hammered

hammered, on 2010-09-28 16:13:36, said:

The phrase "physical violence is a sign of verbal incompetence" is wasted on most people. A tenacious, repetitive insistence on something which at the most is a minor part of the truth, possibly an insinuation and may be just a blatant lie, is much more easy. And as the English already knew 'if they don't get you first time, just talk a bit louder'  

Hi All.
       Recent Bomb attacks in Bangkok should come as no surprise, During Black Songkran 2009 the BBC interviewed  Red shirt leader And Thaksin spokesman Jackrobob Penkair and he told the BBC live .....If we dont get what we want now we will take the fight underground and bombs will be going off all around Bangkok and Thailand, HE added ....We have the people in position they are just awaiting the signal to go.
Why the Government and Police are so surprised is beyond me.
phupaman

Chaiwat said he didn't see protesters around Rajprarop Road carrying weapons but he saw giant firecrackers lit against the demonstrators. He also saw a coffin in army truck but he didn't see if there was a corpse inside. Police never interviewed him throughout his two-month stay in hospital and he was only told that a high velocity bullet hit him. Chaiwat said he would file a civil lawsuit for compensation.


This is bunch of Bull. I live in Rachpsong, and every night i saw the Red Shirt firing grenades toward the soldier for couple hours starting around midnight.

I am not sure what needs to be investigated. It is all about money and gang wars. Including the army and the police. Just follow the money, starting from Thaksin and his family

THAI TALK
Thai politics is all business as usual - literally
By Suthichai Yoon
The Nation

First, I was asked why I displayed no noticeable excitement over the "major shake-up" in the Pheu Thai Party. Police General Kowit Watana was supposed to be the key figure to ensure that national reconciliation would finally take place.

Then, I was questioned why I wasn't surprised by the fact that the party "leader", Yongyuth Wichaidit, who had resigned a week earlier, was voted back in.

My conclusion has always been: The more things change, the more they remain the same. This is especially true with Thai politics. You raise your hopes at your own peril.

My optimistic friends have been pestering me with the question: Shouldn't we all be looking forward with great anticipation to a big leap forward in Thai politics? Perhaps, for the first time, we may see some genuine improvement in the quality of Thai politicians.

But my pessimistic friends have warned me: Once Thaksin Shinawatra starts talking peace, you had better be prepared for a new round of war.

Caught in between the two camps, I probably should look for signs of encouragement in the wake of this new talk about national reconciliation - which may lead to a new general election that will usher in a new era of democracy, leaving behind the ugly and depressing imposition of emergency decrees.

But I can't remain "neutral" while trying to retain my sanity. My discussions with a good number of the country's best-known "vote-getters" - who have successfully disguised themselves as the country's leading politicians - convinces me that the time to celebrate the arrival of a new era of representative democracy is still a long way off.

My research has confirmed that most Thai political parties, whether you like it or not, are "owned" by individuals. And believe it or not, most party "owners" are either banned from political activities or are living abroad fighting legal battles at home. For quite a few of them, the creation of a political party is nothing more than a business investment. The name of the game is to win enough seats in an election to bargain for sufficient Cabinet portfolios so that they can exercise political power to "earn" enough money to make a "profit" from the political venture.

Typically, a party owner looks upon the formation of a party as a capital venture. He may start by taking a loan from a bank (against his own land or personal guarantee as collateral) with a clear "business plan" that shows a very attractive "return on investment".

He then goes around picking promising candidates who could win seats for his party. His investment on each of the candidates depends on his or her potential to win enough votes to get a seat in the House. The electoral candidates in effect become the party owner's employees, who then vote and talk along the lines dictated by the boss.

Political scientists call it "party discipline" when they advocate a constitutional provision whereby MPs have to vote according to their party's policy. Investors who make money out of the business of politics call it the normal "corporate chain of command".

Strange though it may sound, the principles of ideal political theory and smart business investment practice somehow end up in the same place.    

In a slightly different model of the "corporatisation of politics", the party's owner may enter into a "joint venture" with a few "shareholders" who finance their own bloc of candidates. With or without any formal agreement, the "major shareholder" and his "investment partners" split up the spoils once the election results are known.

The "financiers" get their "quota" of Cabinet portfolios in proportion to the size of investment of each shareholder. Ministerial portfolios are classified and graded according to the "potential business opportunities" for the Cabinet members.

"Grade A" portfolios such as the Interior, Communications, Industry or Commerce ministries offer the party owners the greatest opportunities to turn huge profits on their investments.

The party's big shareholders make sure that their MPs who become ministers squeeze and extort as much money as possible from their positions of power, through all possible corrupt means, to pay back the investments made on them during the election campaigns.

All these efforts to maximise profit must of course be conducted with flair and rhetoric that should convince the general public that such political joint ventures are aimed at promoting national interests, while in fact the top priority in these schemes is nothing more than making the highest return on the party owners' investment.

It will thus require a massive political earthquake and a series of violent aftershocks to convince me that there is light at the end of the tunnel. This means that I expect lots of bad news before we can really turn the corner. As a good Thai citizen, though, I shall hang in there and stick it out.


-- The Nation 2010-09-16

He's going back to join a new protest against the "unelected" Labor government.  

Supporters of the Coalition Liberal/National Party, who got more votes and more seats in the election - but not enough to form a majority government, are upset at the horse trading and the buying of the independents by Labor, especially since the independents were all basically ex-Liberal or National Party members.

They are planning to blockade the middle of Sydney (who would care if they blockaded Canberra) for 2 months, finishing off with burning down QVB and a couple of other buildings around the city.

That's the sort of thing that people "who want democracy" do.

philw, on 2010-09-06 21:37:25, said:

Your photo means nothing.
I see Pheua Thai have withdrawn their 5 point plan of reconciliation a mere day after its proposal, on the grounds their MPs were accused of being involved in the red violence!
Several Pheua Thai MPs appeared on stage at Ratchaprasong, inciting and urging the crowd on.
They abandoned their parliamentary duties,due to fear their boss would disapprove if they were inactive.
They had been ordered to provide a few thousand protesters each to Ratchaprasong and told to appear on stage.
Nothing will detract from the fact that the red shirts provoked and orchestrated violence fron the beginning of their campaign this March.
Hence their crumbling support, both in and outside Parliament.

Quote

In the spirit of open-mindedness I really like this sentence from K. Jatuporn. Do I need to say more ?