ChiangMaiFun

Billions and billions wasted while people continue to live in absolutely shocking poverty and several untouchable families horde great sums of wealth.

exactly!!!

To sum up my view - and I realise that the party horse trading is totally legal and considered 'normal' but there is a view, a valid argument in my opinion, that if X gets 40% of the vote and Y and Z get 25% each it's hardly 'representative' that Y and Z get the power when neither got as much, individually, as X and therefore 40% who voted for the majority party are dis-enfranchised. Any it's an academic argument because we are where we are but it doesn't make it 'uniting'.

It would be preferable to have a 2 party system and people lobby and influence that to get policies agreed at executive committee stage which then become party policy - personally I'm against all this banning of parties, re-forming of parties and MP's switching sides it stinks of self-serving rather than serving the people.

Let me assure you that in this part of Buri Ram the Thais I have contact with, which is more than a few, both rural and urban, see the election simply as voting for Thaksin or voting for Newin. They know that, as things now stand, a vote for Newin is effectively a vote for the current coalition. What they won't be expecting is voting for Newin only to see him realign with Thaksin. While I honestly don't believe that too many would be greatly upset by that eventuality, other than a few joining the PAD protest that would be sure to erupt - the CTP's back tracking and alliance with the PPP showed that to be the case, I do believe that there are some who believe that a "Thaksin / Newin" alliance will not happen, and considering the chances of the Democrats winning in Buri Ram to be negligible, clearly see that any vote for them here is effectively a vote for Thaksin, as it removes one from Newin. Let me also assure you that Newin is well aware of that, and is already using it to effectively tell the voters "me or Thaksin, no one else counts here". The Thai electorate may or may not be simple, but those controlling them are not.

Even most analysts get caught in the Dems versus PTP meme when in fact they are going head to head in very few constituencies. It is BJT versus PTP in the areas that count.

Unless a party wins 50% + 1 it is irrelevent who gets the most seats etc. All that counts is who can cobble together a coalition. To talk of a party winning if they fail to get 50% + 1 or better is just obsessing on win or lose. Failure to reach the magic mark means nobody has a mandate andso those who can agree on something get to govern. This is not unique to Thailand. Parliamentary democracy is about a mahjority of reopresentatives controlling givernment through parliament. Have the election and then see who can get a coalition together without interference by street nutters with shooters or military hardmen. Let parliamentary democracy work. If the people want a one party government they will vote one in, if they dont it will be coalition by agreement between MPs. There are and alwayshave been largest parties in opposition. Until recently it happened after Ukrainian election. Israel is another place. Thailand is not the only country that has also seen MPs defect and cross to another side. Italy sees Burlusconi in trouble over this right now. The ultimate thing is if the voters dont like what their reps do they can vote them out but after the election the reps can use their own judgement to do what they think is best for the country. The upcoming Thaila election gives the people to roundly reject the way the current government were out together by electing a majority PTP government. Lets seeif that is what the people want or whetherwe are going to get anothetr hung parliament with no mandate for any party and clear division within the country

but the problem is all the other small parties will side with dems and their cohorts - hardly seems fair to me (or to millions of Thais)

you know very well that you took this out of context and I was referring to one thing only - the ability to determine that voting for a smaller party was tactical voting . You clearly are not an honourable person and a troll

Not at all.

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP

You don't think that the electorate are smart enough to know how the parties are aligned, even though it's clear that particular parties are in the government coalition and particular parties are in opposition.

If the PTP field candidates in all electorates, then a vote for a current government coalition party is a vote against the PTP. But you don't think the electorate are smart enough to know that.

A vote for any party but PTP is a vote against PTP,

and against the other parties not voted for also.

not very Observant... Observant Member

you know very well that you took this out of context and I was referring to one thing only - the ability to determine that voting for a smaller party was tactical voting . You clearly are not an honourable person and a troll

Not at all.

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP

You don't think that the electorate are smart enough to know how the parties are aligned, even though it's clear that particular parties are in the government coalition and particular parties are in opposition.

If the PTP field candidates in all electorates, then a vote for a current government coalition party is a vote against the PTP. But you don't think the electorate are smart enough to know that.

Yes I don't think the Thais I know, or their friends, are very interested in politics and will sit down and think about tactical voting - they are not politically smart enough - but you twisted this into 'the electorate are not smart enough' in a general context - which is not what I said and you know it very well and so it's a flame - anyway get back to the topic and leave the flaming please

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

The WHOLE party was not banned. Just the management - the executives, that were doing the mismanagement.

The party was disbanded, and the innocent members could continue on in another party.

by default they were banned from being members of their CHOSEN party because of the mismanagement - bit like the Republicans were banned because of Nixon's mismanagement and fraud right???

Different country different laws.

Many of Nixon's cohorts did plenty of jail time,

but the actual Republican Party leadership did not get convicted.

There also is no global responsibility law in USA for this.

There is in Thailand because of the prevalence of globally organized election fraud. It took the TRT party 3 tries to wise up to what the law actually meant. Maybe they have now, maybe not, we'll know before the year is out I suppose.

All the TRT and PPP MP's not in management continued in their MP seats, and just created a new party. They were not all banned, no matter how you try to read that in, choosing a party for life is not an inalienable right... Certainly not in Thailand, most of these MP's had been in a 2-3 parties in the previous years, they change parties like they change soxs in Thailand. Regularly.

Some got fed up with the bad management, and feared a 3rd repeat, so created other parties and moved on. But you know that.

but you take my point I'm sure - that banning complete parties because of individuals mismanagement is not exactly a great way to proceed - banning individuals? now that makes complete sense! IF carried out consistently - being an intelligent fellow I'm sure you will accept the point that 'changing parties' is not exactly helpful to Thailand and leads to fractiousness

They've never been my buddies. But it seems you are thinking along the same lines as they are, with your "the electorate are not smart enough" comment.

You are saying that a minority should be in government. I always thought democracy was about the majority.

I didn't say that - please DO NOT misquote me - READ it again:

the electorate are not smart enough.........................to sit down and think like YOU SUGGEST' cannot be translated into 'the electorate are not smart enough' partially and misquoting is against forum rules - please apologize as I was clearly only referring to an aspect of the electoral system 'i.e selectively voting for parties realizing their affiliations'

The quote was there for everyone to see, and I referred to the comment, I didn't quote it.

It's clear what you said, and you clarified it - the electorate are not smart enough to know who they voting for, they are not smart enough to know who the parties are aligned with.

Which goes along with what the PAD have been saying.

And, the fact that you support "minority rules" matches up with the PAD too.

you know very well that you took this out of context and I was referring to one thing only - the ability to determine that voting for a smaller party was tactical voting . You clearly are not an honourable person and a troll

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

The WHOLE party was not banned. Just the management - the executives, that were doing the mismanagement.

The party was disbanded, and the innocent members could continue on in another party.

by default they were banned from being members of their CHOSEN party because of the mismanagement - bit like the Republicans were banned because of Nixon's mismanagement and fraud right???

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

So, because "the electorate are not smart enough", you think the minority should decide what happens to the majority.

You should go and talk to the PAD.

the PAD are your buddies not mine - the party with the most seats should form the government

They've never been my buddies. But it seems you are thinking along the same lines as they are, with your "the electorate are not smart enough" comment.

You are saying that a minority should be in government. I always thought democracy was about the majority.

I didn't say that - please DO NOT misquote me - READ it again:

the electorate are not smart enough.........................to sit down and think like YOU SUGGEST' cannot be translated into 'the electorate are not smart enough' partially and misquoting is against forum rules - please apologize as I was clearly only referring to an aspect of the electoral system 'i.e selectively voting for parties realizing their affiliations'

As 6 MPs, Democrats is disqualified from their position because of criminal activities )conflict of interest and abusing their positions), which is just-i have to ask

1. how many of PPP MPs were caught in electoral frauds so the whole PPP was banned from public and politic life?

2. by Thai law, which is worse violation-electoral fraud or conflict of interest?

The difference is that PPP leadership was directly implicated. And it only took one by law. Same for the 111 TRT, but I believe in that case it was more than one leader.

And it was election fraud not individual conflict of interest.

2 totally different things and different laws.

Electoral fraud seems to be the worse offense.

ie

potentially steeling a small % from a government concession

vs

steeling control of the countries government,

and controlling who gets concessions.

can you imagine, just for a moment? banning the Republicans in US or the Labour Party in UK because of some executives mismanagement or law breaking? banning the WHOLE party - including all the innocent members? don't you think that's an absurdity? how many parties have been banned now because the elite don't like them?

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

So, because "the electorate are not smart enough", you think the minority should decide what happens to the majority.

You should go and talk to the PAD.

the PAD are your buddies not mine - the party with the most seats should form the government

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

Yesterday a democrat, and today implying the Thai electorate are stupid "don't think the electorate are smart enough" and "if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have half a chance!"

I do think that much of the electorate are smart enough, I also think that as long as the upcountry power families control super strong political machines that not much will change. I do see Abhisit and Korn both as elements of real social reform but they are stuck with the same issues, entrenched political machines. I do think however, that you may have come around to see the basic equation that PTP=UDD=Thaksin is at its heart a true statement even if you don't want it to be. I may be wrong on that, but it seems impossible that after the hew and cry of "we won" when early elections were offered, that you could see their refusal any other way by now

I am a democrat but that doesn't mean I do not recognize the limitations of democracy in an undeveloped country - unlike you. By the way I never, ever said 'we won' there was never any 'we' about it - I stated the fact that the reds had won - I then went on to say how stupid they were to throw it away by turning it down - but you love to selectively quote and twist and misquote - we all know you by now!

... If the Democrats and BJT form the next coalition government, would the voters be surprised? Did the Democrats or BJT do anything wrong by it's voters? If the same smaller parties also support a Democrat coalition as currently, should the people that voted for them be surprised? ...

That sums it up admirably. In the next election, if the current coalition parties combined get over 50% of the vote then it is a clear indication of what the majority of the people want, and were the PTP to get 5% or 49% it wouldn't make the slightest difference. As long as none of the current coalition parties actually comes out before the election and says they will group with the PTP then a vote for any of them is a vote against the PTP.

so you believe ANY vote not for the PTP is a vote against them? so let's follow this logic? ANY vote not for the Dems is a vote against them? therefore any coalition is immoral?

I'm sorry, I'll type slower. Those who want the Democrats to get a majority will vote Democrat, those who want the BJT to get a majority will vote BJT, those who want the PTP to get a majority will vote PTP, those who want the CTP... However, based on current alliances, and assuming the BJT doesn't come out before the election and say they will align with the PTP (not that I'd trust them, their fore runner said the same thing about the PPP, but still joined their coalition), it's pretty obvious that a vote for any of the current coalition parties is a vote against the PTP. I will say that, in my opinion, it is the wheeling and dealing, and the need to placate the same old corrupt (mostly) minority parties, that has been the bane of Thai politics, and one of the main reasons for the country being held back. Even when Thaksin thought he'd solved the problem by buying many of them out and incorporating them into the TRT they just formed factions and continued their bickering, money grabbing and demands for ministerial posts. But what's the solution? A run off between the two highest scoring parties may be a possibility, but it's all too easy to see the smaller parties promising the support of their strongholds to either one in return for poltical / financial favours.

I don't think the electorate are smart enough to sit down and think as you suggest - that all other votes are anti-PTP - if they were that sophisticated Thailand would have a half chance! the whole thing is a mish-mash of petty rivalries and self-serving politicians - of all sides. I see no leader anywhere, no visionary and no honest man (or women) much the shame for Thailand - and to all the immature posters who shout (he's a Thaksin lover because he doesn't love the Dems) I don't want him back either! if only there was an Aung San Suu Kyi - but there is none (that I can see).

the largest majority wanted X so why give them Y when Y consists of self-serving 'coalitions' of convenience? if X get's 30% and Y gets 20% and Z get's 20% your logic is Y/X get's 40% but it's flawed

You are using the wrong term. It isn't the "largest majority", it's the largest minority.

The largest minority wanted X, but a majority got together and decided Y. Do you want a minority to decide what the everyone should do, or do you want the majority to decide?

Don't confuse him with logic whybother. You are destroying his carefully constructed fantasy world.

Just repeat "I love Thaksin" over and over until you also accept that war is peace and freedom is slavery.

haha gave me a chuckle such a limited argument - he doesn't agree with us so he loves Thaksin hahaha surely you can do better than that?

Always a pleasure!

At least you had the right decade and country.

cummon let's not be so pedantic - the Chang in da political room is Suthept's utter lack of credibility or sincerity

ok update - there are NO Mitsubishi 'new' Pajeros of the type we have discussed in Thailand - the one saying 2010 was actually manufactured in 2005 but registered in Thailand in 2010 and it costs 728,000 THB.

I think I am only going to find what I want down in BKK so I will try and source a few and go buy one and drive it back

Jayboy, regardless of what you may "think" that I have done. I have always said that Suthep is not my fave! I have said he "scares me" and many other things. The simple truth is I don't care what you think of me or how I post. My comments on "many" Thais was a refutation of your claim as to how "most" Thais think Corruption cases do hit the Thai courts fairly regularly over the years and quite often the person brought up on charges flees the country Thaksin was nailed for misuse of power in a clear-cut case. (The fastest and easiest case to prove against him, before they started going after the other cases. Why? Maybe because people charged with corruption usually flee the country before sentencing?) I've been around long enough

To get the obvious out of the way its just an internet forum.One would have to be bit disturbed to "care" what people say at an individual level.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post is getting at with relation to Suthep.Can it be summarised that although you are no fan nobody should be judged guilty unless found so in a court of law? Would be a sound thesis in Guildford or similar.In Thailand it's fatuous.

In any event what happens when the courts of law are themselves riddled with corruption?

On one point you are simply wrong, namely that in Thailand those accused of corruption tend to flee the country.

Note --- I said "charged" with corruption not accused of it. Perhaps it is in the simple meanings of words that trip you up? Very few cases make it to court and often those charged, flee.

Shinawatra, Saxena (not an exact fit but all tied up with politicians), Vatana, ... I am sure someone else could come up with a more exhaustive list

Okay that's a perfectly fair point specifically the charged/accused distinction.However as so few are charged let alone making it to court I'm not sure statistically one can read much into it.

Still don't understand your really message on that paragon Suthep..first you defend him, then you don't like him.Is it a bit like your PAD allegiance i.e accept those bits of its platform when it suits you and then back away when it seems its being marginalised.

a fair reflection I'd say... anyway I think people may be surprised at the strength of the PTP vote - ordinary Thais just don't like the Krung Thep bourgeoises acting like they are Roman Generals stomping all over everyone else.

... If the Democrats and BJT form the next coalition government, would the voters be surprised? Did the Democrats or BJT do anything wrong by it's voters? If the same smaller parties also support a Democrat coalition as currently, should the people that voted for them be surprised? ...

That sums it up admirably. In the next election, if the current coalition parties combined get over 50% of the vote then it is a clear indication of what the majority of the people want, and were the PTP to get 5% or 49% it wouldn't make the slightest difference. As long as none of the current coalition parties actually comes out before the election and says they will group with the PTP then a vote for any of them is a vote against the PTP.

so you believe ANY vote not for the PTP is a vote against them? so let's follow this logic? ANY vote not for the Dems is a vote against them? therefore any coalition is immoral?

While there are certainly flaws in the multi-party parliamentary system, there are also some distinct advantages. In the US we have a two party system, which means that third parties - which usually represent minority views - have no political power and are essentially disenfranchised.

In a multi-party system, the smaller parties have much more political leverage, as they are often needed by the bigger parties to make up a coalition government. If there were any ideology based parties in Thailand (I would say that most of the current parties are power based) they would have a much better chance of making their views known in this sort of system.

they just get banned here - or at least some of them - or a coup takes place

you mean he couldn't figure it out before he became an MP? before he was caught? hmmm interesting perspective

It would probably depend on if he handled all of his investments himself or used a broker etc. Were those shares part of a mutual fund? Did he have any control over the use of the shares or direction of the company? It would also depend on if he knew every business dealing of every company he owned shares in. I own stock in MANY companies and honestly do not know every aspect of what each company does. Ex. Justin Industries --- Justin boots -- I used to hold a not insignificant amount of shares in this company (I still may, I am not sure) and I had no idea that they were also involved in publishing and building materials

I assume that you are aware of the recent by-elections for MP's that BJT and the Dems did quite well in but PTP took a beating in ... why were they held?

I am no fan of PT (although may appear so) but I dislike the Dems hypocracy more - including senior figures who give land away to wealth family's as a 'favour' and avoid hearings - this has no place in politics - anywhere

did the charges 'run out'? is that why he can't be charged when becoming an MP again? if this is so Abhisit further goes down in my opinion as a man supporting tricks so that his mate can avoid charges - this may be within the law but it is against the spirit of the law and Abhisit should be ashamed.

From what I understand, he removed the conflict of interest so he could contest the election again.

so that's ok? find out your are guilty... resign... sell the shares... jump back in? that's the state of democracy here? and then give him the DPM role? and you support this?

If you find out you have a conflict of interest, you fix the conflict. Then you don't have conflict of interest.

you mean he couldn't figure it out before he became an MP? before he was caught? hmmm interesting perspective

Thailand will call for wealthy nations to provide funds

Why??? they have no respect for farangs right? it must be true the DPM said so - they don't need us... our doctors, our technology, our manufacturing and investment and certainly not OUR AID.

The Dems are working on real sustainable reform in the real world of Thai politics

They are merely trying to stack the odds in their favour. Your post seems to convey the message that they are doing it for the good of the people which of course is nonsense.

The fact that the Dems have actually done some things to directly remove the taint of corruption at times

Oh please, the party itself should have been stuck off for funding irregularities as you are well aware.

and added to that sensible post the Dems appoint that great intellect Suthep who 'doesn't respect farangs' - Abhisit would gain sooooo mush more credibility if he got rid of his DPM who has been embroiled with so many scandals and (I must admit) has skillfully avoided court but only because TIT

I think many things are absurd but do I think that a cabinet member doesn't have to be elected to be DPM is absurd? No. In fact I think that in many situations you could make a case for cabinet members not being elected is a good thing. Resigning his MP status, clearing up any potential conflict, and then running for MP status again (note --- he is a constituency MP and not subject to banning should any party exec do something stupid) and winning his constituency soundly wasn't a trick at all. It was simply good politics.

wow! you don 't believe in the deputy leader of a country (any country) should be elected? now I've heard it all and can see why we disagree so intently - I'm a democrat and you appear not.

I am glad that you have changed your political affiliation I am actually more of a Libertarian philosophically

The cabinet in the parliamentary system in Thailand is appointed, not elected. Whilst Suthep was not an MP and was DPM he could not have been elected PM.

don't you think it's absurd that you don't have to be an elected MP to be DPM?

I think many things are absurd but do I think that a cabinet member doesn't have to be elected to be DPM is absurd? No. In fact I think that in many situations you could make a case for cabinet members not being elected is a good thing. Resigning his MP status, clearing up any potential conflict, and then running for MP status again (note --- he is a constituency MP and not subject to banning should any party exec do something stupid) and winning his constituency soundly wasn't a trick at all. It was simply good politics.

wow! you don 't believe in the deputy leader of a country (any country) should be elected? now I've heard it all and can see why we disagree so intently - I'm a democrat and you appear not.