jayboy

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

I'm confused by your accusation of "bias".Every post on the forum contains a point of view or a subjective element.As long as facts aren't falsified I can't see there is a difficulty here.By your reckoning I wonder how many of your endless stream of posts are free of "bias"?

I am confused also by your suggestion that not enough redshirts were murdered, the strange and rather disgusting view that 70 corpses were not enough.Apart from the stomach churning heartlessness it also completely misses the point.The 2010 protests were among other things about how Abhisit's route to power was undemocratic and shady.That view had a strong national backing and its justification is not connected to the number of its supporters that were murdered by the government of the time.If you doubt it was a broad national movement the subsequent general election removes that doubt unequivocally.

In respect of your last paragraph I hope you are on reflection a little ashamed of its silliness and irrelevance.Yingluck won the support of the Thai people in a fair general election.Abhisit was incapable of it.

For a learned gentleman you seem to get confused easily, my dear jBoy. Also somewhat untruthfull and full of "do as I say, don't do as I do".

You say "The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict." and continue with various unrelated aspects of the past. Even the 'unelectable' Abhisit is incorrect with your last sentence nonsense and touching on a personal insult.

Furthermore I didn't say 'not enough red-shirts murdered', I only remark that with 70 red-shirts killed your "many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets." seems a bit over the top. To counter my objective observation with "stomach churning heartlessness" suggests you are at a loss of words on how to explain the "many who asked" as the way you wrote that seemed to suggest MANY, just like you like to talk about 'the Thai people'.

BTW with the last sentence you seem incapable to understand that both Yingluck and Abhisit won the support of the Thai people while being number one party list candidate in the 2011 general elections. You seem to be in the group of posters who think that in a democracy a party only wins when it has a majority of seats or at least is the biggest party. Maybe you should do some studying again.

Just a garbled rehash of your original post so my earlier comments stand.It was a disgraceful effort.

Anyway congratulations on an amazing piece of gobblededook which purports to demonstrate that Abhisit and Yingluck have the same democratic mandate from the last election.

For the more serious minded there's an interesting Financial Times editorial today (can't quote it because it's behind a paywall) but it's summarised in Bangkok Pundit.While noting the present government has made many mistakes and that Yingluck is on the way out, it concludes that the main blame for the current disastrous state of play lies firmly with the Democrats and their seedy allies.It makes some sensible suggestions for a way forward

Not sure I have gone over this ground much, but again, there's nothing undemocratic about it. It's just iffy. But so are many coalitions in general. Part of the parliamentary system. The only thing different about Thailand in this regard are the ban-a-party rules, which are quite silly (like the defamation rules). We can agree to disagree, though.

The PTP did quite well, as you say. This could be attributed to smaller parties being either erased off the map or absorbed within PTP. The Democrats, on top of their failings and tarnished post 2010 image, led a surprisingly pallid campaign.

It's been discussed endlessly on this forum.I don't think any rational person argues Abhisit came to power illegally but his ascent can only be understood if the political, social and historical context is understood.To argue it was just another coalition - as might form in Belgium or the Netherlands - is I believe specious.

The strength of the PTP is due as you say partly to fragmentation of smallerl parties.A clever Bangkok based equities analyst (Andrew Stotz) has done some very interesting work on that subject.However equally if not more important is the breaking down of social deference and the rise of a more prosperous middle class impatient with old elites.While the Bangkok Sino Thai bourgeoise is still fairly solidly with the Democrats there are many others who feel torn between a distate for Thaksin on one side and a dislike on the other side for their so called social betters.Finally there is of course the same stunning incompetence, lack of vision and inertia of the Democrat Party.

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

I'm confused by your accusation of "bias".Every post on the forum contains a point of view or a subjective element.As long as facts aren't falsified I can't see there is a difficulty here.By your reckoning I wonder how many of your endless stream of posts are free of "bias"?

I am confused also by your suggestion that not enough redshirts were murdered, the strange and rather disgusting view that 70 corpses were not enough.Apart from the stomach churning heartlessness it also completely misses the point.The 2010 protests were among other things about how Abhisit's route to power was undemocratic and shady.That view had a strong national backing and its justification is not connected to the number of its supporters that were murdered by the government of the time.If you doubt it was a broad national movement the subsequent general election removes that doubt unequivocally.

In respect of your last paragraph I hope you are on reflection a little ashamed of its silliness and irrelevance.Yingluck won the support of the Thai people in a fair general election.Abhisit was incapable of it.

Abhisit's route to power may have been unsavory, but not undemocratic. Coalitions are made and unmade all over the world.

If you refer to the repeated dissolution of Thaksin's parties, well, there's some merit to the argument that the system is biased against them. Then again, being remote controlled by a fugitive, not sure they're in a position to complain.

Whenever "strong national backing" style claims arise, it does well to remember that Thailand is a divided country. So yes, there was quite a lot of support for the red-shirt protest, mostly from their traditional power bases, but not that the whole country was up in arms.

Abhisit's ascent to power was not illegal but it was certainly undemocratic.It was also quite different to the normal shaping of coalitions in democratic countries.Do we really have to go over this ground again?

I didn't argue that the whole country supported the redshirt protests.As you say Thailand is deeply divided.But the easy victory of PTP in the subsequent general election confirmed the national position.

Incidentally while I don't quarrel with the statement about PTP's traditional power base, it's quite instructive to look at actual voting numbers outside it.PTP does quite well (without actually winning) in many surprising places including Bangkok.

Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You must be confused. Abhisit agreed to step down, at that time only innocent people were murdered by red terrorists, but during the meeting the famous sms message from Dubai arrived and the deal was rejected by the red terrorists. If I recall correctly it happened 3 times that his resignation proposals were denied

Some time later when it was clear that the red thugs, my apologies for borrowing your trademark,wouldn't end their protests before Bangkok was burned down and blood had flowed, the government decided to disperse the terrorist gathering, with the known results.

Obviously low level bar talk not worth a response but it does raise one interesting point, namely the different approach of the Abhisit and Yingluck governments to street protests and disruption of the capital, one with violence and one with restraint (hence the international praise).

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Totally agree this thread is about the advise to the (caretaker) PM to resign. I guess that's why you inserted your bias in this:

"Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke."

Those who asked him to step down on the reason of being illegitimate later surrendered to the police. It's the cannonfodder which was sacrificed. BTW if 'many who asked died', and we had about 70 red-shirts killed, it would seem not too many asked. Further more the charges are 'premeditated murder as individuals', that makes Abhisit toxic in the eyes of the red-shirts only my guess would be, and those have been brainwashed long enough to even have forgotten that the Yingluck government tried to push through a blanket amnesty bill.

Lastly the removal of a government like the Yingluck government in a democracy would not have occurred for the simple reason that in a democracy no politica lparty would be allowed to be run by a criminal fugitive abroad. Of course Thailand is not really a democracy and to reason from 'Thailand democracy' already gives you an invalid starting point.

BTW in the last (valid) general elections the 'unelectable' Abhisit was elected in the same way as Ms. Yingluck, number 1 on the party list of candidates.

I'm confused by your accusation of "bias".Every post on the forum contains a point of view or a subjective element.As long as facts aren't falsified I can't see there is a difficulty here.By your reckoning I wonder how many of your endless stream of posts are free of "bias"?

I am confused also by your suggestion that not enough redshirts were murdered, the strange and rather disgusting view that 70 corpses were not enough.Apart from the stomach churning heartlessness it also completely misses the point.The 2010 protests were among other things about how Abhisit's route to power was undemocratic and shady.That view had a strong national backing and its justification is not connected to the number of its supporters that were murdered by the government of the time.If you doubt it was a broad national movement the subsequent general election removes that doubt unequivocally.

In respect of your last paragraph I hope you are on reflection a little ashamed of its silliness and irrelevance.Yingluck won the support of the Thai people in a fair general election.Abhisit was incapable of it.

Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

you said quote, "many of those that ASKED him to step down were murdered" The reds didn't ask him they pillaged, they murdered, and made a bamboo and tyre fortress with kids in a compound and the parents- they were armed. This is fact the outcome is not the point, "they asked him" is a mega joke

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke.

What topic do you want to talk about ?? this one or an old one that suits ?? Have you any views on the way the government has governed over 3 years ??

Have they a mega good record NO so can we get on topic about why she is asked to step down, or would that make it awkward ???

Easy isn't it ?? PTP got elected, swore to serve the people on oath. disregarded the law, so here we are and you want to rant on about others have you been programmed in some bizarre way to post like this ?? Are you new ???

The thread is about Khun Abhisit advising the caretaker PM to quit before any court verdict.Thus my earlier comments are pertinent and relevant.

As to my opinion of the government I have many reservations.But the way to remove a government in a democracy is to let the people decide in a general election - not the shameful method that the unelectable Abhisit espouses.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Seems a bit odd.Abhisit asks Yingluck to step down.But when Abhisit was PM and country was similarly divided many of those who asked him to step down were murdered in the streets.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

you said quote, "many of those that ASKED him to step down were murdered" The reds didn't ask him they pillaged, they murdered, and made a bamboo and tyre fortress with kids in a compound and the parents- they were armed. This is fact the outcome is not the point, "they asked him" is a mega joke

Whicheer way you want to play it,he is facing murder charges. Abhisit is toxic and contaminated.That's why his attempt to mediate (essentially offering a warmed up package of the Suthep demands) is a cosmic joke.

Don't be silly. The plan is

1- Elected PM needs to leave.

2- A "god person" (aka an hysterical royalist) is appointed

3- End of story

The plan is to make the temporary gvt lasting until something important enough happens to postpone any political life in the country for years. Thus the temporary gvt will have at least 3 years to organize the new constitution which will have nothing to do with Democracy.

There is a precise and analytical discussion of the Abhisit proposals on the Bangkok Pundit blog.The tone is cool and forensic, devoid of emotional posturing and all the more effective for that.The conclusions are devastating.

And we all know how neutral and nonpartisan the Bangkok Pundit is.

Since when is it necessary to be neutral and nonpartisan when matters of principle are concerned?

If you wish to be constructive rather than make inane comments, you would specifically address the arguments that Bangkok Pundit has made, ideally in the same forensic intelligent way as the original.Then there might be a basis for a discussion.But of course that will never happen.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

A Thai poll on these issues is preposterous. Thai seem to have gotten the meaning of "reform" twisted around to be restricted to election reform and not Thai reform in general. Thais need reform of law and order in order to provide penalty and prosecution for corruption and illegal exchange of money. Thais need to reform the police, rules, laws, and punishments. Thais need to reform their system of holding political office, transactions in commercial and government contracts as well as complete civilian control of military.

Based on this poll and survey and Thai responses, it appears that the meaning of "reform" in Thailand is confused and disjointed. It's no wonder that Thailand is dysfunctional. Reform started out to mean corruption in government. Thais need to start with a reform package that defines that law and order is meant not to be broken with impunity and that punishment would be meted out.

Sitting governments should not be allowed to fund programs designed to garner votes ahead of elections. Maybe if they started with candidates having a true "reform" platform and campaigning that platform, everyone would know who is gaming the Thai population and the system for personal gain and power. Let's talk about reform for the benefit of Thais, their welfare, education, economy, and growth not who gets to run and who gets to vote.

Good luck with that part of reform involving "complete civilian control of the military."

Good luck again with that part preventing sitting governments funding programmes designed to win votes in elections.Some would call it democracy.Every government around the wolrld does it and I'm not quite sure why Thailand should be an exception.

Good luck with the curbing corruption part, particularly since the opposition to the current caretaker government has multiple corrupt elements.

Why can't we all just get along? Why can't we carry on talking reform psychobabble infinitely so that the ordinary Thai people never have an opportunity to participate in politics.I mean that's really Thaksin's big crime isn't it - letting that pesky majority have a genuine voice.

As this writer aptly points out, it is the courts - and not Suthep - that will be the determining factor. That has been clear for some time. And that's how it should be - this should be placed in the hands of those institutions that are empowered by the constitution. But this is not to deflect from the very real impact the PDRC has had. Without Suthep's efforts to galvanize and energize the movement in the wake of the amnesty bill, Yingluck would not have dissolved parliament on December 9, nor found herself and her administration in such a tight spot ever since. But make no mistake, it is the law that is catching up with the Yingluck administration - not Suthep. And the law will have the final word.

Poor analysis.Suthep's job was to destabilse politics which he has done.The attempt to suggest there is some kind of basic conflict between Suthep and the partisan judicial system is eyewash.Given that a military coup is now recognised as counterproductive the baton fell to the courts but an unprepared judicial coup could also backfire.That's why the old elites are grateful to Suthep.But he was never more than an attack dog (who will be put down if he cannot be controlled).As to the final word I would be more cautious before suggesting the rigged courts will always have it.This kind of transparent partisanship may simply entrench a Thaksinite majority among the electorate.And some time before too long an election will have to be held.

It takes dignity and integrity to resign at a time of crisis and criticism.

Something that this regime is devoid of.

But then again I doubt the S Korean government are anywhere near as corrupt as this government and money is a good motivator.

Had he been in a position of having such a ****d up country where corruption and theft of public money goes totally unchecked and a government can easily keep all its support while doing so... Then maybe the S Korean government may also be tempted... but unfortunately for them they have a proper country with a proper system and are light years ahead of the Thai's who would not know what dignity and integrity was if is punched them in the mouth.

South Korea had a similar problem to that of Thailand, namely a bloated military with a tendency to interfere in politics.Unlike Thailand the South Korean army was bitch slapped back to the barracks and ordered by the democratically elected civilian government to concentrate on their military duties.

Unlike Thailand the South Korean army does actually have a real job to do - dealing with my avatar.

I don't see why Yingluck should resign.No charges against her have been proved.And her accusers are tainted.

There was a case for Abhisit to resign after the murder of unarmed civilians on his watch.But naturally he didn't take responsibility for it.

It's going to be pretty interesting if the courts try to remove her for moving him given that he's on record for insubordination like this. If they're dumb enough to try, I wonder if they'll be shocked by both her and the world press not acknowledging their rulings anymore.

He is the head of an independent agency and Yingluck is care taker PM who might be most probably illegally in office.

He is an insubordinate official who given his insolence to the Prime Minister would not last ten minutes in Beijing,Moscow,Paris,Tokyo,Jakarta,London,Paris or Washington.

He was kicked out of his job for one reason - to allow a Shin to take over the police. Now after fighting through the courts he has is job back, only for the caretaker administration and their quango CAPO to freeze him out if they can,

You think this caretaker PM and her cabinet deserve his respect? He doesn't report to her, her oft reshuffled handpicked cabinet or her unelected fugitive criminal brother.

He would last longer in any of the countries you mention than an inept administration controlled by a fugitive crook.

All of which does not detract from the fact that the supreme administrative court ruled unanamously he was illegally removed and now the judgement of the constitutional court on the caretaker PM's illegal act is awaited.

Nonsense.He reported directly to the PM and she has unrestricted right to remove him.In every country senior officials are replaced or transferred by the government.Only in Thailand would the courts get involved.Remember this is the country where elected representatives are charged with corruption for supporting an elected Senate.Dont bother trying to justify this tomfoolery.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Just a thought but I wonder if a Thai farmer's son could become this if he ever got the luck to be so priviliged to study abroad..... Who said "we are all equal.." can't remember it!!

Well if you can't be bothered to educate yourself then what hope for the farmers son?

I am sure if a farmers son were able to get the break and win a scholarship, go to the UK and achieve this, then he would become a national hero, and deservedly so.

Oh, and when you find the quote about being all equal, take a look around you to see how robust it is. Since Man started forming social groups tens of thousands of years ago, people have never been equal. Welcome to planet Earth.

It's not equality that's the aim; it's equality of opportunity to the extent that's possible.Actually Thailand has quite a good record under the King's Scholarship programme in sending high flyers to elite universities overseas.I know several who have gone to Oxford and Cambridge and some are from quite modest lower middle class backgrounds.Still it's obviously a greater achievement for a poor farmer's son to get to Oxford than for a rich public school boy.And that applies to the UK as much as it does for Thailand.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Well done. Nice to have the real respect of your peers. alt=thumbsup.gif width=25 height=19>

Hello? The Oxford Union is not a part of Oxford. It's a private debating club and the titular head changes every semester. Yes, he was elected. Good for him. Congratulations etc.

I wonder if he joined for this reason, as stated in the marketing literature of the Oxford Union;

Oxford's Premier Social Venue

Oxford University students who join become Life Members - once a member, it’s free for the rest of your life. In joining, you will save yourself the price of membership through cheap drinks, frequent social events, free entry to the Purple Turtle, passionate debates, incredible speaker meetings, internet access and library services.

It is not as if he has toiled away in a lab or done fieldwork as many of thousands students in Thailand and the UK do. It may come as a shock, but there are literally hundreds of valuable contributions made by those students in any given semester. Can we please keep this in perspective. The debating club is just that, a social club where a bunch of the students get together and talk up their fanciful notions. It's like getting elected president of a fraternity. I'm sure his family is quite proud of him, but seriously, this is hardly news.

With this post GK you reveal a level of bitterness that displays a sad lonely person with nothing better to do than complain about anything that may be remotely connected to Abhisit.

This young man has made his progress on his own merits and neither money nor name gets people elected as President of the OU, only the respect of his peers, many of whom will go on to be some of the worlds top achievers in their own right. A previous President of the Oxford Union was British Prime Minister William Gladstone, probably the greatest Prime Minister we ever had. Your attempt to discredit this young mans achievements would be the same as denigrating or trying to diminish achievements of a young man for being Editor in Chief of the Harvard Crimson for example, a position held by Franklin D Roosevelt (I would have given a comparison to Lincoln or Washington but of course neither went to University).

The only satisfying thing is knowing how much things like this must 'niggle' you and how they must drive you insane to your very core. Have a pleasant day

I am sure he is a personable and bright young man with a fine future in prospect, which would be the case even if like most Oxford undergraduates he had not bothered with joining the Union.However it is obvious that some of the gushing and ludicrous (utterly extraordinary achievement!) compliments on this forum indicate many have not the faintest idea of how the Oxford Union (or Cambridge Union - the institutions are similar) operates.Oxford is a collegiate university and most undergraduates' lives revolve around their college Junior Common Room, not the Oxford Union.The Union certainly has a distinguished history but the last 30 years has seen an eclipse of its importance as political nursery.Neither David Cameron or Ed Milliband bothered with it.In recent years a large proportion of Union officials have been foreigners.As the first Thai to achieve the position however he deserves our congratulations.

Incidentally I think there's a mistake in the Nation report which suggests 70% of Oxford students are members of the Union.I'm sure this is a huge exaggeration but stand to be corrected.Many freshmen join but don't bother attending debates.

There's another angle to consider which The Economist touches on in its latest issue.Let's assume that Yingluck is forced to step down and PTP then chooses a leader ( even a mediocre one) with no connection to the Shinawatra family.That's a victory for the PDRC isn't it? But what happens if the PTP them wins a general election? That would have the effect of boosting its power and legitimacy, the precise opposite of what the PDRC want.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

At the time of the 2006 coup, Thaksin was a caretaker PM, he had already announced that he would not seek the premiership of the next government, assuming the TRT won it which was likly. He would let some other TRT MP be the premier. and the military STILL launched the coup.

Whatever Thaksin does, the Thaksin obsessed crowd is going to insist that he is running things from behind the scenes-because he's a billionair and has a loyal following.

But when multiple billionairs support the democrats, nobody says abhisit is just a puppet of his financial backers..

The "Thaksin obsessed crow" can see things like:

Q. You sounded like you are very familiar with the policy direction?

This policy, I am the one who thinks. Like our slogan during the campaign, Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts.

and reach the obvious conclusion that he is the one dictating what PTP does, because, you know, he says so himself.

Chalerm himself insisted during the last election campaign that the party ran the campaign focusing on Thaksin, for as he said quite rightly, that was their selling point, at that time Yingluck was a complete unknown.

'If we don't focus on Thaksin and populist policies what do we have?' was his point.

Until Pheua Thai can produce leaders of charisma and vision they will continue to labour under the shadow of the Shinawats.

Mediocre politicians in search of a leader.

Mediocre as they may be the parties associated with Thaksin retain the confidence of the Thai people having won the last few general elections.Most unbiased opinion recognises the PTP will probably also win the next one - if allowed to run.

So if this is mediocrity I'm sure honest members of the Democrat Party would like to know the formula.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Jayboy, you have followed the Thai political scene long enough that you are aware that the ruling group dictate how the populist monies are spread around, they also control the entire farm product purchases, supply of needed farm supplies (most are imported) and they have virtually monoplies on the supply chain to the consumer. They can overlook the enforcement the tax collection on various imports, refund of vat, real or imagined, inspection of dumps, after hour clubs, transport companies, the RTP, etc.

Meaningful reform would take these and many other avenues for theft/corruption out of the political arena, without complete oversite by watchdog groups. Both groups would be open to internal audit by the various legal organizations, with severe consquences, if illegal acts are found. These pentalities would include forfiture of all assits, manditory jail terms of at least 5 years, ban from politics for life. with like penality for the private sector individuals/companies who made the proven charges possible

Now there you have a clear answer, maybe not agreeable to you or the corrupt politicans and their cronies, but a answer.

Sorry this just won't do.

You refer to a ruling group spreading populist money around.It could equally be described as a government that by international standards has won a general election, and is fulfilling its programme.The same could be said of democratically elected governments in for example Japan, UK and Germany.There is nothing wrong with populist programmes - the NHS in the UK is a populist programme.If there is corruption involved it should obviously be dealt with under the law.

The interests involved in agriculture are corporates like CP strongly opposed to the government so your comment doesn't make sense.Obviously it would be excellent if corruption was reduced or eradicated, but this doesn't affect the election process.

So your "answer" is irrelevant and inadequate, and the question is unresolved.

There are other millions who want her to stay. So who are you to made such a statement. That is why they have elections, in case you forgot.

Actually is it you that seem to forget. Last election YL was below half of the majority of those who voted. It would have been even less if they voted at all in the south which was blocked. She lost her majority. So get your facts straight.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Were the real results ever released for the flawed election? There were some guesses and some leaks but no results.

If what you say is true it would be really easy to get rid of the Prime Minister, just allow an election.

Election is meaningless without reform which would benefit everyone including foreigners who want to see changes in the system. Help to bring foreign investment and development. Without involvement of foreigners thai economy will never improve. But when foreigners are scammed by local Thais, there is no law to protect them. YL government did nothing to help us. She is puppet of thakshin without experience in politics, hence should be removed

What specific reforms are needed to make elections meaningful? There has never been a clear answer to this question.

Equally and fair justice for everyone. Win confidence of foreigners and law to protect their rights. Law to punish scammers. Many of them ate PTP supporters.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Just babble.No clear answer provided.

There are other millions who want her to stay. So who are you to made such a statement. That is why they have elections, in case you forgot.

Actually is it you that seem to forget. Last election YL was below half of the majority of those who voted. It would have been even less if they voted at all in the south which was blocked. She lost her majority. So get your facts straight.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Were the real results ever released for the flawed election? There were some guesses and some leaks but no results.

If what you say is true it would be really easy to get rid of the Prime Minister, just allow an election.

Election is meaningless without reform which would benefit everyone including foreigners who want to see changes in the system. Help to bring foreign investment and development. Without involvement of foreigners thai economy will never improve. But when foreigners are scammed by local Thais, there is no law to protect them. YL government did nothing to help us. She is puppet of thakshin without experience in politics, hence should be removed

What specific reforms are needed to make elections meaningful? There has never been a clear answer to this question.