THE END! IS HERE?

Looks like the end for Toxin, he is about to have a Warrant for his arrest, for Terrorism, carrying a тАШDEATHтАЩ Sentence, Most Countries will abide by the extradition Order.

Department of Special Investigations (DSI) chief Tharith Pengdit said his agency, tasked with investigating violence surrounding the anti-government "Red Shirt" demonstrations, had submitted evidence on Mr Thaksin's involvement.

"The court has questioned three witnesses from DSI, and the DSI also submitted two more files of evidence which show Mr Thaksin's coordinating role," Mr Tharith said.


*
Thailand's leaders face $1.2 billion repair bill
*
Thailand: Red Shirts enjoying the fight
*
Thailand: nine protesters killed in Bangkok temple 'safe zone'
*
Thai protests: what next?
*
Thailand violence: timeline

The government has accused Mr Thaksin, a billionaire tycoon ousted in a 2006 coup, of bankrolling and masterminding Thailand's worst political violence in recent history which has left 88 dead since the Reds' rallies erupted in March.

Mr Thaksin lives in exile to avoid a jail sentence for corruption, but the government has exerted pressure on countries he has visited and moved to freeze his finances.

Terrorism charges carry a maximum penalty of death in Thailand, but the warrant appears aimed at boosting attempts to extradite Mr Thaksin who has found sanctuary in several countries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... watra.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/7758712/Thailand-considers-terror-charges-against-Thaksin-Shinawatra.html)

Look at those Eyes!!

There are lots of videos showing the destruction caused by Thaksin's Redshirts ... this one is suitable for this forum, I think:

[youtube:1hd76cak]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I7Q66uWKzU[/youtube:1hd76cak]

STRANGE HOW TOXIN IS NOT KEEN ON HIS CONVERENCE TV CALLS TO HIS TROOPPS NOW.

OH MAY BE HE IS WAITING FOR HIS MONEY TO ARRIVE THAT WAS RELEASED FOR SOME REASON ITS STILL IN THAILAND MOST OF IT.

TOXIN JUST CHARGED WITH Terrorism, NOW THE SHIT WILL HIT THE FAN, WHO WILL DARE TO DEFY THIS ORDER AND HIDE HIM NOW?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_ ... d_politics (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_re_as/as_thailand_politics)


A Thai court ordered an arrest warrant Tuesday for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on terrorism charges, accusing the fugitive leader of fomenting two months of unrest in Bangkok that left 88 people dead. Shortly after the court announced its decision, Thaksin's lawyer, the London-based Robert Amsterdam, said the government "has perverted justice through the laying of a charge that violates logic, law and any claim of hopes for reconciliation."




http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingne ... sm-charges (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100525-272004/Thaksin-divisive-ex-Thai-PM-facing-terrorism-charges)

I may be naif but I wonder how charging him for terrorism (and predicting a death sentence) makes any sense or will make things any better for Thailand.

So, assuming he's the sole responsible behind this whole plot as claimed, if people did what he suggested/asked them to do he must have strong influence and many followers among the Thais. How are they going to sit and watch what will likely be an unfair trial of their leader?

If they are convinced he's right - and I'm sure some are otherwise why fight his cause - they will perceive this as yet another violation of democracy..
IMO Gov't should work harder to discredit him and that portion of red shirts who are just his muppets then incriminate him for Golpe instead of terrorism.

Why do you call a trial that would convict Takky "unfair"? There are a lot of people out there (myself included) who feel that he has earned the death penalty.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about Taksin. considering that he and his party where responsible for all the negative changes in the entertainment industry in the early years of 2000, i think he should whipped.

But But But, remind me on how this government came to power again?

It came to power when the previous government's coalition partners withdrew their support and decided to support the Democrats. Nothing undemocratic about that.

[Bob]

It came to power when the previous government's coalition partners withdrew their support and decided to support the Democrats. Nothing undemocratic about that.

I wonder why you fail to mention the intrusion of the military to facilitate the latest coalition. That somewhat undercuts your assertion that it all came about so "democratically" (and, I presume you know, that was one of the major beefs of the UDD and other redshirt parties).

It came to power when the previous government's coalition partners withdrew their support and decided to support the Democrats. Nothing undemocratic about that.

I wonder why you fail to mention the intrusion of the military to facilitate the latest coalition. That somewhat undercuts your assertion that it all came about so "democratically" (and, I presume you know, that was one of the major beefs of the UDD and other redshirt parties).

As distinct from the attempts by Thaksin to woo the coalition partners with all sorts of promises?

I failed to mention it because as far as I know its no more than a rumour. I am aware that its one of the many complaints made by the UDD, and perhaps one of the few that probably have some truth in them, but I don't know of any evidence to support that claim.

In the end, it was up to each party to decided who they supported. For reasons we can only speculate on, they decided not to support Thaksin's latest group of proxies.

well, start explaining how fair is to press a terrorism charge against someone who wanted a coup at most?
did he place bombs around thailand? did he pollute water or air? did he ask anyone to do so?

how fair can a trial be when you don't know who the witnesses are, what the real crime is, where is the evidence and why the main guy has to hide thousand of miles away from the court?

my post isn't to question whether or not Shinawatra deserves to be punished for turmoils or if he's really 100% responsible of this, I'm just asking, granted he's 100% responsible how a terrorism charge and a death penalty sentence isn't going to backfire to the current Gov't?


Why do you call a trial that would convict Takky "unfair"? There are a lot of people out there (myself included) who feel that he has earned the death penalty.

[maisoui]

:rolling: By seeking extradition on a charge carrying the death penalty :drv: , Thailand :violent1: is effectively creating a situation in which Mr Thaksin will NOT :nud: be extradited by many states such as those of the EU that do not carry the death penalty. :sign5:


Perhaps they are more canny than is often thought :glasses7: .

[joe552]

I think you may have a point there, maisoui. These Thais can be clever bastards when they want to be. Let's blame the French, the Germans, or the Montenegrans (or wherever Thaksin is arrested in Europe).

well, start explaining how fair is to press a terrorism charge against someone who wanted a coup at most?
did he place bombs around thailand? did he pollute water or air? did he ask anyone to do so?


That is what would have to be proven in court, dingbat. I think it would be fairly easy to track the money that funded the movement back to him, at the very least.

Chang Noi: If I shout loud enough, I won't hear you

AFTER SONGKRAN 2009, the mainstream Thai media's strategy towards the red-shirt movement was to ignore it - as if it would disappear if they paid no attention.

There was almost no reporting of the upswell of organization in the northeast and far north, the regular local meetings, the groups forming around community radio stations, the star status of certain radio DJs, the foundation of political schools, the growing consensus of opinion around the phrase "double standards" as a key description of Thai society, and the spreading feeling of participation in a movement of historical moment.

So when the red shirts arrived in Bangkok in March, it was a surprise to many that this was clearly not a mob of stupid, uneducated, buffalo-like peasants, paid by Thaksin, and intent on mayhem. There were lots of them. They were very good-natured. They said they were participating because they felt this was their chance to help themselves, and help change the country for the better. Their demands were simple and disarmingly reasonable: restore a proper elective parliament as a first step towards overcoming the pervasive double standards. They might admit taking money which might have come from Thaksin, but they insisted that was not why they had come.

The impact was powerful. Of course, many of those who came out to show support and swell the rallies were their brothers and cousins, rural migrants who had come to the city in a bid to cross the yawning wealth gap which is one reason behind the movement. But sympathy spread much broader than that, in part because many people realised that they had been consistently misled by their own government and own media. The shock of such discovery can be very powerful. Right up to the last moments before the rampage, ordinary people were coming out to show support and jeer the security forces.

Despite the fatal spiral from 10 April onwards, and despite the violence and destruction of 19 May, the red-shirt movement seems to have gained in strength. The foreign press and the blogs (not the local media) have carried several reports of the reds returning home. They are unrepentant and unbowed. Their commitment has been strengthened by participation, and their emotions heightened by the martyrdom of their peers. While the penumbra of support and sympathy in the city has certainly shrunk in reaction to the violence, it would be a mistake to imagine it has shrunk very far. The messages people have taken from the violence are mixed.

The red-shirt movement is clearly a powerful force. It is not going away any time soon. The historic change which is under way is far from complete. The government and media cannot simply ignore it in the hope it will wither from negligence. Indeed, blindness now would seem fatal.

Instead, the government, the yellows, and their supporters have launched two campaigns. The first is to crank up the demonisation of Thaksin as the evil genius behind everything. The government seems to think that charging him as a terrorist, with no evidence yet on display, will change his standing in the eyes of the world. More strikingly, in the blogs and letter-pages and the social networking sites, any trace of red-shirt sympathy is met with diatribes about the perfidies of Thaksin that go on and on, festooned with block capitals and exclamation marks and other forms of shouting.

The second campaign is to focus attention on the violence, especially of the finale. The security authorities parade the arms allegedly found around the protest site. Certain photos and video clips are being constantly shown. Similar material is whirling around the virtual world.

Of course, Thaksin may be thoroughly evil. Of course, the red-shirt movement is an umbrella which covers many groups, some of which believe change will only come through violence. But the real purpose of these two campaigns is to draw attention away from the big-elephant fact that a lot of people came out in support of the red-shirt protest, that the movement has some very reasonable demands, and that it hasn't gone away. These twin campaigns are an attempt to erase all the imagery and messages of the red movement from its March arrival in Bangkok, and to replace them with two pictures - Thaksin raving drunkenly down the video-link from a Dubai hotel room, and the blazing frontage of Central World.

Of course, many people shouting on the websites and letter-pages are totally sincere. They hate Thaksin and they fear violence. Fair enough. But is it a good move to try imagining away a powerful mass movement that isn't over yet? Does it help to rage against the foreign press for publicising matters which the government and local press are trying to wish away?

Thailand's urban middle class likes to think of itself as part of the modern international world. The Democrat Party presents itself as modern, globalised, liberal, humane. These positions now face their biggest challenge. If the government tries to manage the red-shirt movement by suppression - more arrests, more intimidation, more closures of media outlets, more demonisation of enemies - the country's standing in the world will only sink further. This is a moment of historic decision.

Old regimes under challenge need to compromise if they wish to remain a serious part of the future.

The prime minister is still saying there can be an election only after peace has returned, which of course means never, since an election is needed to establish peace. The Democrats still seem to think they have a duty to remain in power to engineer reconciliation, when in truth the existence of this government is one of the major barriers to reconciliation.

Recently several surveys have shown that a majority of Thais see elections, a free media, and a good judiciary as the means to achieve social peace and move ahead. The government should listen to its own people, not just those who shout very loud. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/ ... rd=Thaksin (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=30130506&keyword=Thaksin)

It will be difficult to arrest Thaksin. I'm not on anyone's side, its for Thailand to sort out, but I am sure there are a lot of countries out there including in Europe that do not want to get involved and more importantly will not recognise Thailand's government as it is not democratically elected, end of.

The UK will not let Thaksin enter, I suspect neither will a lot of other countries in the first place to ensure the problem is not on their doorstep.

Thailand's government as it is not democratically elected

could you please explain why you say that this government wasn't democratically elected?

Thailand's government as it is not democratically elected

could you please explain why you say that this government wasn't democratically elected?


Well it wasn't elected AT ALL - Abhisit's Democratic Party was defeated at the 2008 elections.



:hello1:

[quote=WhiteDesire]Thailand's government as it is not democratically elected

could you please explain why you say that this government wasn't democratically elected?


Well it wasn't elected AT ALL - Abhisit's Democratic Party was defeated at the 2008 elections.

:hello1:[/quote:2p71g67h]

Its not about a party getting defeated - you don't get to vote for a party, you vote for individual MPs who are members of a party. Just getting more votes than the other parties doesn't give you the right to form a government - you need a majority or at least the support of other parties to hold a majority in the parliament.
Yes, the Democrats didn't the the most votes in 2007. But the PPP didnt get a majority, so they had to form a coalition with minor parties to form a majority government.
After the PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud, the replacement party - Peua Thai - were unable to form another coalition, but the Democrats were able to get the support of the minor parties to form a government.
So the current Democrat-led coalition government is just as legitimate as the previous governments under Samak and Somchai.

[... you don't get to vote for a party, you vote for individual MPs who are members of a party. Just getting more votes than the other parties doesn't give you the right to form a government - you need a majority or at least the support of other parties to hold a majority in the parliament.
.....


Dave, when you're not paying attention to the Thai electoral system, do you ever look at the one in the UK? It's exactly the same in that you vote for an individual and not a party - so I reckon I know what I'm talking about just as well as yourself.

Infact the last election result situation in Thailand is similar to the one we have just seen in the UK whereby the largest party did not have sufficient seats to form a majority and had to to a deal with a smaller party to form a Govt.

Let's look at the 2007/08 Thai election results .... the PPP won 233 seats, the Democrat Party 165 seats and Chart Thai 37 seats. For the Motherland got 24 seats, Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana 9, the Neutral Democratic Party 7 and Pracharat 5 seats

Fact of the matter is that there WAS a coalition formed by those who together won a majority of seats in the 2007/2008 elections - and Abhisit's Democratic Party was not involved in that. However, that coalition later got kicked out (rightly or wrongly) and Abhisit was able to assume power at that point, without what most of us would recognise as any democratic mandate whatsoever, having effectively lost the election and relying on smaller parties to keep them in power.

The UK comparison would be if the 3rd placed Party (Liberals) had bypassed the 1st placed Party in terms of seats and votes (Conservatives) and put the 3rd placed party (Labour) into power. There would have been uproar!

To suggest that Abhisit's Government is legitimate or democratically elected is stretching those terms to the very limit of their meaning.

I cannot put the Thai situation better than to quote the BBC:

"The Democratic Party failed to win power at national elections, but in December 2008 the Constitutional Court found the ruling party, led by allies of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, guilty of electoral fraud and banned it.

Amid the turmoil of the airport blockade caused by anti-Thaksin protesters, a few Thaksin loyalists changed sides.

This enabled Mr Abhisit to form a new government and become the next prime minister without calling elections."

Any Govt which is afraid to call elections, in my opinion tells you all you need to know about their legitimacy

:bis:

[Bob]

After the PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud, the replacement party - Peua Thai - were unable to form another coalition, but the Democrats were able to get the support of the minor parties to form a government.
So the current Democrat-led coalition government is just as legitimate as the previous governments under Samak and Somchai.

You somewhat fail to mention that Peua Thai wasn't given the chance of forming a coalition then and that the military intervened to broker a coalition supporting Abhisit. Without that military meddling, the redshirts claim, Abhisit couldn't have formed anything. Many political analysts have said the same thing.

And, of course, all of this ignores the coup in 2006, the military appointment of Prime Minister Surayud thereafter, the military appointing the judges that assisted in the dissolution (and kicking one Prime Minister out the door because he was getting paid for doing some part-time work on a cooking show), etc.

It's hardly as simple as saying the Democrats legally formed a coalition under the constitution (that, of course, being the latest document which, again, was essentially created by the military's hand-picked people).

[fedssocr]

I think it is VERY premature to say the "end is near" based on this particular warrant being issued. There are plenty of other arrest warrants out for Thaksin that have amounted to nothing. Interpol claims they won't arrest anyone on warrants they believe are politically motivated. And they have basically said that is the case here. So they won't be involved. And I agree with others who note that countries opposed to the death penalty will not extradite him.

So the status quo will remain for a while. I thought it was funny though that Thaksin has hired a war crimes lawyer and wants to bring human rights abuse charges against the government at the ICC. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! That takes some serious balls.

I expect that the Constitution Court will disband the Democrats eventually. And that will end up leading to new elections. Which the red shirts will win, but once again they won't have a majority. So some sort of coalition will need to form. And then the yellow shirts will go out to protest some more and the cycle will continue on unabated.

Dave, when you're not paying attention to the Thai electoral system, do you ever look at the one in the UK? It's exactly the same in that you vote for an individual and not a party - so I reckon I know what I'm talking about just as well as yourself.
Infact the last election result situation in Thailand is similar to the one we have just seen in the UK whereby the largest party did not have sufficient seats to form a majority and had to to a deal with a smaller party to form a Govt.
Let's look at the 2007/08 Thai election results .... the PPP won 233 seats, the Democrat Party 165 seats and Chart Thai 37 seats. For the Motherland got 24 seats, Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana 9, the Neutral Democratic Party 7 and Pracharat 5 seats
Fact of the matter is that there WAS a coalition formed by those who together won a majority of seats in the 2007/2008 elections - and Abhisit's Democratic Party was not involved in that. However, that coalition later got kicked out (rightly or wrongly) and Abhisit was able to assume power at that point, without what most of us would recognise as any democratic mandate whatsoever, having effectively lost the election and relying on smaller parties to keep them in power.
The UK comparison would be if the 3rd placed Party (Liberals) had bypassed the 1st placed Party in terms of seats and votes (Conservatives) and put the 3rd placed party (Labour) into power. There would have been uproar!
To suggest that Abhisit's Government is legitimate or democratically elected is stretching those terms to the very limit of their meaning.

As for quoting BBC, you may as well quote Fox News. The days of BBC being an respected and impartial source of news are passed.
I cannot put the Thai situation better than to quote the BBC:
"The Democratic Party failed to win power at national elections, but in December 2008 the Constitutional Court found the ruling party, led by allies of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, guilty of electoral fraud and banned it.
Amid the turmoil of the airport blockade caused by anti-Thaksin protesters, a few Thaksin loyalists changed sides.
This enabled Mr Abhisit to form a new government and become the next prime minister without calling elections."
Any Govt which is afraid to call elections, in my opinion tells you all you need to know about their legitimacy


Yes, I am quite aware of the situation with the UK election results. I did consider mentioning them in my earlier posting.
If you took a look at the Australian election results of the past, you would have seen exactly the scenario you are describing - the 2 major parties are the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party. In both 1961 and 1969 (and probably at other times if I bothered to look back further) the ALP had the highest number of MPs elected but they failed to get a majority. In both cases a a coalition government was formed between the 'losing' Liberal Party and the Country Party (now renamed as the National Party). That was never seen as undemocratic.

In fact, the coalition wasn't 'kicked out', the PPP was deregistered when its executives were found guilty of electoral fraud. It seems quite democratic for MPs who bribe their way in to be disqualified. The new Pheua Thai party certainly had an opportunity to reform the coalition. They tried hard, including frantic calls by Thaksin promising who knows what. However the minor parties decided they were better off in a coalition with the Democrats. I suspect that what Bob said about the military putting pressure on them might be true, but I don't know of anything to support that opinion. But is that any worse than the back-room dealing by Thaksin and his supporters to get their support? In the end, the minor parties voted with their feet, for whatever reason, and supported the Democrats.

Anyway, Abhisit wasn't afraid to call an election. He offered to cut short his term by 1 year. Do you really think that immediately dissolving parliament and calling an election would have solved the country's problems?

As for the 2006 coup, this election of this government is the third one based on the 2007 constitution, which was passed by a majority in a referendum. Is it therefore as democratic as the previous 2 governments (under Samak and Somchai), maybe more so since it excludes a number of MPs who were found guilty of electoral fraud.

could you please explain why you say that this government wasn't democratically elected?

The government was voted in based on a result of weeks of manoeuvring to persuade several minor parties which had supported the previous government to switch sides.

Now, tongue and cheek, officially, it might be called "democratic", but I cant see it myself.

[
The government was voted in based on a result of weeks of manoeuvring to persuade several minor parties which had supported the previous government to switch sides.
Now, tongue and cheek, officially, it might be called "democratic", but I cant see it myself.

are you talking about the Thai or UK governments now?

dave syd

I am referring to the Thai government.

Thailand's government as it is not democratically elected

so your statement should read something like 'in my opinion, Thailand's government as it is not democratically elected' rather than stating it a an unequivocal fact?

[
The government was voted in based on a result of weeks of manoeuvring to persuade several minor parties which had supported the previous government to switch sides.
Now, tongue and cheek, officially, it might be called "democratic", but I cant see it myself.

are you talking about the Thai or UK governments now?


The Governments are not comparable.

In the UK the Party which won most seats and votes (but not an overall majority) is kept in power by the Party which came 3rd, so there is a democratic mandate there which is generally accepted. The election "winner" is in Government.

The Thai situation is almost the reverse - the Party which won most seats at the elections is excluded from Government (and we have discussed the reasons for that) by what is essentialy a coalition of the losers. That situation is contrary to my definition of democracy.

Now you may say, as you do, that the current Thai Govt. is not afraid of an election - but there is no evidence for this other than their pronouncements to that effect. Yes they keep offering elections, but nothing actually happens, so one might conclude that "talk is cheap".

[lonelywombat]

This is from todays newspaper. Surely a vote on the floor of Parliment is democratic. Or has the opposition [Thaksin supporters] been banned from Parliment.

Thai no-confidence vote fails
BANGKOK
June 3, 2010

Thailand's Prime Minister has easily survived a no-confidence vote in the lower house of parliament over his handling of recent street protests that turned violent.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has been accused by political opponents of violating human rights in the tense standoff between protesters and armed troops, who fired live rounds during several confrontations in the capital.

But thanks to his ruling coalition's majority in the lower house, the censure motion submitted by the opposition was rejected by 246 votes to 186 yesterday, House Speaker Chai Chidchob said.

The red shirts' rally, broken up on May 19 in an army assault on their encampment in Bangkok, sparked outbreaks of violence that left 89 people dead.

The Governments are not comparable.

In the UK the Party which won most seats and votes (but not an overall majority) is kept in power by the Party which came 3rd, so there is a democratic mandate there which is generally accepted. The election "winner" is in Government.

The Thai situation is almost the reverse - the Party which won most seats at the elections is excluded from Government (and we have discussed the reasons for that) by what is essentialy a coalition of the losers. That situation is contrary to my definition of democracy.

Now you may say, as you do, that the current Thai Govt. is not afraid of an election - but there is no evidence for this other than their pronouncements to that effect. Yes they keep offering elections, but nothing actually happens, so one might conclude that "talk is cheap".

I understand where you are coming from, but I think the idea of the party with the most votes but less than a majority having some right to form government is problematic. I think if a party has less than 50% of the MPs, it has no monopoly on forming a government.

Take a situation where there are 3 parties:
Party A has 40% of the MPs
Party B has 35% of the MPs
Party C has 25% of the MPs
A coalition of Party B and Party C would have 60% of the MPs. Wouldn't it have a right to form a government, even though Party B and Part C are both 'losers'? And practically, how could Party A function as a government if it doesn't have a controlling number of MPs?

If the Liberal Democrats in the recent UK elections had got a few more seats, you might have seen that situation arise. Under the Australian constitution, there would be no doubt that the coalition of two 'losing' parties would be the ones forming a government, as the Australian contsitution doesn't recognise political parties related to the selection of the government. As there is no UK Constitution as such, I believe its up the to Sovereign to decide in that situation?

http://math.crg4.com/criteriaMaj.png
http://math.crg4.com/votingTerminology.html

"A voting system or electoral system is a method by which voters make a choice between options, often in an election or on a policy referendum.

A voting system contains rules for valid voting, and how votes are counted and aggregated to yield a final result. Common voting systems are majority rule, proportional representation or plurality voting with a number of variations and methods such as first-past-the-post or preferential voting.

The study of formally defined voting systems is called voting theory, a subfield of political science, economics or mathematics."


[X] The FINAL RESULT of an election is always THE FUNCTION of the VOTING SYSTEM.

[X] There is no simple solution that can please all tastes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_im ... ty_theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem)

Paul E. Johnson: Voting Systems
http://pj.freefaculty.org/Ukraine/PJ3_V ... sEssay.pdf (http://pj.freefaculty.org/Ukraine/PJ3_VotingSystemsEssay.pdf)

Marcus Pivato: Voting, Arbitration, and Fair Division. The mathematics of social choice.
http://xaravve.trentu.ca/pivato/Teaching/voting.pdf

[x} Thank you for not only stating the blindingly obvious, but going to considerable lengths to prove it.

[x]