Good Commentary Coming Out Now...

[Pom Michael]

OH - they did vote - but voted for no one!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_legislative_election,_April_2006

 

TRT got 61.1% of the vote.

But "No one" got 38%

 

And for all that are trying to paint this as Red vs Yellow - it is definitely not.

 

The Reds are a very small minority.

 

The Yellows are a bigger minority.

 

But neither are the majority - so just because there are anti-Reds, it doesn't make them Yellows.

 

 

[Mekong]

 

So what exactly was the point of boycotting that election? It would seem to me, the people who were interested would vote, no matter what. The fact that they didn't show up tells me they could care less...or were arrogant enough to think they would win no matter what...which was apparently wrong...

 

Wrong the opposition parties boycotted the elections not the electorate.

 

The Thai general elction of 2006, which was held on the 9 April for the House of Representatives and the 19 April for the Senate. The main opposition parties composed of: the Democrat Party, the Chart Thai Party and the Mahachon Party decided to boycott the election. They felt that Thaksin Shinawatra's government has unfairly called an election to divert public attention form the Shin Corp scandal. Despite this the Election Commission and the government continued and press for the election, the election went ahead.

 

On 3 April 2006, the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) petitioned the Administrative Court to suspend the results of the election and accused the Election Commission of violating voter privacy. It accused the Commission of placing voting booths so that voters' backs were to the public, whereas in previous elections, voters faced the public, with a board one-half meter tall at the front of the booth separating the voter from the public. The Commission claimed the new arrangement was designed to prevent various forms of poll fraud including the use of cameras by voters to take photographs of their ballots. After the 2005 election, cameras and cameraphones had been banned from voting stations due to fears that canvassers would demand ballot photographs in return for money.] However, the PAD claimed that this allowed onlookers to peek over voters' shoulders and see who they voted for.

 

The elections were finally declared invalid by Thailand's Constitutional Court, which found that the positioning of the voting booths violated voter privacy. The Constitutional Court later pressured the Election Commission to resign for its management of the April elections. The Court was unsuccessful in pressuring the then President to resign; however, it did prevent the Senate from appointing a replacement for commissioner Jaral Buranapansri, who had died. This prevented the Commission from achieving a quorum. It later found the remaining Commissioners guilty of malfeasance and jailed them, albeit for only one night. an entirely new commission was appointed.

[Gadfly]

Here are a few thoughts to ponder: you don’t have to pro-red to be critical of the yellows. You don’t have to be pro-Thaksin to be critical of the way he and his party were removed from power. You don’t have to bend over backwards demonstrably destroying your own integrity defending the current group because you don’t like TRT and its successor parties. You can both despise Thaksin (go back and look at my posts on Thaksin) deplore the way the way he was ousted in a military coup.

 

The arguments that have been put forward to justify Thaksin’s ouster by the military and obvious judicial intervention and interference are simply pathetic.

 

- “He was a ‘caretaker’ PM so therefore he really wasn’t ousted in a military coupâ€Â. I guess that is an improvement over a flat out denial that there was a coup.

 

- “The elections were not legitimate because the other parties boycotted them†OK, so if I know I am going to lose an election, I will just boycott it; that way, I can declare say the election was not legitimate. Sounds like the type of argument that might persuade a four year old, but certainly an adult.

 

- “The judicial decisions were aimed at the party executives, so those the two TRT/PPP, etc. parties elected into power really weren’t booted out by judicial fiat.†That doesn't make any sense. Moreover, it happened twice, and one of those times it happened because the PM, Samak, ran a cooking show. That’s patently ridiculous. And by the way, I am no Samak supporter either. But I am sure as hell not going to defend the way he was ousted from power.

 

Thailand is in its current state because of these antics. Those Thais who supported Thaksin (and let's be honest here, it's a majority) and the rest of the international press see rationalizations for what they are – double standards. Imposing more double standards and pursuing Thaksin as a terrorist (while yellow shirts who occupied the airport continue to occupy high office in the current government) is like throwing gasoline on a fire: it’ll enflame the rural majority who feel disenfranchised and subject Thailand to more international ridicule.

 

I don’t see how this ends until those in power stop deluding themselves. The more intransigent the government becomes, the power Thaksin and his cronies gain. And those who like what Abbhisit is supposed to stand for are not doing those principles or Thailand any favors by defending these double standards.

 

It’s obvious now: things are going to have to change one way or the other, and I would much prefer a peaceful change. The window of opportunity may have been gone, but there was a time when we could have been without Thaksin and had a legitimate government in power. Now, the hole just keeps getting deeper.

[bust]

Thaksin 2006 = not able to find enough support to form coalition government. Abhisit 2008 = formed coalition government with the other parties.

 

Sorry I thought I read somewhere that the PM of Thailand at some point in 2006 was Thaksin Shinawatra.

 

My mistake.

[LizardKing]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4876326.stm

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

"a flat out denial that there was a coup"

 

Gadfly, I usually like what you write, but unless you can quote where TH wrote that there has not been a coup, can you please stop beating that horse? It died about 2 days ago.

 

Sanuk!

 

[Nervous God]

If they stop saying thaksin wasn't pm. Both sides flogging those horses.

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

The difference though is that (to the best of my knowledge) TH never claimed that there had been no coup yet Gadfly kept insisting/implying he did.

 

Sanuk!

 

[Flashermac]

I'd like to see some proof that a MAJORITY in Thailand does support Thaksin. Saying it over and over again does not constitute proof. And I am talking about NOW ... not in 2005.

 

[Old Hippie]

Hi,

 

The difference though is that (to the best of my knowledge) TH never claimed that there had been no coup yet Gadfly kept insisting/implying he did.

 

Sanuk!

 

 

Sorry dude, but home boy was removed by the military, who were nothing more than paid thugs of the man. Plain and simple. Had he been voted out that would have been a different story. But the forced removal was a precept to what we ended up with plain and simple, and too many people seem to forget that simple fact. Deny it all you guys want, doesn't change the fact that it happened.