A Slap In The Face

[Flashermac]

They do have a plan - to get rid of the Shinawatra dynasty. But the whistle blowers are a gathering of many different groups, just as the red shirts in 2010 included academics angered by the coup who were not in love with Thaksin. It would be hard to get them all to agree on very much, since they actually have very different desires. Still, they should at least be able to come up with a general outline. But Thais tend to live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself, the Buddha's teaching about the "eternal present".

[Flashermac]

Better education, more money do not give you legitimacy

 

 

On Sunday, when anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban delivered his post-election speech, he declared victory for voters who refused to exercise their right and also made allegations of electoral fraud. However, one thing was conspicuously missing in his speech. He made no mention whatsoever of the 8 million to 10 million voters who were robbed of their right to vote because of obstruction by PDRC supporters.

 

Empathy, it seems, has become a rare quality after a nearly decade-long political conflict. People on both sides consume one-sided information to the point where they no longer see any validity in the views of the opposite camp.

 

A Bangkok-based foreign political expert recently remarked that his well-heeled neighbours on Sukhumvit Road were sincere and genuinely passionate in their wish to see a corruption-free Thailand. I responded that I was aware of their passion, but their attempt to solve the problem through illegitimate means, such as demanding that an unelected "People's Council" be set up to rule for 18 months or that a military coup oust this government, was unacceptable. These options would only create more problems.

 

However, many red shirts simply fail to recognise the fact that many PDRC supporters are altruistic in this regard.

 

While some say they do not expect anything more than empty rhetoric and hate speech on both sides' rally stages, I feel hugely let down that even forums held by the supposed educated class fail to grasp the nuances and complexity of the current conflict.

 

Last week, just days before the election, the alternative Rung Arun School hosted a forum on the PDRC's phenomenon. The founder of the school - which is famous for its natural approach and exorbitant fees - also spoke at the forum.

 

Sadly, the speeches at the forum were a very flat, one-dimensional portrayal of the conflict - absolute good versus evil.

 

They failed to see that many supporters of the caretaker Yingluck Shinawatra administration as well as those who support neither Yingluck nor the PDRC believe that universal suffrage is inviolable. The PDRC poses a threat to that cherished principle when its leaders continue declaring that the protesters are superior, better educated and better off, and hence deserve greater political say and legitimacy.

 

As Thailand continues to be in limbo because of this prolonged conflict, it is imperative that both sides make an effort to be more empathetic, recognise the positive aspects of their opponent and at the same time see their own negative aspects.

 

Besides, the reds have failed to acknowledge the dark side of Yingluck's administration and the role her brother Thaksin plays. Similarly, the PDRC supporters have failed to see the need for greater transparency and freedom of speech. The reds have failed to apologise properly for hitting businesses badly when they blocked the Ratchaprasong intersection in 2010, while the PDRC is doing the same with its prolonged "Bangkok shutdown" campaign.

 

On Sunday, a PDRC protester standing next to me at Isetan department store began fuming when she heard that the mall would now be closing at 6pm instead of later. She was clearly oblivious to her role in causing this situation.

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Better-education-more-money-do-not-give-you-legiti-30226085.html

[Flashermac]

The grand paradox of the 'No' votes

 

by Tulsathit Taptim

 

 

You did the right thing. Yes, you who went out and cast your "No" votes on Sunday. You did what your hearts told you and nobody can argue with that. The bad news is, the simplicity ends right there where it started. Politics is mean, and it's hovering over your good intention like a starving vulture.

 

The question is already out there: Are "No" votes meant to be an anti-Pheu Thai protest or a message that you disagree with Suthep Thaugsuban absolutely? Easy, you may say, "it's both".

 

But we both know better, don't we?

 

It's a paradox. Suthep wanted to torpedo this election because he did not want Pheu Thai to win. You voting "No" meant you also did not want Pheu Thai to win. So, in this aspect you must be agreeing with Suthep. Only, you chose to say so through the ballot box.

 

But Pheu Thai was also saying that voting is an integral part of democracy. So you agreed with Pheu Thai on this, meaning Suthep was unequivocally wrong. You endorsed Pheu Thai's ultimate idea of democracy, so to speak. In practice you embraced the values that Pheu Thai proclaimed to embody, but you still didn't vote for them.

 

Your votes are important. There seems to be an unprecedented number of them. Combine them with the "No Show" voters, and Pheu Thai should rightfully feel embarrassed. But count them as part of the election turnout, and Suthep's campaign to boycott the election looks like it lost its sting. You wanted to stay out of it, but you might find yourselves in the middle of it.

 

You are torn between two ideals. On one hand, you wanted to keep the spirit of democracy alive. As much as people talked about this election playing into Thaksin Shinawatra's hands, you could not find a good substitute for democracy. If the ballot box cannot solve disagreements, no matter how complex or serious, what can?

 

On the other hand, the rice scheme catastrophe made you cringe. The attempts to ram the amnesty bill through Parliament made you sick to your stomachs. You knew that there would be more of the same of everything if you voted for Pheu Thai. You hate corruption, and some of you have even blown the whistle once or twice.

 

Of course, you don't like corruption. Why did you vote "No" in the first place anyway? At least you did not trust Pheu Thai when it came to transparency. Deep down, Pheu Thai didn't fit your definition of "integrity" despite all the welfare schemes that impressed millions of others and much of the foreign media.

 

You therefore decided to walk a tightrope. Casting a "No" vote put your conscience at ease. It was not the perfect solution, but you did not believe two wrongs could make a right. And you thought not voting was wrong.

 

Now, let's see which "wrong" will manage to co-opt your votes. What is seriously wrong about this world is that all people think they are right. That's why we have this problem to begin with. If everyone thinks he is wrong, there is remorse, understanding and reconciliation. When everyone thinks he is right, we go to war or try more civilised means - casting votes.

 

Left with no choices, Suthep will point at the number of your votes and say "See?" To avoid embarrassment, Pheu Thai will do the same. The tug of war with you in the middle will be particularly intense if your votes are numerous enough to tilt either side toward gaining the precious "majority".

 

You did the right thing, it has to be emphasised. Only the right thing often has painful or unpleasant consequences. Let it be, you tell yourselves. If good intentions lead to bad results, then so be it.

 

Here's what is equally important, though. That you did the right thing does not mean the others were wrong in doing things differently. It's a tricky concept, but it's the only way of thinking that will prevent "righteous" thoughts from becoming belligerent.

 

If everyone is right but is also thinking differently, how are we supposed to solve a problem? Of course, instead of picking up weapons, we vote. We can even vote "No" to all proposed solutions and make the deadlock official. Back to Square One, aren't we? The bottom line is, we can do whatever we think is right, but we can't romanticise it too much.

 

Nobody has written the perfect textbook on anything, including democracy. Your "No" votes may reflect this fact. You may know, deep in your hearts, that our democracy is not only imperfect but also susceptible to abuse. But you didn't see any other way out. As a result, you have to support the current "democracy" while rejecting its current "guardian".

 

Suthep may call you "fair-weather" Thais but he might also be quietly thankful. Pheu Thai may pamper you, but might also sulk behind your backs. You might have wanted to stay out of it, but instead find yourselves in the glaring spotlight of a world you must know as well as anybody is inescapably grey.

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/The-grand-paradox-of-the-No-votes-30226024.html

[cavanami]

I have been saying all along...it will take generations *** if *** the Thais *** really *** want to end corruption.

 

The police stopped me and issued me a ticket, ok, fine.

 

The Thai people in the office were amazed that I did not bribe my way out of the ticket...Thais

have *** no idea *** how to end corruption as it has become part of their DNA...IMO!!!

[Flashermac]

Democrats ask to have Pheu Thai dissolved

 

 

The Democrat Party yesterday lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court against Pheu Thai Party, calling for dissolution of the ruling party for pushing the February 2 election to be held despite an Election Commission recommendation to delay the poll.

 

Party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said caretaker premier and Pheu Thai party-list MP Yingluck Shinawatra had ignored the election agency's key recommendation, an act regarded as a violation of an important charter article.

 

It has requested dissolution of the Pheu Thai Party because executive authority was used, via government acts such as the declaring of a state of emergency, which afforded it control of political expression over others in the run-up to the poll.

 

Article 68 of the Constitution stipulates one's right to protect the Constitution. It also prohibits any act that would seek change or to obtain authority through unconstitutional means. The article also permits dissolution of political parties found to have done this, and can ban party executives from participation in political activities for five years.

 

However, Pheu Thai party-list MP Ruangkrai Leekitwattana said duty and decisions in regard to arranging or postponing elections did not belong to a government, and that neither Yingluck nor the caretaker government utilised executive authority to gain advantage over other parties.

 

The Democrat Party would also seek to impeach Yingluck and all members of her Cabinet for their "misconduct" and roles in arranging the February 2 poll, Chavanond said. This would be done through the National Anti-Corruption Commission, via a signature campaign seeking support from a minimum of 20,000 people.

 

He dismissed a Pheu Thai statement that the Democrats had no right to void the February 2 election results because it failed to field candidates.

 

Meanwhile, EC chairman Supachai Somcharoen said a new election would be arranged if rulings by the Constitutional Court or the Ombudsman's Office found that results of the February 2 poll were invalid. A new royal decree may need to be issued by the caretaker government to fix problems in 28 constituencies in the South, as no candidates had registered for these seats.

 

Pheu Thai spokesman Prompong Nopparit said a complaint will be lodged today with the EC to seek the dissolution of the Democrat Party, for former MPs' roles assisting at protest rallies, in violation of Article 68.

 

 

http://www.nationmul...d-30226091.html

[Specialist]

They do have a plan - to get rid of the Shinawatra dynasty.

Flash, that's not a plan, that's a goal.

 

A goal is a "what" document: what you want to accomplish.

 

A plan is a "how" document: how you accomplish the goal.

 

That was the central point of Mr Voranai's piece: Mr Suthep and his comrades have not said one word about HOW they propose to eradicate the Shinawatra plague, and how they propose to keep it eradicated.

 

I know one way to do it, but it has the drawback that it requires abandoning democracy, and any pretense thereof. I suspect that this is EXACTLY what Mr Suthep and his comrades have in mind, and that the Shinawatra clan is merely the pretext. (Can you say "People's Democratic Republic of Thailand"? Sure you can.)

[radioman]

Republic and Monarchy are generally different, and I'm sure you are not suggesting that!

[Flashermac]

Voter turnout 46.79 per cent: EC

 

 

The Election Commission announced Wednesday that the voter turnout of 68 provinces where voting took place was 20.1 million or 46.79 per cent.

 

Of the voters who exercised their right, 3.3 million or 16.57 per cent cast an "abstention" vote while 2.4 million ballots or 12 per cent became invalid.

 

There are 43 million eigible voters in 68 provinces.

 

The EC said the Bangkok voter turnout was 16.78 per cent. It said 7.95 per cent of ballots became invalid and 24.02 per cent of voters cast an "abstention" vote.

 

The figures exclude 516 stations where polling was cancelled on Sunday.

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Voter-turnout-46-79-per-cent-EC-30226108.html

[Flashermac]

Court approves arrest warrants against 19 PDRC leaders

 

 

In a setback for the People's Democratic Reform Committee, the Criminal Court on Wednesday approved arrest warrants for its chief Suthep Thaugsuban and 18 other leaders.

 

The court announced that it had considered the evidence of police and believes that Suthep and the 18 other PDRC leaders collaborated to create emergency situations.

 

The 18 other PDRC leaders are Satit Wongnongtaey, Chumpol Julasai, Buddhipongse Punnakanta, Isara Somchai, Witthaya Kaewparadai, Thaworn Senneam, Nataphol Teepsuwan, Akanat Promphan, Anchalee Paireerak, Nititorn Lamlua, Uthai Yodmanee, Samdin Lertbutr, Preecha Iamsuphan, Ratchayut Siriyothinphakdee, Kittichai Saisa-ard, Samran Rodphet, Sonthiyan Chuenruethainaitham, and Phansuwan Nakaew.

 

Police alleged that the 19 had violated Article 11 and Article 12 of the emergency decree.

 

In approving the warrants, the court said 18 witnesses as well as evidence, particularly video CDs, provided sufficient grounds to suspect that the 19 PDRC leaders had collaborated, instigated or supported actions that caused emergency situations.

 

The court would thus allow police to arrest and detain the 19 suspects until such time as the emergency situation had eased.

 

The court said the 19 suspects must be detained at the Border Patrol Police Region 1 in Pathum Thani's Klong Luang district.

 

The court also ordered police to file a report of the arrests with photos to the court within 48 hours of their taking place.

 

The court said if police failed to make arrests within a year of the warrants being approved, the court might summon the officers for questioning and cancel the warrants.

 

The court told police that they could not make the warrants public by posting them on social and online media. Nor could they distribute copies of the warrants by dropping them from a helicopter or a plane.

 

Pol Maj Gen Kachornsak Parnsakhon, deputy metropolitan police chief and chief investigator in this case, said police would try to arrest the 19 suspects without suppressing the demonstrations..

 

Satit said the PDRC's would appeal against the warrant. He said he would not try to escape arrest.

 

Earlier, the Criminal Court approved an arrest warrant for Suthep on sedition charges.

 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Court-approves-arrest-warrants-against-19-PDRC-lea-30226122.html

[Flashermac]

This should be interesting, since the Civil Court has yet to rule on whether the state of emergency is even legal. Since the police haven't done much of anything so far, are they really willing to start now? What if the court declares it illegal?