Jeffreyake Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) Surely the best way to get a prime minister & cabinet with full authority would be to have an election or am I missing something? Surely "full authority" must include the mandate of the people? You are totally right but the farangs who post on this thread are obsessively anti-democratic. They are similar to the people who in February and March 1933 argued that now the time called for emergency measures and the suspension of democratic rights and rules of governance - we all know the result of that was Hitler usurping power and heaping misery on Germany and the world for the subsequent 12 years. The TV farangs have learnt no lessons from history. They are hopelessly shaped by a "neo-colonialist" outlook where they basically see Thais as second-class citizens and themselves as vastly superior. That is why expat farangs hate Thai democracy - nothing is more repellant to them than to see Thais run their own country. They would much rather see the country run by a small elite and the vast majority of Thais told to stay "in their place". In the mindset of the TV farang who continually posts here in defense of Suthep and his gang of fascist thugs the destruction of Thai democracy would benefit his selfish expat existence more than if Thailand as a whole becomes more equal and fair. oh yeah, the best way to fight with you opponent is to stigmatize him as ""fascist", "neo-colonialist" Labeling and manipulation - this is how Western leftist propaganda works. Hitler was elected in 100% democratic elections, where Nazi party got 44%, in fact most disastrous regimes in 20th century were elected democratically: Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Mengistu, Mubarak, al-Bashir and many others. And only Mao and Pol Pot were not elected (which didn't prevent US to support Pol Pot) but American left fundamentalists keep denying this because democracy is their weapon against sovereign governments, considered uncontrollable from Washington DC. In reality US is not more democratic than Zimbabwe, but US elite just use more intricate mechanism to control the public opinion - that's why, for example from 1852 only members of two parties were elected as president. Is there any probability that in 160 years there were no any person in any other party good enough to be elected as US president? And this is what you call democracy?! in reality Shinavatra was always ruling on behalf of US because Thaksin can be 100% controlled by his assets in American banks. That's why American agents of influence, such as Robert Amsterdam and Andrew Marshall carry out a wide media campaign to back up Thaksin's efforts to neutralize his political opponents in Thailand. The main and only goal of US in this campaign is replacing national -oriented elite to pro-American one. They pursue this goal all over the world: in Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Morocco, Egypt, Ukraine, Panama, Guatemala, Grenada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and plenty of others. only American hypocrites dare to say that Thaksin's manipulation of public opinion means "Thais run there own country" Edited May 17, 2014 by Jeffreyake 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arisaje Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 why don't the appointed senators 'step down for the sake of the country' and allow the people to choose their senators. why is it just the caretaker cabinet-which already resigned, that should resign again.. Because the PTP government has proven itself unable or unwilling to act in the best interests of the country after their Amnesty Bill debacle, that's why they should resign, six months ago would had been a better time though. Why do you believe that the amnesty bill wasn't good for the country, Thaksin may have benefitted himself from the sale of a telecoms company and for buying some land at reduced prices, but thats pretty similar to a lot of leaders around the world, in power today. It surely isn't worth destroying a country over. Do you think the current situation with people being paid to protest for months on end and people being killed in the streets so that an equally corrupt government can get into power, is better for the country? If the population really did think that PTP were so bad, Suthep would have been successful in a month or less. After 6 months+ of protesting and now they cannot even remove a caretaker government……..have you thought to wonder why he hasn't been successful?? Because the 'majority of the people' don't want PTP replaced with a leader that wasn't elected. But going back to your first point, i am sure Suthep and Abhisit will be looking for some type of amnesty in the near future too, or they will likely end up in prison for a lot longer than Thaksin was going to get. This whole political saga in Thailand is like a never ending merry-go-round…..and the ONLY way it will be resolved is through an amnesty bill for all parties….either that or they all go to prison and share the same cell for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnxforever Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) were you ? sleeping in Feb - there was an election and it failed another one will also fail, the simple truth is that there is a huge portion of the Thai people want reforms first - very possibly more than 50% but even if it was 40% an election is still not going to work - all of the voting public need to be on-board The main point here is that those that want reforms are not saying no to an election - they are saying they want it delayed so reforms can take place first - so contrary to what the red spammers here are saying - everyone wants an election - nobody is advocating not to have an election which is a very important point - What the reds stand to lose is power and money - these red leaders are getting paid huge amounts - PTP stand to lose huge amounts and possibly jail if an investigation is launched into government finance to find the missing stolen upwards of 800billion baht - PTP and the reds have a lot to lose which is why they are refusing to compromise Reforms Referendum Election It's as simple as that what are these reforms that I keep hearing about? Can you list them? nobody knows what the reforms would be exactly but they will be primarily designed to do a few important things - - Shore up anti corruption laws and plug the gaps that Thaksin/PTP/reds tried to expose/exploit or in the case of the rice scheme - did exploit to the tune of billions and billions of baht - Force transparency for all government finance and projects - they can not longer keep things hidden from the public and withhold the details - Implement measures to stop vote buying and intimidation during elections - Controls over election populist policies - perhaps a branch of the EC - Rules governing candidates similar to Senators excluding those previously convicted of criminal offences - parlimentry abuse and corruption - Banning those convicted for life and not just 5 years from taking office - reform of the police the list goes on but you get the idea IMO the one thing That PTP and Thaksin have shown in the last 10 years is that there is a need for reform - the abuse of power and corruption has been unpresidented - some argue that corruption the last two years has decreased in Thailand - it is still to be investigated uncovered and exposed You are a bit shortsighted - the people who are really robbing this country have done so much much longer! Maybe you should read a it more than The Nation and find out who was really robbing the country long before Thaksin and then together with him! Start with the PAD leader who has stolen billions from the Thai people but has never spent a day in prison! Only when Thaksin cut him off he turned against him! The gangster Suthep who is shouting on stage that others are corrupt is not only sent their by even more corrupt people who can't get their hand I to the cookie jar anymore - he himself brought down the last elected Democrat led government with his corrupt dealings! Fact is that TRT was the most popular and successful government that Thailand ever had - period! The numbers prove it whatever others try to make up! The last post coup unelected democrat led stint was a disaster! And that's why the Thai people elected PT again for no other reason - and it is their democratic right to do so! Since the coup the country has never been able to move forward! Suthep is a criminal sent their by other criminals who want their hands back in the cookie jar - everything else is a smoke screen! There was not a word about reforms when the democrats where in power not so long ago - they where really so stupid and thought they would win the elections - they thought we just buy the votes of those who vote PT - didn't work out either even after admitting that they spent more money trying to buy votes than PT! The Thai electorate has evolved - they have seen the progress under TRT and that's why they vote for them - corrupt or not - there has never been a Thai government not corrupt to the core! And with Thaksin winning elections again and again the people who felt they where so "important" are loosing their grip on the country throwing it into chaos if has to be - can't loose face after all! I am not going to disagree with a lot of what you have said in fact you have just made the case even stronger that reforms are needed But also not that in every western country you have rich people - in most cases they are business owners large and small that provide employment for the masses - these are people who have educated themselves or are just naturally gifted and have taken risks that paid off, they are the backbone of every modern economy in the world - they are the people that create jobs and contribute to the economies of countries - but on the other hand we have a criminal element that live their lives through crime including corruption fed by greed - their mandate is to lie steal corrupt perpetrate crime break laws and deceive - the worst of which are those in government who are cheating the common people out of (in Thailand) billion and billions - it has to stop or at least extreme measure implemented to curb their activities and bring them to account, there are many guilty in Thailand but more recently Thaksin PTP and the Redshirt leaders have the most attention - defend them if you want but I would rather see them investigated and brought to justice - I would also like to see measures put in place to make it extremely difficult to continue this cycle of power abuse corruption and greed - considering this it is no wonder that a growing number of people including myself agree that having an election without implementing these changes is not the solution that the Thai people need - PTP Thaksin the well paid redshirts leaders have a vested interest to let the system remain as is and further make sure that any investigation into government finance over the last 3 years doesn't happen as it would expose for all to see exactly what they have been up too and I suspect on a scale that will shock not only the Thai people but the world What you are asking is correct in a way but impossible! I do agree with you very much but the mind set of an entire nation can not be changed overnight it will take decades to achieve that. As long as there is selective law enforcement people will always cry foul! Just one example Sonthi L. has been convicted in a court of law for several years and several times now and has never spent a day in jail while cases against others on the other side of the political divide are speed up and closed! A country like Thailand which has a long cultivated culture of relying on connections, cronyism, nepotism and corruption can never achieve what you propose because of selective law enforcement, a corrupt judiciary ,corrupt politicians, corrupt police, corrupt armed forces,corrupt civil servants - where and when do you start? Do you start to overlook the crimes committed in the past and present by certain people and start prosecuting a certain group? Or do you start with a clean slate for all? That's what started this conflict recently! Provided the political will to change is there and the parties involved cooperate which they will not - they will not give up their comfortable way of life to become "honest" - they see it as their right to steal if they are in a position to do so! In China they have the death penalty for corruption - people don't care - the pay off's have just become bigger so it is worth the risk and they have become more careful - but the corruption is still there. Of course there is an enormous need for reforms but if can not be done by installing another bunch of thieves to carry them out - the genie is out of the bottle - there needs to be an election to satisfy a majority - then the reform process can begin. And it will be a slow and painful process! Reforms can not be demanded and started by a bunch of criminals who have broken almost every law in the book acting on behalf of other criminals in the background with a hidden agenda. There will be too much opposition. To force reforms by one party in the minority onto a majority will result in a very nasty insurrection reforms not accepted and sanctioned by a majority will never succeed only a slow process of careful negotiations involving all parties will succeed. Reforms can not be dictated by people without a mandate one thief can not accuse another thief of stealing! For reforms to be successful the entire nations mindset needs to change and this will take decades - I am waiting for the day when the first Thai starts shouting insults on top of his voice at a civil servant who demanded a bribe and others join in and run the corrupt bastard out of the office! But until this happens we will have to wait a very, very long time! In the meantime elections are the only way forward everything else will result in chaos The days where a so called "educated" middle class - which comprises very likely the largest group of corrupt people in the country - tell the majority what to do are over - if they like it or not! Ironically the people who are shouting "reforms" today will be their biggest opponents tomorrow because if they should really happen they will have to keep their greedy hands in their pockets! But they know all this talk about reforms is all just a smokescreen anyway to seize power illegally one more time against the will of the majority of Thais! They know they would never win elections even with massive vote buying - because the majority of the Thai people wants to move forward and not backwards and will never vote for them until they come up with a platform that makes them electable. The problem is I personally can not see a single charismatic person in this country who could lead this country into the future and implement the reforms needed- an idealist who works for the country and not for his and his cronies pockets - that is the sad reality the Thai people are facing when they go to the polls they always have only the choice of the better evil. All I see is selfish, dirty, rotten scoundrels with deep pockets putting themselves first using their positions to satisfy their greedy need for more money and power! I know it sounds pessimistic but I am a realist! Edited May 17, 2014 by Cnxforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabothai Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 As long as threats, biggering, intimidating, corruption are not addressed (bull by the horn) democracy will remain a fata morgana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianf Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Before you go too far down the road with your Hitler talk maybe you can read this, about a new book explaining Hitler's rise. When you are done, I can introduce you to Lenin, the man who introduced democracy to Russia, by defeating the royals.... Reform, dictatorship, democracy - all words in common discussion in Thailand today, interestingly enough. "The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler" might well send the odd chill of uncomfortable familiarity up the spines of readers here. "Hitler and the Nazis, von Papen reasoned, had the popular support, whilst he and his friends had the intelligence to manage them," Rees writes, referring to Hitler's predecessor as chancellor of Germany. Your attempt to draw an analogy between Thaksin and Hitler is very poor. Why not draw a parallel between David Cameron and Hitler, or Barack Obama and Hitler? Or for that matter any other Democratically elected leader around the World? It would be just as good an analogy to make as the one you are trying to make against Thaksin. There is no basis for comparison between Thaksin and Hitler. At every election and at every political meeting leading up to Hitler becoming chancellor in 1933, Hitler declared that he wanted to abolish democracy. Democracy was an abomination to Hitler. At no point has Thaksin declared that he wants to ablosih Thai democracy - but we know who has ... Suthep and his fascist thugs. Also the constant attempts to demonise Thaksin and anyone associated with him is straight out of Goebbels propaganda handbook - demonise your enemy, repeat a lie enough times and people will end up believing it. The biggest weapon the pro-fascists on this forum use is constant myth-making about Thaksin - choosing to refer to him as "the criminal from Dubai" when in actual fact those "criminal" charges only relate back to trivialities. The "real" criminals in Thai society walk free because the courts are very biased in their favour. Similarly, after Hitler staged an armed insurrection in 1923 that led to several deaths he was given a lenient sentence by a sympathetic court. In Thailand it is even worse as the criminal Suthep still walks around freely and has meetings with high ranking senators without being arrested and put on trial as he should be. I have never read such a load of ignorant twaddle in my life. Demonise Thaksin? Even people who were very close to him say that the man is an autocrat, not a democrat. The evidence against him is readily available. What about the reds tearing the face of Abhisit out of every election poster? Was that not an attempt to demonise Abhisit? The answer is yes and those of us who understand the nuances of Thai culture fully understand this. Why has an organisation like Amnesty International found that Thaksin is fully implicated in 18 serious cases of human rights abuse? They are after all an impartial body. During the red shirt occupation, and also since then, the reds did not make any speeches whatsoever that introduced any policy or plan for the future. Indeed all they did was emotionally manipulate their adoring masses. That was straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf where he was very clear about using emotional tools rather than 'argumentation'. To me there is every basis on which to compare Hitler to Thaksin or vice versa. Thaksin is not a democrat. This is a word he suddenly hijacked in order to undermine the Democrat party and the initial idea came from his western PR advisors. Thaksin is no more a democrat than Hitler was. I could write a massive post here about the evidence against Thaksin which is far more than your blinkered view about trivialities. Certainly you have a great way of introducing nonsense into a serious discussion. I find it truly offensive that we get the gullible westerners here supporting Thaksin. You can no more support Thaksin than you could Marcos, Amin, Saddam, Pinochet and many others. They all come from the same sociopathic bag. Thaksin is a disgusting self-serving liar and manipulator and he has the ability to control many people. He's frustrated because he has never managed to manipulate and 'own' the judiciary which is why the reds chant the same chorus of elitism and bias when the judgments go against them, but never say a word when the judgments favour them. He even managed to control the senate at one point by paying sufficient senators $3000 per month each in order to support him. Do some research on the net and you'll find so much about Thaksin, the extra-judicial killings in the 'drug war' and many many more examples of his manipulative and dangerous power. My wife, a country/farm girl at heart will tell you that Thaksin has divided Thailand and turned it into a country of which she is not proud. She has a deep understanding of all this stuff and could certainly enlighten you about the views of the real Thais, the people at the coalface who are ultimately the ones that suffer because of this one man. I understand that up to 10 PDRC guards who committed acts of violence were handed to the police by Suthep's organisation. And they will continue to do this when required. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymonddiaz Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 How unelected senators can ask people chosen by the Thais to step down....What kind of world are we??? are we in 2014 or not???? New in Thailand (6 postings)? When exactly did the Thais choose Niwatthamrong Bunsongphaisan? thais have chosen the MPs.......and the actual prime minister is one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab4 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Really out of this world how the reds rant on about appointed senators as if its some sort of a crime. The senate is made up according to law so get used to it. The present acting president of the senate was voted into the job in a democratic election of all senators and if memory serves me correctly with a majority of over 80%, that he has as yet not received royal endorsement is a detail, it will happen for his majesty will not turn down the choice of the senate. The senate could by now have been fully elected for there was a bill before the house to change section 190 of the constitution to allow just that and all parties agreed to the proposal. However at the last minute extra clauses were added to allow friends and family of sitting MP's to stand for senate positions and to abolish the 6 year term. This would have allowed the party in power to stack the senate with their own people who could have stayed in the senate for life virtually abolishing the checks and balances role of the senate. These clauses and the fact that the altered bill was sneaked through in an unlawful manner meant it was taken to the CC who found to be unconstitutional. So you can blame PT for the fact that there are still appointed senators for if they had not tried to subvert the law the bill in its agreed form would have been law by now. What is holding up any progress to a democratic solution within the law are 26 caretaker cabinet ministers who refuse to step aside for the good of the country. Tell me, how many of those 26 are in fact elected ? That is, were actual MP"s in the previous PT administration who have faced the people at the ballot box ? And how many were appointed during the many cabinet reshuffles ? If you want to go on about the legitimacy of elected versus appointed the answer to that would have a big bearing on your argument . The senate is in fact at present the only fully functional part of Government this country has. The status of the 26 as an arm of Government is in doubt and will probably have to be taken to the CC, this has been highlighted by the EC in respect of the signing of a royal decree to hold an election. The senate has every right to make decisions and is going about things in a democratic manner by consulting with everyone who will meet with them. OK, Now here's the reality: You appear to forget that MPs are aligned to a particular political party. The senate are supposed to be fully non partisan. Surachai is aligned with the anti-Thaksin Gang of 40. He was also appointed by the military Junta to draft the flawed 2007 constitution. So let's forget that independent tag shall we. The "election" for senate speaker was added to the agenda of the royally endorsed special session of the senate by surachai himself, illegally. The special session was called for the Senate to endorse the appointment of a new NACC member and Administrative Court specialists, only. He is now "holding court" with half a senate, 70 senators, not even a majority, and presumes to speak for the whole Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Surely the best way to get a prime minister & cabinet with full authority would be to have an election or am I missing something? Surely "full authority" must include the mandate of the people? were you ? sleeping in Feb - there was an election and it failed another one will also fail, the simple truth is that there is a huge portion of the Thai people want reforms first - very possibly more than 50% but even if it was 40% an election is still not going to work - all of the voting public need to be on-board The main point here is that those that want reforms are not saying no to an election - they are saying they want it delayed so reforms can take place first - so contrary to what the red spammers here are saying - everyone wants an election - nobody is advocating not to have an election which is a very important point - What the reds stand to lose is power and money - these red leaders are getting paid huge amounts - PTP stand to lose huge amounts and possibly jail if an investigation is launched into government finance to find the missing stolen upwards of 800billion baht - PTP and the reds have a lot to lose which is why they are refusing to compromise Reforms Referendum Election It's as simple as that The forces that advocate their "reforms" demand that an exclusive still anonymous appointed "People's Council" and an exclusive still anonymous appointed National Assembly draw up the vague and unspecified reforms. The unknown "reforms" would be written by two closed carefully selected bodies appointed on the recommendation of whom - Suthep and the PDRC? Such a tiny minority imposing their well guarded secretive will on the general population as a whole is guaranteed to be a failure. It is the opposite way to make public policy, laws, rules, regulations. There is throughout the land a very strong opposition to this militant secretive excusive approach to charter writing, which means it is both divisive and dangerous in its nature, consequence. The obvious alternative and much greater urgency is to find a way to have a representative constitutional convention in which all citizens and groups have input, a significant voice, rather than leaving such vital matters in the hands of a select, self-appointed few secretive elites. It is irony the 2007 martial law coup written constitution prohibits a constitutional convention at this time under the present circumstances. Well, perhaps "irony" is not the appropriate or applicable word. The term cynical deliberate design might be more like it. Election Representative Constitutional Convention Referendum This sequence is the logical and rational approach to the current impasse. Your sequence is jumbled garble and only makes matters worse.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Thaiford Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Before you go too far down the road with your Hitler talk maybe you can read this, about a new book explaining Hitler's rise. When you are done, I can introduce you to Lenin, the man who introduced democracy to Russia, by defeating the royals.... Reform, dictatorship, democracy - all words in common discussion in Thailand today, interestingly enough. "The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler" might well send the odd chill of uncomfortable familiarity up the spines of readers here. "Hitler and the Nazis, von Papen reasoned, had the popular support, whilst he and his friends had the intelligence to manage them," Rees writes, referring to Hitler's predecessor as chancellor of Germany. Your attempt to draw an analogy between Thaksin and Hitler is very poor. Why not draw a parallel between David Cameron and Hitler, or Barack Obama and Hitler? Or for that matter any other Democratically elected leader around the World? It would be just as good an analogy to make as the one you are trying to make against Thaksin. There is no basis for comparison between Thaksin and Hitler. At every election and at every political meeting leading up to Hitler becoming chancellor in 1933, Hitler declared that he wanted to abolish democracy. Democracy was an abomination to Hitler. At no point has Thaksin declared that he wants to ablosih Thai democracy - but we know who has ... Suthep and his fascist thugs. Also the constant attempts to demonise Thaksin and anyone associated with him is straight out of Goebbels propaganda handbook - demonise your enemy, repeat a lie enough times and people will end up believing it. The biggest weapon the pro-fascists on this forum use is constant myth-making about Thaksin - choosing to refer to him as "the criminal from Dubai" when in actual fact those "criminal" charges only relate back to trivialities. The "real" criminals in Thai society walk free because the courts are very biased in their favour. Similarly, after Hitler staged an armed insurrection in 1923 that led to several deaths he was given a lenient sentence by a sympathetic court. In Thailand it is even worse as the criminal Suthep still walks around freely and has meetings with high ranking senators without being arrested and put on trial as he should be. I have never read such a load of ignorant twaddle in my life. Demonise Thaksin? Even people who were very close to him say that the man is an autocrat, not a democrat. The evidence against him is readily available. What about the reds tearing the face of Abhisit out of every election poster? Was that not an attempt to demonise Abhisit? The answer is yes and those of us who understand the nuances of Thai culture fully understand this. Why has an organisation like Amnesty International found that Thaksin is fully implicated in 18 serious cases of human rights abuse? They are after all an impartial body. During the red shirt occupation, and also since then, the reds did not make any speeches whatsoever that introduced any policy or plan for the future. Indeed all they did was emotionally manipulate their adoring masses. That was straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf where he was very clear about using emotional tools rather than 'argumentation'. To me there is every basis on which to compare Hitler to Thaksin or vice versa. Thaksin is not a democrat. This is a word he suddenly hijacked in order to undermine the Democrat party and the initial idea came from his western PR advisors. Thaksin is no more a democrat than Hitler was. I could write a massive post here about the evidence against Thaksin which is far more than your blinkered view about trivialities. Certainly you have a great way of introducing nonsense into a serious discussion. I find it truly offensive that we get the gullible westerners here supporting Thaksin. You can no more support Thaksin than you could Marcos, Amin, Saddam, Pinochet and many others. They all come from the same sociopathic bag. Thaksin is a disgusting self-serving liar and manipulator and he has the ability to control many people. He's frustrated because he has never managed to manipulate and 'own' the judiciary which is why the reds chant the same chorus of elitism and bias when the judgments go against them, but never say a word when the judgments favour them. He even managed to control the senate at one point by paying sufficient senators $3000 per month each in order to support him. Do some research on the net and you'll find so much about Thaksin, the extra-judicial killings in the 'drug war' and many many more examples of his manipulative and dangerous power. My wife, a country/farm girl at heart will tell you that Thaksin has divided Thailand and turned it into a country of which she is not proud. She has a deep understanding of all this stuff and could certainly enlighten you about the views of the real Thais, the people at the coalface who are ultimately the ones that suffer because of this one man. I understand that up to 10 PDRC guards who committed acts of violence were handed to the police by Suthep's organisation. And they will continue to do this when required. Demonise Thaksin? Even people who were very close to him say that the man is an autocrat, not a democrat. The evidence against him is readily available. If the evidence in favour of Thaksin being an autocrat is so readily available why do you not provide some? Every time you anti-democratic propagandists come on here you only dish up lies and myths and no evidence. What about the reds tearing the face of Abhisit out of every election poster? Was that not an attempt to demonise Abhisit? The answer is yes You talk of posters. Very good point. The difference between the 2 sides are shown in the kinds of posters the demonstrators have on display. The most disturbing ones come from the anti-democratic Suthep thugs - making misogynistic posters of Yingluck or her or her son being blown up by grenades in pools of blood etc. The kind of stuff that would make any civilised person feel nauseous - this is the kind of extreme propaganda you endorse. and those of us who understand the nuances of Thai culture fully understand this. You say you understand Thai culture - your understanding of it seems to be based on the old hierarchical feudalism which you are desperate to maintain - you have contempt for the Thai people which is why you do not trust them with the vote. Why has an organisation like Amnesty International found that Thaksin is fully implicated in 18 serious cases of human rights abuse? They are after all an impartial body. If Thaksin has committed human rights abuses why have the biased Thai courts not indicted him? I will tell you why because the whole of Thai society were in favour of his war on drugs. During the red shirt occupation, and also since then, the reds did not make any speeches whatsoever that introduced any policy or plan for the future. Indeed all they did was emotionally manipulate their adoring masses. That was straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf where he was very clear about using emotional tools rather than 'argumentation'. Your comments about the "red crowds" not having a political programme is pure gobbledigook. They have one of the most traditional political programmes you can have - the fight for the right to vote. You clearly do not know your history - go and read about the chartists or other groups who fought for equal political rights. To me there is every basis on which to compare Hitler to Thaksin or vice versa. Thaksin is not a democrat. This is a word he suddenly hijacked in order to undermine the Democrat party and the initial idea came from his western PR advisors. Thaksin is no more a democrat than Hitler was. Thaksin is 100 times more of a democrat than Suthep - you know why? because he doesn't sabotage elections, he doesn't call voters "buffaloes" nor does he fear the views of the masses. I could write a massive post here about the evidence against Thaksin which is far more than your blinkered view about trivialities. Certainly you have a great way of introducing nonsense into a serious discussion. You could write a massive post about Thaksin's crimes could you? You mean his massive crime of a land deal involving his wife - that huge crime against humanity? I find it truly offensive that we get the gullible westerners here supporting Thaksin. You can no more support Thaksin than you could Marcos, Amin, Saddam, Pinochet and many others. They all come from the same sociopathic bag. Thaksin is a disgusting self-serving liar and manipulator and he has the ability to control many people. He's frustrated because he has never managed to manipulate and 'own' the judiciary which is why the reds chant the same chorus of elitism and bias when the judgments go against them, but never say a word when the judgments favour them. He even managed to control the senate at one point by paying sufficient senators $3000 per month each in order to support him. Do some research on the net and you'll find so much about Thaksin, the extra-judicial killings in the 'drug war' and many many more examples of his manipulative and dangerous power. I find it truly offensive that people like yourself who has probably been brought up in a Western democracy and enjoyed the benefits of democracy now want to deny the right of the Thai people to choose their own government. My wife, a country/farm girl at heart will tell you that Thaksin has divided Thailand and turned it into a country of which she is not proud. She has a deep understanding of all this stuff and could certainly enlighten you about the views of the real Thais, the people at the coalface who are ultimately the ones that suffer because of this one man. My wife has a deep understanding of Thailand as well but I do not have to hide behind her opinions in making up my mind. Any enlightened person can see what is happening in Thailand at present. All Western media are in consensus about the ongoing anti-democratic coup (and no they are not all bought and paid by Thaksin) - it is you who is totally blinkered. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianf Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) Before you go too far down the road with your Hitler talk maybe you can read this, about a new book explaining Hitler's rise. When you are done, I can introduce you to Lenin, the man who introduced democracy to Russia, by defeating the royals.... Reform, dictatorship, democracy - all words in common discussion in Thailand today, interestingly enough. "The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler" might well send the odd chill of uncomfortable familiarity up the spines of readers here. "Hitler and the Nazis, von Papen reasoned, had the popular support, whilst he and his friends had the intelligence to manage them," Rees writes, referring to Hitler's predecessor as chancellor of Germany. Your attempt to draw an analogy between Thaksin and Hitler is very poor. Why not draw a parallel between David Cameron and Hitler, or Barack Obama and Hitler? Or for that matter any other Democratically elected leader around the World? It would be just as good an analogy to make as the one you are trying to make against Thaksin. There is no basis for comparison between Thaksin and Hitler. At every election and at every political meeting leading up to Hitler becoming chancellor in 1933, Hitler declared that he wanted to abolish democracy. Democracy was an abomination to Hitler. At no point has Thaksin declared that he wants to ablosih Thai democracy - but we know who has ... Suthep and his fascist thugs. Also the constant attempts to demonise Thaksin and anyone associated with him is straight out of Goebbels propaganda handbook - demonise your enemy, repeat a lie enough times and people will end up believing it. The biggest weapon the pro-fascists on this forum use is constant myth-making about Thaksin - choosing to refer to him as "the criminal from Dubai" when in actual fact those "criminal" charges only relate back to trivialities. The "real" criminals in Thai society walk free because the courts are very biased in their favour. Similarly, after Hitler staged an armed insurrection in 1923 that led to several deaths he was given a lenient sentence by a sympathetic court. In Thailand it is even worse as the criminal Suthep still walks around freely and has meetings with high ranking senators without being arrested and put on trial as he should be. I have never read such a load of ignorant twaddle in my life. Demonise Thaksin? Even people who were very close to him say that the man is an autocrat, not a democrat. The evidence against him is readily available. What about the reds tearing the face of Abhisit out of every election poster? Was that not an attempt to demonise Abhisit? The answer is yes and those of us who understand the nuances of Thai culture fully understand this. Why has an organisation like Amnesty International found that Thaksin is fully implicated in 18 serious cases of human rights abuse? They are after all an impartial body. During the red shirt occupation, and also since then, the reds did not make any speeches whatsoever that introduced any policy or plan for the future. Indeed all they did was emotionally manipulate their adoring masses. That was straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf where he was very clear about using emotional tools rather than 'argumentation'. To me there is every basis on which to compare Hitler to Thaksin or vice versa. Thaksin is not a democrat. This is a word he suddenly hijacked in order to undermine the Democrat party and the initial idea came from his western PR advisors. Thaksin is no more a democrat than Hitler was. I could write a massive post here about the evidence against Thaksin which is far more than your blinkered view about trivialities. Certainly you have a great way of introducing nonsense into a serious discussion. I find it truly offensive that we get the gullible westerners here supporting Thaksin. You can no more support Thaksin than you could Marcos, Amin, Saddam, Pinochet and many others. They all come from the same sociopathic bag. Thaksin is a disgusting self-serving liar and manipulator and he has the ability to control many people. He's frustrated because he has never managed to manipulate and 'own' the judiciary which is why the reds chant the same chorus of elitism and bias when the judgments go against them, but never say a word when the judgments favour them. He even managed to control the senate at one point by paying sufficient senators $3000 per month each in order to support him. Do some research on the net and you'll find so much about Thaksin, the extra-judicial killings in the 'drug war' and many many more examples of his manipulative and dangerous power. My wife, a country/farm girl at heart will tell you that Thaksin has divided Thailand and turned it into a country of which she is not proud. She has a deep understanding of all this stuff and could certainly enlighten you about the views of the real Thais, the people at the coalface who are ultimately the ones that suffer because of this one man. I understand that up to 10 PDRC guards who committed acts of violence were handed to the police by Suthep's organisation. And they will continue to do this when required. Demonise Thaksin? Even people who were very close to him say that the man is an autocrat, not a democrat. The evidence against him is readily available. If the evidence in favour of Thaksin being an autocrat is so readily available why do you not provide some? Every time you anti-democratic propagandists come on here you only dish up lies and myths and no evidence. What about the reds tearing the face of Abhisit out of every election poster? Was that not an attempt to demonise Abhisit? The answer is yes You talk of posters. Very good point. The difference between the 2 sides are shown in the kinds of posters the demonstrators have on display. The most disturbing ones come from the anti-democratic Suthep thugs - making misogynistic posters of Yingluck or her or her son being blown up by grenades in pools of blood etc. The kind of stuff that would make any civilised person feel nauseous - this is the kind of extreme propaganda you endorse. and those of us who understand the nuances of Thai culture fully understand this. You say you understand Thai culture - your understanding of it seems to be based on the old hierarchical feudalism which you are desperate to maintain - you have contempt for the Thai people which is why you do not trust them with the vote. Why has an organisation like Amnesty International found that Thaksin is fully implicated in 18 serious cases of human rights abuse? They are after all an impartial body. If Thaksin has committed human rights abuses why have the biased Thai courts not indicted him? I will tell you why because the whole of Thai society were in favour of his war on drugs. During the red shirt occupation, and also since then, the reds did not make any speeches whatsoever that introduced any policy or plan for the future. Indeed all they did was emotionally manipulate their adoring masses. That was straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf where he was very clear about using emotional tools rather than 'argumentation'. Your comments about the "red crowds" not having a political programme is pure gobbledigook. They have one of the most traditional political programmes you can have - the fight for the right to vote. You clearly do not know your history - go and read about the chartists or other groups who fought for equal political rights. To me there is every basis on which to compare Hitler to Thaksin or vice versa. Thaksin is not a democrat. This is a word he suddenly hijacked in order to undermine the Democrat party and the initial idea came from his western PR advisors. Thaksin is no more a democrat than Hitler was. Thaksin is 100 times more of a democrat than Suthep - you know why? because he doesn't sabotage elections, he doesn't call voters "buffaloes" nor does he fear the views of the masses. I could write a massive post here about the evidence against Thaksin which is far more than your blinkered view about trivialities. Certainly you have a great way of introducing nonsense into a serious discussion. You could write a massive post about Thaksin's crimes could you? You mean his massive crime of a land deal involving his wife - that huge crime against humanity? I find it truly offensive that we get the gullible westerners here supporting Thaksin. You can no more support Thaksin than you could Marcos, Amin, Saddam, Pinochet and many others. They all come from the same sociopathic bag. Thaksin is a disgusting self-serving liar and manipulator and he has the ability to control many people. He's frustrated because he has never managed to manipulate and 'own' the judiciary which is why the reds chant the same chorus of elitism and bias when the judgments go against them, but never say a word when the judgments favour them. He even managed to control the senate at one point by paying sufficient senators $3000 per month each in order to support him. Do some research on the net and you'll find so much about Thaksin, the extra-judicial killings in the 'drug war' and many many more examples of his manipulative and dangerous power. I find it truly offensive that people like yourself who has probably been brought up in a Western democracy and enjoyed the benefits of democracy now want to deny the right of the Thai people to choose their own government. My wife, a country/farm girl at heart will tell you that Thaksin has divided Thailand and turned it into a country of which she is not proud. She has a deep understanding of all this stuff and could certainly enlighten you about the views of the real Thais, the people at the coalface who are ultimately the ones that suffer because of this one man. My wife has a deep understanding of Thailand as well but I do not have to hide behind her opinions in making up my mind. Any enlightened person can see what is happening in Thailand at present. All Western media are in consensus about the ongoing anti-democratic coup (and no they are not all bought and paid by Thaksin) - it is you who is totally blinkered. Mark: You are entitled to your extreme right-wing and misinformed views. However, just for the record: Amnesty's minute of 'gross human rights violation' against Thaksin does not refer to the drug war. It refers to 18 separate cases of Thaksin's political opponents 'disappearing' or being assassinated. A convenient trick used by other dictators and autocrats to silence opposition. Thaksin's crimes go way beyond his ex-wife's indictment on corruption over airport land. (As an aside, Thaksin has long tried to open a new international airport near Sanpatong, Chiang Mai. He/his family bought the land where the airport is proposed on the cheap. The new road to this planned airport is now being built. Some people never learn their lesson!) Edited May 17, 2014 by ianf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Your attempt to draw an analogy between Thaksin and Hitler is very poor. Why not draw a parallel between David Cameron and Hitler, or Barack Obama and Hitler? Or for that matter any other Democratically elected leader around the World? It would be just as good an analogy to make as the one you are trying to make against Thaksin.There is no basis for comparison between Thaksin and Hitler. At every election and at every political meeting leading up to Hitler becoming chancellor in 1933, Hitler declared that he wanted to abolish democracy. Democracy was an abomination to Hitler. At no point has Thaksin declared that he wants to ablosih Thai democracy - but we know who has ... Suthep and his fascist thugs. Also the constant attempts to demonise Thaksin and anyone associated with him is straight out of Goebbels propaganda handbook - demonise your enemy, repeat a lie enough times and people will end up believing it. The biggest weapon the pro-fascists on this forum use is constant myth-making about Thaksin - choosing to refer to him as "the criminal from Dubai" when in actual fact those "criminal" charges only relate back to trivialities. The "real" criminals in Thai society walk free because the courts are very biased in their favour. Similarly, after Hitler staged an armed insurrection in 1923 that led to several deaths he was given a lenient sentence by a sympathetic court. In Thailand it is even worse as the criminal Suthep still walks around freely and has meetings with high ranking senators without being arrested and put on trial as he should be. "At no point has Thaksin declared that he wants to abolish Thai democracy". Indeed, he did not declare any such thing. He did however say: "Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," he said. "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress."... ..."Democracy is a vehicle," Thaksin said. "We can't drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and solve people's problems. A pickup truck or good off-road car will do. We just need to think carefully and make the right choices."... http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/PMS-DECLARATIONDemocracy-is-not-my-goal-90316.html As for demonizing, quite a bit of it in your own posts, maybe better to set an example first, before calling others to behave. Just saying that democracy is a tool rather than an end in itself is something that many democrats may agree with - there is nothing intrinsically un-democratic about that. If you were a purist in terms of democracy you could easily end up with an unworkable system. There needs to be a balance between democratic accountability and being able to actually lead. There is nothing in the quote you show to support that Thaksin does not want democracy to continue in Thailand. As for me demonising the regular posters here who are obsessively anti-Thaksin. Well, we all reach a point were the hypocrisy gets to be too much. I regularly read TV for updates on the situation in Thailand but constantly have to wade through the same old propaganda from the same posters. These posters cloak themselves in the same old cliches and verbal attacks against Thaksin every time we hear news about the Thai judiciary and other appointed agencies proceeding to carry out their "putsch" against the democratically elected government. They cheer on the abolition of democracy so they should just come out and say it plainly - as some have - they don't want democracy for Thailand because they fear the people of Thailand. If you will read again the first lines of my post, you will notice I did not claim he said that he did not want democracy in Thailand. It is just that Thaksin can hardly be called a paragon of democracy by any account. It does not make his rivals much better, as they have their own faults. Pointing out that Thaksin is less than perfect does not imply supporting Suthep (or anyone else). I think that Thaksin's view was (and is) that democracy is a indeed a tool. The main purpose of this tool, as envisaged by him, may be debated. If some wish to believe it to be the greater good of Thailand, they are welcome to it. Being a skeptic when it comes to the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - I will stick with it being somewhat more self serving than that. Some of the opinions on forums may be annoying, some posters definitely are, and even normally nice people get carried away at times. Making generalizations is just an easy way out of not dealing with shades of opinions and ideas, by clumping them together. Same goes for statements as to what the "Thai people" want. Going on and on about "them" and painting everyone on the other side as the baddies, or as mindless drones or whatever, is probably one of the main issues inflicting Thai political debate (not just on TVF). Sorry if thinking that we could do a little better in here is deemed condescending to Thais. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post smedly Posted May 17, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2014 Surely the best way to get a prime minister & cabinet with full authority would be to have an election or am I missing something? Surely "full authority" must include the mandate of the people? were you ? sleeping in Feb - there was an election and it failed another one will also fail, the simple truth is that there is a huge portion of the Thai people want reforms first - very possibly more than 50% but even if it was 40% an election is still not going to work - all of the voting public need to be on-board The main point here is that those that want reforms are not saying no to an election - they are saying they want it delayed so reforms can take place first - so contrary to what the red spammers here are saying - everyone wants an election - nobody is advocating not to have an election which is a very important point - What the reds stand to lose is power and money - these red leaders are getting paid huge amounts - PTP stand to lose huge amounts and possibly jail if an investigation is launched into government finance to find the missing stolen upwards of 800billion baht - PTP and the reds have a lot to lose which is why they are refusing to compromise Reforms Referendum Election It's as simple as that The forces that advocate their "reforms" demand that an exclusive still anonymous appointed "People's Council" and an exclusive still anonymous appointed National Assembly draw up the vague and unspecified reforms. The unknown "reforms" would be written by two closed carefully selected bodies appointed on the recommendation of whom - Suthep and the PDRC? Such a tiny minority imposing their well guarded secretive will on the general population as a whole is guaranteed to be a failure. It is the opposite way to make public policy, laws, rules, regulations. There is throughout the land a very strong opposition to this militant secretive excusive approach to charter writing, which means it is both divisive and dangerous in its nature, consequence. The obvious alternative and much greater urgency is to find a way to have a representative constitutional convention in which all citizens and groups have input, a significant voice, rather than leaving such vital matters in the hands of a select, self-appointed few secretive elites. It is irony the 2007 martial law coup written constitution prohibits a constitutional convention at this time under the present circumstances. Well, perhaps "irony" is not the appropriate or applicable word. The term cynical deliberate design might be more like it. Election Representative Constitutional Convention Referendum This sequence is the logical and rational approach to the current impasse. Your sequence is jumbled garble and only makes matters worse.. 99% of what you have written above is complete and utter nonsense But the main Point that you and your cohorts consistently fail to acknowledge is that at Least 50% of the Thai People do not want PTP to Champion Reforms for the simple reason they have no vested interest - they have been doing the opposite for almost 3 years and look at the trouble they caused - lies - power abuse - corruption on a scale that I think will be shocking once exposed - The Election is not going to happen without reforms first of that I am 100% certain and I happen to agree with it The point you are also missing above is that any reforms will be put to all the Thai people for approval - if they are not approved then it is back to the drawing board until it is approved Changes will not be rammed through without the people voting on it - I simply fail to comprehend why anyone has an argument against it The resistance by PTP and the Red leaders the last 6 months has been for one reason only - to prevent the exposure of massive corruption and theft on a scale unequalled in Thailands political history 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkspeaker Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) Interesting, but first of all I don't see how Thaksin's policy vis-a the US was any different under Thaksin then it was prior to 2001? Thailand had already 'sold-out' as you call it to the US during the Communist era. You seem to think that there was this 'conspiriacy' where the US 'backs Thaksin' and then Thailand looses 'Sovergnty' ?? I can't beleive you can name an example, and if it's true why wasn't Abhisit using it as an issue against Yingluck.. What significant change did Thaksin make that the DEms were against. And you say the US controls Thaksin because he has assets in the US, he also has them in Dubai, he can just move them can't he? What does the US gain by changing the 'elites' when they were both pro-american ones? You know like the PT is more likely to favor minimum wage increase, that's not great for American owned factories here, labor costs up, less profits for the owners, even McD's, Starbuks, etc. oh yeah, the best way to fight with you opponent is to stigmatize him as ""fascist", "neo-colonialist" Labeling and manipulation - this is how Western leftist propaganda works. Hitler was elected in 100% democratic elections, where Nazi party got 44%, in fact most disastrous regimes in 20th century were elected democratically: Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Mengistu, Mubarak, al-Bashir and many others. And only Mao and Pol Pot were not elected (which didn't prevent US to support Pol Pot) but American left fundamentalists keep denying this because democracy is their weapon against sovereign governments, considered uncontrollable from Washington DC. In reality US is not more democratic than Zimbabwe, but US elite just use more intricate mechanism to control the public opinion - that's why, for example from 1852 only members of two parties were elected as president. Is there any probability that in 160 years there were no any person in any other party good enough to be elected as US president? And this is what you call democracy?! in reality Shinavatra was always ruling on behalf of US because Thaksin can be 100% controlled by his assets in American banks. That's why American agents of influence, such as Robert Amsterdam and Andrew Marshall carry out a wide media campaign to back up Thaksin's efforts to neutralize his political opponents in Thailand. The main and only goal of US in this campaign is replacing national -oriented elite to pro-American one. They pursue this goal all over the world: in Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Morocco, Egypt, Ukraine, Panama, Guatemala, Grenada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and plenty of others. only American hypocrites dare to say that Thaksin's manipulation of public opinion means "Thais run there own country" Edited May 17, 2014 by pkspeaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Because the PTP government has proven itself unable or unwilling to act in the best interests of the country after their Amnesty Bill debacle, that's why they should resign, six months ago would had been a better time though. Why do you believe that the amnesty bill wasn't good for the country, Thaksin may have benefitted himself from the sale of a telecoms company and for buying some land at reduced prices, but thats pretty similar to a lot of leaders around the world, in power today. It surely isn't worth destroying a country over. Do you think the current situation with people being paid to protest for months on end and people being killed in the streets so that an equally corrupt government can get into power, is better for the country? If the population really did think that PTP were so bad, Suthep would have been successful in a month or less. After 6 months+ of protesting and now they cannot even remove a caretaker government……..have you thought to wonder why he hasn't been successful?? Because the 'majority of the people' don't want PTP replaced with a leader that wasn't elected. But going back to your first point, i am sure Suthep and Abhisit will be looking for some type of amnesty in the near future too, or they will likely end up in prison for a lot longer than Thaksin was going to get. This whole political saga in Thailand is like a never ending merry-go-round…..and the ONLY way it will be resolved is through an amnesty bill for all parties….either that or they all go to prison and share the same cell for a while. Why do you believe that the amnesty bill wasn't good for the country Because it was meant to bring reconciliation to the country and did the exact opposite when it was changed at the last minute, unilaterally, by PTP to serve the interests of Thaksin Shinawatra. Even the Red Shirts cried foul over it, that's how bad the move was. In case you didn't know, or forgot, the reason given by the MP that introduced the changes to the bill was to get Thaksin back: Prayuth said he met Thaksin in Hong Kong several months ago, before he proposed the change to Worachai's draft."Once I met him, he said 'Brother, I want to go home now'. He said just that, and I knew immediately that he would like to return to Thailand through a proper channel. And a channel that can help him return is amnesty. So, it has been on my mind all the time that I must help him come home." That after months of claiming that the Amnesty Bill was not meant to help Thaksin, they shoved in the changes, rushed the second and third readings in a day and voted it at 4:30 AM when the opposition had already left in view of the futility of having any say in the matter. They passed a bill that nobody wanted, not the Democrats, not the Red Shirts, not the general population (as proved by the spontaneous protests that erupted) They that because PTP's owner said "I want to go home now". If you don't see that as a debacle feel free to show who, besides PTP, thought it was a good thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Robby nz Posted May 17, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2014 Really out of this world how the reds rant on about appointed senators as if its some sort of a crime. The senate is made up according to law so get used to it. The present acting president of the senate was voted into the job in a democratic election of all senators and if memory serves me correctly with a majority of over 80%, that he has as yet not received royal endorsement is a detail, it will happen for his majesty will not turn down the choice of the senate. The senate could by now have been fully elected for there was a bill before the house to change section 190 of the constitution to allow just that and all parties agreed to the proposal. However at the last minute extra clauses were added to allow friends and family of sitting MP's to stand for senate positions and to abolish the 6 year term. This would have allowed the party in power to stack the senate with their own people who could have stayed in the senate for life virtually abolishing the checks and balances role of the senate. These clauses and the fact that the altered bill was sneaked through in an unlawful manner meant it was taken to the CC who found to be unconstitutional. So you can blame PT for the fact that there are still appointed senators for if they had not tried to subvert the law the bill in its agreed form would have been law by now. What is holding up any progress to a democratic solution within the law are 26 caretaker cabinet ministers who refuse to step aside for the good of the country. Tell me, how many of those 26 are in fact elected ? That is, were actual MP"s in the previous PT administration who have faced the people at the ballot box ? And how many were appointed during the many cabinet reshuffles ? If you want to go on about the legitimacy of elected versus appointed the answer to that would have a big bearing on your argument . The senate is in fact at present the only fully functional part of Government this country has. The status of the 26 as an arm of Government is in doubt and will probably have to be taken to the CC, this has been highlighted by the EC in respect of the signing of a royal decree to hold an election. The senate has every right to make decisions and is going about things in a democratic manner by consulting with everyone who will meet with them. OK, Now here's the reality: You appear to forget that MPs are aligned to a particular political party. The senate are supposed to be fully non partisan. Surachai is aligned with the anti-Thaksin Gang of 40. He was also appointed by the military Junta to draft the flawed 2007 constitution. So let's forget that independent tag shall we. The "election" for senate speaker was added to the agenda of the royally endorsed special session of the senate by surachai himself, illegally. The special session was called for the Senate to endorse the appointment of a new NACC member and Administrative Court specialists, only. He is now "holding court" with half a senate, 70 senators, not even a majority, and presumes to speak for the whole Senate. I never said anything about anyone in the senate being independent so your post really does not answer anything I have written just goes of on a tangent to try to deamonise the senate speaker. However I will answer you because you seem a little confused. If the senate is supposed to be fully non aligned how do you explain the wife of a red leader (red radio station owner) who is now a senator, do you really believe she is non aligned ? Do you believe that all the elected senators from red controlled provinces like Udon Thani and Chai yaphum where the governors have recently dismissed village heads for supporting the opposition are non aligned ? So this is the reality. There is a balance which keeps things in prospective and the present senate speaker is doing his best to give everyone a say and is using input from as many parties as possible before any decision is made. I see nowhere that any senators have been excluded from discussions by the speaker or anyone else, if they choose not to have their say that is their business. That some (or one, UDD) parties refuse to take part is their loss. I would expect any decision to be put to the democratic vote in the senate just as the senate voted for its speaker. Your second paragraph assumes that the 26 caretaker cabinet ministers have the authority to order the senate around by limiting what it can do by issuing a restrictive royal decree. If what I read is correct the senate being the only fully functional part of the Govt at present has the authority to call emergency sessions, this it seem is what they have done in an an attempt to get the country out of what is becoming a desperate situation and to prevent farther loss of life and injury. A far cry from some organisations and some posters on here who can only come up with negativity and criticism. Do you have an answer as to how many of the 26 caretaker cabinet ministers were elected to their position ? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Flint Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 The same can be said of Suthep. Go home for the sake of the country, Does he care about the country? No. At least Puea Thai was elected. Did anyone elect Suthep to dictate the country what to do? No. He initially said his plan was to get rid of the amnesty bill and he would go home. The amnesty bill was removed and he kept going. Then he said when Yingluck steps down, he will go home. Yingluck stepped down and he is still pushing for yet more. He is a power hungry liar, who will not stop until he holds absolute power, nothing more. Bang on the button Sir Abhisit became Premier at a time of global economic turmoil and rising domestic political tensions.[11] As prime minister, he promoted a "People's Agenda," which focused primarily on policies affecting the living conditions of Thailand's rural and working class citizens.[12] He administered two economic stimulus packages: a $40 billion, three-year infrastructure improvement plan, and a more than $3 billion program of cash subsidies and handouts.[13] By 2010, the stock market and the value of the baht had rebounded to their highest levels since the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.Human Rights Watch called Abhisit "the most prolific censor in recent Thai history" and Freedom House downgraded Thailand's rating of media freedom to "not free."[14][15] Abhisit also advocated for stronger anti-corruption measures, although several members of his Cabinet resigned due to corruption scandals and parts of his economic stimulus packages were criticized for instances of alleged corruption. Abhisit's government faced major protests in April 2009 and April–May 2010. The military's crackdowns on protesters left many dead.[16][17]Abhisit launched a reconciliation plan to investigate the crackdown, but the work of the investigation commission was hampered by military and government agencies.[18] The Thai Army clashed with Cambodian troops numerous times from 2009 to 2010 in the bloodiest fighting in over 2 decades.[19] The South Thailand insurgency escalated during Abhisit's government, and reports of torture and human rights violations increased. Having resigned the party leadership after the defeat the Democrats suffered in the parliamentary elections of 2011, Abhisit was re-elected as leader at a party assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Flint Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 The same can be said of Suthep. Go home for the sake of the country, Does he care about the country? No. At least Puea Thai was elected. Did anyone elect Suthep to dictate the country what to do? No. He initially said his plan was to get rid of the amnesty bill and he would go home. The amnesty bill was removed and he kept going. Then he said when Yingluck steps down, he will go home. Yingluck stepped down and he is still pushing for yet more. He is a power hungry liar, who will not stop until he holds absolute power, nothing more. Bang on the button Sir Abhisit became Premier at a time of global economic turmoil and rising domestic political tensions.[11] As prime minister, he promoted a "People's Agenda," which focused primarily on policies affecting the living conditions of Thailand's rural and working class citizens.[12] He administered two economic stimulus packages: a $40 billion, three-year infrastructure improvement plan, and a more than $3 billion program of cash subsidies and handouts.[13] By 2010, the stock market and the value of the baht had rebounded to their highest levels since the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.Human Rights Watch called Abhisit "the most prolific censor in recent Thai history" and Freedom House downgraded Thailand's rating of media freedom to "not free."[14][15] Abhisit also advocated for stronger anti-corruption measures, although several members of his Cabinet resigned due to corruption scandals and parts of his economic stimulus packages were criticized for instances of alleged corruption. Abhisit's government faced major protests in April 2009 and April–May 2010. The military's crackdowns on protesters left many dead.[16][17]Abhisit launched a reconciliation plan to investigate the crackdown, but the work of the investigation commission was hampered by military and government agencies.[18] The Thai Army clashed with Cambodian troops numerous times from 2009 to 2010 in the bloodiest fighting in over 2 decades.[19] The South Thailand insurgency escalated during Abhisit's government, and reports of torture and human rights violations increased. Having resigned the party leadership after the defeat the Democrats suffered in the parliamentary elections of 2011, Abhisit was re-elected as leader at a party assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffreyake Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) Interesting, but first of all I don't see how Thaksin's policy vis-a the US was any different under Thaksin then it was prior to 2001? Thailand had already 'sold-out' as you call it to the US during the Communist era. You seem to think that there was this 'conspiriacy' where the US 'backs Thaksin' and then Thailand looses 'Sovergnty' ?? I can't beleive you can name an example, and if it's true why wasn't Abhisit using it as an issue against Yingluck.. What significant change did Thaksin make that the DEms were against. And you say the US controls Thaksin because he has assets in the US, he also has them in Dubai, he can just move them can't he? What does the US gain by changing the 'elites' when they were both pro-american ones? You know like the PT is more likely to favor minimum wage increase, that's not great for American owned factories here, labor costs up, less profits for the owners, even McD's, Starbuks, etc. who told you Thaksin has his main assets in Dubai? To get residence permit there one should spend just about $10.000 Abhisit don't use this issue against Yunglack because: 1)Thai people are brainwashed by US propaganda. it will take years and years to explain them the truth. It's more expedient to use media to fight with Shinavatras directly (even this Democrats can't do) 2) The one who reveals the true clandestine role of US in Thai politics will loose, because US will use all of it's arsenal (which is much wider than "soft power" it uses now) to break him down - like undermining the aircraft which US tried to do with Chinese PM in 1955. Taksin during his rule did 1) liberalization of financial system, which opened the way for American banks 2) promoting loans - which created a stock bubble for American speculators 3) sold assets important to the nation to foreign investors, indirectly controlled by US financial institutions 4) easing rules for US entrepreneurs in Thailand 5) an the main thing: Thaksin supported US dollar as the main international currency. during his rule, central bank of Thailand saved almost all of nation's assets in US currency and bonds. US economy exists because of massive currency emissions by Federal Reserve - private institution, controlled by a few rich individuals, not even by "elected" president. US emits bonds, which FR buys using self-printed dollars. roughly America spends 10 cents to print 100$ and exchange it for assets worth 100$ on the international market. This is the only funding source of US Army, inflated bureaucracy, welfare system, corrupted third world leaders etc. America is just a parasite spending what was manufactured in other parts of the World and paying back with green paper. dollar emission is the base of US superiority, anybody, who raise the voice against it becomes "an enemy of civilized humanity" (as Saddam, for example) Edited May 17, 2014 by Jeffreyake 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAG Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Surely the best way to get a prime minister & cabinet with full authority would be to have an election or am I missing something? Surely "full authority" must include the mandate of the people? Yes you are missing something, 2 words. FREE and FAIR. The 2011 general election was widely accepted, both within Thailand and Internationally as free and fair. Repeatedly claiming on TVF that they weren't won't change that. The recent attempt at an election was not free or fair, because PDRC blocked candidate registration and prevented people voting through thuggery and intimidation. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xminator Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Surely the best way to get a prime minister & cabinet with full authority would be to have an election or am I missing something? Surely "full authority" must include the mandate of the people? were you ? sleeping in Feb - there was an election and it failed another one will also fail, the simple truth is that there is a huge portion of the Thai people want reforms first - very possibly more than 50% but even if it was 40% an election is still not going to work - all of the voting public need to be on-board The main point here is that those that want reforms are not saying no to an election - they are saying they want it delayed so reforms can take place first - so contrary to what the red spammers here are saying - everyone wants an election - nobody is advocating not to have an election which is a very important point - What the reds stand to lose is power and money - these red leaders are getting paid huge amounts - PTP stand to lose huge amounts and possibly jail if an investigation is launched into government finance to find the missing stolen upwards of 800billion baht - PTP and the reds have a lot to lose which is why they are refusing to compromise Reforms Referendum Election It's as simple as that The forces that advocate their "reforms" demand that an exclusive still anonymous appointed "People's Council" and an exclusive still anonymous appointed National Assembly draw up the vague and unspecified reforms. The unknown "reforms" would be written by two closed carefully selected bodies appointed on the recommendation of whom - Suthep and the PDRC? Such a tiny minority imposing their well guarded secretive will on the general population as a whole is guaranteed to be a failure. It is the opposite way to make public policy, laws, rules, regulations. There is throughout the land a very strong opposition to this militant secretive excusive approach to charter writing, which means it is both divisive and dangerous in its nature, consequence. The obvious alternative and much greater urgency is to find a way to have a representative constitutional convention in which all citizens and groups have input, a significant voice, rather than leaving such vital matters in the hands of a select, self-appointed few secretive elites. It is irony the 2007 martial law coup written constitution prohibits a constitutional convention at this time under the present circumstances. Well, perhaps "irony" is not the appropriate or applicable word. The term cynical deliberate design might be more like it. Election Representative Constitutional Convention Referendum This sequence is the logical and rational approach to the current impasse. Your sequence is jumbled garble and only makes matters worse.. 99% of what you have written above is complete and utter nonsense But the main Point that you and your cohorts consistently fail to acknowledge is that at Least 50% of the Thai People do not want PTP to Champion Reforms for the simple reason they have no vested interest - they have been doing the opposite for almost 3 years and look at the trouble they caused - lies - power abuse - corruption on a scale that I think will be shocking once exposed - The Election is not going to happen without reforms first of that I am 100% certain and I happen to agree with it The point you are also missing above is that any reforms will be put to all the Thai people for approval - if they are not approved then it is back to the drawing board until it is approved Changes will not be rammed through without the people voting on it - I simply fail to comprehend why anyone has an argument against it The resistance by PTP and the Red leaders the last 6 months has been for one reason only - to prevent the exposure of massive corruption and theft on a scale unequalled in Thailands political history Better just leave him alone. He actually believe what he is typing. Much like you just have to nod and inject a few yes now and then when that relative that sees spirits want to tell you about his healing hands. The moons is a cheese and the earth is flat, everyone know that. Ahhh, yes nod nod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennywren Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 How about. Get yourselves elected for the the sake of the country - everybody urges appointed senators. Push through reforms via referendum. Any problems there... Oh, the small group behind PDRC and appointed Governors is out of step with the country and certainly the rest of the world so could not manage either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelplatoon Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) Surely the best way to get a prime minister & cabinet with full authority would be to have an election or am I missing something? Surely "full authority" must include the mandate of the people? Yes you are missing something, 2 words. FREE and FAIR. How were the last elections in February neither free nor fair? Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Pffff so tired of explaining. The elections CANNOT be free and fair if, after being convicted of ELECTORAL FRAUD, you can just join under another name (PPP, TRT, PTP). Also if the constituencies are so divided to benefit one pary (PTP) or when its not illegal to use state coffers, promising all sorts of benefits, if you choose for our party. 'Niwattumrong had said earlier yesterday that he was too busy to meet the senators today to discuss the political stalemate as requested by the Upper House.' This is the biggest disgrace. After talking with ALL fellow senators a meeting with the PM was seen as a good idea to solve the stalemate. But he s 'too busy'. With what? Canvassing for upcoming fraudulent elections? Lest we forget, this is a CARETAKER goverment. . . Edited May 17, 2014 by rebelplatoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianf Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) Interesting, but first of all I don't see how Thaksin's policy vis-a the US was any different under Thaksin then it was prior to 2001? Thailand had already 'sold-out' as you call it to the US during the Communist era. You seem to think that there was this 'conspiriacy' where the US 'backs Thaksin' and then Thailand looses 'Sovergnty' ?? I can't beleive you can name an example, and if it's true why wasn't Abhisit using it as an issue against Yingluck.. What significant change did Thaksin make that the DEms were against. And you say the US controls Thaksin because he has assets in the US, he also has them in Dubai, he can just move them can't he? What does the US gain by changing the 'elites' when they were both pro-american ones? You know like the PT is more likely to favor minimum wage increase, that's not great for American owned factories here, labor costs up, less profits for the owners, even McD's, Starbuks, etc. who told you Thaksin has his main assets in Dubai? To get residence permit there one should spend just about $10.000 Abhisit don't use this issue against Yunglack because: 1)Thai people are brainwashed by US propaganda. it will take years and years to explain them the truth. It's more expedient to use media to fight with Shinavatras directly (even this Democrats can't do) 2) The one who reveals the true clandestine role of US in Thai politics will loose, because US will use all of it's arsenal (which is much wider than "soft power" it uses now) to break him down - like undermining the aircraft which US tried to do with Chinese PM in 1955. Taksin during his rule did 1) liberalization of financial system, which opened the way for American banks 2) promoting loans - which created a stock bubble for American speculators 3) sold assets important to the nation to foreign investors, indirectly controlled by US financial institutions 4) easing rules for US entrepreneurs in Thailand 5) an the main thing: Thaksin supported US dollar as the main international currency. during his rule, central bank of Thailand saved almost all of nation's assets in US currency and bonds. US economy exists because of massive currency emissions by Federal Reserve - private institution, controlled by a few rich individuals, not even by "elected" president. US emits bonds, which FR buys using self-printed dollars. roughly America spends 10 cents to print 100$ and exchange it for assets worth 100$ on the international market. This is the only funding source of US Army, inflated bureaucracy, welfare system, corrupted third world leaders etc. America is just a parasite spending what was manufactured in other parts of the World and paying back with green paper. dollar emission is the base of US superiority, anybody, who raise the voice against it becomes "an enemy of civilized humanity" (as Saddam, for example) Very interesting and erudite posts Jeffrey. Off course, if we broaden this discussion we can easily make the connection between Wall Street and Thaksin. The Globalist strategy is creating unrest in may parts of the world, especially those you have mentioned. Thaksin is simply a tool for these guys and they expect him to deliver. Desperation must set in at times as he is finding that Thailand is not as easy to crack as some other countries have been. Bloodshed is of not significance to the American-led conspiracy to globalise their political (ie economic) interests. Thaksin is of interest because of the massive resources he controls: Thailand is of interest because of its proximity to China and it's strategic location. Those here who are roaring for Thaksin have no inkling of the wider game being played out in Thailand. Suthep is fighting the might of propaganda financed by the Globalists, including Thaksin. Incidentally, Amseterdam, also closely associated through different routes to the Globalists is Canadian and not from the USA as you assert. But great posts. Edited May 17, 2014 by ianf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianf Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 The same can be said of Suthep. Go home for the sake of the country, Does he care about the country? No. At least Puea Thai was elected. Did anyone elect Suthep to dictate the country what to do? No. He initially said his plan was to get rid of the amnesty bill and he would go home. The amnesty bill was removed and he kept going. Then he said when Yingluck steps down, he will go home. Yingluck stepped down and he is still pushing for yet more. He is a power hungry liar, who will not stop until he holds absolute power, nothing more. Bang on the button Sir Abhisit became Premier at a time of global economic turmoil and rising domestic political tensions.[11] As prime minister, he promoted a "People's Agenda," which focused primarily on policies affecting the living conditions of Thailand's rural and working class citizens.[12] He administered two economic stimulus packages: a $40 billion, three-year infrastructure improvement plan, and a more than $3 billion program of cash subsidies and handouts.[13] By 2010, the stock market and the value of the baht had rebounded to their highest levels since the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.Human Rights Watch called Abhisit "the most prolific censor in recent Thai history" and Freedom House downgraded Thailand's rating of media freedom to "not free."[14][15] Abhisit also advocated for stronger anti-corruption measures, although several members of his Cabinet resigned due to corruption scandals and parts of his economic stimulus packages were criticized for instances of alleged corruption. Abhisit's government faced major protests in April 2009 and April–May 2010. The military's crackdowns on protesters left many dead.[16][17]Abhisit launched a reconciliation plan to investigate the crackdown, but the work of the investigation commission was hampered by military and government agencies.[18] The Thai Army clashed with Cambodian troops numerous times from 2009 to 2010 in the bloodiest fighting in over 2 decades.[19] The South Thailand insurgency escalated during Abhisit's government, and reports of torture and human rights violations increased. Having resigned the party leadership after the defeat the Democrats suffered in the parliamentary elections of 2011, Abhisit was re-elected as leader at a party assembly. Aah Bernard! Straight out of Land Destroyer!!! But this quote is taken out of context and therefore reads as not originally intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JAG Posted May 17, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2014 I'm sorry gentlemen, and I am sorry to poor scorn on your theories, but the present shenanigans has the cube root of b* gg*r all to do with a globalizing plot hatched in Wall Street. It is ultimately about who has his grubby paws on the levers of power when an expected unhappy event occurs, and who will therefore influence what happens immediately afterwards. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennywren Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Being a Dr (and a drunk one at that tonight) the progosii are Thakisin was s bruised knee. Yingluck was a bruised knee that was kissed better by the most beautiful Pm the world has ever known. There fore could be construed as pleasurable to have. Suthep is Ebole with AIDS topping waiting in the wings and needs to be isolated and elimintated as soon as poss from the planet If thailands elite feel they can go forward with this goon, they should be allowed to. At least that way,nobody will ever take the dems and this PDRC thing seriously ever again. Bit like that Pitak Siam guy that none of you can remember!!! Back to the beer singh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3NUMBAS Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 no no you cant give in to the bullyboy thugs as theyll be back sometime again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Being a Dr (and a drunk one at that tonight) the progosii are Thakisin was s bruised knee. Yingluck was a bruised knee that was kissed better by the most beautiful Pm the world has ever known. There fore could be construed as pleasurable to have. Suthep is Ebole with AIDS topping waiting in the wings and needs to be isolated and elimintated as soon as poss from the planet If thailands elite feel they can go forward with this goon, they should be allowed to. At least that way,nobody will ever take the dems and this PDRC thing seriously ever again. Bit like that Pitak Siam guy that none of you can remember!!! Back to the beer singh. "back to beer singh" Obviously a fake government/red supporter then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piichai Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Why do you believe that the amnesty bill wasn't good for the country, Thaksin may have benefitted himself from the sale of a telecoms company and for buying some land at reduced prices, but thats pretty similar to a lot of leaders around the world, in power today. It surely isn't worth destroying a country over. Do you think the current situation with people being paid to protest for months on end and people being killed in the streets so that an equally corrupt government can get into power, is better for the country? If the population really did think that PTP were so bad, Suthep would have been successful in a month or less. After 6 months+ of protesting and now they cannot even remove a caretaker government..have you thought to wonder why he hasn't been successful?? Because the 'majority of the people' don't want PTP replaced with a leader that wasn't elected. But going back to your first point, i am sure Suthep and Abhisit will be looking for some type of amnesty in the near future too, or they will likely end up in prison for a lot longer than Thaksin was going to get. This whole political saga in Thailand is like a never ending merry-go-round..and the ONLY way it will be resolved is through an amnesty bill for all parties.either that or they all go to prison and share the same cell for a while. I don't believe Thaksin fears returning to Thailand because of his conviction. Thaksin fears returning to Thailand because of the half-dozen or so arrest warrants yet to be served. The charge against Abhisit and Suthep was a quite obvious gambit to coerce them into backing the amnesty bill. Imagine the look on Thaksin's face when they refused to play his game. All convicted should go to prison; there is no need for amnesty. Especially for the leaders of the disgraceful actions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smutcakes Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Why does the PDRC?Suthep STEP BACK. Why the Govt need to step back? As far as I am aware they have been trying to follow procedure and have an election? Why are the senators calling for them to step down, rather than calling Suthep to step back? Because they are the cause of the problems, had they not try to get Taksin home the good people of Thailand would not have risen against this government. They were told not too, but did so it is all on them and their bandit leader. If you really think this whole thing is because of the amnesty then you are a complete moron. Why was it okay for the people who carried out the coup to grant themselves amnesty? I am not saying that it is or was correct, and it was a ridiculous thing to try and do, but to pretend this whole thing is about that is completely naive. If you gave Suthep the choice of granting the amnesty and the Dems being in power, he would take you bloody hand off for it. They would then set up Committee's to look at reform and 10 years later we would be in the same position, just more violent as people's elected Governments continue to be thrown out for spurious reasons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now