Good Commentary Coming Out Now...

[ThaiHome]

<>

 

So this bit isn't true then you'd agree.

 

 

I guess I'm a bit slow, so explain to me what you are asking. As you have currently phrased it, it makes no sense to me.

TH

 

[Nervous God]

well you said

<>

 

So hence the question, perhaps this is easier, do you think Thaksin, seeing as you say his vote was dissolving wasn't to be feared for taking over then as highlighted above?

[ThaiHome]

well you said

<>

 

So hence the question, perhaps this is easier, do you think Thaksin, seeing as you say his vote was dissolving wasn't to be feared for taking over then as highlighted above?

 

I think the 2006 snap election was a defensive move to try and keep the TRT from losing several factions as well as to try and show a TRT mandate in face of the criticism.

 

If the boycott had not worked and the TRT and been able to seat a majority of the House of Representatives and then later the election not ruled invalid (on a technicality not related to the boycott), there would have been even greater reason to worry about the TRT achieving a Singaporean type People Action Party or Malaysian New Front dominance.

 

I note your use of the word “fear†in your question. That is a term I did not use, I used “concern†earlier and now “worryâ€Â. This is a common of the fallacious arguments you and others use in these discussions.

 

Another example is one poster went from me saying something was inaccurately described to having me say I was denying it even happened. This was nothing more then an ad hominem argument to attack me by saying I was denying something that everyone knows happened.

 

I also note that in my very long post, you have chosen to question one small sentence and have not even tried to address the issues I raised. I assume that means you cannot disagree with it and the facts and analysis I presented are accurate.

 

 

TH

 

 

 

 

[Nervous God]

Nope doesn't mean that at all, as you well know, pointless to argue something neither will move on, I was more interested in what I asked. Unlike you I don't spread continual miss information, sorry I don't play your game.

[ThaiHome]

... Unlike you I don't spread continual miss information, sorry I don't play your game.

 

Are you actually meaning to accuse me of disinformation perhaps? If that is the case, again please let me know what inaccuracies I posted. I tried to be careful to make it clear between what was my opinion and what were facts.

 

And again, you have resorted to an ad hominem argument rather then addressing anything of substance in my post. I suspect you cannot help yourself and just do this so automaticly you don't even realize the fallacy of the argument.

TH

 

"Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. It is distinguished from disinformation by motive in that misinformation is simply erroneous, while disinformation, in contrast, is intended to mislead."

 

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)."

 

[Nervous God]

Keep saying it often enough and the people will believe - that's the republican/yellow line isn't it?

[Hardy641]

Let me focus on the reason why Thaksin dissolved parliament and called a snap election in early 2006 laying the foundation for the coup in September 2006.

 

Late 2005 Thaksin was under huge pressure. The PAD street protests were going on for months, the situation in the south deteriorated and the economy started to slump too.

 

Early 2006 then he changed the laws about the percentage of shares foreigners could hold in the telecommunication industry from 25% to 49%. BTW it has been one of his first actions as PM in 2001 to actually change possible foreign ownership from 49% to 25% to fend of Orange investment in Thailand.

 

Only a few days later Thaksin sold his Shinawatra Empire to Themasak Singapore without paying 1 THB of Tax. He thought this would silence the ongoing criticism about conflicts of interest. But he couldn’t be more wrong as this deal caused an outcry in Bangkok and many parts of Thailand and instead fired up the street protest of the yellow shirts. For weeks corruption headlines were all over the newspapers. End of February Thaksin decided out of the blue and without any political reason to dissolve parliament and calling a snap election. His game plan to silence his critics has been to let the people decide whether he is guilty or not. If he wins the majority of votes he should be PM again and whitewashed and all criticizing him should be quiet, if fails to get the majority in the election he will step down.

Understanding of democracy ala Thaksin!!

 

I admit I am not an expert on the Thai constitution but in Germany a PM is only allowed to dissolve parliament in the case of a national emergency or if the government has lost its majority and became dysfunctional. Both did not happen in Thailand. He dissolved the parliament without real reason except for his own gains to receive a popular vote that confirms him as PM and whitewashes him.

 

I admit that TRT would have definitely won the election due to many factors:

 

• Even in decline TR was still very popular in rural areas in the North and Isaan

 

• The voters in the rural areas don’t have education to understand what Thaksin has been accused of.

 

• Thaksin still controlled (paid) most of the influential Phu Yai (patriarchs) in the provinces that would ensure that whole amphoers would vote with 90% for TRT.

 

• TRT had by far the biggest war chest

 

• The other parties were caught completely of guard by the snap election and did not have enough funds for another expensive election

 

• With only 39 days until the snap election date, a fair campaign was not possible coz the other parties were not ready

 

However, let me ask you in which democracy a leader can be whitewashed from accusation s of severe corruption, frauds and crimes against humanity by a majority vote? Once again Thaksin (mis)used democracy to his own benefit. Only this time all major opposition parties did not play along and boycotted the election. The rest is history and discussed many times.

 

Definitely the coup was undemocratic. But let me ask you, is what Thaksin did any more democratic? Would be interesting to get your comments....

 

[Nervous God]

<>

 

What was the tax he should have paid - curious?

 

Thaksin definitely guilty - however what government before or after hasn't been either?

[bust]

<>

 

What was the tax he should have paid - curious?

 

Thaksin definitely guilty - however what government before or after hasn't been either?

 

When Shinawatra-family sold its remaining 49.6% stake in Shin Corporation, the Shinawatra and Damapong families netted about 73 billion baht (about $1.88 billion).

 

Following Thai tax laws, they did not have to pay capital gains tax.

[Nervous God]

Gee your right

 

II guess if you say something often enough it becomes the truth,