jayboy

Nice try at extended obfuscation. No sale.

At some level even you must be ashamed of that reply.I'll leave it to others to consider.

It's called; so much public dissent, that there is a general consensus that they have lost their mandate in real terms. So they call a snap election.

That is why most snap elections are called in most parliamentary governments. Happens some where around the world ever year or less.

But you knew that, but just had to press the point.

I asked the question because your earlier post suggested you might be hazy about the practical application of parliamentary democracy.Your response to my question demonstrates that is indeed the case.

There is no accepted concept of a government losing its mandate in real terms, and I am afraid your comment is meaningless.It would imply that when a government is unpopular it has call a snap election.Almost every government goes through unpopular phases and this does not mean it has lost its mandate.It loses its mandate when it cannot command a majority in the legislature or when of course it has been defeated in a general election

In practice, and the UK is as good example as any as the Mother of Parliaments, the Prime Minister is able to call a General Election at any time of his pleasing (and of course the ritual of Royal approval) but must do so within a five year term.This means that even if a government is unpopular the PM may hang on to the last possible moment, and this is the course most follow.In other words what actually happens is the precise opposite of what you suggest.A deeply unpopular government tends to dig in in the hope popularity will recover before a general election is constitutionally due.There is no suggestion in a parliamentary democracy that a snap election should be called if the opinion polls are bad.

Although you appear not understand the principles of parliamentary democracy, your mistake is worth a moment's consideration in Thailand given that entrenched and unelected elites hate the idea of parliamentary democracy, or at least are profoundly uncomfortable with it.I have little doubt that elements within this grouping will be looking for ways to destabilise the current government in the current flooding crisis.Indeed we have already seen evidence of this on the crackpot fringe both in terms of media commentators and political activists.The more astute members of the opposition like Abhisit understand the dangers of this approach and are more cautious.Still the situation needs careful monitoring as there are still powerful interests which feel bruised at the way the Thai people at the last election gave them the brush off.

The(y) also can be booed out of office by the populace for ineptitude and forced to call a snap election.

How does this "booing out of office" work in a parliamentary system such as Thailand's? Can you elaborate please?

I think that Abhisit understands that this time PTP wont make the mistake of putting a pliant PM up to keep others happy and would actually go for an election. Abhisit knows she will win this again and would rather be playing his current hand in opposition than face PTP absolved of flood allegations by the Thai people returning them, probably with a bigger majority too. And of course big business that dumped the Dems a huge amount earlier in the year wont want to be doing it right now again after the economic affects of the flood or even seeing delay until Yingluck is returned again. Realpolitik by Abhisit in my opinion.

Yingluck will be judged by those who vote for her on the recovery and ability to maintain some populist policies. That will be difficult but her voters dont really have anyone else to vote for. The interesting thing will be whether she tosses the CTP agriculture minister and maybe even takes Agriculture under PTP. Intersting opportunity for Newin's boys there or a split of them as ditching CTP could be very popular with PTP voters in central Thailand and would look decisive (interestingly even after the flood she scores higher on being decisive than Abhisit after three months)

Very interesting thoughts

As to Abhisit's realpolitik, as a way of operating it's to be welcomed in my view because it represents common sense and sanity - qualities which are not necessarily associated with all Thai politicians and pundits.

While PMs sometimes face calls form opponents to resign at times of crises, what makes this story interesting apart from it sounding like Thanongesque nationism is that Pracha and Chalerm are mentioned as alternatives. Hardly the leading edge of PTP intelligensia even compared to Yingluck and lacking anything like her charisma, but both are choices that would be acceptable to the elite as both are old style traditional polticians ala Banharn, Newin etc. Looks like inspite of it being flood time those who like to manage democracy have decided to play at least on the sidelines.

Interesting that Abhisit has kicked out of play any suggestion that Yingluck should step down.

I'm not saying you're wrong entirely Jayboy, but why do you hold the military up to such a higher standard than the police. Anyone with two braincells to rub together will know the police have killed many more people, stolen much more money, affected much more fear, than has the Army. Why do you always let one slide and not the other?

I don't think I have commented on the police much but certainly, as most would agree, it is a generally corrupt and ineffective organisation in need of major reform.I don't disagree with your summary.

The reason why I focus on the army is simply because it is exponentially more powerful and influential.You are right that on a daily basis the police are much more a pain in the neck to the average citizen.But it is the army (specifically its ludicrously over manned senior officer corps) with its political pretensions, massive corruption and insufferable arrogance that drags the country down to banana republic status.An important start to reform would be to strip the army of all media interests.

As a point of historical interest the police was at one time much more politically powerful than it is now.I think I'm right in saying in the 1950's/1960's it had its own tanks and jet fighters (courtesy the CIA)!

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,

The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats (soldiers) here."

The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,

I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";

But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,

The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,

O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play. Rudyard Kippling.

Mostly true the World over, although latterly the UK and USA are giving much more credit to their brave service personnel and making their sacrifices known more widely to the public, consequently they are being looked upon far more favourably. I hope the same happens in Thailand for these unselfish, dedicated and hard working people. You have jusifiably earned the respect of your fellow countrymen.:jap:

To be fair I think the vast majority of Thais regardless of background and political affiliation have always held ordinary soldiers (the ones performing so well in this crisis) in high regard and affection.

The problem has rather been over many decades key senior officers' dreadful record,their human rights abuses, the murder of civilians,brutality in the South,their interference in politics more generally,their opposition to democratic progress, their business and media interests, their corruption,incompetence and complete absence of accountability.All of which wrapped up in one big lie, namely that the purpose is to serve the nation.

I would have expected you to be rather more sympathetic to the Nation at the moment, you know after the humbling experience you had a few days ago. An education is always something to be grateful for, even when it comes from an entity that one may initially find unpalatable.

I have no idea what humbling experience you refer to.I have humbling experiences all the time, and try to learn from them.

As to the Nation I have been a suscriber for decades and find there is as much in it to admire as dislike.Fortunately that reactionary Thanong does not embody The Nation.In truth I have no objection to his being given a platform not only because I believe in free speech (which incidentally he doesn't) but also it's good to know the enemy.

You continue to insult and label those that disagree with you, even though you admit that they have legitimate grievances. " Reactionaries and quasi fascists" with " their creepy political ends" have as much right to a political view as yourself, so why should they not air what you describe as " legitimate grievances."

".Indeed these disgusting people feed off legitimate grievances." Please point out the obviousness.

I'm sorry.My meaning was quite clear and I have explained it to you in a subsequent post although it didn't really need explaining.People who hold legitimate grievances are by definition not culpable in any way.My comments applied specifically to Thanong, who has a disgraceful record, and reactionaries like him.You seem to have difficulty in grasping the point and I suggest you read posts slowly and carefully if this is what is required to achieve comprehension in your case.

If you really want to carry on this exchange (and I hope you don't) you can do so by PM since it's of no interest to others.

I didn't think it was that difficult to grasp. Why are people with legitimate grievances considered, by yourself at least, to be disgusting? Should legitimate grievances NOT be reported because they offend your political leanings?

You have made a fool of yourself I'm afraid.

I was obviously not referring to people with legitimate grievances as disgusting.I was referring, as I'm sure everyone but you grasped, to the reactionaries and quasi fascists like Thanong that exploit those grievances for their creepy political ends.

".Indeed these disgusting people feed off legitimate grievances."

For some reason The Emporer"s New Clothes comes to mind.

To your mind perhaps but not to others.Care to explain the reference.

You've dismissed the article because of who wrote it. What do you think of what he wrote about Thai Rath?

I did not dismiss the article.I pointed out that it was written by Thanong which gives it a specific context (as if the a prominent member of the BNP or other quasi fascist organisation wrote an article).It doesn't mean there wouldn't be truths and insights in it.Indeed these disgusting people feed off legitimate grievances.

Thai Rath is a credible newspaper which I admire, though it no longer has the brilliance when Kukrit was associated with it.The current government is in the middle of a natural disaster , made worse by man made incompetence by no means all made by Yingluck's administration, and one would expect it to be criticised for its response.

The context to this opinion piece is that it is written by Thanong Khantong.That is really all one needs to know.

So, what he says about Thai Rath mustn't be true then.

Don't bother trying to start a pointless argument.In any event your question is a non sequitur.

Soldiers have won the hearts of the Thai public through real hard work and sacrifice. While politicians keep up their petty fighting over who is to blame and who is blocking floodwaters, soldiers keep their heads down and hard at work, only concentrating on their immediate job.

Opinion polls have confirmed who is being vindicated and who is being perceived as playing politics. Most surveys place soldiers as the biggest heroes so far in this flood crisis. Politicians, predictably, rank below volunteers and the media.

Not difficult to understand when scenes like this are repeatedly captured by Thais

I believe soldiers are doing a fine job, as would be expected.

It's what an army should be doing in times like these.Prayuth should also receive specific praise for behaving like a responsible senior officer now (though he remains accountable for past actions)

Of course there will be reactionaries who will seek to politicise this.There always are.

The context to this opinion piece is that it is written by Thanong Khantong.That is really all one needs to know.

He is not merely presenting a summary, he is making predictions. He might be intelligent and well-connected (as if that makes his predictions more credible), but someone who is not qualified and experienced in the relevant field should not be making predictions that are published in mass media for public consumption. Predictions from any unknown hydrology professor would be more credible than this highly intelligent and well-connected banker.

All these points have been covered already.

This news article should have only been a letter or, at most, an Op Ed, not a full-blown "special" news article.

Notice that no background biographical information, such as professional qualifications, about the author has been divulged in the content of the article, when in most other cases it is (often either at the beginning or a short biographical summary at the end of an article). This attempt to hide such biographical information is probably in order to avoid criticism and dismissal of the article and author, as in this discussion thread - that he is not at all an expert in a field that he is writing and professing about. The area in which he is an expert (economics and banking) is not at all covered in the article that he has written.

Can you imagine an article on banking and economics written by a flood expert and published in the newspapers for the entire nation to read?

Another example of the chippiness and sniping mean spiritedness of a minority of members.Your suggestion that Catterwell is hiding biographical information is laughable given most well connected Thais know exactly who he is.

You completely miss the point anyway.Catterwell doesn't claim to be an expert.In fact he doesn't claim to be anything.He has simply drawn together the information available (and he has the local knowledge and intellect to do this) and drawn some conclusions in a credible way.I and others have found his analysis very valuable and I have not seen as good a summary elsewhere.Dr Seri is excellent but he provides something a little different, namely credible updates.

All 3 links have his picture.

All 3 links use the same picture as the OP.

All 3 links are situations whereby the author would seemingly have a choice as to what picture of him was used.

If the author doesn't have a problem with his same picture being posted around the internet, why do you?

What a ridiculous anal retentive exchange.

didnt know he had become a flood pundit, missed that. I would very much doubt his views are particularly informed though!

We'll soon find out

I wonder why he wasn't able to use any of his connections for his pessimistic opinions and instead rely on what has been widely reported to everyone for a long time. He shared absolutely nothing new and simply made predictions just as so many other posters have done here base on information provided to everyone.

Show me a better concise summary

Based on what I have glanced at on the net, he is another doom and gloom expat when it comes to most things Thai and a self-proclaimed expert in all matters Thai..

Proving what I previously indicated that most Thai Visa members would have no idea, and would have to resort to googling.The chippy comment above is typical.

I guarantee you that the likes of Abhisit, Korn, Anand P,even Thaksin know exactly who Graham Catterwell is.There's an expatriate world with no connection to Thai Visa at all and that surprises some.

So who's Graham Caterwell then? According to the 'net he's a British former banker. He doesn't appear to be an 'expert' on anything to do with floods, tides or rain.

A resident for nearly 40 years, very well connected, highly intelligent, Oxford graduate.Probably one of the most knowledgeable (about Thailand) foreigners in the Kingdom.Not an engineer or expert on flood management but I can't think of anyone as capable of assembling evidence, analysing it and drawing credible conclusions.

Not perhaps someone the typical Thai Visa member would come across however.

I, too, have objections to the elitist attitude toward Bangkok, but this guy is the governor. If he did any less, I would be disappointed in him.

Unfortunately, they haven't really saved Bangkok--they have just decided which portions would be sacrificed--so far.

More or less my position.I admit also I have changed my mind.Earlier in the crisis I was quite critical of Sukhumbhand for his partisan approach, or taking decisions without taking the nation's interests as a whole into account.On reflection I accepted that his job is to take decisions in the interests of Bangkok alone, and it is for the government to overrule him if appropriate and if within its legal right.I think most Thais want to see co-operation not political bickering at this time.These decisions are incredibly difficult and sensitive, and inevitably some parties will not be happy with them.

Incidentally Pavin, whom I generally respect though he is a bit of a stirrer, makes a silly observation about Sukhumbhand's aristocratic background, introducing a class war element where it's completely inappropriate.

You initiated the discussion on this thread without any one addressing you, for which there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just that your saying that you try to respond to posts addressed to you is inconsistent with your involvement on this thread as well as your posting history. You initiate and then respond.

Classic.If you didn't so predictably and pointlessly insist on the last word people wouldn't speculate on your identity so much.

Other than to slag every one with the exception of one is there a point to your rambling.

Are you trying to say he is right on the money.

So if we all check out his back ground will Thailand be flood free for 5 years?

Not really.What I'm saying is that one doesn't expect too much insight into corporate Thailand, its key movers and their significance from a bunch of visa runners.