Meerkat
-
Posts
641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Meerkat
-
-
Nah it's a bluff to lure Sondhi et al to DMK so they can retake GH. They were trying to think of a place where the ambient noise level was even louder than the PAD speakers so local residents can't complain.
On the upside the PAD guards be able to make more use of their arsenal of golf clubs.
-
[off-topic]
What is important is that anything quoted from any other online source is correctly linked if at all possible (or a good reason given why not in the case of subscription-only pieces for instance). That might help put a stop to some of the woeful misrepresentation of sources we've seen, even to the extent of truncating quotes mid-sentence, thus changing the context.
A simple copy and paste of the web address and you're done; it's a lot simpler than the reader having to go and find the source unaided.
I would hope that everyone from every side in every debate we have here would agree to that courtesy. It is a prerequisite for citation on some other forums and IMO a good rule.
[/off-topic]
-
Cmsally's excellent post above shows some of the weaknesses inherent with special interest group/professional election (and remember that Sondhi doesn't even want that; he wants selection). Hong Kong is often cited as a potential model for a Functional Constituency based system. In the 2004 LegCo elections there, 11 out of 30 of the FC seats were won unopposed. This has now risen in last week's elections to 14 seats. Almost 50% of the FC seats, or 25% of total Legislative seats, offer voters no choice. Why? Because the real elections (for lack of a better word) are done in back-room deals between the sector hierarchy without bothering to go to their members for their views. No wonder the majority of HK people want the system gone.
Ireland has a similar system of sorts, but only for the Senate which has little power compared to the Lower House. I know little of how it works compared to the HK system, but according to wiki (yes not a great source I know) it is accused of pandering to the government of the day and there are allegations of patronage.
If the people really want some system of FC-styled representatives (and note - if the people want it, not just if PAD want it), surely the place to put them would be in lieu of the selected Senators. They are currently appointed by only seven judges (who themselves are affirmed by the same Senate). Wouldn't it be better to replace them with more representative people (assuming that a fully elected Senate is out of the question)?
-
Plus,You talk about the people electing their own representatives: Sondhi talks about the people having their own representatives appointed for them. The crux of his argument is that the people cannot be trusted to vote responsibly - now rephrased as the people do not have the right information to be able to vote responsibly (I assume, only partly in jest, that it will be enshrined that ASTV be piped into every home in the land). This is a fundamental difference between your system and his proposed one.
Bear in mind too that you seem to think that the public will be involved in devising the new system. The PAD has said that they will not deal with supporters of the present government in the matter. So quite how that will provide an equitable system of government when around half the electorate don't get a say in it's formation I don't know.
A timely article in today's Nation quotes:
"PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul believes that New Politics would end the vicious cycle of money politics in which politicians buy votes to give them an easy ticket to power. Since the votes of the majority of the population, especially the poor and uneducated, are easy to buy, the elite would be able to choose good people to run country.
Though there are many PAD leaders who do not fully agree with Sondhi, they don't know how to express their objections. One PAD leader said New Politics was still an electoral and democratic system that was based on proportional quota allocated for professional associations.
"For example, journalists could cast votes among themselves to have representatives in Parliament," the leader said on condition of anonymity."
So it seems that we're both right: it's Sondhi and the hard-liners in the PAD that want selection, whilst a more liberal faction (that's scared of speaking out publicly) wants a system of the kind you're advocating, perhaps similar in structure to Hong Kong's (which the majority there would rather was not).
[The articles regarding Sondhi's talks post-coup are on the New Mandala site (both from Seattle and London's SOAS). I won't link to them as frankly some of the post-article comments from people are sensitive (legally).]
-
I maintain that your interpretation of "New Politics" is still far more benign than Sondhi's.
I believe everyone has his own interpretation of what it is or what it should be. Sondhi is not going to enforce his, it's up to the people to choose the most appropriate version.
The problem is that it's too revolutionary and there are many practical obstacles.
Decentralising politics might achieve similar effect with less resistance.
Again briefly point by point...good movie on pause...
PAD's manifesto article 3.1 stated that they wouldn't listen to those that disagreed with them (paraphrasing here but that was the gist). This echoes what Sondhi said on his international tour post-coup (the Seattle lecture IIRC). I fear the people will not be allowed to "choose".
If the rural majority believe their direct voting power is being diluted, the protests we're seeing here now will be nothing compared to a truly popular people's alliance for democracy IMO. The rest of the world however will be far more likely to side with them than with this so called PAD. Thailand will be considered East Burma (OK a bit flippant but you get my idea).
Decentralising politics from BKK might be a good notion in its own right, and one I haven't seriously looked at yet. I do not equate "NP" as moving politics towards the provinces though - exactly the opposite. Representatives "for the people" chosen by academics/bureaucrats/the judiciary from urban centres (and one in particular).
-
Plus; haven't got time to go through the rest of your post now, but the Pravit article you referred to is here. Agreed it's difficult to find everything on the Nation site; I only found it via Prachatai.
In brief re your second part though, I maintain that your interpretation of "New Politics" is still far more benign than Sondhi's.
-
Good post Thai at Heart.
OMR, there was some posting on this thread about the article a couple of nights ago IIRC (the article was published online on the 8th, not the 9th as indicated) but the subject quickly moved over to the PAD's manifesto which was posted here very soon afterwards (I think the article was timed to coincide with the manifesto release.) Note the difference between the watered down version of PAD's policies going forward in Crispin's interview for western consumption, against the much starker - and very much scarier - manifesto itself.
-
It seems to me that you've got wild accusations - often with very little or very subjective supporting "evidence" - coming from both camps. Those that believe what they see on ASTV are as naive as those that believe what they see on NBT. It is somewhat incredible that some people, again from both sides, are so quick to repeat hearsay that fits their ideology as fact, and dismiss anything said by their opponents as so obviously a lie that only someone deluded/paid would dare repeat it. Such unsubstantiated "facts" then take on a life of their own - repeat the same lie often enough and all that.
It is incredibly insulting, even if such insults are (usually) sufficiently veiled to get past forum rules.
Why should "your" side, whichever that may be, be the only side to be broadcasting "the truth" when it is patently obvious that we're in the middle of a huge propaganda war?
Even Sondhi said in the Crispin interview the other day that you can't believe everything his lot say. If he can admit it, why can't anybody else?
-
Since when hasn't vote buying been a factor in Thai politics? Prosecute the offenders but don't resort to "mob" rule.
Ah, but according to Sondhi the EC is corrupt. Which is odd considering that they seem to be doing a great job of prosecuting exactly those people whom Sondhi is accusing them of taking bribes to protect.
-
What if?
1. Ruling goes against Samak
2. The coalition government backs him and is ready to vote him back in.
3. Samak says no thank you.
No resignation (that would be giving into PAD). A very honorable exit. Also a very good face saving move.
But who would replace him? Not one from PAD's short list of two for sure.
Would this satisfy PAD and they move out of Government house?
Well no. PAD have now decreed that Samak's ouster is only the precondition for them to then start negotiating to rip up the Constitution and find ways of implementing "New Politics". Oh, and only negotiating with those with whom it agrees. Everyone else can take a hike.
Dark days.
(I like your what if scenario though)
-
Of course should this kick off the rise of the PAD my thoughts tend to hover around various famous Communist propaganda posters. I wonder how they will deal with the dissenters, what happens if we would like to camp out on public property. Ah but it all looks so good, rosy cheeks, bumper harvests, smiling children, good and ethical leaders!
Should this kick off the rise of the PAD it won't really matter; you, I and some others here will be among the first with our backs to the wall!
-
The PAD sees its first goal as chasing out this proxy government that has sold the country. It is not necessary for negotiations with any group that sees otherwise.
Well this means no negotiation with the government and also no negotiations with groups that are against completely getting rid of the government. Basically they have the right to dismiss anyone that disagrees with their viewpoint.
Was about to post on this nugget when I saw your almost identical reply (good breakdown of the rest btw). Yes it would appear that the plurality of the public who voted the government in and still want them there are now personae non gratae in PAD's eyes.
PAD calls it "democracy", but the precise correlation between the information communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
[with apologies to fans of Yes Prime Minister]
-
In the article he tells us that we shouldn't believe what is said on stage; now he expects us to believe what he puts in print?
The vaguaries of "New Politics" simply do not matter anyway. It is the underlying concept that is so hard to swallow - rural voters have too much power with respect to who gets into the House and a way must be found to transfer that power to worthy (in his opinion) others. Couched this time as that they are getting the wrong information. Well that's not patronising at all is it?
The sheer arrogance of this character too that the government must do what he says before he'll sit down and negotiate is breathtaking. Negotiate what for heaven's sake? He's got as much right to hold the government, whether it be PPP, Dems or any other, to blackmail as any other ordinary citizen. Which is none. His charge-sheet must be as long as Samak's by now but he seems to cower behind old women (oh and paid security with an assorted arsenal). He castigates others for not following the law, but refuses to hold himself up to the same standard. What does he think he is? Who does he think he is?
This is not a mass uprising of "good" people against some tyrannical dictator. This is not People Power. This is not the Orange Revolution. This is exactly the opposite; an individual whipping up a largely well-heeled minority to reduce the power of ordinary folks and put it in the hands of others.
He says, "The whole thing happened because the Election Commission has never done its job. They closed one eye and took bribes and let cheating MPs into the parliament."
Is he talking about the present EC? The same one which saw TRT booted? The one which is recommending booting the PPP? The one which seems to have made a pretty good start at rooting out corruption from all the parties involved? If not, then he must mean the old EC. Well here's a heads-up - we've got a new one and it's flexing its muscles cutting out the rot. If he does mean the present one, well...Annie get your lawyer.
I've liked Crispin's writing. This interview though is nothing more than a puff-piece to try and reverse some of the PR damage that "New Politics" has cost the PAD (interesting and unusual that Thai Rath picked up and featured the Economist article from Friday in an editorial today - perhaps PAD are scared that foreign condemnation will now spill into the Thai press). It doesn't succeed anyway. Not by a long shot. Sondhi's right about one thing though; it wouldn't have happened without his media empire.
Read the article and absorb the detail, but believe what he says no more than you would any other interview with anybody else with an agenda; pro- or anti-government, or with any other media outlet; pro- or anti-democratic.
-
Unless the corridors of power are filled with more or less honest people, there will be no progress in any other public sphere. Since Thaksin came to power Thai politicians desire for complete control has grown exponentially. Parlamentary control, Senate contorl, media control, judiciary control, academia control - they want it all. Current bunch are just as greedy, though not as successful.
If you want to reform Thai society, you should start from cleaning up the politics.
I know some people are for a complete history and society overhaul but it's simply not possible. If you want to start somewhere - it's the politics, not traffic cops or Customs Dept.
>>>>
According to Economist's own Democratic index that emphasises electoral democracy, Hong Kong is still ahead of Thailand.
ARDA index takes broader criteria than that, like civil rights and media freedom and participation and representation. Freedom House (Econimist index) talks about rules and regulations (like trial by a jury) , rather than actual experience.
Obviously, HK system works for its people. Everybody knows that.
Only up to a point. As I've already said, compared to what it was like before then, Hongkongers are (perhaps ironically) better represented now. But it is certainly not enough for them. Were it that way, you wouldn't see the tens of thousands of people marching for more democracy each and every year since the Handover. 500,000 a few years ago. There was outcry earlier this year when China yet again pushed back the start of more direct elections. Had the British managed to introduce full direct elections at an earlier stage, only for China to then roll them back, they'd need tanks in the street for sure. Britain/Patten knew this, and it was obviously important for this not to happen, thus the limited voting that they chose instead.
The functional constituency system is used to counter the pro-democracy parties which generally get a majority/plurality (no idea on this year's numbers). Democracy is seen as dangerous to Beijing and they're scared of it spreading over the border (and they've got a point. Were it to be introduced there tomorrow, the resulting social chaos would make the break-up of the USSR look like a walk in the park. Just because I don't want to see Thailand's fledgling democracy torn up doesn't mean I'm always blindly for democracy.) The functional constituencies are usually dominated by pro-China business leaders (many run unopposed). Not because they are against democracy per-se, but they don't want to rock China's boat and potentially damage their economy (read wallets). It is the so-called "Let's all just shut up and make money" vote. Go speak to people on the street and even those who confess to voting for the anti-democracy parties for this reason still want more democracy, not less. It's just that China has a huge Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Same reason btw why self-censorship is so prevalent there.
And bear in mind too that HK's system doesn't have Legislators selected, as Sondhi would like. Even in the functional constituencies, they are still voted in by the relevant FC members.
Start with the courts and go clearing up politics and the rest from there. This is IMO what was commanded from above a couple of years ago. This is what we are seeing now - even today. It is a good thing. It is progress. It takes time though. Rash attempts at fixing the system like Sondhi's will push the country backwards, not forwards.
-
More about Hong Kong system, it's relevant to "new politics" that everyone mentions in every other post, so it's not totally off topic.
First direct elections were held in 1991, but only 30% of the Legislative Council. It's not like China abolished universal suffrage there.
Correct - the lack of democracy in HK was a(nother) dark stain on British colonialism. Chris Patten as Governor tried to increase direct elections but was hampered at all stages by China (China had a huge diplomatic influence on HK even pre-handover) and the best he could do was the limited set-up. Patten was called "son of a thousand whores" by the Boss in Beijing for his efforts. I was lucky enough to have spoken to Patten on the subject whilst he was Governor there (in a purely social context); were it up to him, they'd have had full direct elections from the word go. China had said that they would roll back any efforts towards more democracy after the Handover but an unhappy compromise was reached. He considered it a national shame, and a personal failing, that he couldn't do more for Hongkongers in that regard.
Now 50% of the council is directly elected.Correct. China has promised to allow full direct elections/elected Chief Exec going forward. IIRC initially it as going to be 2002, then 2007, then 2012, then 2017, now 2020 at the earliest. Don't bet on it though. However the overall direction over the last few decades (and certainly the people's wish for the future) has been towards more direct elections, not less.
Hong Kong has long been a darling of Asian democracy, though situation has obviously deteriorated after Chinese takeover. Still, in 2005 Hong Kong was listed No 2 in Asia after Japan. Thailand was 6th.I assume you're taking your data from the ARDA survey. This was a self-assessment survey, not one done by an independent overseeing body. As such, it was HK residents who ranked themselves second. Given that direct elections in HK were still a relatively new phenomenon in 2005, the result is not all that surprising (Hongkongers are rightly proud of their increased representation since the days of pre-Patten British rule). HK's (British-modelled) rule of law and comparatively corruption-free environment give much weight to that too. Interesting to note that Singapore came second-last, soundly beaten by Thailand and only beating Burma! I'm no fan of the political system there, but that ranking seems odd.
Does the HK system help prevent the "wrong" people from getting in? Not IMO; the functional constituencies are largely made up of fat-cats rather than proper representatives and often speak for management/owner rather than worker (when they can be bothered to speak at all), whilst those who care more for society as a whole come from the geographical ones, including some truly good people (Anson Chan, Martin Lee and Emily Lau come to mind). Shock. The leader of the financial sector seat, bank-owner David Li, was recently fined USD 8.1 million for insider trading by the US SEC. He resigned from Cabinet, but not from the House. Sounds familiar...
People here are missing the principal fact - unelected legislature in itself does not mean the end of democracy, Hong Kong might have it under Chinese influence and still be more democratic than any other country in the region.It is one of the central tenets of a free and fair democratic environment. Instead of doing away with full direct elections, how about trying to fix the other central tenets of democracy (as seen by the ARDA) instead? Trial by jury, eliminating corruption and increasing transparency throughout the entire system strike me as more worthwhile goals than what the PAD propose. Impossible to achieve? Thailand will never know until it tries. The emboldened EC is a step in the right direction (I'd like to see stiffer individual penalties and no collective punishment though), but there are still valid issues with the lack of transparency in the judiciary (questioning some court decisions being seen as Contempt of Court for starters.)
One poster said that Hong Kong history is different from Thai. Yeah, but since iThai history has nothing in common with Europe or the US, the western democratic model shouldn't even be considered here. Different history, different solutions, right?Democratic systems (in the larger sense, not just omov elections) by far tend to correlate to healthier economies and happier people (politically I mean). It's not always the way but it's a case of having to find exceptions to the rule.
New politics is not "codified" - it's just a starting point for a wider discussion on political reform, reform that should be enacted by civil society, not PAD itself.Correct, but the PAD's musings on "New Politics" all include selected/appointed Members to a varying degree and sanctioned involvement in government by the unelected and opaque military. They are the central tenets of this awful idea.
Fresh elections without meaningful reform will not solve the underlying problem - Thai politics has been taken over by greedy, corrupt thieves who don't leave any space for the genuine democracy to grow. "New politics" is just one idea how to exclude these leeches from governing process altogether and give the power to the people.It is targetting the wrong area. Were the PAD truly interested in a better Thailand, they'd attack corruption throughout the entire country in all ways, shapes and forms, not just against its political foes. Limiting direct elections would in no way reduce the potential for corruption anyway; when someone wants the job, and it's up to others either to elect - or select - them in, it'll always be there.
-
It is the (minority) "power groups" who are threatened by democracy in Thailand. Hence their opposition to it.
And it is the majority poor, who are currently virtually powerless, who stand to gain a fair go through democratic system of government. Hence their support for it.
Exactly, the current bunch of businessmen in charge cannot tolerate PAD because they'd lose their grip on the country. The poor majority must not be allowed representation in parliament as per PAD's new politics proposal. Only candidates appointed and financed by big business are allowed to participate in electoral process.
>>>
Thanks for telling us about Hong Kong, CMsally. Half of their legislature is indeed selected, exactly like PAD proposes, but since their are "our" guys, papers like Economist call it a beacon of democracy in Asia, PAD, who doesn't kow tow to big business, are called fascist reactonaries instead.
Having subscribed to The Economist for much of the last 20 years, and having had a part-time home for work in HK since '94, I'm struggling to think of an edition lauding HK as a beacon of democracy in Asia. Maybe I missed an issue...
The system there is abominable - as the BBC states in its article on the elections today, a Legislator can be voted in from a constituency of as few as 144 voters. That Legislator has as much weight as one voted in by a geographical constituency of hundreds of thousands. It's a wonky system that only remains in place because the people of HK realise that when it all comes down to it, the guys wielding their little red books have the ultimate say so they don't want to push it too far. Even that hasn't stopped some mass demonstrations (half a million out of a total population of around 6.5m - beat those numbers, Sondhi) towards greater "democracy". They were peaceful marches though; no prizes for guessing what would happen if they took over government offices there.
I'm reminded somewhat of CH Tung's (HK's first leader post-'97) outrage at being designated "Chief Executive-select" rather than "-elect" by the press. "But I was elected!" cried he. "Yes, but by a cabal of a few hundred hand-picked by Beijing selectors" replied the media...
Having said all that, even that system is better than the one PAD proposes (it's a photo finish though). In HK those members of each industry (actually just a sprinkling of the largest sectors) get to vote; the functional constituency Legislators are "elected". PAD doesn't talk of "election" but "selection". PAD's proposal of "New Politics" doesn't stem from any altruistic notion of better representation, but from a view that the lower classes are buggering up the middle classes' cozy existence by voting the "wrong way". Huge difference. I admit that your personal interpretation of "New Politics" is closer to HK and Macau's less extreme farce than Suriyasai's.
Don't forget too that "New Politics" codifies military involvement in civil government if such conditions as "the government performs poorly" are met. It is a crock. It was a huge PR disaster for Suriyasai to proclaim it and Sondhi to expand upon it. That some people can still desperately try to spin it into something more palatable is a wonder to behold (and that usually only happens after attempts to say "It was only put forward once!" are somewhat compromised by the PAD insisting on continuing to put it forward.) A helpful hint to Sondhi and Co. : next time around don't let on about your absurd anti-democratic ideals until after the revolution.
And there are posters here who take everything Economist (or WSJ) says as a god given gospel on democracy.Possibly (though unlikely IMO. I tend to think that posters here - even those I'm politically opposed to - as being intelligent enough to disagree with something they read even if it's in a publication with which they usually agree, and vice versa. YMMV.)
Tell you what though; had I such a narrow mind that I wasn't able to take in more than one media outlet's opinion at a time, I'd happily take The Economist
-
It is the (minority) "power groups" who are threatened by democracy in Thailand. Hence their opposition to it.
And it is the majority poor, who are currently virtually powerless, who stand to gain a fair go through democratic system of government. Hence their support for it.
Exactly, the current bunch of businessmen in charge cannot tolerate PAD because they'd lose their grip on the country. The poor majority must not be allowed representation in parliament as per PAD's new politics proposal. Only candidates appointed and financed by big business are allowed to participate in electoral process.
>>>
Thanks for telling us about Hong Kong, CMsally. Half of their legislature is indeed selected, exactly like PAD proposes, but since their are "our" guys, papers like Economist call it a beacon of democracy in Asia, PAD, who doesn't kow tow to big business, are called fascist reactonaries instead.
Having subscribed to The Economist for much of the last 20 years, and having had a part-time home for work in HK since '94, I'm struggling to think of an edition lauding HK as a beacon of democracy in Asia. Maybe I missed an issue...
The system there is abominable - as the BBC states in its article on the elections today, a Legislator can be voted in from a functional constituency of as few as 144 voters. That Legislator has as much weight as one voted in by a geographical constituency of hundreds of thousands. It's a wonky system that partly only remains in place because the people of HK realise that when it all comes down to it, the guys wielding their little red books have the ultimate say so they don't want to push it too far. Even that hasn't stopped some mass demonstrations towards greater "democracy" (half a million out of a total population of around 6.5m - beat those numbers, Sondhi). They were peaceful marches though; no prizes for guessing what would happen if they took over government offices there.
I'm reminded somewhat of CH Tung's (HK's first leader post-'97) outrage at being designated Chief Executive-select rather than -elect by the press. "But I was elected!" cried he. "Yes, but by a cabal of a few hundred hand-picked-by-Beijing selectors" replied the media...
Having said all that, even that system is better than the one PAD proposes (it's a photo finish though). In HK those members of each industry (actually just a sprinkling of the largest sectors) get to vote; the functional constituency Legislators are "elected". PAD doesn't talk of "election" but "selection" and "appointment". PAD's proposal of "New Politics" doesn't stem from any altruistic notion of better representation, but from a view that the lower classes are buggering up the middle classes' cozy existence by voting the "wrong way". Huge difference. I admit that your personal interpretation of "New Politics" is closer to HK and Macau's less extreme farce than Suriyasai's.
Don't forget too that "New Politics" codifies military involvement in civillian government if such conditions as "the government performs poorly" are met. It is a crock. It was a huge PR disaster for Suriyasai to proclaim it and Sondhi to expand upon it. That some people can still desperately try to spin it into something more palatable is a wonder to behold (and that usually only happens after attempts to say "It was only put forward once!" are somewhat compromised by the PAD...er...continuing to put it forward.) A helpful hint to Sondhi and Co.: next time around don't let on about your absurd anti-democratic ideals (and foreign policy proposals for that matter) until after the revolution.
And there are posters here who take everything Economist (or WSJ) says as a god given gospel on democracy.Possibly, though unlikely IMO. I tend to think that posters here - even those I'm politically opposed to - as being intelligent enough to disagree with something they read even if it's in a publication with which they usually agree, and vice versa. YMMV.
Tell you what though; had I such a narrow mind that I wasn't able to take in more than one media outlet's opinion at a time, I'd happily take The Economist (or even the WSJ which I'm no fan of) over The Nation or [shudder] Manager/ASTV/TOC/NBT [/shudder] any day.
"New Politics" hasn't been almost universally derided in the press because of some conspiracy theory against Sondhi; it's been derided because the only thing it's worthy of is derision.
-
One of the reasons I think holding new elections as a way out of this mess is a bad idea, is the overhang of electoral fraud cases from the last one. You could have the ridiculous situation of candidates - and parties - standing for (and perhaps winning) elections and then subsequently being found guilty of fraud in a previous one.
Remember too that it is not only the PPP and its allies involved as some seem to think. There is still a red-card case against one of the Democrat executives; a guilty verdict there and that party is up for dissolution too (and I think that means a mandatory 5 year ban for all executives - including Abhisit. I'm happy to be corrected there as I'm not sure about that last part). This is of course why we've seen both the PPP and the Dems reduce the size of their executive cores. It's nothing but a device to minimise the chances of a whole party ban on the back of one or more bad eggs.
Going slightly off-track, IMO for this reason the government is right to want to change the collective punishment part of the electoral fraud laws, but (and I suspect here is where my views and those of the PPP diverge) I'd like to see harsher penalties against individuals. Jail and/or a lifetime ban from elected office might deter at least some of them. I'd also insist that the laws are not used retroactively to excuse transgressions from the last election.
All of the fraud cases should be wrapped up to their appellate conclusions before new elections are held.
Thanks for the clarification on the voting structure btw Hammered. Nothing is at it seems!
-
Nowhere near 40 million. The PPP earned only 14 mil votes (same as the Demos, more or less) in the 2007 parliamentary elections, and their popularity - along with Samak's - has taken a considerable dive since then.
You forgot the 26 million constituency votes. 14 million was just the proportional bit.
Full results of the election here.
-
PAD will force a confrontation if Samak does not initiate it
Sadly I fear you are correct, especially if this quote from Bloomberg is representative of PAD views:
"We want violence,'' said Pinyapat Jariyasettakarn, a 45- year-old teacher who has joined the protests all week. ``We are tired and we know violence will end things. Win or lose, it's OK; at least it will be over.''
-
Just been called by a friend who was on his way to HKT. Plane was on final approach when told to divert to Suvarnabhumi. On the tarmac there now; pilot hasn't been told if they will have to unload in BKK or be permitted to go back to Phuket.
-
Translation via Bangkok Pundit. As I appreciate BP is seen as a paid Thaksin lackey by some here, the original article is linked to below in case his translation is off.
"Matichon quotes Sondhi L as saying that if the police hurt the people then every police station will be on fire. Today, the police must take action against police who hurt the people. If we don't receive and answer then tonight we will destroy the police station. Bangkok will be on fire and cannot guarantee that nothing will happen in Bangkok tonight."
Burning Bangkok. Hmm...
-
From the BKK Post article where Panlop denied he was behind the PAD;
"He admitted he had close ties with Chamlong Srimuang, a PAD leader, but said they had different methods of pursuing their causes.
Maj-Gen Chamlong embraced ''ahimsa'', or the principle of non-violence, in fighting the government while he had less patience than the PAD core leader, Gen Panlop said."
Oh dear.
-
Why
Are some
Posters here
Posting in
Haiku
?
State Of Emergency In Bangkok Lifted
in Thailand News
Posted
Looks like the PAD aren't happy now that the press won't treat them with the messianic respect they seem to feel they deserve.
Reporters boycott PAD's press briefing
Government House reporters on Tuesday refused to bow to the People's Alliance for Democracy leaders' demand for them to pose questions on rally stage, citing personal safety and possible pressure from the PAD supporters.
Continued in The Nation.