Emergency rule in Bangkok

A familiar series of rumors began to rock Thailand, as troop movements were reported in Bangkok. Earlier in the day, PM Thaksin had issued a cagey statement from overseas concerning his political intentions.

Then, this developing story on The Nation’s website:

Speaking from New York in Channel 9, Thaksin ordered Sondhi to report himself with Deputy Prime Minister Pol Gen Chidchai Wannasathit immediately.

Thaksin said he decided to declare the state of emergency because the situations were not stable.

His orders came after reports that Gen Sondhi was trying to stage a coup d’etat.

Tanks and army humvees were seen on Bangkok streets.

Earlier Channel 9 and 5 have been ordered to stand by for special announcement as coup speculation reached the highest pitch.

Coup was widely speculated after many army units were moved out of their barracks on pretext of personnel rotation.

Sources said Channel 5 would broadcast an announcement by the military at 10 pm while Channel 9 may broadcast announcement of caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from New York.

Channel 5 is playing songs in praising of His Majesty the King in an indication that an announcement may be made soon.

At 10:26 pm, all TV stations are laying march music in praise of His Majesty the King as if the stations are now under control of one group.

Earlier, the day an army source said Army Commander-in-Chief has instructed all army units in Bangkok to standby for an important event.

Capt.59Ee65Eee0E04Ef0A3995Dc93Bebf653.Thailand Polical Turmoil Xsl101
That was of 12:28 am… See these additional items: the events come at the heels of months of rumors of military unrest; and the statement from the military reformists:

There has been social division like never before. Each side has been trying to conquer another with all possible means and the situation tends to intensify with growing doubts on the administration amid widespread reported corruption.

State units and independent organisations have been politically meddled, not able to deliver their services as specified in the Constitution.

The administration is also usually bordering on “lest majest” actions against the revered King. Despite attempts from social units for compromises, there is no way to end the conflicts.

The revolution body thus needs to seize power. We have no intention to rule but to return the power to the people as soon as possible, to preserve peace and honour the King who is the most revered to all Thais.

See the BBC story, too. Sounds like Manila in February:

Mr Thaksin, who is at the UN in New York, announced he had removed the chief of the army and had ordered troops not to “move illegally”.

An army-owned TV station is showing images of the royal family and songs linked in the past with military coups.

Correspondents say that there have been low-level rumours of a possible coup for weeks.

Thai media say that two army factions appear to be heading for a clash, with one side backing the prime minister and the other side backing a rebel army chief.

Our correspondent Jonathan Head said it was not clear which faction had taken the initiative.

CNN’s former Thailand correspondent talking of Thailand’s “infant” democracy, the PM’s unpopularity in the capital (do we hear a borrowed phrase? Say, “imperial Bangkok”?), sidestepping of People Power and questions of legitimacy. Talk of how business and investor-oriented Thaksin is. Says everyone on tenterhooks to see if the King will speak. Thaksin advancing his speech to UN General Assembly and then rushing home. Blood & Treasure says the mobile phone networks are down, too. sgtowns.com says military’s announcing it’s in full control.

Colleague informs me a mutual acquaintance in Bangkok airport waiting for a flight didn’t even know a coup’s going on.

Bangkok Pundit is liveblogging. As is Oh! See What the Cat Drags In! Classes called off; cellular communications and the internet expected to be shut down. Sweet Lady says the coup came ahead of a scheduled large protest rally the next day. Another instant blog: Thailand Coup.

Meanwhile, beleaguered Hungarian PM shaken consequnces of a statement he made,

The prime minister of Hungary has confirmed the legitimacy of a leaked tape recording in which he says his government lied to win April’s election and “lied in the morning; lied in the evening” during office. The recording comes from a speech Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany gave to a closed party meeting shortly after his Socialist-Liberal coalition took office for a second term. -Guardian

And now has to grapple with protests.

1:33 am CNN reports martial law has been imposed throughout all Thailand. Provincial troops being sent to Bangkok. That TV crews and kibbitzers taking photos.

Update, 9 am: see the accounts of the BBC (also, eyewitness accounts, as well as pictures) and the Sydney Morning Herald. The Nation reports the PM’s wife has fled, his cabinet is in hiding or been arrested, or fled abroad; see also details of the preparations for, and the coup itself. Very interesting commentary from Torn & Frayed comparing and contrasting the Philippines and Thailand. The question: why a coup in Bangkok and not Manila? He says the President is actually less divisive than Thaksin. The point he makes about the King of Thailand serving as an arbiter of political morality and legitimacy, is interesting too -and suggests that Cardinal Sin played a similar, very Asian, it would seem, role in his day. An OFW Living in Hong Kong suggests defenders of the parliamentary system had better reconsider their arguments that their pet system is a kind of magic bullet. In Thailand it’s obviously not.

In other matters: President bares result of her trip. Inquirer editorial says barely anything resulted from the trip.

In former, happier times for Philconsa and Atty. whatsisname of whatsthatgroup…

Also, ChaCha advocates assert: High court can reverse itself, but then Philconsa joins anti-charter change fight in SC. The move of Philconsa is interesting: it has been flattered and paid attention to by the President for years; PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio was a former head of the association; SnB considered it an ally, I’d think. The objection of Philconsa is interesting (and valid, from my reading of the law, when I proposed a series of provincial referendums). Also, what’s with their playing so fast and free with the numbers? A series of ads came out yesterday, saying they had practically 10 million signatures; but officially, they say, close to 7 million. Either way that’s a lot, but why the need to pump up the numbers by at least a million?

May Arab News column for this week is Does Philippine Constitution Allow Presidents to Assume Absolute Power?, and takes a look at a previous constitution. Manuel Buencamino looks at a constitution-to-be, and pens a devastating analysis:

Sigaw’s transitory provisions allow Mrs. Arroyo to retain all her powers. She can proclaim martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus although parliament is empowered to reject her proclamation.

However, Sigaw’s Consitution took away the checks and balances power granted by the 1987 Constitution to the Supreme Court, to “review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ or any extension thereof . . . .”

In other words, there is no more legal recourse against collusion between Mrs. Arroyo and parliament on the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ. On top of that, the other constitutional check on the President’s emergency powers — “A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies” — does not appear anywhere in Sigaw’s constitution.

Consequently, Mrs. Arroyo can declare martial law, get parliament’s approval for it, and then turn right around to suspend the Constitution, shut down parliament and the courts, and rule by decree for as long as she wants.

I can now say, without any reservation whatsoever, that Mrs. Arroyo’s trust or confidence in her constitutionalists was not misplaced. She got exactly what she wanted from them — the power to overthrow and destroy our democracy and to rule by decree.

Then Bong Austero wishes the Subic rape victim was nicer.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Manuel L. Quezon III.

81 thoughts on “Emergency rule in Bangkok

  1. 4. Politics basically thrives on corruption. From gathering votes to be elected and all teh way to keeping your self in power.
    5. Military Coup is just another form of politics.

  2. But for the Majority of Thailand People another coup (the 18th) won’t even reaised much eyebrows and after a few days, they’ll be back to the same self again. That, for them become a routine as if just to refresh themselves. If it happenes in the Philippines it will be forever talked and debated without even getting resolve. That is a taken.

  3. Cvj,
    The citizenry is out of the question of the power struggle between Thaksin and the rich elite.

    The educated and the middle class poured in the streets to denounce him. What apathy do you ask for.

    It seems your mind is set that the Filipinos are apathetic because they do nothing against GMA.

    It is not GMA which is the issue too why they do not resort to people power.

    They do not want PEOPLE POWER anymore. So all of those who want to inflame people to rise against the administration will be disappointed. Nothing of this will happen in the future.

    Even if some of you used up all alternicks that you can think of.

  4. in our system, economic power intertwines with political power and that has been the history of this country. our electorate has not matured precisely because the economic circumstances of our citizens did not allow such maturity to happen and the elite of our society, by maintaining protectionist attitudes and patronage system in business and politics, ensure that such maturity do not happen.

    any reading of our history would show that the same names in government and business appear over and over and over and over again. and yet in the 100 or so years of our republic, these same names have resulted in a downward direction in terms of politcal corruption and disastrous economic policies.

    does an oligarchy exist? yes it does. and any economist or political economist worth his salt knows what it is and who they are. what’s more, the power base of these oligarchs have diversified beyond that of sugar and tobacco and the media. should there be discussions in terms of class war? why not? the notion that such discussions are outmoded is merely a western affectation due to the difference in their circumstances. besides, the foreigners perhaps have a stake in having our oligarchic class stay. is being rich bad? no. but being rich to the point of selling out this country or exploiting its resources or allowing foreigners to exploit our resources or preventing a viable meritocratic system to prevail, is – no matter how you justify it or try to ignore it – is wrong. our history is, in a sense, a mere repetitive rendering of that fact. now with regard to the question should there be discussions in terms of eradicating class barriers and the answer definitely is yes.

    the greater mass should not be blamed for the voting results as the poor do not have access to the media, transportation, funds, and other such resources that the rich families have. note that in the last senatorial elections, it is no secret that the winning senators perhaps spent more than tens of millions of pesos a day. what then results is a matter of “adverse selection”, whereby bad quality gets chosen over good because of the huge information gap.

    the sooner we come to grips with this history of oligarchic control of our policies, the sooner we realize the incredibly twisted sense of noblesse oblige that the richest members of our society have, the sooner we can carve out better directions for this country. it is this and not charter change or people power that will act as the catalyst for change.

  5. Ca T, I think what happened in Thailand is equivalent to EDSA2 although in two separate stages months apart – with a democratic (the people power demonstrations) and a non-democratic component (the coup). We have to wait and see how the people (both pro and anti-Thaksin) will react to the coup (i.e. the non-democratic component) in the coming days and weeks before we can make a conclusion on whether they are apathetic or not. You may very well be right in that it reverts to a competition among the Thai elites.

    As to the case of the Philippines, you may also be right in your assessment that the people will not rise up against GMA, but that is the very definition of being apathetic. We can choose to debate the consequences of the peoples’ (in)action, but I don’t think it’s really worth the time to disagree on something that is straightforward terminology.

  6. Justice League, are you still dangling that threat of posting a forum’s URL? Wala pa ring kumakagat? Bakit hindi mo na lang i-post to get it over with? Or exclusive club ba yang forum na yan? Hehe.

  7. Antonio,

    I’ve posted the site before. The discussion is quite voluminous for this blog.

    You might end up a laughing stock by asking me to post them here and not arguing against them if you feel your case can’t be defended.

    Are you sure you want me to do that?

  8. its very tempting to say that Filipinos has not matured after all these years. and even more tempting to conclude that silence is apathy. but the way I see it people are learning and is acting according to what they have learned. For one people have learned to really discern over the so many issues that were feed on them by the political players and manipulators.

    Yes, the economic elite can very well dictate on who should run in an election but I dont think they have the total control of the results of election. Unless they use their financial advantage to rig the election.

    Running for office really involves money, and a very huge some at that. The poor can canot do something about that. It always the rich and the elite who are tasked to take teh role of a “financiers”. And this is where the corruption starts. Because these “financiers” will not just shell out money for nothing. Naturally, they wanted any form “Return of Investment”.

    And the reality is that this is not only true in the Philippines. I am reading the memoirs of Ex NJ Gov James Mc Greevy ” The Confession ” that came out yesterday. I was indeed surprised on how he relates the corruption in American politics particularly in New Jersey politics.

    Please dont get me wrong. I am not advocating that we should just leave the corruption since its very common everywhere any way. All I am saying was that eradicating corruption is not just a simple job. So lets leave those people who wanted more time to discern their options on what they wanted to do about it. There is just no way that we can forced our choices on them. And please please please , lets stop assuming that their silence particularly by not ranting in this blog is a form apathy. Afterall, this blog just another form of forum. There are just sooooooooo many forums out there where they voiced out thier opinions. For all we know they are doing even much more than were are doing here. And even accomplishing more than we do.

  9. right you are rego.

    When people saw that politicians/government officials always resort to “hakot system” or “make paawa” or make “pakampi” to create an illusion that they are loved/liked/ by their constituents every time their positions are endangered of being taken away, the people abandoned the mob mentality.

    that means, they have learned and can no longer be duped to protect anybody.

  10. You talk nonsense, the Ca t because you know Gloria is all that is despicable, yet you keep buggin us with your stupid philosophizing. Why don’t you just shut up?

  11. Rego, ‘silence’ in the face of wrongdoing has been the usual reaction of many Filipinos throughout history and it is best described as ‘a form of apathy’. Remember that ‘silence’ was also the dominant reaction when Martial Law was declared and we all know where that led us. That is why ‘apathy’ is the more appropriate term to use than the more neutral-sounding ‘silence’, as it better conveys the consequences of this kind of behavior. For the ordinary citizen who opposes Arroyo, it is not the ‘political players and manipulators’ that motivates them but a sense of right and wrong. That such opposition is aligned to certain ‘political players and manipulators’ is mere coincidence. After all, your own position is also aligned with Gloria’s who is currently the leading ‘political player and manipulator’. When everything is accounted for, you (and the other ‘silent revolutionaries’) may indeed turn out to be saints, but for the purposes of our little discussion, this is irrelevant. It is the belief system that you articulate that is at question here, nothing else.

  12. tapang mo naman justice league. haha. so many threats. bwahahahahaha. btw. i thought you only wanted to post the url? or did you mean to say that you would take other people’s arguments and post them here? now that would be funny. Heh.

  13. cvj,

    “eradicating corruption is not just a simple job.” All the more, people should be less apathetic – the citizenry should be concerned; they should be the natural watchdogs. the process of making leaders accountable for their action at every turn is doable. if people do nothing, corruption will become a way of life, it will become a disease that’s hard to cure.

  14. for instance, why don’t people track the accomplishments of their elected representatives? That’s one way of making those fools in congress accountable to the people. How did they vote on certain key issues – including, inevitably, impeachment? I wish some people could get together to make that sort of performance monitoring happen.

  15. Antonio,

    Actually I was referring to only my part of the discussion. Anyway I’ll post one below.

    If you can give good arguments against it then I certainly believe that you DESERVE to see more.

    This article was posted in April 2006. A correspondence with a Concom member who happened to be in the minority group necessitated some editing but everything else is the same as in the other forums. You can clearly read that the coup in Thailand was not yet part of the article.


    Last year, the President, under Executive Order No. 453 created the Constitutional Consultative Commission (ConCom) to propose revisions for the Philippine Constitution. They submitted their recommendations to the President wherein she found it favorable and promptly endorsed it to Congress.

    One of the main groups now behind the so called “People’s Initiative” is the “Sigaw ng Bayan” movement. Many members of the “Sigaw ng Bayan” were also members of the ConCom and are members of the Charter Change Advocacy Commission. Though there were dissenters on the No-El proposal of the ConCom; only a few comes to mind to practically disassociate with the rest of the recommendations and that happens to be the minority group led by Rene Azurin and other certain members.

    It is pretty safe to assume that the vision of “Sigaw ng Bayan” in revising the Constitution will lead EVENTUALLY more or less to the product envisioned in the ConCom recommendations (recommendations endorsed by the executive branch itself). Parliament will certainly serve as the springboard for their other revisions.

    The Transitory Provisions in the “People’s Initiative” petition state that:
    Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent Members of the Senate and House of the Representatives and the incumbent Members of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments.

    (2) The incumbent President and Vice President shall automatically be a Member of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also be a member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially convene the interim Parliament and shall preside over its sessions for the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall have been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim Parliament from among themselves.

    (4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or of revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.

    With only ¾ needed to propose amendments and revisions to the Constitution and all additions (Cabinet members including the VP and the President herself, practically 20 in number) to the former Congressional members (who will comprise the interim Parliament) being allies of the administration; the Opposition will be crushed as well as any hope of impeaching the President!

    One of the problems said to be plaguing the country is the fixed term of the President. That fixed term is said to afford an unpopular President the ability to cling to power despite the absence of support from the citizenry already.

    The cure prescribed by the ConCom (and hence the “Sigaw ng Bayan” movement since many of its members came from the Concom and have not disowned its recommendations) however is worse than the disease.

    They advocate that the solution to the problem of the head of the executive branch (with a fixed term but no ability for re-election) is to replace it instead with a ruling party (which will hence control both the executive and legislative branch of government, still enjoy a FIXED term, and have the ability to perpetually hold on to that power by the party’s members having the ability to continuously run for re-elections).

    It is said that all forms of government are oligarchic in nature; however their recommendations will push us possibly into a true CONSTITUTIONAL OLIGARCHY .

    The proponents and their sympathizers frequently come out in media proclaiming that the benefits of a parliamentary form of government will be the ease to replace the Prime Minister, greater accountability, having the shadow cabinet or government, and even the chance to topple the ruling party and install a new one within the term of the present parliament.

    The Prime Minister operates and continues in that position based on the support of the fellow members of his/her party. Given the nature of our politicians, it will be hard to police their own ranks. It would be difficult for a Prime Minister to alienate any member of the ruling party. It would be like the king or queen cutting off a leg of his/her throne while he/she is still sitting on it. Can fellow party members let go of one of their own since such would certainly weaken their own party?

    As experienced in Thailand; the ruling party never gave way to replace their party mate as Prime Minister though hell was about to break loose everywhere. That a replacement for Prime Minister would have come from the same party reinforces the oligarchic nature.

    If that wasn’t bad enough; their other proposals will institutionalize oligarchy in our country .

    As per the ConCom’s recommended Constitution:
    Article VII- Parliament
    SEC. 2. (1) Parliament shall be composed of as many members as may be provided by law, who shall be elected from Parliamentary districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation by the political parties according to the votes each party obtained in the preceding elections.

    (2) The members chosen by the political parties shall constitute thirty per centum of the total number of members including those elected by Parliament. In the choice of such members, the political parties shall ensure that the labor, peasant, urban poor, veterans, indigenous peoples, women, youth, differently-abled, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector, are properly

    Article XI – Constitutional Commissions-
    C. The Commission on Elections
    SEC. 9. Parliament shall, by law, (1) promote the development of a party system in which various interests and sectors in society shall be represented, including women, labor, the poor, peasants, indigenous peoples, persons with disability and the youth;

    (2) encourage the development of two major political parties to ensure that a majority can assume responsibility and accountability in governance and

    (3) provide financial assistance to the political parties on the basis of their share of the votes cast for the political parties in the previous Parliamentary elections.
    Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections shall constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that
    may be prescribed by law.

    SEC. 12. Any elective official who leaves his political party before the end of the term shall forfeit his seat.

    The votes for the political parties are similar to the situation in Italy wherein the Prodi coalition; having garnered the highest number of votes at 49.8% against Berlusconi’s 49.7%, will be automatically entitled to field an additional number of members of parliament in the lower house to solidify its hold. A difference of only 25,000 votes out of 38 million ballots cast instantly gives Romano Prodi nearly 60 additional party members in the lower house of Parliament, giving it outright majority over Silvio Berlusconi’s side.

    The section on developing 2 major political parties however precisely speaks of parties and not coalitions. The very statement is prophetic and easy enough to understand. “…development of two major political parties to ensure that a majority …”

    And last but not the least; that turncoatism is to be penalized by removal from parliament. The only reason now for an elected MP to leave his/her party is due to principle as he/she will be ejected from his/her position of power. The likelihood is that they will stick with their party no matter what, even if that party would drag this country through the mud. And when were the last time and how many members of Congress have voluntarily stepped down from office due to principles?

    The ruling party will thus be leaps and bounds beyond the 2nd party . How will the 2nd party be able to unseat the ruling party? What is the use of forming a shadow cabinet when you already know the ruling party will never be toppled?

    Even the vote of no confidence is unlikely to prosper. Politicians already in power are totally allergic and abhor the notion of elections wherein they have to spend and still risk the prospect of being unseated (This made the No-El proposal so tempting to politicians). The ruling party members are likely to always toe the party line rather than risk the possibility of parliament being dissolved and face the problems of getting re-elected back to it.

    The recommendations look good and noble on paper but all in all; they would give invulnerability to the ruling party. If the ruling party enjoys practical invulnerability, then indeed it enjoys a fixed term in power. A fixed term of 5 years.

    Unlike the local government, we have no power of recall over the members of Congress/Parliament. Should we wait with held breaths till they give us that ability? I don’t think so.

    For 5 long years, the ruling party will hold the power over 2 branches of government and we will be able to do nothing about it. Where is the accountability then when they will just be accountable to themselves? Unlike in the midterm elections which can serve as a sort of referendum to an administration’s government. When the people no longer like the administration; the administration bets likely get trashed.

    Truly, the rule of the few over the rest of us all is just over the horizon.

    You won’t hear such possibilities from the proponents of Charter Change. These kinds of scenario are not divulged to the people. It is either the proponents are unaware of this possibility or they are deliberately withholding this information to the people. (But with the credentials of those who propose these changes, it is unlikely that they are ignorant of such matters. THIS IS A DELIBERATE PLAN !)

    Organizations like the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, the Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Exporters Confederation of the Philippines and the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches support the so called “People’s Initiative” and themselves gather signatures for the petition. Have they told their members of the possibility of a few people ruling over the country with the checks and balances of power resting within these same few people themselves? Is this the kind of petition their members are signing for? Is this the kind of change Filipinos are crying for?

    Since these revisions will affect not only their members but the entire country; it would only be expected that this organizations must explain and come out as to why they support this kind of change of government.

    The people have a right to and must know all of these. The citizenry must have an informed choice on Charter Change whether attempted thru the “People’s Initiative” or thru any other mode.

    But if the proper information is denied them, the people might feel cheated if such things should come to pass. There will be hell to pay and it could be manifested in our streets.

    An Associate Justice of the Supreme Court once stated that “… an intelligent vote presupposes a well informed voter …” He is now the Chief Justice.

    We need not only intelligent votes, but also intelligent signatures!


    Actually Antonio you are the one who’s brave for defending the proposals for surely you have already read them.


    And concerning the present moves to revise the Charter; what is discernible are 2 sets of people. Those who fool the people and those who got fooled. And I am quuite interested now in finding out to which set you belong!

    After you have laughed the laugh, you must certainly prepare for your rebuttal of my argument. Your reply or non reply will tell us to what set you belong.


    For others interested in the proposals to revise the Constitution, you can view it at the concom website.

  16. ” It is the belief system that you articulate that is at question here, nothing else.”

    But after all these time that nothing much is happening, whose belief system is not is not being questioned…???Those who claimed that their belief system is beyond question should be showing results by now… The trouble is this, when the belief system of one sector is not working and producing results that they expected, Rather than just going over their very own belief system, reexamine it, overhaul it, to make it work,,,, they would rather they turn to the other belief system and do all these horrible thing just to defeat it. And then claimed that the other belief system is self defeating….
    Oh well,…..

  17. Bwahahahaha. Funny that you should think that a person has to be able to debate in order to deserve to see the arguments of others. Mukhang gusto mo nga atang maging exclusive club yang forum na yan. Kung ganyan ang pananaw mo, paano mo makukumbinsi ang nakakarami (na hindi magaling mag-debate) na tama ka? Ni hindi nila makikita ang mga pinagsasasabi mo.


    At kailan ko pa dinepensahan ang charter change, JL? I have always been against a parliamentary form of government simply because I don’t think our politicians are mature enough to make that sort of set-up prosper. Hehe. But I’m not so arrogant about my position.

    As for foolishness, tama ka. A person is a fool for embracing a position he does not fully understand. A greater fool, however, is a person who makes accusations he cannot prove. Like for instance accusing me of defending cha-cha proposals when i have never done any such thing. Bwahahaha.

    So, if you’re against charter change, then unfortunately we are on the same side. Hehe. If you must know, I was laughing at this preoccupation of yours with threatening to sic this forum of yours on people who happen to disagree with you. More so this absurd business about DESERVING to see this forum.

    Oh and, by the way, as far as arguments go, if you really want to convince people to go against charter change, maybe you should start arguing FOR it. 🙂

  18. Cat… An impersonator ??? This is a job for knight-errant Schumey.

    But back to Thailand…. here is a cut-and-paste from Christian Science Monitor :

    A new vote (for Thailand) was due to be run in November 2006 by a newly elected commission.

    Analysts had predicted another win for Thaksin, who commands the loyalty of millions of rural Thais. He gained their support with subsidized healthcare, a freeze on farmers’ debts, and cheap loans to villages.

    But middle-class voters began turning their backs, angered by reports of widespread corruption in Thaksin’s cabinet and his brash style of governing and refusal to countenance public criticism. Urban elites were dismayed by the appointment of his family to key roles in the military and police, and his attempts to radically overhaul the top-heavy government bureaucracy.

    Unable to win at the ballot box, Thaksin’s opponents now seem ready to turn the clock back……

    The link is here:

  19. Antonio,

    There is enough circumstantial evidence on my part to think that you were defending the proposals.

    The MUKAMO forum is not the usual forums. Unlike other fora where even a plain guest can view all the discussions, that particular forum requires you to register first and become a member before you even get to see the discussions and I even explained that.

    You don’t realize this but I REMEMBER YOU asked me what forum I was referring to back in the “IT BEGINS” blog back in August 29.

    I answered you!

    When I replied to AW, I was referring to you Antonio Walanglaban

    I answered you nicely and gave the forum for everyone to see already and yet you came the way you did. What was anyone supposed to think?

    All the while I thought you already viewed the forum.

    I obviously thought you were arguing for something like Charter Change because why would you want to come the way you did after viewing the site?

    Who would have thought you would want to have an argument for the sake of having an argument?

    If you had counter answers to the issues I raised on charter change, I would have had to post the arguments here BECAUSE I DON’T RECALL YOU POSTING ANYTHING THERE.


    A person who will pick an argument over nothing. Who’s the fool now?

    Now I’m the one laughing at you!

  20. you posted the address there? i didn’t see it. maybe you can post it again? too bad that you thought I was picking a fight. hehe. cool ka lang, pare. i wasn’t. In case you missed it, I was twitting you for dangling that threat of posting the url’s address. I mean, if you’d posted it before, that makes the threat even more ridiculous, eh? and you did say If you can give good arguments against it then I certainly believe that you DESERVE to see more, so that’s what deserving has to do with this.

    so anyway, i’m not for charter change. 🙂 looks like we’re on the same side after all. 😉 And i’m glad you’re laughing. that’s what this sorry f*cked up world needs. More laughter. 😀

  21. By the way, jl, you said

    You don’t realize this but I REMEMBER YOU asked me what forum I was referring to back in the “IT BEGINS” blog back in August 29.

    I answered you!

    When I replied to AW, I was referring to you Antonio Walanglaban

    I answered you nicely and gave the forum for everyone to see already and yet you came the way you did. What was anyone supposed to think?

    You must be thinking of a different thread, jl. because this is what I remember you wrote:

    AW, James never did take my offer so I never posted the site. There are many discussion fora but at least one I know where the mods who participate in the ChaCha thread are pro ChaCha is the Mukamo Forum. The mods will do their job in policing the site for both sides but just that they are leaning towards Chacha.I wanted to offer a site where at least the pro Chacha can feel that they will not be at a disadvantage.

  22. Antonio,

    It was an offer, you are the one who views it as a threat.

    No, I don’t think that offering the forum to Joselu even though I’ve posted it before to everyone is ridiculous. There is the possibility that Joselu might not even be aware that I posted the forum or even that I offered one in the first place.

    BUT I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED A RESPONSE TO YOU. In that reply, I gave you and everyone who read that reply the forum. The MUKAMO Forum! You claim now not to have seen that. That has to be someone’s fault. But it certainly should not be mine.

    Yes, I didn’t post the site for James previously because he didn’t reply or ask for it. I didn’t post it for Carl either coz he didn’t ask for it too.

    But I did post it for you and virtually everyone else BECAUSE YOU ASKED FOR IT.

    Then you started taunting me, even decorating your taunts with laughter.

    Even though I believed that you already viewed the site because I told you what forum to look for; I still answered you that I posted the forum before and yet you still taunted me.

    For me the sequence of events were simple.

    You asked for the forum. I gave it to you. You viewed the discussions in the forum. And then all of a sudden you came around doing what you did. Other than that you were picking an argument with me by implying that I was threatening anyone with a supposedly exclusive forum which in my view was untrue; how would you have wanted me to interpret your words?

    Like I stated, I remembered you. I remembered that you asked. I remembered that I answered. But still you did what you did. How was I supposed to take that?

    Given the events; I had a privilege to hold a default assumption. And that assumption was that you read my reply back in the “It Begins” blog. You then went to the forum, viewed the discussions, didn’t bother to leave a reply there, but then came back here to taunt me.

    If you read my reply again in the previous blog; you’d probably notice that it was practically a generic response. Because I didn’t know to which side you stood on.

    I could be wrong on any assumption. But given the events, I had a privilege to have that. Don’t you think so?

    You never replied in the MUKAMO forum. Again, the assumption was that you’ve been there. So my further response to you already had a tinge of sarcasm because I definitely felt you were pestering me already on something that was already irrelevant.

    When I stated that you deserve more if you gave me good answers; YES. That is true.

    But you seem to have failed to notice something special in that statement.

    That statement wasn’t addressed to anyone else. That statement was ADDRESSED TO YOU! AND ONLY TO YOU!!!


    Again, the assumption was that you’ve seen the discussion already in Mukamo. But then Mukamo is not the only forum I participate in. There are some issues that I didn’t post there because many of the issues already there weren’t answered anyway.

    Since you didn’t bother to reply in Mukamo, it was apparent that you totally discarded the issues raised there. So I raised one of those articles here. I expected you then to answer the issues here because you never answered any issue there.

    If you have countered the issues I raised here, definitely I would have had to post other issues here that were posted elsewhere. Getting more of the articles from MUKAMO would have made little difference because you saw them already.

    Definitely articles would have to be posted here. What did you expect me to do? Give you another forum I partipate in?

    You didn’t bother to answer in Mukamo forum so why should I expect you to reply in another forum? THe likelihood was that you would have just come back here to argue your point here if you were going to argue at all.

    But if you could not counter the issues raised or didn’t bother again to reply; WHY SHOULD I SHOW YOU MORE?

    If you are only going to discard the issues without answering them, DO YOU BELIEVE YOU DESERVE TO SEE MORE?

    So now you claim that you have NOT seen the forum because you didn’t see it in my reply.

    Of course, that would explain a whole deal. YOu asked something and to the best of your knowledge, I did not answer you back. Anyone in your position would have been insulted. I can understand that.

    But you see, I have proof that I did answer you and you even quoted it back.

    What proof do you have that you did not see my answer? What proof can you show me that you did not look inside the forum?

    Or do I only have your word for all of that?

    Can I take you on your word?

    YES. I think your word is good.

    If you are saying that you didn’t notice that I actually told you and practically everyone else the identity of the forum already, then that is the truth. I believe you.

    But there is something unhealthy that I feel must end here. If you feel the same Antonio; then it will end here!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.