Does Ahbisit have the right to lock the passage to my home!

[Voice]

Jefferson wrote “1.Do not worry Voice, I will not forget what went wrong and brought us to today. I disagree with you that it was the PAD rally that is causing today's problems. The PAD rally did educate the reds on a way to proceed, but the cause of today is Thaksin. We would not have these problems if he was not convicted of anything and was given all of his money. This is not about democracy for most reds (some yes, but not most). This is about Thaksin.

I’m glad that you didn’t forget Jefferson! Yes it is about Thaksin and also about Democracy too. If they knew that Thaksin was corrupt why did they need a coup before find him guilty? If there wasn’t a coup it won’t a fight for democracy. Why do we PAD before we have the coup? After all if he was really guilty and PAD has all the evidences and proves why didn’t they used constitution court to find him guilty by law? It has been at least a year since we discuss this thing about Thaksin. If I could remember you also did mention about pending cases against Thaksin. What happen today? Nothing! If those said that Thaksin is corrupted I’m sure they could take those evidences to court on his absent.

Jefferson wrote “2. I think Abhisit has tried hard in implementing polices to help Thailand have more equality.......again I mention the land tax bill upon which you do not comment. And someone is talking about trying to fix this. That is his 5 point” reconciliation plan. He is in a very difficult situation and not all of his government supports him. I think he is doing best job under present conditions.

As I told you before he doesn’t have any power above his peers. I know what he has tried to do but what he wants always running against the grains with conflict of interest. One thing Thai politic is lacking of is direction. If you don’t have direction then you cannot have policies. Before Thaksin I don’t think people really know what policy if any of the party they chose. They only cast their vote according to what they know of them. In England people know who they would vote for because each party has direction and policies. As you can see how the vote went in the UK last Thursday. This is first experience that UK has a hung parliament. I think if Thai politician could common direction rather small party that have small voice in the house if elected. It could easy for people to make their choice comes election.

As per your question I have no comment to give you as it should have been done before. I think there is more important thing to do and to think than just land tax. How about planning some programme to provide water to the Northeast & East country like Issan. Does he have the programme for that? What happen to the airport link? Does he have any programme to create work for the future?

Jefferson wrote “3. If you do not want Abhisit to continue, then what do you and your father suggest? Voice, I have read your posting, but I see no suggestions about what to do.”

If Abhisit meant what he said few months short in term of Government I think it good way forward. I hope e can make it happen. All Thailand needs now is for the red to go home. This situation has put Thailand back for further years of recovery. The next thing we will have is a clash in gold price then many people will suffer more lost. The gold price has exceed it valve the highest its get the hardest it will fall. Does the government have the plan for that? USA has been pushing the gold price for the past years and they have stock pile of that gold. What would happen if the gold prices drop? Around the world people have been buying gold shares and a lot of people have been cheated by share fraudulence due to rise of the gold price. We don’t have to follow the world gold price because our gold is recycled. I think the government should take control of this situation before it get out of hands.

Jefferson wrote “4. I suggest that PM continue on roadmap regardless of red speeches, demands, etc. If reds do not soon move out of Bangkok, then declare marshal law and surround the red rally. Blockade all food and water, etc. Allowed all unarmed people out to return home, but allow nothing in. Then after fair warning, use force to remove any who remain. There really is no viable alternative. House dissolution solves nothing at this moment. Thailand needs a little law and order, hopefully enforced with a minimum of causalities. There Voice is my suggestion. Please state yours.

Marshal Law will not work or have you forgotten there are many melons and tomatos within police and army. To stop food & water it would be against Human right act so that cannot happen. One thing you need not to forget many of those in the military has some family member in the protest site too. Dissolution will give people time to go home and prepare to make their choice. The business will go back to normality and people with appreciate more for what he did in name of peace. Or have forgotten that most of PPP party member has been band for five years. It would be better if he have a mandate for the people by voting. If he wins he will be accept as elect Prime Minister without any argument.

[Jefferson]

Hi Voice, I do enjoy chatting with you, but you include so much that I do not know where to start. I will limit my focus.

1. You say the reds mob needs to get moved out of Bangkok. I agree. I suggested a plan that includes martial law if the reds do not voluntarily vacate. I suggest force as absolute last resort, using a siege first to cut off all supplies. You also state that you really want reds out……but then tell me martial law will fail. So I ask again Voice, what do you suggest here?

2. The airport link is done and about to open.

[Voice]

Jefferson wrote “1. You say the reds mob needs to get moved out of Bangkok. I agree. I suggested a plan that includes martial law if the reds do not voluntarily vacate. I suggest force as absolute last resort, using a siege first to cut off all supplies. You also state that you really want reds out……but then tell me martial law will fail. So I ask again Voice, what do you suggest here?

Once the red reach they’re objective I’m sure they will go so it up to the PM to honour what he promises. The reason Marshal Law doesn’t work because Martial law' is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively this underline words is the reason Abhisit won’t allow Marshal Law.

The word FAIL has a very meaning for Abhisit. It would proves that he is incapable of running the business shall we say! As I said before cutting off they’re supply would be against Human right so that don’t work either. They may siege the business area they may making lots of noise but they have not been violence within the area they holding unless it have been invaded. As the world is looking in Abhisit don’t want to make bad impression for them to see.

My suggestion would if you ever heard about silence mode! Hear nothing do nothing! Don’t disturb the ants & bees then you won’t get bite!

One thing though I have notice many time that why don’t we have any water cannon? They could buy tanks and warplanes don’t they have the money to buy water cannon?

Jefferson wrote “2. The airport link is done and about to open.”

Airport link is suppose to open last month isn’t it?

[Hard_done_by]

"... Once the red reach they’re objective I’m sure they will go so it up to the PM to honour what he promises. The reason Marshal Law doesn’t work because Martial law' is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary ..."

Oh, if life was so simple.

Just imagine two busisnessman and a judge. Each of the two have claims - but one finds where the judge lives, and threatens his property and his life, so the judge (in fear) awards the case to the one who threatened him, in order to protect his property and save his life. Does this solve the matter? Is the other protagonist simply going to accept the outcome? I think not.

Such a circumstance would not work between two people, and it will work between two ideologies.

If the PAD, the multicolors, and the UDD aren't happy, then the matter will not settle.

Frankly speaking, I thought it would have been smart of the UDD to exit Bkk days ago, because then the UDD would be well clear of the political fallout which was bound to happen: they didn't (be it so by design or by mistake), and now they'll be in the midst of the ruckus. A bad move for themselves and for settling the matter: 'sometimes you gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em'.

[Jefferson]

Once the red reach they’re objective I’m sure they will go so it up to the PM to honour what he promises. The reason Marshal Law doesn’t work because Martial law' is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively this underline words is the reason Abhisit won’t allow Marshal Law.

If this is what actually happens, then you and I will both be happy Voice. I really hope that it does.....but the roadmap does not serve Thaksin, as he gets no money back and still owes jail time. Thaksin and his private hardcore military corps (blackshirts) will keep fighting. What is your plan if reds not depart? Do you have any better idea than my concept of marshall law, a siege and then force on remaining reds?

The Thai forces do have water cannons, but they have not been used much. I have no idea why.......but I observe that water cannons are no good when a balckshirt is shooting an M-16 at you.

My understanding is that airport link is all done, but awaiting peace in BKK to open.

If the PAD, the multicolors, and the UDD aren't happy, then the matter will not settle.

Frankly speaking, I thought it would have been smart of the UDD to exit Bkk days ago, because then the UDD would be well clear of the political fallout which was bound to happen: they didn't (be it so by design or by mistake), and now they'll be in the midst of the ruckus. A bad move for themselves and for settling the matter: 'sometimes you gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em'.

Reds are not leaving because of T’s influence. Many are publicly supporting roadmap. Who gets nothing from it? Thaksin and the blackshirt terrorists get nothing from roadmap. Are they behind the continuing trouble? I do not know, and have no proof…….but logic is a powerful tool.

HDB, I agree that many are also stating their complaints about roadmap. But I see it as “FAIR”. FAIR in this situation is difficult, as it is in any situation with strong and heated feelings on all sides. In such situations there will never be a solution that everyone loves, so you look for a solution that most dislike only a little. In other words, if everybody thinks that the deal is a little unfair, then it is probably FAIR. Sounds strange I know, but absolutely true in the real world.

[Voice]

Hard_done_by wrote “Oh, if life was so simple.

Just imagine two busisnessman and a judge. Each of the two have claims - but one finds where the judge lives, and threatens his property and his life, so the judge (in fear) awards the case to the one who threatened him, in order to protect his property and save his life. Does this solve the matter? Is the other protagonist simply going to accept the outcome? I think not.

What you said above is about human survival more than principal of judgement. If the judge has principal he would have thought of his duty first before self interest. But then again it could be possible even in the best of judge his survival may come first. A judge must follow the code of principal of very high standards and reason to be applies in light of all of the relevant circumstances & consistently with the requirements of judicial independence and law. If the don’t have this principal how could we rely on the system to help fairly in principal.

Such a circumstance would not work between two people, and it will work between two ideologies.

If the PAD, the multicolors, and the UDD aren't happy, then the matter will not settle.

Of course it will be difficult if each individual principal cannot sway or compromise among two claimers. Therefore even the best judgment it won’t solve anyone problem. Therefore the letter of the law must uphold it standard and principal of the judicial and administration of justice.

To avoid this kind of situation we all must learn to respect the system. And every individual who work within the system should withhold principal of practice to the highest standard possible.

Frankly speaking, I thought it would have been smart of the UDD to exit Bkk days ago, because then the UDD would be well clear of the political fallout which was bound to happen: they didn't (be it so by design or by mistake), and now they'll be in the midst of the ruckus. A bad move for themselves and for settling the matter: 'sometimes you gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em'.

As much as I hate to repeat this but I really like you to understand that if we don’t respect the system then the whole thing will fail us. So all you have to understand first is 1, Thai mentality 2, the system. Firstly these two don’t work well with Thai people. As example they may stand in the bus queue but when the bus come everyone for themselves principal. So it looks like it come down to education & culture change that most of us here in this forum often mention. Perhaps the next generation could be better that’s we have to wait & see.

[Hard_done_by]

... If the judge has principal he would have thought of his duty first before self interest. But then again it could be possible even in the best of judge his survival may come first. A judge must follow the code of principal of very high standards and reason to be applies in light of all of the relevant circumstances & consistently with the requirements of judicial independence and law. If the don’t have this principal how could we rely on the system to help fairly in principal. ...

... and so it is for the best of prime ministers.

Please let me say this "... when principle walks in the front door, common sense jumps out the window ...", laws and principles are not the same - laws are of man, principles are from god (so some say, or are innate .. http://ardictionary.com/Principle/11849). We should never confuse law with principle - law and morality are of two different worlds, one the physical world, the other from some place entirely different.

'sometimes you gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em'

[Voice]

Hard_done_by wrote “... and so it is for the best of prime ministers.

Please let me say this "... when principle walks in the front door, common sense jumps out the window ...", laws and principles are not the same - laws are of man, principles are from god (so some say, or are innate .. http://ardictionary.com/Principle/11849). We should never confuse law with principle - law and morality are of two different worlds, one the physical world, the other from some place entirely different.

'sometimes you gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em'”

Where did you come with this kind of statement HDB? (Principal are from God) I don’t think God has anything to do with principle or uphold principle. It’s our moralities that uphold our principle. As per your link what are PRINCIPLE means! here is some of them.

principle 11
Definition: a rule or standard especially of good behavior; "a man of principle"; "he will not violate his principles"

principle 12
Definition: rule of personal conduct

[Hard_done_by]

... "Please let me say this "... when principle walks in the front door, common sense jumps out the window ...", laws and principles are not the same - laws are of man, principles are from god (so some say, or are innate .. http://ardictionary.com/Principle/11849). We should never confuse law with principle - law and morality are of two different worlds, one the physical world, the other from some place entirely different. ..."

Where did you come with this kind of statement HDB? (Principal are from God) I don’t think God has anything to do with principle or uphold principle. It’s our moralities that uphold our principle. As per your link what are PRINCIPLE means! here is some of them.

Hi Voice,

Please note the qualification "so some say", then they may be innate (in our mind at birth), but "principles" are not "laws", that was my point. You go on to agree with me when you say "It's our moralities that uphold our principle", and so, where do you look to find the source of your morality? Is it born within you (as some would say, innate), does it come from god (as some would say), or from your upbringing (as some would say)? or does it come from your constitutions and the laws which emanate from that constitution?

The only truism is that the constitution of thailand is the source of your country's laws (from the physical world), but the source of principle will always be debated but never defined (some place entirely different).