If Yingluck is indicted, major players will have to talk

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
If Yingluck is indicted, major players will have to talk
Jintana Panyaarvudh



BANGKOK: -- All stakeholders in Thai politics have challenges awaiting after the Constitutional Court ruled last week by six to three to nullify the February 2 election.

For the Election Commission (EC), it will be an uphill task to hold a lawful and fair election and one that is acceptable to all sides while the political impasse continues.

The EC, which tried but failed to set up talks between key players, has no choice but to try again until the stakeholders reach an agreement so the poll can be conducted peacefully.

To achieve this, the EC needs to ensure anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) protesters do not disrupt candidate registration and ballot casting in an attempt to prevent a new poll being stymied.

The charter court ruled on Friday that the election must be held on the same date in all 375 constituencies, which means there must be candidates for all seats.

In the annulled February 2 election, 28 constituencies in the South had no candidates due to obstruction from anti-election protesters.

Moreover, the EC needs to urge the opposition Democrat Party to field candidates.

This may not be difficult, as it appears that the party is ready to return to contest ballots.

However for the Democrats, deciding on whether to run or not is causing a dilemma. Legally, the party risks losing its official status if it decides to boycott the poll again.

The Political Party Act stipulates that any party which boycotts two consecutive elections or fails to contest once in an eight-year period will lose its political status.

However, some argue that since the February 2 poll was nullified it cannot be counted as an election.

That legal aspect is not the main concern for the Democrats. The harder part will be deciding whether to run in a fresh poll before national reform occurs.

Can the party justify running in a new election and give a satisfactory reason to the "great mass of people" behind the PDRC and its leader Suthep Thaugsuban, who wants to initiate national reforms before an election?

The PDRC and the Democrats have common supporters.

Most members of the Democrat Party reportedly favour running in a new election as some fear they could lose mass support to rivals if they call another boycott.

Judging by the latest proposal by party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, who has urged the caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Suthep to engage in dialogue, the country's oldest party wants to take part in the next poll.

The Democrat leader realises that if an agreement cannot be reached between Yingluck and Suthep or Suthep and Yingluck's brother, ex-premier Thaksin , the impasse will continue and there will be no sign of it ending.

The party is set to discuss the matter on Saturday - the same day that the PDRC has called for mass rallies nationwide against the new election.

But it's unlikely that the party will be able to make a decision so soon.

For the caretaker government, how to survive indictments by independent agencies are its main concern.

The PM's fate is in the National Anti-Corruption Commission's hands.

Yingluck looks set to face an indictment over her alleged negligence in relation to graft in the rice-pledging scheme next month. If she is found guilty she has to be suspended from duty.

With the premier's status at risk of being hit by indictment, the ruling Pheu Thai Party fears this could lead to an intervention and a "change" in the status quo.

In other words, it could pave the way for a non-elected government running the country with a national reform agenda before a new election is held, as the PDRC is demanding.

The government is thus doing everything to hold a fresh poll as soon as possible. To achieve this, the party will have to talk with the PDRC, the Democrats and the EC. So, the only way to unlock the political stand-off is negotiations between the key stakeholders.

But first things first. All parties concerned need to ditch their personal conditions, which seem self-serving, before the talks, otherwise the stalemate will never see a breakthrough.


-- The Nation 2014-03-25

[Local Drunk]

Ermmm, What happened to her wheel chair?

[mrwebb8825]

and on another note, it looks like "Miss Poo" has healed very quickly from her fractured bone/torn ligament that she faked for sympathy and has ditched the wheelchair.

ETA: semi-ninja'd by a local drunk

Edited March 25, 2014 by mrwebb8825

[NongKhaiKid]

" All parties need to ditch their person conditions " .

Yes right and good luck with that.

[Tokay]

Whatever. Second verse, same as the first. This is the song that never ends.

[Publicus]

The PDRC needs to recognize the people reject a "People's Council" because they oppose an appointed politburo type of ruling body. Abhisit and the DP need to recognize and respect that the people want a safe election that is clean. PTP need to agree reforms will be promulgated. Reforms need to be discussed openly, by an elected parliament of the two leading parties along with the other parties.

Reforms are meaningless if only one side elbows its way to state power, once there gathers up its own incestuous grouping, itself only writes new laws and rules that only it likes, then imposes them from their exclusive perch down onto the huddled masses who otherwise don't get any say.

One sided reforms enabled via a power grab by a closed clique is a guarantee of failure, so people hollering for "reform" need to be inclusive rather than exclusive, play well with others, proceed mutually and cooperatively, constructively, rather than approach the issues as the lord and master who will purify society by expelling from the country certain Thais they don't like, and by further imposing themselves on the others.

The PDRC and the DP need to cease their absolute, zero-sum approach, stop their win-lose destructive attitude and their punishing obey-disobey mentality

Edited March 25, 2014 by Publicus

[whybother]

The PDRC needs to recognize the people reject a "People's Council" because they oppose an appointed politburo type of ruling body. Abhisit and the DP need to recognize and respect that the people want a safe election that is clean. PTP need to agree reforms will be promulgated. Reforms need to be discussed openly, by an elected parliament of the two leading parties along with the other parties.

Reforms are meaningless if only one side elbows its way to state power, once there gathers up its own incestuous grouping, itself only writes new laws and rules that only it likes, then imposes them from their exclusive perch down onto the huddled masses who otherwise don't get any say.

One sided reforms enabled via a power grab by a closed clique is a guarantee of failure, so people hollering for "reform" need to be inclusive rather than exclusive, play well with others, proceed mutually and cooperatively, constructively, rather than approach the issues as the lord and master who will purify society by expelling certain people they don't like and by further imposing themselves on the others.

The PTP did well with reforms last year. The Amnesty bill seemed to be well accepted. I'm sure they can be trusted to put forward unbiased reforms if they're back in government.

[Publicus]

The PDRC needs to recognize the people reject a "People's Council" because they oppose an appointed politburo type of ruling body. Abhisit and the DP need to recognize and respect that the people want a safe election that is clean. PTP need to agree reforms will be promulgated. Reforms need to be discussed openly, by an elected parliament of the two leading parties along with the other parties.

Reforms are meaningless if only one side elbows its way to state power, once there gathers up its own incestuous grouping, itself only writes new laws and rules that only it likes, then imposes them from their exclusive perch down onto the huddled masses who otherwise don't get any say.

One sided reforms enabled via a power grab by a closed clique is a guarantee of failure, so people hollering for "reform" need to be inclusive rather than exclusive, play well with others, proceed mutually and cooperatively, constructively, rather than approach the issues as the lord and master who will purify society by expelling certain people they don't like and by further imposing themselves on the others.

The PTP did well with reforms last year. The Amnesty bill seemed to be well accepted. I'm sure they can be trusted to put forward unbiased reforms if they're back in government.

All sides need to learn from the insanity that has brought the country to this point, which is a precipice, to include the usual suspect posters here. If the Nation can learn, so can the usual suspects.

[whybother]

The PTP did well with reforms last year. The Amnesty bill seemed to be well accepted. I'm sure they can be trusted to put forward unbiased reforms if they're back in government.

All sides need to learn from the insanity that has brought the country to this point, which is a precipice, to include the usual suspect posters here. If the Nation can learn, so can the usual suspects.

The Thaksin proxy parties haven't learned from the past. The yellow shirts started protesting against PPP because they tried to whitewash Thaksin's crimes. PTP didn't learn from that and tried to do it again.

[Fryslan boppe]

>>"The PDRC and the Democrats have common supporters"

As my teenage daughter would say, "Duh!.....Yeah!"

>>"The Democrat leader realises that if an agreement cannot be reached between Yingluck and Suthep or Suthep and Yingluck's brother, ex-premier Thaksin , the impasse will continue and there will be no sign of it ending".

I see the media persisting in its' efforts to separate the Govt. from it's majority electorate.....As if this this is a dispute between coup-mongers and Yingluck/Thaksin.

>>"So, the only way to unlock the political stand-off is negotiations between the key stakeholders".

That has already occurred. The most 'key' of all stakeholders is the electorate..They have spoken...I can understand why anti-Democrats want to nullify and refuse to tabulate that election, and reduce the electorate to a few people in BKK, negotiating with a minority on equal terms. It is why they try to avoid Parliament for such so-called 'negotiations' and debate, because there, THEY are reduced to their rightful numbers.

But the "anti-election Commission" and their judiciary brother's-in-arms, refuse to look at the election outcome, which they quite correctly fear.

These people refuse to acknowledge their fight is with an electoral majority, and hope that other's don't see through that smoke.

And BTW, there is no impasse or political stand-off......Coup-mongering does not a political impasse and political stand-off make. There is a very clear electoral and Parliamentary majority. If this was a 50-50 thing, then we could talk about impasse, deadlock and gridlock.

The coup-mongers relish doing what they are doing with their minority status, and using the Independent organizations and judiciary instead of Parliament to even things up.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Fryslan boppe

[bkkbarbara]

>>"The PDRC and the Democrats have common supporters"

As my teenage daughter would say, "Duh!.....Yeah!"

>>"The Democrat leader realises that if an agreement cannot be reached between Yingluck and Suthep or Suthep and Yingluck's brother, ex-premier Thaksin , the impasse will continue and there will be no sign of it ending".

I see the media persisting in its' efforts to separate the Govt. from it's majority electorate.....As if this this is a dispute between coup-mongers and Yingluck/Thaksin.

>>"So, the only way to unlock the political stand-off is negotiations between the key stakeholders".

That has already occurred. The most 'key' of all stakeholders is the electorate..They have spoken...I can understand why anti-Democrats want to nullify and refuse to tabulate that election, and reduce the electorate to a few people in BKK, negotiating with a minority on equal terms. It is why they try to avoid Parliament for such so-called 'negotiations' and debate, because there, THEY are reduced to their rightful numbers.

But the "anti-election Commission" and their judiciary brother's-in-arms, refuse to look at the election outcome, which they quite correctly fear.

These people refuse to acknowledge their fight is with an electoral majority, and hope that other's don't see through that smoke.

And BTW, there is no impasse or political stand-off......Coup-mongering does not a political impasse and political stand-off make. There is a very clear electoral and Parliamentary majority. If this was a 50-50 thing, then we could talk about impasse, deadlock and gridlock.

The coup-mongers relish doing what they are doing with their minority status, and using the Independent organizations and judiciary instead of Parliament to even things up.

Just wanted to see if you could post without using either "elitist" or "coup-mongering". Nope, guess they must be part of your quota.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The PDRC needs to recognize the people reject a "People's Council" because they oppose an appointed politburo type of ruling body. Abhisit and the DP need to recognize and respect that the people want a safe election that is clean. PTP need to agree reforms will be promulgated. Reforms need to be discussed openly, by an elected parliament of the two leading parties along with the other parties.

Reforms are meaningless if only one side elbows its way to state power, once there gathers up its own incestuous grouping, itself only writes new laws and rules that only it likes, then imposes them from their exclusive perch down onto the huddled masses who otherwise don't get any say.

One sided reforms enabled via a power grab by a closed clique is a guarantee of failure, so people hollering for "reform" need to be inclusive rather than exclusive, play well with others, proceed mutually and cooperatively, constructively, rather than approach the issues as the lord and master who will purify society by expelling certain people they don't like and by further imposing themselves on the others.

The PTP did well with reforms last year. The Amnesty bill seemed to be well accepted. I'm sure they can be trusted to put forward unbiased reforms if they're back in government. alt=whistling.gif width=19 height=18>

That is the stumbling block, they cannot be trusted, they carry to much baggage for meaningful talks, they circumvent the rules and ignore authority , as if we are born to rule mentality and castigate anyone who disagrees with them, no democracy there.

[MacWalen]

Good article. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

[Costas2008]

Ermmm, What happened to her wheel chair?

I am glad she is better and doesn't need the wheel chair........so she can board the plane, to Dubai, in comfort.

[Local Drunk]

I suppose the pic needs a caption "Yingluck surveys the Battlefield of Democracy"

[antimedia]

The PDRC needs to recognize the people reject a "People's Council" because they oppose an appointed politburo type of ruling body. Abhisit and the DP need to recognize and respect that the people want a safe election that is clean. PTP need to agree reforms will be promulgated. Reforms need to be discussed openly, by an elected parliament of the two leading parties along with the other parties.

Reforms are meaningless if only one side elbows its way to state power, once there gathers up its own incestuous grouping, itself only writes new laws and rules that only it likes, then imposes them from their exclusive perch down onto the huddled masses who otherwise don't get any say.

One sided reforms enabled via a power grab by a closed clique is a guarantee of failure, so people hollering for "reform" need to be inclusive rather than exclusive, play well with others, proceed mutually and cooperatively, constructively, rather than approach the issues as the lord and master who will purify society by expelling from the country certain Thais they don't like, and by further imposing themselves on the others.

The PDRC and the DP need to cease their absolute, zero-sum approach, stop their win-lose destructive attitude and their punishing obey-disobey mentality

The PDRC needs to recognise the people reject a "People's Council" If this is correct what are all those people doing out on the streets and at protest sights. You need to recognise that voicing your own wishes and desires is not speaking for all of the people.

What is it about reform that scares you people, the fact is, this current system now as in the past has not benefited the country or the people other than corrupt politicians and the like, so embrace something new. As the saying goes; if it is working don't try and fix it, if it is broken, replace it.

[lovetotravel]

>>"The PDRC and the Democrats have common supporters"

As my teenage daughter would say, "Duh!.....Yeah!"

>>"The Democrat leader realises that if an agreement cannot be reached between Yingluck and Suthep or Suthep and Yingluck's brother, ex-premier Thaksin , the impasse will continue and there will be no sign of it ending".

I see the media persisting in its' efforts to separate the Govt. from it's majority electorate.....As if this this is a dispute between coup-mongers and Yingluck/Thaksin.

>>"So, the only way to unlock the political stand-off is negotiations between the key stakeholders".

That has already occurred. The most 'key' of all stakeholders is the electorate..They have spoken...I can understand why anti-Democrats want to nullify and refuse to tabulate that election, and reduce the electorate to a few people in BKK, negotiating with a minority on equal terms. It is why they try to avoid Parliament for such so-called 'negotiations' and debate, because there, THEY are reduced to their rightful numbers.

But the "anti-election Commission" and their judiciary brother's-in-arms, refuse to look at the election outcome, which they quite correctly fear.

These people refuse to acknowledge their fight is with an electoral majority, and hope that other's don't see through that smoke.

And BTW, there is no impasse or political stand-off......Coup-mongering does not a political impasse and political stand-off make. There is a very clear electoral and Parliamentary majority. If this was a 50-50 thing, then we could talk about impasse, deadlock and gridlock.

The coup-mongers relish doing what they are doing with their minority status, and using the Independent organizations and judiciary instead of Parliament to even things up.

Just wanted to see if you could post without using either "elitist" or "coup-mongering". Nope, guess they must be part of your quota.

He just needs to add "facist" and all the mis/over used words will have been covered. Both sides of the political spectrum need to understand their politicians are not really interested in their needs. They only want to get re-elected and back to the trough.

I find it comical the red shirt supporters only cite elections as being democratic. Legal equality, freedom and rule of law are some of the major parts also.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

I love this part:

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights.

[Yunla]

The PDRC needs to recognize the people reject a "People's Council" because they oppose an appointed politburo type of ruling body. Abhisit and the DP need to recognize and respect that the people want a safe election that is clean. PTP need to agree reforms will be promulgated. Reforms need to be discussed openly, by an elected parliament of the two leading parties along with the other parties.

Reforms are meaningless if only one side elbows its way to state power, once there gathers up its own incestuous grouping, itself only writes new laws and rules that only it likes, then imposes them from their exclusive perch down onto the huddled masses who otherwise don't get any say.

One sided reforms enabled via a power grab by a closed clique is a guarantee of failure, so people hollering for "reform" need to be inclusive rather than exclusive, play well with others, proceed mutually and cooperatively, constructively, rather than approach the issues as the lord and master who will purify society by expelling from the country certain Thais they don't like, and by further imposing themselves on the others.

The PDRC and the DP need to cease their absolute, zero-sum approach, stop their win-lose destructive attitude and their punishing obey-disobey mentality

I like this post a lot.

These political issues are grown-up problems that need to be solved by mature discussion and adult life-skills such as empathy and consensus-forming, at state level and not on street-corners.

Politics is a game like any sport, your team has to train hard, and be competitive, play by the rules, win and lose gracefully. Standing at the sidelines saying you refuse to play until the game's rules are changed in your favour would be unthinkable to a sportsman.

Also a bad sportsman who cheats or behaves in an undignified manner on the field, he sullies not only his own name but the name of the sport itself - so too can a bad politician tarnish the name of democratic processes. This is very important, because in most sports a bad player is seen as insulting to the actual game itself and brings shame on all people playing that game - this shared condemnation of "bad form" must be replicated in politics.

[Soutpeel]

I suppose the pic needs a caption "Yingluck surveys the Battlefield of Democracy"

"Are you sure all the rotten rice has been burned now ?"

[soalbundy]

I suppose the pic needs a caption "Yingluck surveys the Battlefield of Democracy"

"Are you sure all the rotten rice has been burned now ?"

Quiet sure,the books are balanced now, let the impeachment begin

[saltandpepper]

Ermmm, What happened to her wheel chair?

another botched policy!

[animatic]

What the politicians and parties SHOULD do, is not what they are mentally capable of doing.

They are so locked into their play for pay moral structure, that making changes that level the playing field so it is fair for all is anathema to their way of thinking. And this directly affects their personal bottom lines. Unless this is forced on them from a more pervasive and stronger public power, they will do nothing but feather their nests. We have seen it before for decades.

The last decade is one of one particularly amoral party finding a hook to gin the system,

and the usual lamprey parties attach to its sides and feeding off it. Giving it enough numbers to rule absolutely.

This will not change if any of those players are allowed to create the new rules.

Here's the new rules, same as the old rules, but new names.

Edited March 25, 2014 by animatic

[Bakseeda]

>>"The PDRC and the Democrats have common supporters"

As my teenage daughter would say, "Duh!.....Yeah!"

>>"The Democrat leader realises that if an agreement cannot be reached between Yingluck and Suthep or Suthep and Yingluck's brother, ex-premier Thaksin , the impasse will continue and there will be no sign of it ending".

I see the media persisting in its' efforts to separate the Govt. from it's majority electorate.....As if this this is a dispute between coup-mongers and Yingluck/Thaksin.

>>"So, the only way to unlock the political stand-off is negotiations between the key stakeholders".

That has already occurred. The most 'key' of all stakeholders is the electorate..They have spoken...I can understand why anti-Democrats want to nullify and refuse to tabulate that election, and reduce the electorate to a few people in BKK, negotiating with a minority on equal terms. It is why they try to avoid Parliament for such so-called 'negotiations' and debate, because there, THEY are reduced to their rightful numbers.

But the "anti-election Commission" and their judiciary brother's-in-arms, refuse to look at the election outcome, which they quite correctly fear.

These people refuse to acknowledge their fight is with an electoral majority, and hope that other's don't see through that smoke.

And BTW, there is no impasse or political stand-off......Coup-mongering does not a political impasse and political stand-off make. There is a very clear electoral and Parliamentary majority. If this was a 50-50 thing, then we could talk about impasse, deadlock and gridlock.

The coup-mongers relish doing what they are doing with their minority status, and using the Independent organizations and judiciary instead of Parliament to even things up.

Fryslan, in what you say about a majority of Thai peoples will vote Yinluck back into power if there is another election you are quite right.. But anyone with the slightest insight into what happens in Red-Land knows about vote-buying, intimidation etc etc.. are the main reasons for this to happen. Thats why reform has to happen for this country to get a Fair and Unbias election result. Thailand runs much better under an Army style government .. truth is most of the voters in the north don't care who rules... They just want to get on with their lives..drink Lao Kao, have babies and get moneys from Yinluck for doing nothing.. And I'm all for that too... but I'm a Farang same as you , it does'nt matter one single jot what we think... and if you are stupid enough to have taken a Thai (Isaan) wife... you should hold your tongue.. as that alone .. but but but... then again you are Dutch .. say no more..

[Bakseeda]

>>"The PDRC and the Democrats have common supporters"

As my teenage daughter would say, "Duh!.....Yeah!"

>>"The Democrat leader realises that if an agreement cannot be reached between Yingluck and Suthep or Suthep and Yingluck's brother, ex-premier Thaksin , the impasse will continue and there will be no sign of it ending".

I see the media persisting in its' efforts to separate the Govt. from it's majority electorate.....As if this this is a dispute between coup-mongers and Yingluck/Thaksin.

>>"So, the only way to unlock the political stand-off is negotiations between the key stakeholders".

That has already occurred. The most 'key' of all stakeholders is the electorate..They have spoken...I can understand why anti-Democrats want to nullify and refuse to tabulate that election, and reduce the electorate to a few people in BKK, negotiating with a minority on equal terms. It is why they try to avoid Parliament for such so-called 'negotiations' and debate, because there, THEY are reduced to their rightful numbers.

But the "anti-election Commission" and their judiciary brother's-in-arms, refuse to look at the election outcome, which they quite correctly fear.

These people refuse to acknowledge their fight is with an electoral majority, and hope that other's don't see through that smoke.

And BTW, there is no impasse or political stand-off......Coup-mongering does not a political impasse and political stand-off make. There is a very clear electoral and Parliamentary majority. If this was a 50-50 thing, then we could talk about impasse, deadlock and gridlock.

The coup-mongers relish doing what they are doing with their minority status, and using the Independent organizations and judiciary instead of Parliament to even things up.

Fryslan, in what you say about a majority of Thai peoples will vote Yinluck back into power if there is another election you are quite right.. But anyone with the slightest insight into what happens in Red-Land knows about vote-buying, intimidation etc etc.. are the main reasons for this to happen. Thats why reform has to happen for this country to get a Fair and Unbias election result. Thailand runs much better under an Army style government .. truth is most of the voters in the north don't care who rules... They just want to get on with their lives..drink Lao Kao, have babies and get moneys from Yinluck for doing nothing.. And I'm all for that too... but I'm a Farang same as you , it does'nt matter one single jot what we think... and if you are stupid enough to have taken a Thai (Isaan) wife... you should hold your tongue.. as that alone .. but but but... then again you are Dutch .. say no more..

[WitawatWatawit]

I suppose the pic needs a caption "Yingluck surveys the Battlefield of Democracy"

"Are you sure all the rotten rice has been burned now ?"

Why should Chiang Mai have all the haze? Let's share the love!

[CantSpell]

There is no way that the serial killers should be given a seat at any table.

I read it "cereal killers" and then it made sense as I figured you referred to the ones that created the rice scheme

[Publicus]

What the politicians and parties SHOULD do, is not what they are mentally capable of doing.

They are so locked into their play for pay moral structure, that making changes that level the playing field so it is fair for all is anathema to their way of thinking. And this directly affects their personal bottom lines. Unless this is forced on them from a more pervasive and stronger public power, they will do nothing but feather their nests. We have seen it before for decades.

The last decade is one of one particularly amoral party finding a hook to gin the system,

and the usual lamprey parties attach to its sides and feeding off it. Giving it enough numbers to rule absolutely.

This will not change if any of those players are allowed to create the new rules.

Here's the new rules, same as the old rules, but new names.

Ideology is also involved, which your post alludes to. So it must be said the old feudal system is kaput, already in the history books - there is no "pervasive and stronger public power" to save the day by again creating two wrongs to make a right, after which the conflicting parties create five more wrongs to make two more rights.

[gabruce]

>>"The PDRC and the Democrats have common supporters"

As my teenage daughter would say, "Duh!.....Yeah!"

>>"The Democrat leader realises that if an agreement cannot be reached between Yingluck and Suthep or Suthep and Yingluck's brother, ex-premier Thaksin , the impasse will continue and there will be no sign of it ending".

I see the media persisting in its' efforts to separate the Govt. from it's majority electorate.....As if this this is a dispute between coup-mongers and Yingluck/Thaksin.

>>"So, the only way to unlock the political stand-off is negotiations between the key stakeholders".

That has already occurred. The most 'key' of all stakeholders is the electorate..They have spoken...I can understand why anti-Democrats want to nullify and refuse to tabulate that election, and reduce the electorate to a few people in BKK, negotiating with a minority on equal terms. It is why they try to avoid Parliament for such so-called 'negotiations' and debate, because there, THEY are reduced to their rightful numbers.

But the "anti-election Commission" and their judiciary brother's-in-arms, refuse to look at the election outcome, which they quite correctly fear.

These people refuse to acknowledge their fight is with an electoral majority, and hope that other's don't see through that smoke.

And BTW, there is no impasse or political stand-off......Coup-mongering does not a political impasse and political stand-off make. There is a very clear electoral and Parliamentary majority. If this was a 50-50 thing, then we could talk about impasse, deadlock and gridlock.

The coup-mongers relish doing what they are doing with their minority status, and using the Independent organizations and judiciary instead of Parliament to even things up.

It's difficult to wade through all the rhetoric and name calling, however I would note one point. You seem to be referring to the results of the 2011 election where the Pheu Thai narrowly missed getting a majority of the popular vote and did succeed in getting a strong majority in Parliament. That was a long time ago. The most recent, nullified, election of Feb 2, 2014 doesn't have reported results, however the rumoured numbers would seem to indicate that Pheu Thai is nowhere near a majority of the popular vote now, and the outcome of the next election attempt is unknown. Since the last election was essentially a one party election, if it had been successful at electing the 95% of MP's, would probably have been almost entirely Pheu Thai, just like North Korea always has a solid majority (or is it 100% majority in North Korea).

So, I disagree that there is a clear electoral majority. There certainly is not a Parliamentary majority since there is no Parliament currently.

Look to the upcoming Senate election to get some indication of what the current popular vote is.

[Scamper]

" The government is thus doing everything to hold a fresh poll as soon as possible. To achieve this, the party will have to talk with the PDRC, the Democrats and the EC. "

But they aren't ! How can the " government " be " doing everything to hold a fresh poll as soon as possible " without talking to the EC ? How in the world to they arrange an election when they continue to refuse to talk to the EC, in fact want the EC to resign, and sue them for 3.8 billion baht ? Pheu Thai is now far too busy railing against the Constitutional Court ruling - which they must instinctively believe will lead to it being changed, and writing to the UN to issue a condemnation of the Constitutional Court and the checks and balances of the independent agencies. The only progress Pheu Thai have made in recent days is that Yingluck - now without a wheelchair or any form of support - appears to have made a full recovery. The Pheu Thai administration talks about the constitution a lot, But they are in the trouble they are in because of massive infractions of it - the amnesty bill, the Senate bill, the rice scandal, the infrastructure bill bypassing proper parliamentary processes, passed with Pheu Thai MPs casting multiple votes, calling for the impeachment of the judges of the Constitutional Court, appointing new ones, for going after the independent agencies, the Civil Court and the Criminal Court, having two cabinet ministers endorse a UDD platform that calls for secession. Yes, Pheu Thai is really interested in the constitutional process ! And they keep talking about an appointed interim prime minister as being unconstitutional when they know full well that Article 7 specifically outlines the process by which - in the event of a parliamentary vacuum, that an interim prime minister is nominated through the Senate. Article 7 is crystal clear. No Pheu Thai official - even Chalerm - has ever referred to Article 7 in the last three months. Why ? Because it's simply too clear. It completely capsizes their argument. Pheu Thai and the UDD are operating from the premise that if you so say something isn't constitutional, then it isn't. But Pheu Thai itself has brought on its own present crisis by a string of brazenly unconstitutional practices. Pheu Thai have absolutely nothing to stand on. And they know it.

[gabruce]

There is no way that the serial killers should be given a seat at any table.

I read it "cereal killers" and then it made sense as I figured you referred to the ones that created the rice scheme

When I was younger, I used to kill a bowl of cereal almost everyday. I think that shouldn't block me from having a seat at a table. Much easier to eat at a table than lying down ... I know because I haven't been able to sit and eat for months. So I take the comment about eating cereal and being refused a seat personally!