ballpoint

jucel, on 2010-09-25 10:43:52, said:

You seem to be under the misapprehension that a snap election means an instant election, or something close to it. It does not. Snap election simply means an election that is early and is usually unexpected. The amount of time it takes to organise depends on the country and the circumstances. If you think that a country like Thailand in that situation it was in at that time, could organise an election in the space of 3 or 4 weeks then you obviously haven't been living here long enough.

The three month time frame for elections was a massive compromise as it was on the part of the government considering the fact that they still had more than a year and a half in which to govern, and considering the fact that the first offer on the table was nine months. The reds should have taken it and given everyone a chance to see for themselves whether or not the government would be true to its word. They didn't. They chose destruction and death.

Changian, on 2010-09-25 09:04:29, said:

Noting, of course, that the early elections put forth earlier was refused by the Reds, and not Abhisit.

The Reds are the reason that there are not elections in 40 days from now, as was offered to them.

But hey, let's blame Abhisit that they aren't, right?

tig28, on 2010-09-20 20:00:40, said:

Your memory doesn't serve you correctly.  The TRT didn't win a majority in the 2001 election, and the only reason they did in the 2005 election was because the "purchased" a lot of the smaller parties before hand.

It's interesting that you mention other countries with a similar electoral process, because Australia currently has government where the "loosing" party is currently in government, and I'm not sure if the UK does, but if it doesn't it could have had quite easily if the smallest party had decided to support the other major party.  In fact the Australian government is in power because they "purchased" a couple independent MPs.  One was even offered a ministry post.


In every coalition, smaller parties are offered plum posts to garner their support.  Everything you say about the Democrats was done exactly the same by the TRT and PPP.


In the campaigning for the 2007 Thai election, some of the smaller parties didn't just "campaign against all other political parties".  They specifically said that they wouldn't support the PPP.  And after the election, they did support the PPP.  That is outright lying. Very untoward.

It doesn't matter who is the losing party.  It matters who can get the support of the majority of elected MPs.  In this case, some MPs changed their mind, as is their right.  The may have changed their mind because the PPP was incompetent in government.  They may have changed their mind because the PPP got caught being involved in election fraud. But, whatever, they changed their minds.  They decided that the PPP/PTP were no longer worth supporting.  And even now MPs are leaving the PTP.


But, the bottom line is, a majority of the elected MPs support a Democrat government.  If the electorate don't like what the people they elected are doing, then they will vote them out at the next election.

Deeral, on 2010-09-19 19:09:49, said:

Er, yeah,but you seem to have forgotten that Thaksin had undermined all the checks and balances put in place by the constitution and the rule of law was police officers going out shooting 2,500 people without charge, arrest or trial, oppositon MPs either being bought to join his 'coalition' or falling of balconies, newspaper's that printed any kind of criticism of the gov't being either sued or having attempted to buy them out and so on. That's what I meant by "jackboot".  Thaksin's idea of democracy was little different in principle from the Burmese generals.

sevenhills, on 2010-09-15 18:30:18, said:

@ timestamp: I realise one poster has already asked for evidence of your claim, but just in case you were planning to ignore him, you can plan to ignore my request as well. Please provide evidence in support of your claim that the government "spew out violende (sic) inciting lies and hatred".

@ xminator: The vast majority of Thais love the King, even the vast majority of the Red Shirts. I'm willing to concede that point. Would you be willing to concede this point?

The Red Shirts are fighting against alleged double-standards and lack of accountability enjoyed by the amataya (elite). Ignoring the validity or otherwise of the 'cause', can you at least concede there is but one (1) apex that stands atop the amataya pyramid?

rixalex, on 2010-09-16 19:37:38, said:

Correct. There is not a country in the world where you and a few thousand friends can attempt to hold the capital city and the economy for ransom.

A ransom price Abhisit was effectively willing to pay, purely to avoid the loss of life or the potential of harm for the children (like the little girl in the image above). Do you remember what happened when Abhisit effectively agreed to dissolve parliament and offer fresh elections in November?

Someone didn't want fresh elections. They wanted bloodshed. And that someone was not in Thailand when the government's Roadmap to Peace was rejected (after being initially accepted). And hopefully that someone will never again be allowed back on Thai soil (except perhaps to serve his prison term and / or face a judicial inquiry into the killings of the 3000 or so who fell in his 'War on Drugs').  

There was only one reason to reject the government's Roadmap to Peace. There was only one reason to reject the dissolution of Parliament / fresh elections in November. Someone wanted a 'grander' massacre to spin for the world's 'benefit'.

Poor Amsterdam. He sounds idiotic trying to spin such meagre 'atrocities'. In his defence, I'm sure when he accepted the lucrative offer, both parties were under the impression he would have a lot more to work with.

If political protests didn't involve protesters shooting guns and grenades or burning down buildings, there would be more political freedom.

And no matter how many people say it, these protests are not class related.  There are plenty of poor people that support the current government, and plenty of rich people who support the opposition.

Quote

People should also recognise that resorting to force to try to solve a conflict, such as by staging a coup in 2006 or the bloody crackdown in April and May, would not solve problems.

... and such as shooting guns and grenades at army and civilians.

bulmercke, on 2010-09-17 21:52:31, said:

Oh for goodness sake. No, this is not double standards. Just like the freedom of PTP chairman Chalerm's sons and Pattaya mayor Ittiphol's brothers and countless other red mafia leaders. But suspects SHOULD be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Nattawut etc are technically innocent at the moment - but they have been charged and are under detention because the last time they were free 90+ people died and the capital city was set on fire. Oh, and at least 60 of the 90+ that people died by their hands, not by the army's.

To suggest "this military controlled government (LIE!) makes up the rules as they go along" shows a remarkably short-sighted knowledge of history. Have you forgotten what Thailand was like particularly in Thaksin's second term? Laws were changed daily to suit his business needs and then were changed back when he was finished exploiting them!

Get this straight, and tell your Isaan friends and drunk Pattaya motorbike-taxi drivers too - the UDD is the amataya and Thaksin is their king. They are the ones keeping farmers poor, they are the ones stifling education, they are the ones that run circles of elite gangsters raking up the cash that should be divided out to the public sector. They are also the ones who have nominated Ji Ungpakorn, who admits he does not support the mornarchy in Thailand, as their official spokesman. The UDD do not want a monarchy - they want a republic led by president Thaksin. Now, go to the red shirts and ask each one... who do want, the king or Thaksin? My guess is that the rank and file UDD supporter - note I say supporter, not member (of which there are probably less than a thousand or two) would denounce Thaksin right away.

And as for one poster referring to ai kwai Jatuporn, who claims that the red shirts didn't burn BKK (it was the govt!), as "Khun Jatuporn Promphan MP"... well, quite frankly referring to a 'sut' who only has the destruction of society at mind for his reputed 5m Baht per day as a 'khun' is already going too far. Showing him any form of respect is doing a great injustice to the tens of thousands of people with a genuine grievance that followed him.

Considering at least one of those banged up was on film calling for a burning, there is at elast one who isnt imprisoned by injustice. Unless of course you regard incitement to arson with potential to kill a perfectly reasonable activity. Still it is the words of the odious Jatuporn. Wonder if any of the government side MPs will bring his little skeleton up

^ he doesn't post on here as tonywebster anymore anyway.

chantorn, on 2010-09-16 21:18:07, said:

Run along then chantorn.  

I'm not sure that this editorial is altogether accurate. From yesterday's post, I gathered that the 2 NGOs asked to use the FCCT as a forum of a release of their report; it was not an event sponsored by the FCCT. The NGO reps were refused an entry visa and thus cancelled the event - so how does this equate to gov't pressure on the FCCT?

I've never heard of these 2 Paris based NGOs (not that I'm claiming to be an expert), and I'm quite certain that if they had released their report in Paris then I would still be happily  ignorant of their existence. So why come here? If Thailand, current chair of the UNHRC, refused them a visa, that would have news value and attract some attention to their report.  

As to the NGOs "right of free speech", why should they be allowed to travel to a foreign country specifically to make a statement embarrassing to that country and offensive to one of its neighbours? Thailand hasn't raised any objection to their report, merely stated that it is not something with which Thailand wishes to be associated.

LomSak27, on 2010-09-13 10:01:29, said:

I thought Abhisit was elected in the 2007 election ... and many elections before that.

And then in 2008, a majority of the elected MPs voted for him to be PM.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.