cavanami Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 The Thai TV News showed that some of the posted documents at one election site had been burned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Chalerm vows to reopen all besieged government offices February 6 Head of the Center for the Maintaining of Peace and Order (CMPO) Chalerm Yubamrung vowed to reopen all government offices forced to close by the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) protesters from Thursday February 6. Chalerm, who is also caretaker Labour Minister, said protesters who obstruct the reopening of these offices, particularly PDRC leaders, would be arrested. But he assured that in making arrest, the CMPO would mainly rely on negotiations, not violence. He said the government needed to reopen those offices so that government officials could return to work to service the people. He also said the election yesterday was carried out under democratic rules. He said further that, since the number of MPs was still short of the required 475 of the total 500 seats in the House of Representatives, the House could not yet convene. He said it was the duty of the Election Commission to hold fresh elections within 180 days with a promise that the CMPO was ready to provide help in terms of both police manpower and the delivery of ballots to troubled provinces should it is requested by the EC. http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/chalerm-vows-reopen-besieged-government-offices-february-6/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Thailand: Government Prepares War of Terror against Thai Population: “I Want There to be Lots of Violence to Put an End to all This†by Tony Cartalucci Wall Street-backed billionaire prepares war of terror against Thai population in the name of purging the “elite.†- The London Telegraph published a disturbing admission taken directly from deposed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra’s “red shirt†leader Wuttipong Kochthammakul, also known as “Ko Tee.†The Telegraph admitted: “This is already a war, but so far it is an unarmed war,†said Ko Tee. “If there is a coup, or the election doesn’t happen, then it definitely becomes an armed war.†If anyone doubted the abyss into which Thailand could be heading, Ko Tee – who has been accused of orchestrating grenade attacks on anti-government marches in the Thai capital – is the living proof. “I want there to be lots of violence to put an end to all this,†he said. “I’m bored by speeches. It’s time to clean the country, to get rid of the elite, all of them.†And while the Telegraph shamelessly defends the deadly violence already carried out across the country by “Ko Tee†and other “red shirts†and his dreams of purging the elite, it utterly fails to mention that he and his “red shirts†constitute less than 7% of the Thai population and that the regime he plans to defend with violence is both illegitimate, and in the previous election that propelled it into power, not even backed by a majority of the eligible electorate. The Telegraph almost celebrates the prospective bloodshed, and reiterates the overt lies peddled by the regime and its Western backers regarding the current political crisis in Thailand despite a large body of evidence suggesting otherwise. The Telegraph claims: Those divisions pit the rural poor of the north and northeast of the country, who overwhelmingly support Pheu Thai, against the metropolitan middle class, the traditional ruling class and the Democrat Party’s supporters in their stronghold of southern Thailand. The red shirts regard Ms Yingluck as the head of a democratically-elected government whose populist policies have done more to benefit them than any previous administration. However, even in the “rural poor of the north and northeast,†the regime of Thaksin Shinawatra and his nepotist proxy, sister Yingluck Shinawatra, protests have been growing, including thousands of impoverished rice farmers who were cheated by his 2011 vote-buying “populist†rice scam that has collapses in scandal, corruption, and bankruptcy. And while the Telegraph and “Ko Tee†claim their planned campaign of terror and mass murder is aimed at the “elite,â€threats against these rice farmers and their families have already been made. In Bangkok Post’s article, “Farmers end protest in Phitsanulok,†it states: "In an emotional address to protesters, Mr Chatree said both local red-shirts and community leaders tried to pressure him to end the protest, on orders from high-level officials. The red-shirts threatened to hurt his family if he continued to lead the rally seeking money for unpaid farmers including for himself, he said." The Telegraph continues with its torrent of lies aimed at justifying the violence being carried out currently, and set to expand upon the regime’s inevitable collapse: "But for the anti-government protesters, Ms Yingluck is merely the puppet of her brother – the former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was overthrown by a military coup in 2006 and fled into exile two years later to avoid trial on corruption charges." But it is not just “for anti-government protesters†that Yingluck is a mere puppet of her brother – it is an admitted fact stated multiple times by both Thaksin Shinawatra himself, and his proxy party. Both Forbes and the New York Times published direct quotes from the ruling party’s leadership inside of Thailand, and from Thaksin Shianwatra himself, declaring that he was ruling the country remotely. And while the Telegraph shamelessly defends the deadly violence already carried out across the country by “Ko Tee†and other “red shirts†and his dreams of purging the elite, it utterly fails to mention that he and his “red shirts†constitute less than 7% of the Thai population and that the regime he plans to defend with violence is both illegitimate, and in the previous election that propelled it into power, not even backed by a majority of the eligible electorate. The Telegraph almost celebrates the prospective bloodshed, and reiterates the overt lies peddled by the regime and its Western backers regarding the current political crisis in Thailand despite a large body of evidence suggesting otherwise. The Telegraph claims: Those divisions pit the rural poor of the north and northeast of the country, who overwhelmingly support Pheu Thai, against the metropolitan middle class, the traditional ruling class and the Democrat Party’s supporters in their stronghold of southern Thailand. The red shirts regard Ms Yingluck as the head of a democratically-elected government whose populist policies have done more to benefit them than any previous administration. However, even in the “rural poor of the north and northeast,†the regime of Thaksin Shinawatra and his nepotist proxy, sister Yingluck Shinawatra, protests have been growing, including thousands of impoverished rice farmers who were cheated by his 2011 vote-buying “populist†rice scam that has collapses in scandal, corruption, and bankruptcy. And while the Telegraph and “Ko Tee†claim their planned campaign of terror and mass murder is aimed at the “elite,â€threats against these rice farmers and their families have already been made. Both Forbes and the New York Times published direct quotes from the ruling party’s leadership inside of Thailand, and from Thaksin Shianwatra himself, declaring that he was ruling the country remotely. It was in 2010 that the Asia Foundation conducted its â€national public perception surveys of the Thai electorate,†(2010′s full .pdf here). In a summary report titled, “Survey Findings Challenge Notion of a Divided Thailand.†It summarized the popular misconception of a “divided†Thailand by stating: “Since Thailand’s color politics began pitting the People’s Alliance for Democracy’s (PAD) “Yellow-Shirt†movement against the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship’s (UDD) “Red-Shirt†movement, political watchers have insisted that the Thai people are bitterly divided in their loyalties to rival political factions.†The survey, conducted over the course of late 2010 and involving 1,500 individuals, revealed however, a meager 7% of Thailand’s population identified themselves as being “red†Thaksin supporters, with another 7% identifying themselves only as “leaning toward red.†For Thaksin Shinawatra and his proxy regime, it has only lost support since the 2010 survey was conducted. In the 2011 elections, despite being declared a “landslide victory,†according to Thailand’s Election Commission, Thaksin Shinawatra’s proxy political party received 15.7 million votes out of the estimated 32.5 million voter turnout (turnout of approx. 74%). This gave Thaksin’s proxy party a mere 48% of those who cast their votes on July 3rd (not even half), and out of all eligible voters, only a 35% mandate to actually “lead†the country. The regime’s true “support,†an ever-shrinking group of violent “reds†whose extremism is being distilled through desperation, is all that is left - casting doubt on theories floated by both the regime and its Western backers over the prospects of “civil war†and “secession.†What will transpire next will be an attempt to portray limited terrorism as “popular resistance†– a deceitful ploy the Telegraph gladly plays accomplice to – against whatever forces finally sweep Thaksin Shinawatra from power. For Thais, knowing this, and steeling against the counterstrike, will entirely disrupt it, leaving the regime’s leadership exposed to well-justified, complete and utter uprooting. Only the West, dominated by Wall Street and London – the true “elites†– could fashion such a deceitful and insidious narrative of “class war†in Thailand to defend their loyal proxy Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin Shinawatra Represents the 1% Despite clever marketing, the regime of Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, are far from champions of the rural poor. They have been backed by Wall Street and London for nearly a decade, and her brother Thaksin even before first taking office in 2001.Thaksin had been prime minister from 2001-2006. Long before Thaksin Shinwatra would become prime minister in Thailand, he was already working his way up the Wall Street-London ladder of opportunity, while simultaneously working his way up in Thai politics. He was appointed by the Carlyle Group as an adviser while holding public office, and attempted to use his connections to boost his political image. Thanong Khanthong of Thailand’s English newspaper “the Nation,†wrote in 2001: “In April 1998, while Thailand was still mired in a deep economic morass, Thaksin tried to use his American connections to boost his political image just as he was forming his Thai Rak Thai Party. He invited Bush senior to visit Bangkok and his home, saying his own mission was to act as a “national matchmaker†between the US equity fund and Thai businesses. In March, he also played host to James Baker III, the US secretary of state in the senior Bush administration, on his sojourn in Thailand.†Upon becoming prime minister in 2001, Thaksin would begin paying back the support he received from his Western sponsors. In 2003, he would commit Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq, despite widespread protests from both the Thai military and the public. Thaksin would also allow the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program. In 2004, Thaksin attempted to ramrod through a US-Thailand Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) without parliamentary approval, backed by the US-ASEAN Business Council who just before last year’s 2011elections that saw Thaksin’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra brought into power, hosted the leaders of Thaksin’s “red shirt†“United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship†(UDD). The council in 2004 included 3M, war profiteering Bechtel, Boeing, Cargill, Citigroup, General Electric, IBM, the notorious Monsanto, and currently also includes banking houses Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Chevron, Exxon, BP, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck, Northrop Grumman, Monsanto’s GMO doppelganger Syngenta, as well as Phillip Morris. Thaksin would remain in office until September of 2006. On the eve of the military coup that ousted him from power, Thaksin was literally standing before the Fortune 500-funded Council on Foreign Relations giving a progress report in New York City. Since the 2006 coup that toppled his regime, Thaksin has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group,PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR), Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (CFR), Kobre & Kim, and currently Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff (Chatham House). Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff, would also simultaneously represent Thaksin’s “red shirt†UDD movement, and was present for the inaugural meeting of the so-called “academic†Nitirat group, attended mostly by pro-Thaksin red shirts (who literally wore their red shirts to the meeting). Additional support for Thaksin and his UDD street-front is provided by the US State Department via National Endowment for Democracy-funded “NGO†Prachatai. It is clear that the West has invested astronomical amounts of time and resources into the Shinwatra regime, and its condemnation of anti-regime protesters constitutes the West attempting to protect their investments, not any ideal of “rule of law†or “democracy.†To that end, we see the London Telegraph and others shamelessly promoting conspiracy to commit mass murder under the guise of “purging the elite†even when Thaksin and his “red shirts†have already turned on the very rural poor they claim to be defending. http://www.globalres...ll-this/5366950 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Seems like they all are doing a "wait and see" what happens. Maybe if they ignore and don't do anything about the issues...all the issues will go away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waerth Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 bangkokpundit â€@bangkokpundit 2m 1. 20,468,646 voted. However, turn-out in % is not easy to calculate. EC says 44,649,742 voters but EC include ALL voters for 9 provinces bangkokpundit â€@bangkokpundit 2m 2. where voting was partially disrupted. For some, such as Pattani & Yala, it doesn't matter so much as over 99% of polling units were open bangkokpundit â€@bangkokpundit 45s 3. For Nakorn Sri Thammarat less than 1% of polling units were open BUT EC says 1,292 out of 1,153,060 voted even though 99% couldn't vote bangkokpundit â€@bangkokpundit 25s 4. So actual turn-out as % is complicated & don't think EC's 45.84% is reflective as not all 44,649,742 could vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waerth Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 EC: Unofficial voter turnout 45.8% http://bangkokpost.com/news/local/392995/turnout-70-in-some-red-shirt-areas The unofficial turnout of eligible, registered voters in areas where ballots were cast in the Feb 2 election was 45.8%, Election Commission secretary-general Puchong Nutrawong said on Monday. Mr Puchong said according to unofficial reports on the Feb 2 election, of the total of 44,649,742 eligible voters, 20,468,646 or 45.84% turned out to cast their ballots. The figures did not include eligible voters of nine provinces where voting was cancelled - Songkhla, Trang, Phatthalung, Phuket, Surat Thani, Ranong, Krabi, Chumphon and Phangnga. The province with the highest turnout was Lamphun with 241,209 (72.80%), followed by Nong Bua Lamphu with a turnout of 277,018 (72.50%) and Bung Kan with 213,627 (70%.). Asked about election management commissioner Somchai Srisuthiyakorn's offer to accept responsibility for not being able to hold voting at more than 10,000 polling units, and to accept transfer to another position, he said the EC chairman and all other EC members unanimously concluded that Mr Somchai had acted responsibly and effectively performed his duty in a difficult situation. He was asked to continue to be in charge of election management, Mr Puchong said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waerth Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 bangkokpundit â€@bangkokpundit 12m 1. For North 4,564,402 voted (51.85% turnout). Lower North (Phichit, Nakhon Sawan, Kampaeng Phet, Phitsanulok, & Phetchabun) all under 50% bangkokpundit â€@bangkokpundit 9m 2. Whereas for other provinces in North all above 50%, ranging from Sukhothai with 50.31% to 72.8% in Lamphun. btw, Chiang Mai only 54.7%. bangkokpundit â€@bangkokpundit 6m 3. For Northeast, 9,144,869 voted (turn-out of 55.57%). Range from 49.95% in Amnat Charoen to 72.50% in Nong Bua Lamphu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Validity of Sunday polls still in question Although the election is over, many legal problems are pending and law experts have yet to reach a consensus on how to apply the law to either legitimise or to nullify the poll. One legal camp, which wants to nullify the election, suggested that the ballot on Sunday was invalid because it could not be held across the country on the same day as required by Article 180 of the Constitution. The Election Commission (EC) was unable to hold voting in 28 constituencies in eight provinces in the South as the constituencies had no candidates. It is still unclear if the EC has the authority to set a new election date for these 28 constituencies or if the government has the power to do this. Also, voters could not cast their ballots in 69 constituencies, mostly in the South and Bangkok, due to disruptions by anti-government protests. The poll law authorises the EC to set a new voting day for those constituencies. There is no legal question on this, as traumas, such as natural disasters, can hit some locations at any time. Yet, legal experts who want the poll nullified, say that as long as the election is not held on the same day across the nation, it is not valid. Another theory supporting the invalidity of the election is that advance voting in some areas could not be arranged before the February 2 election day due to the protest. The EC announced that "early" voters who were unable to cast votes on January 26 can do so on February 23. However, some lawyers say that advance votes cast after the date of the national election are invalid. The EC argued that advance voting had been arranged to facilitate voters who might not find it convenient to cast their ballots on the actual election day. Advance voting is arranged for those living outside their constituencies or overseas. Hence, for the sake of convenience, the law allows it to be held after the election date. The other legal problem concerns the Democrat Party, which boycotted this election. According to the 2007 Political Party Law, any political party that fails to contest in an election twice in a row or within eight years - depending on which period is longer - can be dissolved. The Democrat Party boycotted the 2006 election and again this year's election, making it twice in a period less than eight years. It is still unclear if anybody will ask the Constitutional Court to dissolve Thailand's oldest party.* http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Validity-of-Sunday-polls-still-in-question-30226089.html *Hah! No way Pheu Thai will let the opportunity pass. Then the New Democrat Party would have to be formed the very next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 The old trick was to plant some ringers in the opposing party and make sure they get caught buying votes or whatever...then the opposing party would be dissolved... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.