Is Abhisit Admitting There Was A Hidden Coup?

[Soi224]

Reading the front page of the Bangkok Post today, one might get the impression the new Prime Minister Abhisit is admitting that the toppling of PPP and his subsequent election was a coup to which he was party.

Buying my paper this morning, I was greeted by the headlined article UDD will rally until Adhisit calls an election which went into the UDD bascially declaring war on the present administration, then continued with interview quotes from Abhisit, where he said

Mr Abhisit said yesterday it was far too soon to think about setting a date for a general election.

The government's priorities were to turn the economy around and bring about peace and reconciliation. Only when the job was done would he consider whether to dissolve the House.

"I do not think it is necessary to fix the timeframe," said Mr Abhisit.

When the time was right power would be returned to the people, he said. People needed to be realistic. There were several factors to consider and several pressing matters, including political reform.

Power being returned back to the people? Excuse me, sir? Did you just admit that perhaps you or your party rigged this entire PAD democracy charade and that indeed, you just the previous coup leaders, knows better than the people what they need?

Perhaps it was an innocent acknowledgement of the extraordinary way he gained the post or perhaps it was a slip of the tounge. Either way, it brings up some interesting points and possibly opens a whole new can of worms. (sigh)

Soi224

[quiksilva]

I think he was referring to the fact that he was elected by parliament and not by the people.

[Soi224]

Am I wrong or isn't the PM always elected by the parliament? This style of government is always coalition building unless the PM's party has a clear majority in the house, so that part shouldn't be seen as taking power from the people, given it is the norm and not the exception.

[Gary A]

The elite have won the battle and the current government owes PAD big time. The appointment of the foreign minister should tell everyone something. Both sides are corrupt to the extreme. With the now opposition elevating Chalerm and the the ruling side appointing PAD leaders, it appears that power will NOT be returned to the people. Nearly anyone would be a better choice than Chalerm. Hopefully people will give this government a chance and allow things to return to business as usual.

[Gravelrash]

Reading the front page of the Bangkok Post today, one might get the impression the new Prime Minister Abhisit is admitting that the toppling of PPP and his subsequent election was a coup to which he was party.

Buying my paper this morning, I was greeted by the headlined article UDD will rally until Adhisit calls an election which went into the UDD bascially declaring war on the present administration, then continued with interview quotes from Abhisit, where he said

Mr Abhisit said yesterday it was far too soon to think about setting a date for a general election.

The government's priorities were to turn the economy around and bring about peace and reconciliation. Only when the job was done would he consider whether to dissolve the House.

"I do not think it is necessary to fix the timeframe," said Mr Abhisit.

When the time was right power would be returned to the people, he said. People needed to be realistic. There were several factors to consider and several pressing matters, including political reform.

Power being returned back to the people? Excuse me, sir? Did you just admit that perhaps you or your party rigged this entire PAD democracy charade and that indeed, you just the previous coup leaders, knows better than the people what they need?

Perhaps it was an innocent acknowledgement of the extraordinary way he gained the post or perhaps it was a slip of the tounge. Either way, it brings up some interesting points and possibly opens a whole new can of worms. (sigh)

Soi224

That there was a coup with the connivance of the PAD/Army/Democrats/Elite/Judiciary is obvious. However I suspect the PM's comments were probably translated poorly.

[Jingthing]

I don't see what happened as coming anywhere close to meeting the standard definition of coup. Machiavellian machinations? You betcha!

Agreed, the PM admitted nothing. Just chatting about when there will be new elections.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

or perhaps it wasn't a quote (and therefore not in quotation marks) and therefore is more revealing as an editorial comment of the author?

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

He came to power by unusual, but constitutional, parliamentary machinations. I wish him all the luck in the world, but I can't see this coalition holding together very long. It would be nice if a solid coalition could be built following the next round of elections.

[JetsetBkk]

...When the time was right power would be returned to the people...

I heard this last night on the news and it struck me as a stupid thing for him to say. I couldn't be bothered starting a thread about it though - too many pro-democrats here.

I see JD is already clutching at straws implying that he didn't actually say it.

[ubonjoe]

He has also mentioned politcal reform.

Does this mean PAD's agenda?

[Gary A]

He has also mentioned politcal reform.

Does this mean PAD's agenda?

I think that is a reasonable assumption. One of PAD's main arguments was the vote buying. I am amazed that buying votes from regular voters is considered worse than buying MP's. It appears that buying politicians is the correct thing to do.

I also think that Thailand now has the best of a sad situation. Hopefully this government will be given a chance and we won't have any more problems until the next election.

[sriracha john]

He has also mentioned politcal reform.

Does this mean PAD's agenda?

Well, when he mentioned politcal reform... what did he say?

[sriracha john]

He has also mentioned politcal reform.

Does this mean PAD's agenda?

I think that is a reasonable assumption.

If it's not elaborated on what was said, how can it be a reasonable assumption?

[Khonwan]

“Returning power to the people” is an age-old saying, at least in the UK. It simply means providing the electorate with a new opportunity to decide who will represent them. The people transfer power to their representatives via a general election – this power is returned to them when a new general election is called. Nothing sinister at all – our new PM simply has a very good grasp of the English language.

[Gary A]

The reasonable assumption is that they will do as their masters bid. Since PAD doesn't know what they want, how is it possible to answer your questions.

[Soi224]

"Returning power to the people" is an age-old saying, at least in the UK. It simply means providing the electorate with a new opportunity to decide who will represent them. The people transfer power to their representatives via a general election – this power is returned to them when a new general election is called. Nothing sinister at all – our new PM simply has a very good grasp of the English language.

However, at least according to the Bangkok Post, what he said was, 'When the time is right, power will be returned to the people,' inferring they did not have it now. Further to that and what you have stated above, everyone in parliament was duly elected in a general election, thus inferring that if this were a proper government, they indeed do have power. So by his own admission, his might not be a proper government, rather one that seized power in their perception of what was in the people's best interest.

Also, and while I too want stability, why is it he is getting everyone's best wishes of being given the chance to govern and get something done when neither Samak or Somchai were being given the same type support? I am no fan of Thaksin, not even close to it, but I am a fan of the messy, ill-mannered institution known as democracy, and like it or not, these people were properly elected, democratically even, you might say.

Success of governments of a forced democracy does not bode well for the institution or nation, as it can as easily become the new norm as military coups were in the past. Unless the good Mr. Abhisit is the best chess player at the table, and he may be, then all his good intentions to outmauver and outplay his opponents while trying to serve the nation and the people will come to nothing good, and indeed something potentially worse than what we were getting, which is a regression back to what the PAD wants, the power of the elite and the rich. Do not assume that this time as in decades past that the 'uneducated masses upcountry' will simply sit back and take it like they were forced to do for so long. The times are a changing to borrow a phrase and if they are locked out of having a voice again, the next time they come at taking back the power their sheer volume of numbers gives them the democratic right to do, it may not be through the ballet box.

[snuggzzz]

Translation, perhaps has changed the words. However, I feel for Thai Politics, whatever the Political Party, need the best of luck.........!!

[Khonwan]

"Returning power to the people" is an age-old saying, at least in the UK. It simply means providing the electorate with a new opportunity to decide who will represent them. The people transfer power to their representatives via a general election – this power is returned to them when a new general election is called. Nothing sinister at all – our new PM simply has a very good grasp of the English language.

However, at least according to the Bangkok Post, what he said was, 'When the time is right, power will be returned to the people,' inferring they did not have it now. Further to that and what you have stated above, everyone in parliament was duly elected in a general election, thus inferring that if this were a proper government, they indeed do have power. So by his own admission, his might not be a proper government, rather one that seized power in their perception of what was in the people's best interest.

....

I'm sorry but your interpretation of this is quite incorrect. "When the time is right, power will be returned to the people" = When the time is right, a general election shall be called. No more, no less. The people currently do not have the power - they transferred their power to their representatives during the last general election. Some of those representatives were later deemed in breach of the law and were therefore barred from politics, as were their parties. The electorate did not chose parties to represent them - they chose individuals. Those individuals have always had the right (in the UK, as well as Thailand) to "cross the floor" and join another party. In both Thailand and UK, members of parliament elect the PM - not the electorate. The monarch (in both countries) will appoint any member of parliament who can form a majority of members around him/her from as many parties as it takes (i.e. coalition); normally, the party winning (legally winning) the most votes at the poll gets first chance to form that majority. In this case, Abhisit, despite being from a smaller party, won that parliamentary vote by his fellow members of parliament. These parliamentary procedures should be understood by any UK high-school student study politics/modern-studies - I learned them 33 years ago.

I don’t wish to debate the legitimacy of the idea that power is transferred from the people to parliament. I only want you to understand what is meant by the use of the phrase; in other words, how it will be understood by anyone with knowledge of this age-old phrase.

[Soi224]

"Returning power to the people" is an age-old saying, at least in the UK. It simply means providing the electorate with a new opportunity to decide who will represent them. The people transfer power to their representatives via a general election – this power is returned to them when a new general election is called. Nothing sinister at all – our new PM simply has a very good grasp of the English language.

However, at least according to the Bangkok Post, what he said was, 'When the time is right, power will be returned to the people,' inferring they did not have it now. Further to that and what you have stated above, everyone in parliament was duly elected in a general election, thus inferring that if this were a proper government, they indeed do have power. So by his own admission, his might not be a proper government, rather one that seized power in their perception of what was in the people's best interest.

....

I'm sorry but your interpretation of this is quite incorrect. "When the time is right, power will be returned to the people" = When the time is right, a general election shall be called. No more, no less. The people currently do not have the power - they transferred their power to their representatives during the last general election. Some of those representatives were later deemed in breach of the law and were therefore barred from politics, as were their parties. The electorate did not chose parties to represent them - they chose individuals. Those individuals have always had the right (in the UK, as well as Thailand) to "cross the floor" and join another party. In both Thailand and UK, members of parliament elect the PM - not the electorate. The monarch (in both countries) will appoint any member of parliament who can form a majority of members around him/her from as many parties as it takes (i.e. coalition); normally, the party winning (legally winning) the most votes at the poll gets first chance to form that majority. In this case, Abhisit, despite being from a smaller party, won that parliamentary vote by his fellow members of parliament. These parliamentary procedures should be understood by any UK high-school student study politics/modern-studies - I learned them 33 years ago.

I don't wish to debate the legitimacy of the idea that power is transferred from the people to parliament. I only want you to understand what is meant by the use of the phrase; in other words, how it will be understood by anyone with knowledge of this age-old phrase.

Respectfully speaking, but your choice of translation of his words is your choice. It doesn't make it absolute nor absolutely correct. I was not personally translating his words so much as noting the potential implications of them. To have people try to simply sweep them under the rug of standardized universally British styled government replies does the discussion little value.

Whilst I did not come from your system and cede all knowledge of its inner workings to those who did, I do not cede the understanding of language used as absolute. Least any of us ever forget, this is not the West, this is Asia with all the potential byzantine machinations that implies. Also, the very notion that power will be returned to the people when clearly, the PAD and other vested interests (merchants and self-styled intelligentsiahttp://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&c...sia&spell=1 come to mind) long for the status quo of a quiet, blissfully ignorant and obliging working class potentially casts his statements in a whole new light. If mechanisms are put in place that prevent the upcountry folk from fully exercising their voice and vote, then it makes his statement an admission of complicit guilt. If the voting system is left in place and the people are truly allowed to cast their vote and put into power the people of their choice, I will applaud the gentleman as a true leader and skillful politician. If he manages to 'buy their vote' by populist promises just as Thaksin did, it makes him no worse by any means, just the target for the next PAD rampage.

[jdinasia]

It's just your bias showing ... like that of the writer of the article.

[wayfarer108]

The elite have won the battle and the current government owes PAD big time. The appointment of the foreign minister should tell everyone something. Both sides are corrupt to the extreme. With the now opposition elevating Chalerm and the the ruling side appointing PAD leaders, it appears that power will NOT be returned to the people. Nearly anyone would be a better choice than Chalerm. Hopefully people will give this government a chance and allow things to return to business as usual.

Power has never belonged to the people in Thailand except insofar as they have had the power to protest.

[wayfarer108]

Translation, perhaps has changed the words.

Not perhaps.

[PeaceBlondie]

Power has never belonged to the people in Thailand except insofar as they have had the power to protest.

This is the best answer here so far.

[euca]

"Returning power to the people" is an age-old saying, at least in the UK. It simply means providing the electorate with a new opportunity to decide who will represent them. The people transfer power to their representatives via a general election – this power is returned to them when a new general election is called. Nothing sinister at all – our new PM simply has a very good grasp of the English language.

However, at least according to the Bangkok Post, what he said was, 'When the time is right, power will be returned to the people,' inferring they did not have it now. Further to that and what you have stated above, everyone in parliament was duly elected in a general election, thus inferring that if this were a proper government, they indeed do have power. So by his own admission, his might not be a proper government, rather one that seized power in their perception of what was in the people's best interest.

....

I'm sorry but your interpretation of this is quite incorrect. "When the time is right, power will be returned to the people" = When the time is right, a general election shall be called. No more, no less. The people currently do not have the power - they transferred their power to their representatives during the last general election. Some of those representatives were later deemed in breach of the law and were therefore barred from politics, as were their parties. The electorate did not chose parties to represent them - they chose individuals. Those individuals have always had the right (in the UK, as well as Thailand) to "cross the floor" and join another party. In both Thailand and UK, members of parliament elect the PM - not the electorate. The monarch (in both countries) will appoint any member of parliament who can form a majority of members around him/her from as many parties as it takes (i.e. coalition); normally, the party winning (legally winning) the most votes at the poll gets first chance to form that majority. In this case, Abhisit, despite being from a smaller party, won that parliamentary vote by his fellow members of parliament. These parliamentary procedures should be understood by any UK high-school student study politics/modern-studies - I learned them 33 years ago.

I don't wish to debate the legitimacy of the idea that power is transferred from the people to parliament. I only want you to understand what is meant by the use of the phrase; in other words, how it will be understood by anyone with knowledge of this age-old phrase.

Respectfully speaking, but your choice of translation of his words is your choice. It doesn't make it absolute nor absolutely correct. I was not personally translating his words so much as noting the potential implications of them. To have people try to simply sweep them under the rug of standardized universally British styled government replies does the discussion little value.

Whilst I did not come from your system and cede all knowledge of its inner workings to those who did, I do not cede the understanding of language used as absolute. Least any of us ever forget, this is not the West, this is Asia with all the potential byzantine machinations that implies. Also, the very notion that power will be returned to the people when clearly, the PAD and other vested interests (merchants and self-styled intelligentsiahttp://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&c...sia&spell=1 come to mind) long for the status quo of a quiet, blissfully ignorant and obliging working class potentially casts his statements in a whole new light. If mechanisms are put in place that prevent the upcountry folk from fully exercising their voice and vote, then it makes his statement an admission of complicit guilt. If the voting system is left in place and the people are truly allowed to cast their vote and put into power the people of their choice, I will applaud the gentleman as a true leader and skillful politician. If he manages to 'buy their vote' by populist promises just as Thaksin did, it makes him no worse by any means, just the target for the next PAD rampage.

Sorry, Soi224, but you are incorrect and I intend no disrespect for you or your views, either. Your choice of translation of his words is your choice. It doesn't make it absolute nor absolutely correct. You say you do not cede the understanding of language used as absolute. Then you must understand the use of English language. You may infer what you choose. He can imply [or express] what he chooses and your inference does not change it nor put meaning into his mouth. We are in almost total agreement about the politics, no different here, in the Blighted Isle or where you come from; any resemblance to true democracy is quite accidental. Please note, I am criticising your misuse of the word 'infer' [a common solicism] and your curious assumption that democracy is anything but a fig leaf anywhere. Thankyou for raising an interesting thread.

[Khonwan]

"Returning power to the people" is an age-old saying, at least in the UK. It simply means providing the electorate with a new opportunity to decide who will represent them. The people transfer power to their representatives via a general election – this power is returned to them when a new general election is called. Nothing sinister at all – our new PM simply has a very good grasp of the English language.

However, at least according to the Bangkok Post, what he said was, 'When the time is right, power will be returned to the people,' inferring they did not have it now. Further to that and what you have stated above, everyone in parliament was duly elected in a general election, thus inferring that if this were a proper government, they indeed do have power. So by his own admission, his might not be a proper government, rather one that seized power in their perception of what was in the people's best interest.

....

I'm sorry but your interpretation of this is quite incorrect. "When the time is right, power will be returned to the people" = When the time is right, a general election shall be called. No more, no less. The people currently do not have the power - they transferred their power to their representatives during the last general election. Some of those representatives were later deemed in breach of the law and were therefore barred from politics, as were their parties. The electorate did not chose parties to represent them - they chose individuals. Those individuals have always had the right (in the UK, as well as Thailand) to "cross the floor" and join another party. In both Thailand and UK, members of parliament elect the PM - not the electorate. The monarch (in both countries) will appoint any member of parliament who can form a majority of members around him/her from as many parties as it takes (i.e. coalition); normally, the party winning (legally winning) the most votes at the poll gets first chance to form that majority. In this case, Abhisit, despite being from a smaller party, won that parliamentary vote by his fellow members of parliament. These parliamentary procedures should be understood by any UK high-school student study politics/modern-studies - I learned them 33 years ago.

I don't wish to debate the legitimacy of the idea that power is transferred from the people to parliament. I only want you to understand what is meant by the use of the phrase; in other words, how it will be understood by anyone with knowledge of this age-old phrase.

Respectfully speaking, but your choice of translation of his words is your choice. It doesn't make it absolute nor absolutely correct. I was not personally translating his words so much as noting the potential implications of them. To have people try to simply sweep them under the rug of standardized universally British styled government replies does the discussion little value.

Whilst I did not come from your system and cede all knowledge of its inner workings to those who did, I do not cede the understanding of language used as absolute. Least any of us ever forget, this is not the West, this is Asia with all the potential byzantine machinations that implies. ...

Deputy Thai Rak Thai leader Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan said, February 2006, "Dissolving the House to return power to the people is the best way out under this constitution and democracy,"

From Bangkok Post, 16TH September 2008, “Most Thais of voting age view the return of power to the people through an election as the best way to resolve the country's ongoing political crisis, according to a survey by the Assumption University ABAC Poll.”

Note the same use of the phrase by these Thais, and note who were returning power to the people at those times.

Although I have some quite strong views on Thai politics, I have chosen not to express them on ThaiVisa – I do not see the point in debating these issues with other foreigners…I debate them with Thais. So my only point here is to clarify Abhisit’s use of the phrase and to again suggest that the phrase only refers to a general election.

Kind regards

Khonwan