jayboy

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Yingluck obviously has some sort of mandate, since her party won a majority of seats, even though they didn't get a majority of the vote. But I wasn't comparing her to Abhisit.

The PPP didn't "win" the election, but were able to form a coalition government by getting Samak elected PM in parliament. When Samak was forced to step down, the PPP chose not to call an election, and went to parliament to elect a new PM where Somchai was elected PM. Later, after PPP were disbanded, PTP was in government and chose not to call an election. They lost the vote for PM in parliament, where Abhisit was elected and was able to form a coalition government.

"Winning" the election is about forming government. Abhisit won the election in parliament and was able to form government.

Samak, Somchai and Abhisit were no different to each other. Their parties didn't get a majority of seats and didn't get the majority of votes. But, what they all got was the majority of MPs to support them. That gave them all the same mandate.

Cutting to the chase I agree.But once PM all three (Samak,Somchai and Abhisit) would need to consider recharging their personal mandate for reasons detailed in my earlier post.

How can they be democratically elected when the government the people chose is removed by a coup and then the courts?

It's quite simple but you are obsessed with Thaksin so you're never going to allow yourself to come to terms with it.

The people elect MPs. The MPs elect a PM. The PM forms government.

The MPs that were elected by the people elected Abhisit as PM and Abhisit formed government. That makes it a democratically elected government.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Actually it gets more complicated but of courseyou already know that.Abhisit's government was legitimate though the circumstances relating to its creation were extremely murky.He personally never had a mandate from the Thai people which is not a prerequisite in a parliamentary democracy, but politically extremely desirable as time goes on in an administration.When he finally called an election he was soundly beaten.Not the scenario the unelected elites had in mind after organizing the coup, a phony constitution and judicial intervention.But that's democracy for you - back to the drawing board for the old elites.Next instalment awaited.

Murky, but still democratically elected.

But, how do you get a mandate? Do you need the majority of people to vote for you? Or do you just need to get the majority of the MPs to vote for you?

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Do they think that foreign embassies are not aware of the implications of amnesty?

Does Abhisit really think that Kasit is the right person to "explain" the position to foreign diplomats.

In my experience over many years and over many subjects when a Thai decides it is necessary to explain something to a foreigner, what follows is generally a stream of confused and confusing drivel.

Maybe they could retain your services so that you could explain it all for them................

That's a intelligent post (or rather it woiud be if you were five years old).

Returning to my earlier post I should have made it clear I was referring to matters where the subject is projected as specifically Thai and thus hard for a foreigner to comprehend.In these circumstances the explanation is invariably drivel.

How can they be democratically elected when the government the people chose is removed by a coup and then the courts?

It's quite simple but you are obsessed with Thaksin so you're never going to allow yourself to come to terms with it.

The people elect MPs. The MPs elect a PM. The PM forms government.

The MPs that were elected by the people elected Abhisit as PM and Abhisit formed government. That makes it a democratically elected government.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Actually it gets more complicated but of courseyou already know that.Abhisit's government was legitimate though the circumstances relating to its creation were extremely murky.He personally never had a mandate from the Thai people which is not a prerequisite in a parliamentary democracy, but politically extremely desirable as time goes on in an administration.When he finally called an election he was soundly beaten.Not the scenario the unelected elites had in mind after organizing the coup, a phony constitution and judicial intervention.But that's democracy for you - back to the drawing board for the old elites.Next instalment awaited.

Do they think that foreign embassies are not aware of the implications of amnesty?

Does Abhisit really think that Kasit is the right person to "explain" the position to foreign diplomats.

In my experience over many years and over many subjects when a Thai decides it is necessary to explain something to a foreigner, what follows is generally a stream of confused and confusing drivel.

Some might question how the train can be justified by saying "we need a way to deliver fruit, flowers and vegetables to Hua Hin, which has 30% wastage as a result of transport logistics issues" instead of the truth which is, "our developments only make us mega rich, so we want to use tax payer money to make ourselves mega mega rich."

I have to admit there is something about Suwat Liptapanlop that turns the stomach.

However, on the plus side, it is hard to think of a person more capable of talking about themselves in glowing terms, after listening to the man talk about his huge contribution to lawn tennis, how he does a lot of work for charity but doesn't like to talk about it (other than to tell us all about it for 20 minutes) and his prowess as a business person and politician, one might be forgiven for actually thinking he alone was responsible for every Thai success in the last 20 years.

There is something irritating about sports officials in every country with their blue blazers,their wobbling paunches, their lower middle class accents and stupendous self importance.For various reasons one is doubly outraged by Thai sports officials like Suwat.There are so many of them for a start and there's always a frisson of a suspicion they are on the take.Is it wrong to dream of giving him a big slap? Well at least he hasn't got a wobbling paunch.As part of my intellectual research I recently read a profile of him in that great organ of gossip,Hello.Irritatingly he had sent his sprogs to rather good schools in the UK.Most of his ilk choose some ghastly St Custards type academy under the impression it is akin to Eton or Harrow.

The court says there were no armed reds in the temple, fair enough, but it does not appear to say there were no men in black in a position to shoot into the temple.

At the time and since there have been photos and videos of men in black who were in a position to fire the shots that killed those in the temple.

There was an account some time back from an officer that said he and his men chased men in black away from a position where they could have shot into the temple, this was accompanied by a photo.

Sometimes the usual suspects are beyond parody.This fellow appears to be suggesting the MIB (the court having concluded there was no evidence of them) fired on unarmed civilians in the temple.

Pointless to discuss with this level of inanity.

You're pissing in the wind jayboy. Thaksin and Abhisit are like chalk and cheese. Thaksin attacked Bangkok, Abhisit defended it and gave it back to the people.

If the tables were turned you and all the rest of the redshirt / Thaksin fan club would be hailing Thaksin a hero.

All this talk from your corner regarding Ahisit is just your pathetic attempt to divert attention away from the fact that Thaksin's little sister and her gang of ice-cream lickers are bringing the country to it's knees. Don't bother. It's not working.

But it was the courts that concluded the army murdered unarmed civilians at Wat Pathum.Looking at the broader context it is fatuous to look at the redshirt movement's activities in isolation.

Not that is relevant to this thread but briefly responding to your other comment, the government headed by Khun Yingluck and despite the normal mid term dip is still well ahead of Abhisit's Democrats.

By all means froth away about Thaksin but I'm not sure its helpful in trying to understand the full picture.The criminal military coup, the fascist PAD's contempt for the law, the feudal/military complex's contempt for electoral democracy - all need to be considered.

It's to fund all the development that her cronies are undertaking in places like Hua Hin.

For instance, former TRT deputy PM Suwat Liptapanlop's Intercontinental Hotel and his water park Vana Nava and other grade Nakhon nowhere lousy developments in Hua Hin courtesy of his daughter Proudputh Liptapanlop's hard work. Example SC Asset's The Crest Santora ugly eye sore in Hua Hin. Example Sansiri's numerous Hua Hin developments.

It would be unthinkable to rely on business knowhow and skill to create demand. Oh no. Why not just rely on a train paid for by the tax payers to generate the midweek revenue that Hua Hin currently misses out on. Why not spend tax payer money upgrading the airport, so that Thaksin's Airasia can fly directly to Hua Hin and line the pockets of his supporters.

Some might question how the train can be justified by saying "we need a way to deliver fruit, flowers and vegetables to Hua Hin, which has 30% wastage as a result of transport logistics issues" instead of the truth which is, "our developments only make us mega rich, so we want to use tax payer money to make ourselves mega mega rich."

I have to admit there is something about Suwat Liptapanlop that turns the stomach.

Not really anything to do with Thaksin, is it ???

Only a halfwit would make a comment like that, especially when you are talking about the mayhem in Bangkok in 2010 that Thaksin arranged, organized, orchestrated and financed.

Every rotten thing that happened in Bangkok during those terrorist operations, every life that was lost, every building that burned, every hospital that was held to ransom, had everything to do with that evil criminal.

Another example, albeit a crass and singularly unreflective one, of a usual suspect seeking to divert attention from the army's murder of unarmed civilians in Wat Pathum where some of the victims had no political affiliation at all.Even accepting hypothetically the Thaksin is the root of all evil propaganda line, it is quite irrelevant to this particular piece of army criminality and the responsibility of Abhisit's government that presided over it.

I understand that you call the PAD fascist (but don't agree) but since when are Democrat supporters "proto fascist"?

Whether you agree or not the PAD agenda was certainly quasi fascist.

As for the Democrat supporters you are quite right and I apologise.I did not in fact mean them (though my words were carelessly expressed) but the grisly hangers on - the remnants of Pitak Siam, Dr Tui's mob etc.It is however worth pointing out that former FM Kasit in an interview with ABC referred to a collective effort or words to that effect, ie embracing the Democrats and the fascist groups in tow.Still nobody takes that buffoon seriously these days and I concede it would be unfair to associate the current Democratic leadership with them.

To remove all doubt therefore I agree it is perfectly legitimate for the Democrats to protest againt the amnesty bill

That's a surprise.Thread is about the Democrats "symbolic" fight against the bill.Suddenly it's a ponderous "satirical" attack on Thaksin and the redshirt movement.I wonder what it takes for the usual suspects to actually focus on the subject without dragging in Thaksin etc.

Why do you think the Democrats are actually protesting against this bill? Who is it intended to whitewash for crimes convicted and awaiting trial?

Have a guess.

Thaksin is not covered in the proposed amnesty bill.The Democrats are perfectly entitled to oppose it anyway and indeed it's their duty as a responsible opposition party.Abhisit however is playing a dangerous game in playing footsy with proto fascist street mobs:he should concentrate his efforts in parliament where his analytical intelligence is better employed.

Given the state of the Thai education system, I wouldn't guarantee that anyone has learnt anything from the past.

Possibly.In my experience any announcement that the "lessons of history are" results in conclusions that are completely subjective or at least open to debate.But I don't really question your comment.

I would add a further suggestion relating to Thai politics in general, namely (borrowing from Talleyrand on the restored Bourbons in France) that the political classes here have not only learned nothing but have also forgotten nothing - a fatal combination.

Ultimately as in Northern Ireland and South Africa (where in fact the problems were far more intractable than in Thailand) the key players on all sides will have to accept a compromise containing elements that are now seen as really objectionable, maybe as currently perceived not even up for negotiation.

The sheer ineptness of the democrats was on display for all to see yesterday.

They just haven't learned a thing from past protests, the precedent was set in 2010 on how to successfully protest.

Step 1) send goons up the cctv camera posts and smash the cameras.

Step 2) crank up the propaganda on all available outlets, radio, tv, loudspeakers. Bald lies are the go, the more outrageous the better,

Step 3) use rocket propelled grenades, small bombs, and firearms to provoke a reaction from the government and hopefully injure some protestors so that Yingluck will be sent to court on murder charges.Money to pay for the terror campaign should be paid from a bank inside parliament for arrogant amusement.

Step 4) Employ some foreign PR firm to spread your lies to international media.

Step 5)If your demands are met, renege on them and increase step 3.

Step 6) threaten, intimidate the electorate, buy votes, make outlandish promises that await your poll victory. Million baht cash for every voter and 72 virgins for all should suffice.

Step 7) When you cobble together a coalition govt after the election loot as much from the national coffers as possible. Many trillions loaned off budget with no plan as to how to spend it is fine.

Step 8) Enjoy your democracy.

If all goes wrong there will be no liability, amnesty for all is on the way. Its a win win.

That's a surprise.Thread is about the Democrats "symbolic" fight against the bill.Suddenly it's a ponderous "satirical" attack on Thaksin and the redshirt movement.I wonder what it takes for the usual suspects to actually focus on the subject without dragging in Thaksin etc.

Your interpretation wouldn't be agreed by most people.I wouldn't however dream of calling your odd position mean and arrogant not least because the subject is so unimportant.

A statement that is baseless and attempts to undermine a researched one as 'odd'. I have provided my sources, where are yours? I have provided my definitions, where is the definition you speak of? I have even provided you the definition of what a definition is.

Stop googling mindlessly.Ask a few people.Get a sense of perspective (given the stunningly unimportant subject).Stop patronising people who disagree with you,a particularly good tip if one's talking nonsense.Sayonara superstar.

It appears you've lost the battle jayboy....to this rather "unimportant subject." What is it with you and the kurnell dude? Just trying to find reasons to criticize the Thais? It's you who's lost sight of what terms used in media means.

I've seen countless news pieces on CNN where they would be talking about obscure celebrities I'd never heard of, but then they'd say so-and-so is a superstar in India....or Mexico...or Korea...or wherever. Just to give a sense of the individual's popularity in that particular country. That's all. So this woman is a superstar in Thailand. Why can't you just leave it at that? You should realize that you're wrong because the goofballs who agree with you are the usual Thai-bashing

suspects.

There's no Thai bashing involved.If you want to say someone is a superstar in Thailand,that's fine.But to refer to a superstar without such a qualification implies a global reach.At present noThai artist has that.I hope one day one will.

Your interpretation wouldn't be agreed by most people.I wouldn't however dream of calling your odd position mean and arrogant not least because the subject is so unimportant.

A statement that is baseless and attempts to undermine a researched one as 'odd'. I have provided my sources, where are yours? I have provided my definitions, where is the definition you speak of? I have even provided you the definition of what a definition is.

Stop googling mindlessly.Ask a few people.Get a sense of perspective (given the stunningly unimportant subject).Stop patronising people who disagree with you,a particularly good tip if one's talking nonsense.Sayonara superstar.

Not that it matters but the definition of superstar assumes an international following.It does therefore imply international fame.Those artists appearing on American Idol are not superstars because they lack that elevated level of fame.

Googling for definitions doesn't help your case.I have of course no objection to Thais describing a popular national artist as a superstar.It simply doesn't accord with what the rest of the world regards as a superstar.

The example that I have brought up about the wording of a show, implies not that the contestants are such, but that the popular understanding of a 'superstar' does not include international fame - as the winner would only be recognized in that country alone.

Also : a definition doesn't assume, a definition defines. ( definition of definition? A statement of the exact meaning of a word. ) When we speak about definitions, you have to provide such. I have outlined definitions where this is exactly not outlined. If you speak about a definition that proves otherwise, you have to supply such, until then you cannot argue about something being defined, as it's not.

Your argument against googling - due to your different understanding of something clearly defined - is an argument against knowledge and research and a fallacy in your reasoning. It invalidates your argument. It equals to "I don't care what Oxford or other scholars have to say" which equals to "I don't care what the definitions are" which equals to yourself invalidating yourself from telling us what is defined how, as you don't respect definitions in themselves.

It's ok if your understanding of superstar is limited to only such of international fame, but you cannot project that on others by telling us what everybody else thinks - as you can see from this thread alone that there's people who do not share your personal opinion on that matter - hence it can't be everybody or 'the rest of the world'.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/superstar

widely acclaimed

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstar

enjoys wide recognition

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstar

very prominent

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/superstar

extremely famous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstar

great popular appeal

Please go and try finding 'international' anywhere. Maybe even take a look at the examples which mention superstars in certain countries.

Again, it's arrogant to assume something based on our personal understanding from our culture and use that to talk down on others. It's easy, it's mean and it's wrong.

Your interpretation wouldn't be agreed by most people.I wouldn't however dream of calling your odd position mean and arrogant not least because the subject is so unimportant.

It's odd that those who consistently insist that the courts should be respected start quibbling and disputing the verdict when it is uncomfortable for them.

In this instance the scope was limited to the Wat Pathum incident.It was found beyond any reasonable doubt the unarmed civilians there were murdered by the army.There were no weapons there and no Men in Black.The politicians responsible lied consistently about this.

I would agree with what you call any "reasonable doubt" if anywhere in this article the court had in its possession and had ballistics results/tests from those weapons. Unless you have some other news source with this information that the rest of dont have have, you should supply that link. I for one have some doubt, as you should have, without this evidence.

Link supplied.See above.

So you believe that Pitt and Jolie are bigger superstars in Thailand than Janie Tienphosuwan?? You will have to think again!!

Pitt and Jolie may be overrated superstars in The States, but not in all parts of the world!! If you want to read about Pitt and Jolie, read some american gossip magazines and not the Thai gossip news!

Whether Pitt/Jolie are overrated is irrelevant.They are certainly global superstars.There are no Thais in this category or even close.In fact there are no Thais at all with wide global recognition.Of course there are popular stars locally but they are not by definition superstars.Thai entertainers are not even popular in the Asian region compared with the Chinese, Japanese or Koreans.There are a few,a very few because most are cheesy,who have the necessary talent and charisma.Bird is an example.But even Bird,like most Thais, doesn't travel well.

See that's where the confusion comes from. You are comparing global superstars to thai superstars. Just the term 'superstar' does not signalize that he/she is known internationally; nor does the article signalize that she is.

I'm just surprised about the vast arrogance in the comments here and on FB everytime somebody mentions a Thai (whichever)star about how they can't be, because they don't know them. It's very arrogant and rude to look down on a nation like this due to personal ignorance. And when I see the same people complain about the rudeness or other behaviors of Thai people, I'm just thinking, "look who's talking".

There's no confusion simply a misappropriate use of the term.A superstar is by definition global in nature.No Thai currently qualifies.A popular local star is a popular local star, not a superstar.It's not arrogance to point that out.

See that's where the confusion is coming from. You're making up definitions or implying parts to them, as I've actually pointed out the definition beforehand. It doesn't imply international fame. E.g. 'American Idol' is called in Germany 'Deutschland sucht den Superstar', and I'm sure unless you're German you wouldn't know any participants or judges in it. Each country has their own 'superstars' - and they define them as they like.

Find me a definition that defines superstar as an internationally known celebrity, and that's going to be alright; but until then you're implying more into it than it really is. And that's where the arrogance part comes in.

Until then you'll either have to go with the broad definition of 'Superstar is a term used to refer to a celebrity who has great popular appeal and is widely known, prominent or successful in some field. Celebrities referred to as "superstars" may include individuals who work as actors, actresses, musicians, athletes, and other media-based professions. Particularly notable superstars now receive the appellation megastar.', and by this definition she is a superstar as you can ask pretty much any Thai if they know her for her work of art - and they do. And if you don't like wiki, feel free to check out Oxford, Merriam Webster or any other valid definition base.

Not that it matters but the definition of superstar assumes an international following.It does therefore imply international fame.Those artists appearing on American Idol are not superstars because they lack that elevated level of fame.

Googling for definitions doesn't help your case.I have of course no objection to Thais describing a popular national artist as a superstar.It simply doesn't accord with what the rest of the world regards as a superstar.

Despite the poor turnout so far I wouldn't discount the possibility of much greater numbers turning out for future demonstrations.There is clearly a wish to apply maximum pressure on the government.I think many have taken comfort in events on Egypt, Turkey and Brazil where middle class elements have taken on an " elected dictatorship".

The problem for the opposition and its street extensions is two fold.Firstly the government has proved to be rather adept at security when it comes to mass protest.Secondly and more importantly the situation in Thailand is not remotely comparable to Egypt for example.

The government while suffering from a mid term dip in support is still popular enough to win a further general election.

Internationally the street opposition or at least its leadership has no credibility,quite important as events in Egypt show.The letter from this leadership to foreign embassies explaining their grievances was perceived as deranged.

Abhisit's position is further weakened by the court's verdict today that the army murdered the civilians at Wat Pathum in 2010.Not helpful for his international image.

So you believe that Pitt and Jolie are bigger superstars in Thailand than Janie Tienphosuwan?? You will have to think again!!

Pitt and Jolie may be overrated superstars in The States, but not in all parts of the world!! If you want to read about Pitt and Jolie, read some american gossip magazines and not the Thai gossip news!

Whether Pitt/Jolie are overrated is irrelevant.They are certainly global superstars.There are no Thais in this category or even close.In fact there are no Thais at all with wide global recognition.Of course there are popular stars locally but they are not by definition superstars.Thai entertainers are not even popular in the Asian region compared with the Chinese, Japanese or Koreans.There are a few,a very few because most are cheesy,who have the necessary talent and charisma.Bird is an example.But even Bird,like most Thais, doesn't travel well.

See that's where the confusion comes from. You are comparing global superstars to thai superstars. Just the term 'superstar' does not signalize that he/she is known internationally; nor does the article signalize that she is.

I'm just surprised about the vast arrogance in the comments here and on FB everytime somebody mentions a Thai (whichever)star about how they can't be, because they don't know them. It's very arrogant and rude to look down on a nation like this due to personal ignorance. And when I see the same people complain about the rudeness or other behaviors of Thai people, I'm just thinking, "look who's talking".

There's no confusion simply a misappropriate use of the term.A superstar is by definition global in nature.No Thai currently qualifies.A popular local star is a popular local star, not a superstar.It's not arrogance to point that out.

Superstar? What like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? I like the way Thais like to refer to complete nobody's as "Superstars".

So you believe that Pitt and Jolie are bigger superstars in Thailand than Janie Tienphosuwan?? You will have to think again!!

Pitt and Jolie may be overrated superstars in The States, but not in all parts of the world!! If you want to read about Pitt and Jolie, read some american gossip magazines and not the Thai gossip news!

Whether Pitt/Jolie are overrated is irrelevant.They are certainly global superstars.There are no Thais in this category or even close.In fact there are no Thais at all with wide global recognition.Of course there are popular stars locally but they are not by definition superstars.Thai entertainers are not even popular in the Asian region compared with the Chinese, Japanese or Koreans.There are a few,a very few because most are cheesy,who have the necessary talent and charisma.Bird is an example.But even Bird,like most Thais, doesn't travel well.