What IS The Latest News On Red Shirts

[Wallenda]

Sounds like Red-Herring to me. The problem here is that they should be allowed to elect whomever they want' date=' regardless of the reasons they elect them, without fearing that some silver bullet will overturn the vote with some legal artifice fallaciously depicted as a "democratic process".[/quote']

So by extension then, you feel that the UK is undemocratic and the people just got screwed because Cameron came to power exactly the same way Abhisit did? Not to mention the exact same way Somchai, and Samak before him did.

 

I think team government has a good point in that it's part of a normal democratic process to form coalitions and even to ignore the wishes of your constituents sometimes and instead do what's politically expedient, such as form a coalition as they did. (another example would be the democrats in the US passing healthcare when it was unpopular in polls)

 

But you ignore Kim's good point (which wasn't made clearly or strongly enough by him) about the "silver bullet" -- by which he means (I think) the dissolution of an entire party by the election commission and banning of all its office holders from politics for 5 years.

 

I mean, can you imagine the entire Labour party being thrown out of parliament/the premiership, or the Republicans congress and the presidency with one swift blow? And not allowed to exist any more? And ALL the politicans who were members banned from politics completely? That is not a normal part of what anyone here would call real democratic process. I mean, I generally support the govt in this thing, but that's one aspect that just doesn't square.

 

What they need are proper, transparent checks and balances, not these hidden trapdoors under everything, just make sure you have one of your guys manning the switches.

 

Anyway, no I'm not anything close to being a red supporter. But it's not as simple as we want it to be.

 

 

[Wallenda]

And why is that? That stretches the bounds of credulity. Abhisit is Mr Clean by all standards.

 

I don't actually agree with Kim about his main point, but this one you mention here doesn't ring true.

 

OK yes Abhisit is Mr Clean (no sarcasm: I believe he is a good guy, sincerely), but regardless Seh Daeng just got assassinated on his watch, with most thinking it was surely Abhisit's side that did it. Did Clean himself order it? Surely not. Yet it happened. Would you turn yourself in? It's not credible to suggest taht because Abhisit is decent taht things would turn out ok. Earlier in this game we saw how he couldn't get teh army to follow his directives. I think it'd be naive to think he'd suddenly somehow become powerful as this process continued into a political and judicial phase later. Abhisit hasn't been able to control anything at any point of all this. So what is his word worth? OK he means it. Great. Would you bet your life on Abhisit's word that he can guarantee you'll get treated fairly? Seeing how he's backed his word up up to this point? Granted, yes he means well and wants what he promises to become reality. But the problem is that he's not powerful enough to be able to follow it through.

 

 

[Bar4]

Guys,

 

You are talking like the government runs the place as per the western model. Could I suggest that ain't so? That it is the military who run the place and the govt does as it is told?

 

Cheers,

[chuckwoww]

You're right but even the army is divided. Not much point in having soldiers if they don't do what you want.

[Bar4]

I read somewhere or was told - forget - this may all be about getting the right replacement in for the outgoing boss of the military. If elections were held before he retires (which is what the red shirts were first demanding), current govt looses, then new govt get's to name replacement. To get rid of that risk the elections had to be held after he retires which is what the Abhisit govt was proposing in nominating Nov 14.

 

Maybe?

[chuckwoww]

Ahbisit wants Anupong to be replaced by Prayuth. That's the rumour. I don't see that it will make the rank and file more enthusiastic.

[kamui]

I read somewhere or was told - forget - this may all be about getting the right replacement in for the outgoing boss of the military. If elections were held before he retires (which is what the red shirts were first demanding), current govt looses, then new govt get's to name replacement. To get rid of that risk the elections had to be held after he retires which is what the Abhisit govt was proposing in nominating Nov 14.

 

Maybe?

 

As I understand, major happenings and underlying reasons concerning the ongoing power struggle are neither visible in the streets nor can they be discussed publicly in LOS...

 

It seems that both the Yellows and the Reds are just pawns being moved by forces which either prefer to stay in the shadow almost completely or by public figures which hide their objectives and actions...

 

This might be the reason why the ongoing discussion about the whole power struggle seems to run in circles.

 

The only problem is, as other power struggles which involved the masses have shown, that the visible and invisible leaders can lose control, and this would mean an explosion of violence in the streets which might not be contained to BKK.

[KimDidMeGood]

How can you fall for Thaksin's cheap double crossing. The current escalation has been instigated by Thaksin and the lasted developments play perfectly into his hands.

 

Seh Daeng himself said in various interviews he only takes orders from Thaksin and Thaksin ordered him to fight on....

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/05/10/politics/No-new-team-of-red-shirts-leaders-Nuttawut-30128956.html

Is Thaksin double-crossing? I don't know, you don't know. Nobody will never know for sure.

But it's politics, so what we have are authenticated quotes. Thaksin said Roadmap is okay, and suggested basically that the UDD could accept it immediately. There was no ambiguity at all.

Seh Daeng's been saying things, but why should we believe it? The fact we know for sure is that at that moment he was the one who had the most to lose if the roadmap was definitely adopted, in the sense that he would face the harshest criminal charges, so he could as well make his own disinformation to avoid that at all costs.

[Wallenda]

Is Thaksin double-crossing? I don't know, you don't know. Nobody will never know for sure.

But it's politics, so what we have are authenticated quotes. Thaksin said Roadmap is okay, and suggested basically that the UDD could accept it immediately. There was no ambiguity at all.

Seh Daeng's been saying things, but why should we believe it? The fact we know for sure is that at that moment he was the one who had the most to lose if the roadmap was definitely adopted, in the sense that he would face the harshest criminal charges, so he could as well make his own disinformation to avoid that at all costs.

 

My thought process on this is something like... I'd like to believe Seh Daeng is telling the truth that Thaksin wants the protests to go on (because it makes it easier and more clear to understand, and confirms my belief that Thaksin's a snake) but... I know that Seh Daeng's a nutter who'd say anything -- basically he's not credible. And then another part of me thinks, if Thaksin wanted it to end, it would end, and it makes sense that he'd say one thing to the media while pushing for the opposite behind the scenes.

 

My gut says he probably wants this to continue. But surely Seh Daeng's quotes aren't what makes me think so. I mean, if you were Thaksin, would you tell Seh Daeng your secret strategy so he could go blabber about it to the media? Thaksin isn't that dumb. Or maybe he underestimated how crazy Seh Daeng is. Was.

 

And then there's us, stuck in limbo not knowing what to believe.

 

[KimDidMeGood]

 

But you ignore Kim's good point (which wasn't made clearly or strongly enough by him) about the "silver bullet" -- by which he means (I think) the dissolution of an entire party by the election commission and banning of all its office holders from politics for 5 years.

 

I mean, can you imagine the entire Labour party being thrown out of parliament/the premiership, or the Republicans congress and the presidency with one swift blow? And not allowed to exist any more? And ALL the politicans who were members banned from politics completely? That is not a normal part of what anyone here would call real democratic process. I mean, I generally support the govt in this thing, but that's one aspect that just doesn't square.

Thanks wendella, you're right about me not being specific enough about the party-disbanding mechanism which is indeed what I was referring to.

What upsets me even more is that even Abhisit and the democrats acknowledge that this part of the 2007 Charter needs to be repealed, however they have no problem remaining in power by its virtues.

 

LizardKing you mentionned Cameron, actually some left-wing british are a bit pissed off about it, considering that a Labor-LibDem coalition would make much more ideological sense than a Tory-LibDem, but the general consensus is that the Tories won the higher number seats so it's their privilege to run the game.

The last Thai election gave PPP 1st, short of an absolute majority by a few seats. When they got disbanded by virtue of an absurd disposition of a military-drafted constitution, decency was to come back to elections as soon as humanly possible, not brokering some backroom deal and carry on like everything is alright in the best of worlds. Moreover when, even after all those deals, the PTP is still the biggest group in the house.