESN'T do. Ie, all the clamp downs fail. So they blame the Gov. instead of the corrupt elites who own phuket.

The bars open all night there as they make their own laws, and many of the elder expats can buy one year visas in beer bars who all act as agents for the lawyers as they get 2,500 commision per visa !!!! total corruption and no need to even try and hide it. In a nutshell the problem in phuket is that the people who complain about it, benefit for it and in anycase blame the wrong people.

This is Dems land. This is K Chuan, Anchalee home and there financial base.

Amnesty Bill is a catch 22 for Suthep and the Courts.

No Amnesty Bill and the Courts have to, by law put few hundred PDRC in prison.. Many for life. They don't do this, then the little respect that anybody has for the laws and constitusion vanishes. = Reds on the streets

Only way they can not go to prison without corruption of courts is Amnesty Bill.

Suthep needs Amnesty bill or will he be dictating court cases on a one by one basis

Voting going well which is a good sign. only affet 12% of the stations. Not a shutdown, picnic, or final victory by any means is it. 10:25am 375 constituencies in #Thailand. In 333 of them, or 88.80%, voting is going ahead - TR @peerawat_KPP