Thaksin Will Return With Pride And Dignity

[John K]

He`s meeting golf officials in Hong Kong and/or his old buddies with whom he had secret political meetings in China?

He`s got some nerve mentioning rigged elections and imaginary assassination attempts.

Tony, I thought you would at least have a go a translating the interview for the people who can’t read Thaksin.

[cclub75]

Thaksin, who is in self-imposed exile and was in Hong Kong to meet Thai golf officials, said he wanted to return to Thailand "yesterday" but would wait until he would be ensured justice and personal security.

This is huge !

;-)

Anyway, he's smarter than ever... His idea of "national unity gvt" is really... interesting.

We are going to have a lot of fun on december 23 and after !

(source at Reuters).

Edited December 7, 2007 by cclub75

[Tony Clifton]

Here's a chef full of pride and dignity.

[sriracha john]

Ousted Thai PM Thaksin calls for unity government

"Why don't we do national reconciliation by having a national unity government," said Thaksin

"If you take it seriously, and if you push ahead with the plan, I think two years should be about the time to bring back our unity, bring back our full democracy and let the people decide again."

"I've had assassination attempts several times, but not while I was away, while I was prime minister," he said.

Now chairman of English Premier League soccer club Manchester City, Thaksin said he wanted to devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education.

What on Earth is he babbling about now? What the heck is a "national unity" government? An appointed government? We've had that. A caretaker-type government? We had that, too, just before. An elected government? We're going to have that in 2 weeks.

Like so many other Thaksin-isms.. it's a little catch-phrase with no elaboration or specificity or depth. In other words, meaningless.

Assassination attempt? Several? Interesting how diddly-squat ever developed from any of them or the investigations therein.

Devote his life to charity? International foundation? Then why doesn't he focus on that instead of meddling with the current politics?

[sriracha john]

Here's a chef full of pride and dignity.

The first bowl should go to the Bird Flu Minister Sudarat.

[John K]

Actually I read “National Unity Government” as You do what I say and there will be no problems in resetting the clock to September 18, 2006 when viewing it in context. No doubt that involves disappearing many people starting with the letter ‘S’. I also see the phrase “National Unity Government” as synonymous with dictator.

For him to come out and say this he must be feeling very confident because it is starting to take on the tones of dominant Thaksin prior to the coup, and not the passive caring for others Thaksin that he has been portraying for the last year or so. Not a good sign at all I am afraid.

[younghusband]

Ousted Thai PM Thaksin calls for unity government

"Why don't we do national reconciliation by having a national unity government," said Thaksin

"If you take it seriously, and if you push ahead with the plan, I think two years should be about the time to bring back our unity, bring back our full democracy and let the people decide again."

"I've had assassination attempts several times, but not while I was away, while I was prime minister," he said.

Now chairman of English Premier League soccer club Manchester City, Thaksin said he wanted to devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education.

What on Earth is he babbling about now? What the heck is a "national unity" government? An appointed government? We've had that. A caretaker-type government? We had that, too, just before. An elected government? We're going to have that in 2 weeks.

Like so many other Thaksin-isms.. it's a little catch-phrase with no elaboration or specificity or depth. In other words, meaningless.

Assassination attempt? Several? Interesting how diddly-squat ever developed from any of them or the investigations therein.

Devote his life to charity? International foundation? Then why doesn't he focus on that instead of meddling with the current politics?

A national unity government is a coalition of different interests brought together at time of national crisis.An example would be the administration in Britain headed by Winston Churchill during WW2 in the face of the Nazi threat.

My understanding is that Thaksin is suggesting a two year government of national unity which would be followed by a general election under a new constitution (having disposed of the current flawed one).In effect isn't this, new constitution apart, what could happen anyway? By this I mean shouldn't senior people of good will in PPP and the Democrats, as well as the minor parties, put party differences aside and come together in a spirit of reconciliation in the interests of the country? In practice given the requirements of democracy this has to be a temporary solution and Thaksin's suggestion of two years seems to be about right.He in quite temperate terms points out to the military that their attempts to influence the election on 23 December are self-defeating:that is no more than the truth.

It's interesting that Thaksin has given his most unambiguous statement yet that he has no plans to resume the premiership.

It's difficult to disentangle sensible points from your endless stream of bile and hate, but the one coherent concern which emerges is your question why Thaksin "meddles in current politics".Let me try and answer concisely, if not for your benefit, for those that are fair minded.The answer is that Thaksin retains a huge constituency in this country, I believe a clear majority but agree this is a subjective issue.To attempt to neutralise Thaksin, notwithstanding his many weaknesses and mistakes, is to attempt to defranchise millions of Thais.In short Thaksin has a legitimate and powerful interest in Thai politics and remains by far the most popular politician in the country.

[sriracha john]

So, persistent flaming aside, it doesn't answer the question of why... if he's so gung-ho and sincere about quitting politics and wants to "devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education"... he doesn't remove himself personally from the political landscape completely. By his own words, he's "neutralizing" himself from politics, but as yet, his actions don't follow his words.

As for his calls for a "national unity" government...

if as Wiki describes it:

National governments (alternatively national unity governments or national union governments) are broad coalition governments consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature.

then, that is what is going to happen anyway in 2 weeks. Let the elected government then decide if they wish to revise the constitution.

[younghusband]

So, persistent flaming aside, it doesn't answer the question of why... if he's so gung-ho and sincere about quitting politics and wants to "devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education"... he doesn't remove himself personally from the political landscape completely. By his own words, he's "neutralizing" himself from politics, but as yet, his actions don't follow his words.

As for his calls for a "national unity" government...

if as Wiki describes it:

National governments (alternatively national unity governments or national union governments) are broad coalition governments consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature.

then, that is what is going to happen anyway in 2 weeks. Let the elected government then decide if they wish to revise the constitution.

You really must try and distinguish between flaming and views which contradict your own.Please just concentrate on the topic.

My understanding is that Thaksin has stated he has no ambitions for the premiership, not that he will abandon politics.Why should he since many millions of Thais, rightly or wrongly, look to him for political leadership? In any case I don't think this is really a very important point.Many politicians have "abandoned" political ambitions only to change their minds as circumstances changed.Churchill, de Gaulle, Nixon, Anwar immediately come to mind and I expect there are many others

The latter part of your post simply restates what I have already said, so I'm happy to agree with you.I also agree that in practice it is for the next government to deal with the constitution and any other damaging detritus of the military junta.Khun Abhisit has already made this clear.

[hammered]

Amazing. A long time ago i speculated that the only way to heal divisions would be through a Dem-TRT (as they were then) coalition. Can i now find myself agreeing with Mr. Thaksin! At the time i thought this highly unlikely to happen, but the chances just improved. It will be interesting to see how the aprties react to this.

From another angle it can be seen that with national unity now stressed the PPP has to do something to not be seen as the instigators of division, which some of Mr. Samak's previous comments have positioned them as especially with the EC seemingly moving against them on these grounds. Undoubtedly there are elements of political manouver and gamesmanship in what is said but it still does go back to the obvious solution in times of crisis is a unity government. That said certain issues such as mass amnesties and cases in the courts of law could still be difficult to get over although cases in court could be allowed to progress to natural conclusion. However, the amnesty issue is not easy.

We should also remember that the only two parties who will score big in any election have both stated they wish to ammend the new constitution.

Certainly interesting times, and one wonders if it does presage a possible deal.

[John K]

So, persistent flaming aside, it doesn't answer the question of why... if he's so gung-ho and sincere about quitting politics and wants to "devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education"... he doesn't remove himself personally from the political landscape completely. By his own words, he's "neutralizing" himself from politics, but as yet, his actions don't follow his words.

As for his calls for a "national unity" government...

if as Wiki describes it:

National governments (alternatively national unity governments or national union governments) are broad coalition governments consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature.

then, that is what is going to happen anyway in 2 weeks. Let the elected government then decide if they wish to revise the constitution.

You need to take into consideration who is saying “NUG” to understand what they really mean. The definition you provided is a fair definition, however it also implies cooperation between the parties. Without going much deeper than that you already know Thaksin does not accept anything except his way. So for Thaksin the phrase is either an out and out misrepresentation to make it sound nice and somewhat digestible, or it means something much more devious.

For Thaksin to misrepresent things is his norm so in this case it is just another lie to trick people into getting him back in power. He has absolutely no intention of listening to anyone else and he will dictate what happens when he is back. “NUG” is the opposite of dictator when taken from Thaksin’s mouth. If it came from someone like Winston Churchill it would have another meaning all together.

I don’t need to remind you how astonished I was as how low Thaksin went last year. Every time I though he hit bottom he surprised me again by going even lower. This is nothing compared to that because he is still in a submissive position.

[John K]

So, persistent flaming aside, it doesn't answer the question of why... if he's so gung-ho and sincere about quitting politics and wants to "devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education"... he doesn't remove himself personally from the political landscape completely. By his own words, he's "neutralizing" himself from politics, but as yet, his actions don't follow his words.

As for his calls for a "national unity" government...

if as Wiki describes it:

National governments (alternatively national unity governments or national union governments) are broad coalition governments consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature.

then, that is what is going to happen anyway in 2 weeks. Let the elected government then decide if they wish to revise the constitution.

You really must try and distinguish between flaming and views which contradict your own.Please just concentrate on the topic.

My understanding is that Thaksin has stated he has no ambitions for the premiership, not that he will abandon politics.Why should he since many millions of Thais, rightly or wrongly, look to him for political leadership? In any case I don't think this is really a very important point.Many politicians have "abandoned" political ambitions only to change their minds as circumstances changed.Churchill, de Gaulle, Nixon, Anwar immediately come to mind and I expect there are many others

The latter part of your post simply restates what I have already said, so I'm happy to agree with you.I also agree that in practice it is for the next government to deal with the constitution and any other damaging detritus of the military junta.Khun Abhisit has already made this clear.

Younghusband, you are the one who does not understand what a flame is. A flame attacks the poster and not the post. Nearly every post you make you included some derogatory remark about the poster trying to bring them down to your level rather than you trying to clime up to theirs. You also ignore the obvious and seem to repeat you themes when proven wrong time and time again trying to force feed your view as being correct, and or the inability to accept when you are wrong. I don’t need to list them because you know exactly what they are.

[younghusband]

So, persistent flaming aside, it doesn't answer the question of why... if he's so gung-ho and sincere about quitting politics and wants to "devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education"... he doesn't remove himself personally from the political landscape completely. By his own words, he's "neutralizing" himself from politics, but as yet, his actions don't follow his words.

As for his calls for a "national unity" government...

if as Wiki describes it:

National governments (alternatively national unity governments or national union governments) are broad coalition governments consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature.

then, that is what is going to happen anyway in 2 weeks. Let the elected government then decide if they wish to revise the constitution.

You really must try and distinguish between flaming and views which contradict your own.Please just concentrate on the topic.

My understanding is that Thaksin has stated he has no ambitions for the premiership, not that he will abandon politics.Why should he since many millions of Thais, rightly or wrongly, look to him for political leadership? In any case I don't think this is really a very important point.Many politicians have "abandoned" political ambitions only to change their minds as circumstances changed.Churchill, de Gaulle, Nixon, Anwar immediately come to mind and I expect there are many others

The latter part of your post simply restates what I have already said, so I'm happy to agree with you.I also agree that in practice it is for the next government to deal with the constitution and any other damaging detritus of the military junta.Khun Abhisit has already made this clear.

Younghusband, you are the one who does not understand what a flame is. A flame attacks the poster and not the post. Nearly every post you make you included some derogatory remark about the poster trying to bring them down to your level rather than you trying to clime up to theirs. You also ignore the obvious and seem to repeat you themes when proven wrong time and time again trying to force feed your view as being correct, and or the inability to accept when you are wrong. I don’t need to list them because you know exactly what they are.

I hesitate to respond since your post is a personalisation (and arguably a flame) of a type which we should try and avoid.Let's make an effort to stick to the topic.If I have offended anyone unwittingly I am more than willing to apologise.Can I correct you on one point however which is to refute the suggestion I am unable to accept when I am wrong: I have made many mistakes in judgement of Thai political events, and have learnt much from many members of this forum who hold profoundly different views.Can you say the same?

[John K]

Amazing. A long time ago i speculated that the only way to heal divisions would be through a Dem-TRT (as they were then) coalition. Can i now find myself agreeing with Mr. Thaksin! At the time i thought this highly unlikely to happen, but the chances just improved. It will be interesting to see how the aprties react to this.

From another angle it can be seen that with national unity now stressed the PPP has to do something to not be seen as the instigators of division, which some of Mr. Samak's previous comments have positioned them as especially with the EC seemingly moving against them on these grounds. Undoubtedly there are elements of political manouver and gamesmanship in what is said but it still does go back to the obvious solution in times of crisis is a unity government. That said certain issues such as mass amnesties and cases in the courts of law could still be difficult to get over although cases in court could be allowed to progress to natural conclusion. However, the amnesty issue is not easy.

We should also remember that the only two parties who will score big in any election have both stated they wish to ammend the new constitution.

Certainly interesting times, and one wonders if it does presage a possible deal.

I can see your view point as being sound if all the intentions of the PPP are legitimate. However with the news clip in another thread citing a Thaksin CD that confesses he is the (for lack of a better phrase) Father of the PPP. That means the PPP is just a tool for him and not for the people of Thailand.

Knowing Thaksin, what he says at this point is what you want to hear and not his intentions. It also indicates Thaksin does know right from wrong and that his honest mistakes are mostly if not all intentional. This is nothing more than a ruse to get back into power. Samak was very clearly brutally honest when he said he was a proxy of Thaksin.

However I suspect this all may be moot in a few days as I highly suspect the EC will let us hear the chug, chug, chug of the toilet.

[sriracha john]

So, persistent flaming aside, it doesn't answer the question of why... if he's so gung-ho and sincere about quitting politics and wants to "devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education"... he doesn't remove himself personally from the political landscape completely. By his own words, he's "neutralizing" himself from politics, but as yet, his actions don't follow his words.

As for his calls for a "national unity" government...

if as Wiki describes it:

National governments (alternatively national unity governments or national union governments) are broad coalition governments consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature.

then, that is what is going to happen anyway in 2 weeks. Let the elected government then decide if they wish to revise the constitution.

You really must try and distinguish between flaming and views which contradict your own.Please just concentrate on the topic.

My understanding is that Thaksin has stated he has no ambitions for the premiership, not that he will abandon politics.Why should he since many millions of Thais, rightly or wrongly, look to him for political leadership? In any case I don't think this is really a very important point.Many politicians have "abandoned" political ambitions only to change their minds as circumstances changed.Churchill, de Gaulle, Nixon, Anwar immediately come to mind and I expect there are many others

The latter part of your post simply restates what I have already said, so I'm happy to agree with you.I also agree that in practice it is for the next government to deal with the constitution and any other damaging detritus of the military junta.Khun Abhisit has already made this clear.

I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinion, but I do have a problem with the very few posters that attack the poster with derogatory flames on a personal level, rather than just post their own point of view or even their own contention with someone else's point of view, but do so without attacking the other poster with insulting verbiage. Fortunately, most of those few posters who couldn't see this differentiation or refused to comply have been banned.

As for Thaksin only forgoing the PM position, but not politics, there is an entire lengthy thread filled to the brim with quotes where he specifically says he has given up on politics, not just the PM position. His latest pronouncement echoing his non-involvement is just the latest in a string that goes back months and months. There's been no "change of mind"... only a consistent non-compliance with his own words.

[John K]

Younghusband, life is a lesson, we all learn new things everyday. Sometimes it takes others to point things out that we may not see because we are to close to take everthing into the field of view. Take my previous post as the view from the fly on the wall. Consider my profession and take my post as a professional freebie.

[hammered]

Amazing. A long time ago i speculated that the only way to heal divisions would be through a Dem-TRT (as they were then) coalition. Can i now find myself agreeing with Mr. Thaksin! At the time i thought this highly unlikely to happen, but the chances just improved. It will be interesting to see how the aprties react to this.

From another angle it can be seen that with national unity now stressed the PPP has to do something to not be seen as the instigators of division, which some of Mr. Samak's previous comments have positioned them as especially with the EC seemingly moving against them on these grounds. Undoubtedly there are elements of political manouver and gamesmanship in what is said but it still does go back to the obvious solution in times of crisis is a unity government. That said certain issues such as mass amnesties and cases in the courts of law could still be difficult to get over although cases in court could be allowed to progress to natural conclusion. However, the amnesty issue is not easy.

We should also remember that the only two parties who will score big in any election have both stated they wish to ammend the new constitution.

Certainly interesting times, and one wonders if it does presage a possible deal.

I can see your view point as being sound if all the intentions of the PPP are legitimate. However with the news clip in another thread citing a Thaksin CD that confesses he is the (for lack of a better phrase) Father of the PPP. That means the PPP is just a tool for him and not for the people of Thailand.

Knowing Thaksin, what he says at this point is what you want to hear and not his intentions. It also indicates Thaksin does know right from wrong and that his honest mistakes are mostly if not all intentional. This is nothing more than a ruse to get back into power. Samak was very clearly brutally honest when he said he was a proxy of Thaksin.

However I suspect this all may be moot in a few days as I highly suspect the EC will let us hear the chug, chug, chug of the toilet.

Of course PPP is a vehicle for Mr. Thaksin and of course the courts have banned him. The problem lies in the support Mr. Thaksin for whatever reason still enjoys. I am certainly no fan of Mr. T, the Thaksinistas or PPP and their unsavoury candidates. That said they do enjoy the support of at least a large minority of the populace. Legisalation and court decisions cannot change that. Therein lies a problem. If Thailand is going to enjoy a functioning democracy these people cannot be left with nobody to represent them after an election. A disolution of the PPP now whether justified or not would leave exactly that situation because it is too late to set up new parties. Any disoltion of the PPP, if justifed would need to be linked to a resceduling of the election so that those disenfrachised could start their own party if they wanted. To do otherwise will almost certainly cause long term problems and will also make the election look like a joke. I would rather it wasnt this way but yuo cant have democracy without choice including choices you may not like.

[younghusband]

So, persistent flaming aside, it doesn't answer the question of why... if he's so gung-ho and sincere about quitting politics and wants to "devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education"... he doesn't remove himself personally from the political landscape completely. By his own words, he's "neutralizing" himself from politics, but as yet, his actions don't follow his words.

As for his calls for a "national unity" government...

if as Wiki describes it:

National governments (alternatively national unity governments or national union governments) are broad coalition governments consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature.

then, that is what is going to happen anyway in 2 weeks. Let the elected government then decide if they wish to revise the constitution.

You really must try and distinguish between flaming and views which contradict your own.Please just concentrate on the topic.

My understanding is that Thaksin has stated he has no ambitions for the premiership, not that he will abandon politics.Why should he since many millions of Thais, rightly or wrongly, look to him for political leadership? In any case I don't think this is really a very important point.Many politicians have "abandoned" political ambitions only to change their minds as circumstances changed.Churchill, de Gaulle, Nixon, Anwar immediately come to mind and I expect there are many others

The latter part of your post simply restates what I have already said, so I'm happy to agree with you.I also agree that in practice it is for the next government to deal with the constitution and any other damaging detritus of the military junta.Khun Abhisit has already made this clear.

I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinion, but I do have a problem with the very few posters that attack the poster with derogatory flames on a personal level, rather than just post their own point of view or even their own contention with someone else's point of view, but do so without attacking the other poster with insulting verbiage. Fortunately, most of those few posters who couldn't see this differentiation or refused to comply have been banned.

As for Thaksin only forgoing the PM position, but not politics, there is an entire lengthy thread filled to the brim with quotes where he specifically says he has given up on politics, not just the PM position. His latest pronouncement echoing his non-involvement is just the latest in a string that goes back months and months. There's been no "change of mind"... only a consistent non-compliance with his own words.

Perhaps it's time for all interested in a serious political dialogue on this forum to take stock.It's no forum at all when discussion is one sided, and whatever you say it's a matter of record that some of the most interesting and well informed voices have been silenced or moved away.Is it really stimulating for you to talk only to people who share your views? And yes there's a huge difference between flaming and sharp House of Commons type exchanges.Freedom of expression isn't necessarily tidy or polite, but while a measure of banter is permitted the important thing is to concentrate on the issues.

On your second point about Thaksin abandoning politics, I understand what you say but don't as previously noted regard Thaksin's comments on any future political role as particularly reprehensible - annoying for his political opponents perhaps which is a different matter.

[sriracha john]

So, persistent flaming aside, it doesn't answer the question of why... if he's so gung-ho and sincere about quitting politics and wants to "devote his life to charity and set up an international foundation to help the poor in Asia through sport and education"... he doesn't remove himself personally from the political landscape completely. By his own words, he's "neutralizing" himself from politics, but as yet, his actions don't follow his words.

As for his calls for a "national unity" government...

if as Wiki describes it:

National governments (alternatively national unity governments or national union governments) are broad coalition governments consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature.

then, that is what is going to happen anyway in 2 weeks. Let the elected government then decide if they wish to revise the constitution.

You really must try and distinguish between flaming and views which contradict your own.Please just concentrate on the topic.

My understanding is that Thaksin has stated he has no ambitions for the premiership, not that he will abandon politics.Why should he since many millions of Thais, rightly or wrongly, look to him for political leadership? In any case I don't think this is really a very important point.Many politicians have "abandoned" political ambitions only to change their minds as circumstances changed.Churchill, de Gaulle, Nixon, Anwar immediately come to mind and I expect there are many others

The latter part of your post simply restates what I have already said, so I'm happy to agree with you.I also agree that in practice it is for the next government to deal with the constitution and any other damaging detritus of the military junta.Khun Abhisit has already made this clear.

I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinion, but I do have a problem with the very few posters that attack the poster with derogatory flames on a personal level, rather than just post their own point of view or even their own contention with someone else's point of view, but do so without attacking the other poster with insulting verbiage. Fortunately, most of those few posters who couldn't see this differentiation or refused to comply have been banned.

As for Thaksin only forgoing the PM position, but not politics, there is an entire lengthy thread filled to the brim with quotes where he specifically says he has given up on politics, not just the PM position. His latest pronouncement echoing his non-involvement is just the latest in a string that goes back months and months. There's been no "change of mind"... only a consistent non-compliance with his own words.

Perhaps it's time for all interested in a serious political dialogue on this forum to take stock.It's no forum at all when discussion is one sided, and whatever you say it's a matter of record that some of the most interesting and well informed voices have been silenced or moved away.Is it really stimulating for you to talk only to people who share your views? And yes there's a huge difference between flaming and sharp House of Commons type exchanges.Freedom of expression isn't necessarily tidy or polite, but while a measure of banter is permitted the important thing is to concentrate on the issues.

On your second point about Thaksin abandoning politics, I understand what you say but don't as previously noted regard Thaksin's comments on any future political role as particularly reprehensible - annoying for his political opponents perhaps which is a different matter.

It is not a forum either when it's over-taken by "bearpit-forum" type insults. Discussion can be 2-sided or more as long as that sort of detrimental posting is eliminated... as has been done with those that were banned. Whether someone is interesting or well-informed is secondary to whether or not they can discuss things in a civil manner.

I agree we should concentrate on the issues.... so please do so and leave out the ancillary comments of a personal nature that invariably seem to be included. They are unnecessary and detract from the discussion.

Regarding Thaksin's continuous pledges to quit politics and never fulfilling them, I see it as reprehensible in the context that it makes one question his general honesty and sincerity on all other issues. To equate his litany of false pledges with those politicians you mentioned isn't justified as none of them quit so profusely and repeated it for such a long time, during which, the entire time, it was evident they were lying.

Edited December 8, 2007 by sriracha john

[Plus]

National Unity Governemnt - in way it's like rioting prison convicts demanding unconditional release or they'll start killing people.

Thaksin is popular, but he is banned from politics and should serve out his punishment. When Hutus were slaughtering Titsies in Rwanda they were also in majority and had popular leaders - at what point exactly it's ok to abandon the rule of law?

>>>

PPP without Thaksin is no different from the likes of Matchima or Pua Paendin or whatever and I don't think even Democrats would mind working with them in "bipartisan" fashion on many issues.

There are only two parties to this National Unity - Thaksin and everyone else. Do you think he ought to be SO important?

There will be no unity without forgiveness. Do you think his opponents are ready to forgive him? Do you think he should be allowed to force this "unity" on them?

[John K]

Amazing. A long time ago i speculated that the only way to heal divisions would be through a Dem-TRT (as they were then) coalition. Can i now find myself agreeing with Mr. Thaksin! At the time i thought this highly unlikely to happen, but the chances just improved. It will be interesting to see how the aprties react to this.

From another angle it can be seen that with national unity now stressed the PPP has to do something to not be seen as the instigators of division, which some of Mr. Samak's previous comments have positioned them as especially with the EC seemingly moving against them on these grounds. Undoubtedly there are elements of political manouver and gamesmanship in what is said but it still does go back to the obvious solution in times of crisis is a unity government. That said certain issues such as mass amnesties and cases in the courts of law could still be difficult to get over although cases in court could be allowed to progress to natural conclusion. However, the amnesty issue is not easy.

We should also remember that the only two parties who will score big in any election have both stated they wish to ammend the new constitution.

Certainly interesting times, and one wonders if it does presage a possible deal.

I can see your view point as being sound if all the intentions of the PPP are legitimate. However with the news clip in another thread citing a Thaksin CD that confesses he is the (for lack of a better phrase) Father of the PPP. That means the PPP is just a tool for him and not for the people of Thailand.

Knowing Thaksin, what he says at this point is what you want to hear and not his intentions. It also indicates Thaksin does know right from wrong and that his honest mistakes are mostly if not all intentional. This is nothing more than a ruse to get back into power. Samak was very clearly brutally honest when he said he was a proxy of Thaksin.

However I suspect this all may be moot in a few days as I highly suspect the EC will let us hear the chug, chug, chug of the toilet.

Of course PPP is a vehicle for Mr. Thaksin and of course the courts have banned him. The problem lies in the support Mr. Thaksin for whatever reason still enjoys. I am certainly no fan of Mr. T, the Thaksinistas or PPP and their unsavoury candidates. That said they do enjoy the support of at least a large minority of the populace. Legisalation and court decisions cannot change that. Therein lies a problem. If Thailand is going to enjoy a functioning democracy these people cannot be left with nobody to represent them after an election. A disolution of the PPP now whether justified or not would leave exactly that situation because it is too late to set up new parties. Any disoltion of the PPP, if justifed would need to be linked to a resceduling of the election so that those disenfrachised could start their own party if they wanted. To do otherwise will almost certainly cause long term problems and will also make the election look like a joke. I would rather it wasnt this way but yuo cant have democracy without choice including choices you may not like.

Yes your point is taken, however a am very sure each PPP candidate has/had a clear enough view to know what is going on at the top of the PPP and that the PPP was up to vote buying and other things that got them disbanded when they were called the TRT. It was their risk to take and they certainly could have found another party and sought election based on their own merits but they decided to risk dancing with the devil. So based on their choice they may have reduced the choices for others.

Common sense tells good people who not to hangout with.

[greenmole]

So you all prefer a military junta with absolutely NO legitimacy at all. I know many people who voted TRT and were not paid a penny for it. The polls showing PPP out in front prove the popularity. How can people deny other people's votes just because they don't like Thakisn? Let democracy see him off, which it surely would have done sooner or later. Now you'll never get it. The next election's going to be rigged.... isn't it??

[John K]

Abhisit disagrees with Thaksin's unity govt

(BangkokPost.com) - Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva disagreed with ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra's idea that Thailand should form a national unity government for two years before holding a new election.

"It's still too early (to adopt this idea)," he said, adding that election itself will bring reconciliation. "People will get confused. What are election campaigns for if all political parties get to form a government?"

He called on Mr Thaksin to stop moves that will cause disunity.

"If he wants to see reconciliation, he should stop movements that will cause rifts," he said. "He should also follow His Majesty the King's advice about unity."

More here http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=124309

[John K]

So you all prefer a military junta with absolutely NO legitimacy at all. I know many people who voted TRT and were not paid a penny for it. The polls showing PPP out in front prove the popularity. How can people deny other people's votes just because they don't like Thakisn? Let democracy see him off, which it surely would have done sooner or later. Now you'll never get it. The next election's going to be rigged.... isn't it??

I see you skipped post #80

[John K]

So you all prefer a military junta with absolutely NO legitimacy at all. I know many people who voted TRT and were not paid a penny for it. The polls showing PPP out in front prove the popularity. How can people deny other people's votes just because they don't like Thakisn? Let democracy see him off, which it surely would have done sooner or later. Now you'll never get it. The next election's going to be rigged.... isn't it??

I would not trust the polls as being honest from the heart, but perhaps from the fact.

If Mr. A. said he would vote for Mr. X. It may be true. However if Mr. X. did not pay Mr. A. to vote for him the answer would be different.

[meemiathai]

Still mumbling on about buying votes I see, despite many international observers testimony to the fact that the elections that TRT and Thaksin won in a landslide were the most corrupt-free in Thai history.

The supporters of this Junta and these farcical elections repeatedly treat the Thai electorate with utter contempt.

Their basic premise is that all votes previously must have been bought and that rural Thais are too uneducated to vote on the basis of policies, the economy and election promises. This of course, is utter nonsense.

Unfortunately it is a tactic used by the rich elite minority, backed by the military to enforce their will whenever the current Government of the time doesn't play their game.

I'm continually astonished people can't understand this.

Now, we are seeing that Thaksin and the TRT party were indeed popular to a large extent on merit and their reincarnation the PPP party is on course possibly for an election victory.

What is the excuse going to be this time when they get a result they don't like? Another coup despite telling us all along vote buying had been stamped out? On what basis will they remove another elected party?

What we have been witness to the last several months is Thailand's version of the Reichstag fire.

[John K]

Still mumbling on about buying votes I see, despite many international observers testimony to the fact that the elections that TRT and Thaksin won in a landslide were the most corrupt-free in Thai history.

The supporters of this Junta and these farcical elections repeatedly treat the Thai electorate with utter contempt.

Their basic premise is that all votes previously must have been bought and that rural Thais are too uneducated to vote on the basis of policies, the economy and election promises. This of course, is utter nonsense.

Unfortunately it is a tactic used by the rich elite minority, backed by the military to enforce their will whenever the current Government of the time doesn't play their game.

I'm continually astonished people can't understand this.

Now, we are seeing that Thaksin and the TRT party were indeed popular to a large extent on merit and their reincarnation the PPP party is on course possibly for an election victory.

What is the excuse going to be this time when they get a result they don't like? Another coup despite telling us all along vote buying had been stamped out? On what basis will they remove another elected party?

What we have been witness to the last several months is Thailand's version of the Reichstag fire.

I have a fairly good feeling the PPP have already hung themselves and won’t see the election. Seeing as indications are the PPP have the funds and incentive to buy votes, a much more accurate account will be seen this time if the PPP is gone. If the few former TRT in smaller parties find themselves suddenly elected I will agree with you.

[chanchao]

then, that is what is going to happen anyway in 2 weeks. Let the elected government then decide if they wish to revise the constitution.

You haven't been paying attention have you.. The next (or any) government CANT change the constitution because that requires a 2/3 majorit in the Senate, WHICH IS NOT ELECTED but APPOINTED under the new constitution that was forced down people's throats.

So.. Game over man.

[chanchao]

It's already the elephant in the room. In the end you're a country of 60 million people where 50 million get shafted, 9.8 million are happy with the current situation because they're doing alright and can contribute to shaft the 50 million, and the remainder actually rule the country.

Now, everything else aside, those are the basics.

And sooner or later the 50 million will get sick of getting shafted. This may happen very soon, it may also happen when a certain destabilizing event happens in the remainder-section that rules the country.

[Tony Clifton]

Still mumbling on about buying votes I see, despite many international observers testimony to the fact that the elections that TRT and Thaksin won in a landslide were the most corrupt-free in Thai history.

The supporters of this Junta and these farcical elections repeatedly treat the Thai electorate with utter contempt.

Their basic premise is that all votes previously must have been bought and that rural Thais are too uneducated to vote on the basis of policies, the economy and election promises. This of course, is utter nonsense.

Unfortunately it is a tactic used by the rich elite minority, backed by the military to enforce their will whenever the current Government of the time doesn't play their game.

I'm continually astonished people can't understand this.

Now, we are seeing that Thaksin and the TRT party were indeed popular to a large extent on merit and their reincarnation the PPP party is on course possibly for an election victory.

What is the excuse going to be this time when they get a result they don't like? Another coup despite telling us all along vote buying had been stamped out? On what basis will they remove another elected party?

What we have been witness to the last several months is Thailand's version of the Reichstag fire.

If elections under TRT were so corrupt-free, can you then explain each of the following?

-Why they made last minute changes and introduced flimsy paper ballot boxes when the indestructible metal ones previously used were just fine?

-How about the introduction of the rubber stamp that eliminated the uniqueness of every simple X or check mark?

-Why were there no pens or had no ink in them at many poll stations? (Chamlong got one of those, seen on tv, brought his own)

-Why were election commissioners jailed (pre-coup) later on and were found to be messing around and delaying incriminating findings of their own sub-committees?

I'm sure I missed more.

There's a fine example right here. There's a provincial or municipal election tomorrow, poll stations in the park right in front of my house within spitting distance. Some of the candidate pictures were posted today and some already had stains on their faces, making them practically unrecognizable. The pictures were already damaged when the crew stapled them onto the board. It will be interesting to watch from my home office window.

Mafia-style politics have to go. There are way too many candidates who don't even have basic knowledge to be a politician to begin with, nothing but uneducated and submissive little poodles for poo yais with no innovative ideas of their own, except for personal profit, crumbs for the community.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Tony Clifton