jayboy

For many nations military forging documents to avoid conscription and subsequently lying about it is also a serious offence, and equally irrelevant to this thread.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect App

"Nationalist" as in based on one's nationality...

That is a completely inaccurate definition, indeed a schoolboy howler.Here is Webster Dictionary's correct definition:

"loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"

Not for anyone with a brain.

A RACIST policy would charge people of one race one price, while those of another race get another price.

In fact, the policy is NATIONALIST. Any Thai NATIONAL -- no matter what their race or ethnicity (don't forget that the population of Thailand is multi-racial. There are Chinese-Thais, Lao-Thais, Khmer-Thais, Indian-Thais, Persian-Thais, various hill tribe groups, and yes some European-Thais and mixes thereof) -- gets one price and any non-Thai citizen gets another.

It's really not difficult.

I think that is absolutely correct, though the word "nationalist" implies a degree of aggression towards outsiders which I don't think is present in the two tier pricing policy.Nevertheless it is also rooted in the past when it could be reasonably assumed that a foreigner in Thailand was considerably wealthier than the majority of Thais, clearly not the position now.I find it hard to get too worked up about this issue and believe in cases like the Asiatique which is dependent on tourist revenue market forces eventually take care of the problem, such as it is.In the case of national cultural sites I tend to think that it's perfectly fair that Thais should pay a little less and foreigners should pay a little more.

Yawn; how many threads have we had in the past year about dual pricing? How much have those threads changed anything? TIT; live with it or don't go anywhere because the Thai's are not going to change anything that they consider to be normal behaviour....period.

Completely untrue.

Did you follow the recent bruhaha about the dual pricing at Asiatique? Thais and foreigners both protested and management backed down.

Keep whining. Once in a while, someone listens and acts.

The policy at Asiatique was changed because of pressure led by Richard Barrow, the well known local blogger and twitterer.I was quite impressed but this kind of pressure wouldn't work everywhere.

Writing letters doesn't help and in any case it is a well known fact that all foreigners writing letters to the English language newspapers are invariably mad.(OK being facetious but it sometimes seems like that).

A speech that is both valiant and to the point.

However the reds also need to accept their part of the responsibility in these events and they aren't mature enough to do that and the government is too scared to bite the hand that got them to shore.

The obsessive mentality of some members takles the breath away.Here we have a report on a mother - I think respected by all regardless of politics - who has lost her daughter and who is very articulate. on who was responsible and what must be done.She makes some penetrating observations on Khun Tarit whose chameleon propensities have bemused many.She finally makes the killer observation, the elephant in the room, the subject which is so often avoided.Never commented on by those who regardless of context look to blame the redshirt movement.Let's remind ourselves then of what Khun Payou said.

"If we don't prosecute soldiers now, then they will end up engaging in such 'operations' again and again,"

Obviously the moral of the story, that corrupt politicians go to hell + destroy the country and don't give a monkeys about the conned electorate, all cut a bit close to the bone

Among some the mantra of "corrupt politicians" is a way of saying they hate and fear democracy. In the PAD platform (also in the Pitak Siam,Tui's multicoloreds etc, the yellowshirts and other similar) the propaganda line is that all politicians are corrupt and the fate of the nation is better served by established and non elected institutions.Obviously corruption is a huge problem in Thailand and the standard of politicians is, let us say, variable.But don't be deceived by the 'all politicians are corrupt" line.The reactionaries know that it is an appealing line (it is in every country) but their cure is far worse than the disease.Democracy is a messy business and a daily struggle, and the fights against corruption needs to be fought battle by battle, inch by inch - not giving way to a mindless North Korean type of military worshipping hysteria where elected representatives count for little.

Maybe the programme was s**t and they just pulled it to save their ratings and advertising revenue.

I have a lot of Thai friends here in NZ, I can confirm that it is very popular with them. I would assume that they are a fair sample of other Thais in Thailand as well. They like the way that creativity has been used to tell a near-truth view of what the Political situation in Thailand is at the moment. They all believe that the early termination of the show is due to Political pressure by the Poo Yais. Poo Poo to them. Poo Yais normally always act with self sustaining interests at hand.

My girlfriend sat with me over lunch today, introducing me to each fictional character, and matching them up with their factual doppelganger. It is the fact that this is too close to the truth, that has caused such a stir by the Poo Yais. As we know, Thais do not take offense without response. And Thailand is known as a major censor to press freedom and programming censorship.

The PM may not be directly responsible, probably because she met the minister of "TV watching" in a hotel room somewhere on the back streets of Krung Thep, and after close consultation, she persuaded him under duress that he should be the one to make the call. The statement that the PM had nothing to do with it is simpl ensuring that someone else bites the bullet if a culprit is implicated in the bullying.

The slight problem with your analysis and with due respect to your intelligent sounding informants in the Thai diaspora in NZ - is that it is completely untrue.It seems the show was pulled by Channel 3 itself without any pressure from the government because it touched on LM material and other sensitive political references.

Ambiguous or even evasive answers to an interviewer or reporter's questions is an essential skill for a politician especially a senior politician or PM. Further following some of the policies of a previous Premier is common place as is evidenced by the Taksin policies that the recent military government continued while in power. In fact it is a measure of the greatness of a politician if they put policies in place that are indelible to the whims of their successor. Note Obama's achievements with this type of strategy Further note that it appears that PM Yingluk has academic qualifications in common to those of President Obama. Last but not least in spite of my initial skepticism PM Yingluck seems competent and is well liked by a democratically significant percentage of the Thai population.

Being evasive may be an 'essential' skill for a politician, but if that's only helped with 'friendly' interviewers, I doubt the skill. It's the skill of the interviewer or reporter to prick through the balloon of hot air and keep on probing.

Link to Thaksin policies and (possible) continuation of them ignored, just like ignored policies dropped.

Following I'm lost for words, I mean really, "PM Yingluk has academic qualifications in common to those of President Obama". You mean apart from qualifying to be admitted to a university?

Last but certainly not least, I have my doubts in your sincerity writing "in spite of initial skepticism" on PM Yingluck. It's close to mid-night so for sure I won't bother to do some searching now. I'll put on my rosy glasses and hope to dream nicely.

BTW this wiki page may be used as a starting point to find out more about the 'equally academically qualified'

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Barach_Obama

It's an observation that has been made elsewhere but not as far as I know on this forum, namely that Yingluck's style is remarkably similar to that of General Prem.This means exercising charm, smiling a lot and not saying very much of substance.Can be surprisingly effective.

If "it's" an observation made elsewhere I fail to see how your post replies to something here? Could you be a wee bit more specific?

I don't understand your point.I made an observation on Yingluck's political style - relevant to this thread but not a reply to anything.

But it was at a year-end press conference that the premier actually said something more specific. She was asked more or less the same question: How does she react to criticism that her government is only serving one person - her brother Thaksin.

She probably knew that, in the presence of an army of reporters, she couldn't just swing it with a stereotyped statement again. So she said: "If I did that, then the people wouldn't vote me back in the next time."

A typical non-answer and a non-denial. Learned from her big brother who also likes to answer questions with "who am I to do such thing"

Ambiguous or even evasive answers to an interviewer or reporter's questions is an essential skill for a politician especially a senior politician or PM. Further following some of the policies of a previous Premier is common place as is evidenced by the Taksin policies that the recent military government continued while in power. In fact it is a measure of the greatness of a politician if they put policies in place that are indelible to the whims of their successor. Note Obama's achievements with this type of strategy Further note that it appears that PM Yingluk has academic qualifications in common to those of President Obama. Last but not least in spite of my initial skepticism PM Yingluck seems competent and is well liked by a democratically significant percentage of the Thai population.

Being evasive may be an 'essential' skill for a politician, but if that's only helped with 'friendly' interviewers, I doubt the skill. It's the skill of the interviewer or reporter to prick through the balloon of hot air and keep on probing.

Link to Thaksin policies and (possible) continuation of them ignored, just like ignored policies dropped.

Following I'm lost for words, I mean really, "PM Yingluk has academic qualifications in common to those of President Obama". You mean apart from qualifying to be admitted to a university?

Last but certainly not least, I have my doubts in your sincerity writing "in spite of initial skepticism" on PM Yingluck. It's close to mid-night so for sure I won't bother to do some searching now. I'll put on my rosy glasses and hope to dream nicely.

BTW this wiki page may be used as a starting point to find out more about the 'equally academically qualified'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barach_Obama

It's an observation that has been made elsewhere but not as far as I know on this forum, namely that Yingluck's style is remarkably similar to that of General Prem.This means exercising charm, smiling a lot and not saying very much of substance.Can be surprisingly effective.

But it was at a year-end press conference that the premier actually said something more specific. She was asked more or less the same question: How does she react to criticism that her government is only serving one person - her brother Thaksin.

She probably knew that, in the presence of an army of reporters, she couldn't just swing it with a stereotyped statement again. So she said: "If I did that, then the people wouldn't vote me back in the next time."

A typical non-answer and a non-denial. Learned from her big brother who also likes to answer questions with "who am I to do such thing"

On the contrary it was an amazingly good answer ( in her position and being asked that specific question).She is clearly learning to be a rather formidable politician - with advice of course from those close to her including Abhisit's cousin etc.What makes some really agitated is that there is an uncomfortable truth for them in what Yingluck said.If she sought the support of the Thai people at a general election few doubt she would be even more succesfull than last time.

Still in denial.Do you seriously think that any serious source believes the government has no mandate? You remind me of those barmy and deranged right wing American fanatics who argue Obama has no mandate.We have all seen the numbers from the last election here.The key point is that there are rules to the parliamentary democracy system, and all but fruit cakes don't question the outcome.As it happens Yingluck won a pretty convincing victory, far more so than that of say David Cameron.

Can you please explain "mandate" to me. What defines "a mandate"?

Just to break the tension here, it's an occasion for gay guys to get together.

That's probably an appropriate note to end this discussion. I know when to stop beating my head (no pun intended).Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.

At some level I assume you realise the absurdity of your endless denials of the government's solid mandate.

When posters stop using phrases like "the people", "all Thais", and "a majority of the people", then I will stop correcting them.

PTP won a majority of the seats. That gives them the right to be in government. Getting 47% of the vote hardly gives you "a mandate", whatever that really means.

Still in denial.Do you seriously think that any serious source believes the government has no mandate? You remind me of those barmy and deranged right wing American fanatics who argue Obama has no mandate.We have all seen the numbers from the last election here.The key point is that there are rules to the parliamentary democracy system, and all but fruit cakes don't question the outcome.As it happens Yingluck won a pretty convincing victory, far more so than that of say David Cameron.

The PM isn´t working for reconciliation, she works for her brother.

The PM has the right to consult with whomever she wishes. All Thais knew Thaksin was her brother when they elected her. Move on......

All Thais knew Thaksin was her brother, which might be why a majority didn't vote for her.

At some level I assume you realise the absurdity of your endless denials of the government's solid mandate.

A massive exaggeration shared by Human Rights Watch and at least one major Thai newspaper, but then we all see what we want and ignore what we don't want to admit, don't we. http://asiancorrespo...t-thai-history/

Unity through Internet Censorship. An update from 12 March 2012

"The status of Thailand’s online freedom of expression began to deteriorate from the moment the new Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra assumed power in July 2011. Abusive recourse to the politically exploited lèse-majesté law has led to an increase in litigations and strict censorship."

http://en.rsf.org/th...2012,42054.html

(EDIT: new link which really reflects current data. Previous link was based on 2009/2010 only)

As you suggest the Reporters Without Borders report, with which there can be no disagreement, is specifically about the LM law.One might have an interesting discussion about the government's motives but it would be off topic and I'm surmising against forum rules.However in a line it has clearly taken the view that it will not be vulnerable on this LM issue, not that this prevented the fruitcakes in Pitak Siam lying and fantasising.As to suppression of the media much more generally under Abhisit (to restrict and suppress political opponents) there is a wealth of evidence as I suspect you know very well.

You are right, the RSF doesn't care which government misuses certain laws to crackdown on political dissidents. All data seems to suggest that the current government is only improving it's censorship. And if necessary Pheu Thai's protest arm the UDD fruitcakes will pass by your house to make the message clear.

Unity through persuation, 'big brother' tells you so

The RSF report refers only to LM, not to general stifling of opposition forces as practised by the Abhisit government (attacks on community radio stations etc).You apparently seriously misunderstand the dynamics of Thai politics.The forces of reaction and the old elites viewed Pitak Siam fanatics - with whom many of the old guard are sympathetic - as a way of testing the waters following the unlikelihood of a futher coup and limited potential for directed judicial intervention.Given that current government has a proper mandate and remains popular even the dumbest general realises that precipitate action could be counter productive.For the time being the spectacular failure of the Pitak Siam will have persuaded them that street protests are not going to change the government.The relationship between UDD, most of whom are admirable and decent people, and the PTP is totally different.There are real tensions there and the way they play out will be a major point of interest as we go forward.

I was in Thailand the last few years. I didn't notice the "Abhisit's reign of unbridled censorship", must have been my True and TOT internet lnik. Mind you, lots of blocked sites seemed to spread hatred against the 'others' and as such those sites would be at least under investigation, but probably blocked in the Western World as well. The 'unbridled censorship' seems to have increased only over the last years, but then the government had other things to do I guess.

As for 'Abhisit's change of heart' that's speculation or opinion. I have a different opinion on that, I think he honestly meant his offer to have early elections and that we would have had elections in November, 2010, instead of July, 2011 if his offer had been accepted. IMHO that is.

Anyway the topic is urging unity while prosecuting members of the previous government and decrying that that previous government was so bad they did the same. Double standards at it's best

I agree Rubl, I dont know what Thailand 'gatorsoft' was in but it wasnt the same one as me. like you I didnt notice "Abhisit's reign of unbridled censorship", a massive exaggeration I feel. I did notice many hate site were blocked but the mainstream media, social and commercial sites were never censored.

On the second matter of Abihist time in office, the fact is I have the upmost respect for him as PM. During his tenure the democrats formed a minority party with parties from diverse backgrounds, all with their own agendas and varied moral attitudes towards graft and corruption. He was required to deal with the most violent demonstrations in Thailands history, a border skirmish with Cambodia, constant media and legal attacks and two attempts on his life. Through it all his government not only survived but was fully functional and he was shown to be one of the best leaders Thailand has had.

A massive exaggeration shared by Human Rights Watch and at least one major Thai newspaper, but then we all see what we want and ignore what we don't want to admit, don't we. http://asiancorrespo...t-thai-history/

Unity through Internet Censorship. An update from 12 March 2012

"The status of Thailand’s online freedom of expression began to deteriorate from the moment the new Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra assumed power in July 2011. Abusive recourse to the politically exploited lèse-majesté law has led to an increase in litigations and strict censorship."

http://en.rsf.org/th...2012,42054.html

(EDIT: new link which really reflects current data. Previous link was based on 2009/2010 only)

As you suggest the Reporters Without Borders report, with which there can be no disagreement, is specifically about the LM law.One might have an interesting discussion about the government's motives but it would be off topic and I'm surmising against forum rules.However in a line it has clearly taken the view that it will not be vulnerable on this LM issue, not that this prevented the fruitcakes in Pitak Siam lying and fantasising.As to suppression of the media much more generally under Abhisit (to restrict and suppress political opponents) there is a wealth of evidence as I suspect you know very well.

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

SInce we're talking about elected politicians, I don't see how "unelected elites" are relevant.

Does it really have to be explained yet again that the entrenched interests - feudalists, military, monopolistic capitalists etc - work through elected politicians like Abhisit.

Oh but my statement is fact Rubl, pulling the smaller parties into a coalition when having such a good majority already was a brilliant political strategy

"brilliant political strategy" ?

I agree that it was wise of Thaksin (who Thinks, then PTP/Yingluck Act) to bring in the usual politician-for-hire smaller parties, even when he didn't need to in order to take power, as it strengthens his hand against any PTP-factions who might have felt like flexing their muscles.

He learned with PPP & Newin's faction that it's better to be safe and sure. Nobody ever said he was stupid. He sometimes learns from experience.

When Abhisit used the same tactic, to form a coalition government in December 2008, the Reds later decried it (wrongly IMO) as a judicial coup. Perhaps that too should now be lauded as "a brilliant political strategy", although I'd rather suggest that it's normal politics, in action. No Double Standards !

Back in the here-and-now, and freely admitting that I was one who failed to foresee PTP's better-than-expected election-performance, with a clean new female figurehead and a slew of populist vote-winning policies, I feel that PM-Yingluck may well go the full-term, and might even win another election in a few years' time without her brothers' wealth and influence.

Provided that she continues to gain self-confidence and authority herself, and also provided that her brother remains guiding from-the-sidelines, instead of trying to return home without doing his time and facing all those other court-cases. That's clearly the point at which trouble would erupt.

Sadly most of his local cheerleaders continue to promise or demand his amnesty and return, while she refuses to address the problem, at least in public. Perhaps her appeal for national unity is a coded public plea to him, to stop stirring the pot, but I doubt it.

She hasn't yet had her 'Samak moment', when she decides she really wants the job for herself, and openly shows any independence from him. Will he stab her in-the-back, and have his party appoint someone like DPM-Chalerm instead, if that day ever arrives ? Who can say ?

And for the record there are still sometimes relevant and thoughtful posts from some such as that above from Ricardo - though I may not agree with all of it.

Yingluck is already emerging, unfortunately, as in this thread, Thaksin is all too frequently dragged into the equation by those who wish to state he is always part of the equation......

Yingluck is indeed emerging, as a beautiful butterfly comes from a caterpillar.

However your statement that Thaksin is all too frequently dragged into the equation is the point.

Yingluck without Thaksin is like a Ferrari without an engine & gas tank, beautiful to look at but going nowhere fast.

He provides the power & the money..

Easy question for you and Rubl

If Thaksin was to meet an early demise.....would Yingluck carry on and also win the next election?

You see guys we are right back to the rather embarrassing statements that were profferred when the last elections were considered......shall I remind you? or do you recall that PTP were given, by many on this forum, little chance against Abhisit, because PTP did not have a suitable leader...........................then Yingluck appeared.....

Oh dear gentlemen.........you appear primed to underestimate again.....

No, she wouldn't. Without Thaksin, PTP would implode back to the regional parties that existed before Thaksin bought them out.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Dream on.It's strange that so many of the usual suspects are still in denial.They seize on details - though even getting these wrong (eg censorship underAbhisit) - but fail to recognise the shifting societal trends in Thailand.They cannot or refuse to understand that with Thaksin or without him Thailand has changed forever and the days of the unelected elites are numbered.

Not sure why there are so many Stickman haters out there. I have never met him but a lot of what he writes is pretty well on the mark including things like the new expat.

At least he is doing something productive unlike a lot of the keyboard warriors here.

Have u read the stickman interview with sharky?

It's pretty bad. Google it, and then google sharky for a little reality, or look at his Facebook page. At one time stockman may have served a useful function - but that time has passed.

I wouldnt even bother to comment in the thread but for the fact that folks want to put stickman out there as the ubiquitous voice of Thailand expats. Maybe for some - but maybe 'the new expats' would rather take a more critical look and leave their options open.

I tell you this - I'd rather read

ChiangMaiKelly 100x over

Stickman. Stickman has enough sycophants prolonging his waning light, oblivious of reality. Us new expats can go another way

))

-iPhone

You got to be joking right? Comparing Stickman to some of the ignorant posters on here. That really is a laugh.

I am not going to judge Stickman on one article out of thousands and neither will I say i agree with everything he has done but he has put in a fair effort over the years and given many newbies valuable information on Thailand.

Maybe the reason is that he has a higher level of education than many posters here that is always guaranteed to alienate a lot of people.

Maybe the reason is that he has a higher level of education than many posters here

Your havin a laugh aint you, a TEFLr, come nak seup?

Hows his pension plan doing, what about his retirement portfolio, some of us earn more before we even get out of bed than he does in a month.

Seen his mrs lately?

Some of the best educated expatriates are in the teaching profession and the fact that they may not be nearly as wealthy as those in the private sector is neither here nor there.As for Stick he is from all the internal evidence a very poorly educated fellow.Check out his book reviews.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect App

If Thailand was a Christian country the Thai women would have the same attitude to sex and the age of their partners as the women in the west. In which case, none of us would have come here.

.

Actually they do.Your comment simply shows that....well perhaps no need to elaborate.

PT had 47%

That's old and irrelevant and, it's about 100th time you've posted that, so it's trolling as well.

So it has come to this.The usual suspects now say stating the simple truth is "trolling".No wonder so many of the better educated members have simply given up on the forum.

Parties Constituency Proportional TOTAL Votes % Seats Votes % Seats Seats % Pheu Thai 204 15,744,190 48.41 61 265 53.0% Democrat 115 11,433,762 35.15 44 159 31.8% Bhumjaithai 29 1,281,577 3.94 5 34 6.8% Chartthaipattana 15 906,656 2.79 4 19 3.8% Chart Pattana Puea Pandin 5 494,894 1.52 2 7 1.4% Phalang Chon 6 178,110 0.55 1 7 1.4% Rak Thailand 0 998,603 3.07 4 4 0.8% Matubhum 1 251,702 0.77 1 2 0.4% Rak Santi 0 284,132 0.87 1 1 0.2% Mahachon 0 133,772 0.41 1 1 0.2% New Democracy 0 125,784 0.39 1 1 0.2% Other Parties 0 692,322 2.13 0 0 0.0% Valid Votes 375 32,525,504 125 500 100% None of the Above 1,419,088 4.03% 958,052 2.72% Invalid Votes 2,039,694 5.79% 1,726,051 4.90% Total Turnouts Abstention Total Electors Source: Election of Members of House of Representatives B.E.2554

The interesting part here is the difference between quoting 48.41% of valid votes cast versus 44.38% of votes cast. Both numbers are correct. With one group promoting the 'no' vote it seems more correct though to quote the 44.38% rather than the 48.41%.

BTW "No wonder so many of the better educated members have simply given up on the forum."? I have no such pretentions, but I did notice you're still around

The numbers are very clear as are the rules of elections.You are correct they may be interpreted different ways, and as always the losers tend to look for ways to minimise their defeat's implications.I fail however to see how pointing out the facts can be construed as being unhelpful.A good example of creative interpretation after a defeat can be seen in the US - the right wing media - after Romney's recent mauling.Needless to say there are the equivalents in Thailand including many of the usual suspects on this forum.What is frustrating is that there is actually a decent subject for discussion in the need for checks and balances in a democracy, and the need for the rights of the minority to be respected.However when this matter comes up for discussion it is always undertaken in such crude and childish terms that serious points tend to be submerged.

As to the less frequent involvement of educated and perceptive members in political debate on the forum I think that is really beyond denial.It's not a question of forcible absence as one usual suspect comically suggested because it affects all viewpoints.They wouldn't thank me for mentioning them (so I won't) but I can think of at least two very well informed critics of the redshirt movement on the forum who take the same view as I do.It doesn't mean complete absence but just less frequent.

So it has come to this.The usual suspects now say stating the simple truth is "trolling".No wonder so many of the better educated members have simply given up on the forum.

When it is off topic and irrelevant and about the 100th time he has posted "PT had 47%" and only "PT had 47%" then, Yes, it is clearly trolling.

If there was a prohibition on members making the same point over and over again to the extreme tedium of all, there would be a lot fewer posts.Prolific posters, mostly trolls if your strange definition made any sense, should perhaps undertake some reflection on this.

Maybe you should look up "off topic" and "irrelevant".

Please refer to my earlier post.

So it has come to this.The usual suspects now say stating the simple truth is "trolling".No wonder so many of the better educated members have simply given up on the forum.

When it is off topic and irrelevant and about the 100th time he has posted "PT had 47%" and only "PT had 47%" then, Yes, it is clearly trolling.

If there was a prohibition on members making the same point over and over again to the extreme tedium of all, there would be a lot fewer posts.Prolific posters, mostly trolls if your strange definition made any sense, should perhaps undertake some reflection on this.

PT had 47%

That's old and irrelevant and, it's about 100th time you've posted that, so it's trolling as well.

So it has come to this.The usual suspects now say stating the simple truth is "trolling".No wonder so many of the better educated members have simply given up on the forum.

Parties Constituency Proportional TOTAL Votes % Seats Votes % Seats Seats % Pheu Thai 204 15,744,190 48.41 61 265 53.0% Democrat 115 11,433,762 35.15 44 159 31.8% Bhumjaithai 29 1,281,577 3.94 5 34 6.8% Chartthaipattana 15 906,656 2.79 4 19 3.8% Chart Pattana Puea Pandin 5 494,894 1.52 2 7 1.4% Phalang Chon 6 178,110 0.55 1 7 1.4% Rak Thailand 0 998,603 3.07 4 4 0.8% Matubhum 1 251,702 0.77 1 2 0.4% Rak Santi 0 284,132 0.87 1 1 0.2% Mahachon 0 133,772 0.41 1 1 0.2% New Democracy 0 125,784 0.39 1 1 0.2% Other Parties 0 692,322 2.13 0 0 0.0% Valid Votes 375 32,525,504 125 500 100% None of the Above 1,419,088 4.03% 958,052 2.72% Invalid Votes 2,039,694 5.79% 1,726,051 4.90% Total Turnouts Abstention Total Electors Source: Election of Members of House of Representatives B.E.2554