Pm Vows Reconciliation In 8 Months

[bangkokrick]

Be careful with that Animatic. My wifes family did the same during the last local election. Since then all the households on her road have been given a fish farm, with the exception of the wifes family. The reason is obvious. Corruption rules!

Cheers, Rick

Rick what they don't know that can't do squat about.

It's not quite so:

'look over your shoulder and show us your mark as up north.'

Animatic I don't full understand your reply, but what I have told you is true. They somehow appear to know who has voted for which party. My wifes family are from Si Sa Ket by the way and are still waiting for their fish farm even though the houses on either side have theirs.

Cheers, Rick

What I meant was she was not requiered to show how she voted to anyone,

it went in a box, and many others went on top before she left.

And so they do not know.

We are fortunate that some reasonably nice people are in office here.

And as I understand it the ones that won, were not the highest bidders either.

You will see from my previous posts that I have the utmost respect for the current PM and i hope that he remains in that position for the full term. This is not the right time for anything other than recocilliation.

We are still waiting for the fish farm though, although I doubt that this will not be very high on the PM's list at this moment in time.

Cheers, Rick

[Old Man River]

Over and over again, posters continue to make the same mistakes about the election laws of Thailand. Voters don't vote for the PM. They vote for MP's who then select the PM. The PM must be an elected MP. Abhisit as an elected MP. He was elected by the people who do vote.

I share the same opinion that has been made several times by others. An election right now is the worst thing that could happen to Thailand. In this economy, this country needs stability which is what national reconciliation would bring.

Ahhh so the army throwing a coup, then banning the members of one side but not the other - is that what you call 'elected by the people that do vote'? Only the people with guns and uniforms count, right?

Your facts are a bit twisted. The crime the TRT committed was not related to the coup. What the TRT did was still a crime under the 1997 constitution (the People's Constitution) and the Organic Act on Political Parties (1998). Dissolution could have still been called for under the old constitution for illegally bankrolling smaller parties to make an election look legitimate.

In addition, under the old laws, an executive of a banned party could not apply for the formation of a new political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of a political party nor be a promoter of a new political party for a period of 5 years. What changed is that under the 2007 Constitution, for a period of 5 years, executives of a banned political party were prohibited from running for election.

I am confused by your comments against Abhisit. You seem to support politicians elected by the people as well as a return to the 1997 People's Constitution. Abhisit was elected by the people of Thailand and supports a return to the People's Constitution. In addition, he even supports giving the banned politicians amnesty.

What you need to understand is that this is a coalition government. Abhisit and the Democrats cannot put into place what they believe in without first getting the support of the other political parties in this coalition. This is according to the laws of Thailand that existed long before the 2006 coup.

[dbrenn]

Rick what they don't know that can't do squat about.

It's not quite so:

'look over your shoulder and show us your mark as up north.'

Eh? 'Show us your mark'? Are you talking about the mark of the Beast here? The beast being Thaksin. Or, are you implying that the proletariat are too stupid to exercise a political opinion, and as such must have it curtailed according to PAD doctrine? You vote by directing your wife to vote, and let's hope she listens to you. ]Be careful lest she is labbelled an inferior being by the shadowy powers that be, for her own good, and her vote is diluted. Your proxy vore via her (if she listens to you), would then be worth even less.

Don't you just love the way democracy works?

Again you insult my wife's intelligence to get a me....

Do a see a pattern here...

What is this beast thing and biblical devil thing you are on about?

Completely irrelevant.

You are trying to twist my words to imply something never said,

what is PAD doctrine, I know not.... I have never met a PAD member,

this is your philosophical rant not mine.

I just know who is less of a cockup in the practical sense as leaders,

based on past experiences.

I ASK my wife to vote, I think she gives me fair hearing,

more than many, such as yourself, here do certainly.

She is not worried about the 'keeping up with the jones'

social climbing / status whining that is typical, she has no hi so airs,

and doesn't think to be a 'superior being', just a nice one,

and anyone who would try to call her inferior,

only shows their own insecurities, not hers.

I happened to be in Chaing mai for the 2005 election,

I watched the VERY aggressive canvassers at work for a month or more.

And while eating election day noticed a line of people voting

and having to show their ballot to some guy with a check list

before putting it in the box at a Wat voting site.

That was my first inkling that TRT was fulla <deleted>.

That was not the case down here.

Fold, put in box, and go home after a bit of social small talk..

You've seen this, that and the other. 'Agressive canvassing'? Show me a political party anywhere in the world that doesn't do that and I'll show you Utopia. Let the people decide. Whooops! Almost forgot! You know what's best for the Thai people even though you aren't one yourself.

Edited May 2, 2009 by dbrenn

[animatic]

I am better informed on thai politics than she is ...

She ... votes because I ask her to exercise her franchise rights

Ah, now I get it. In your view, you are better informed than your wife is, and you franchise your vote out there through her. Even though (unless the PAD gets its way) she has a constitutional right as Thai citizen to vote in any way she wishes, a right that you don't have, it's your opinion that matters most. Now, where have I heard that before? Isn't that kind of manipulation tantamount to vote buying?

I'll bet that the poor girl dare not have a political opinion while you are around. Does she show you her mark before she puts her paper in the Ballot Box, or does she secretly vote for Thaksin's lot while telling you she voted for the Dems to make you happy? How do you know? This is Thailand, and one of the charming traits that the locals have is avoiding conflict wherever possible.

As to aggressive canvassing; if it quacks like a duck it's a duck.

What I witnessed was totally one sided, TRT sided. It was not pretty.

I saw the look of chagrin on the landlady's face after they left.

She was NOT AMUSED. She said as much, sotto voce, so as not to be heard.

I have seen nothing similar since from any party in elections.

Well for a bit I thought you were serious... and now appear more troll.

You purposely edited out tha last part of the sentence "In her opinion".

So what I said, you then try and continue out of context to fit your bias.

Pure troll style.

I ask her to vote, so our family has some say.

I let her know how I WOULD vote, and why, if given the opportunity.

So you can't spin this into some contretemp, try as you might.

It's her choice as a grown woman.

Just because YOU don't think you like how I might vote,

doesn't mean she thinks like you. Or cares how you think.

Oh and PS she lived in Chaing mai for years and can't stand Thaksin.

And felt that way before I met her. I grew to join her opinion on my own.

Your ongoing belittling of my wife is quite distasteful.

Edited May 2, 2009 by animatic

[rixalex]

Do you get to vote?

If any of haven't already caught on, the reason why dbrenn is asking this question, and the reason why in fact he asks it so regularly, is because he can. Were this thread a few years ago before his Thai citizenship application, my guess is that this question wouldn't have been on his lips all the time.

[justanothercybertosser]

Your facts are a bit twisted. The crime the TRT committed was not related to the coup. What the TRT did was still a crime under the 1997 constitution (the People's Constitution) and the Organic Act on Political Parties (1998). Dissolution could have still been called for under the old constitution for illegally bankrolling smaller parties to make an election look legitimate.

In addition, under the old laws, an executive of a banned party could not apply for the formation of a new political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of a political party nor be a promoter of a new political party for a period of 5 years. What changed is that under the 2007 Constitution, for a period of 5 years, executives of a banned political party were prohibited from running for election.

I am confused by your comments against Abhisit. You seem to support politicians elected by the people as well as a return to the 1997 People's Constitution. Abhisit was elected by the people of Thailand and supports a return to the People's Constitution. In addition, he even supports giving the banned politicians amnesty.

What you need to understand is that this is a coalition government. Abhisit and the Democrats cannot put into place what they believe in without first getting the support of the other political parties in this coalition. This is according to the laws of Thailand that existed long before the 2006 coup.

Abhsit has been elected by the members of parliament, and not by the people. That means he has a parliamentary mandate, but lacks a popular mandate. By itself - this is legal. How though this parliamentary mandate came to pass (Newin's defection, etc...) is more than fishy. That is one of the reasons normal countries in those circumstances would call for elections, and not use extreme sophism to explain why they have to cling to power.

Abhsit has installed a commission looking into changes into the constitution. That does not necessarily mean a return to the '97 constitution. Some say that these changes he proposes could be to prevent a possible dissolution of his own party.

Abhsit may have made statements for an amnesty for the banned politicians, but Suthep has several times stated that he is against an amnesty. Abhsit is head of the small Bangkok faction of the Democrats. Within the party itself, Suthep wields much more power.

The dissolution of TRT was related to the coup. Previously the party would not have been dissolved, only the executive members found guilty would have been banned from politics. The same way the PPP dissolution was clearly related to the '07 constitution, as the same announcement by the coup group that led to the dissolution of TRT creeped its way into the new constitution.

Which is rather ironic, the PPP government tried to change this article, and also the amnesty that the coup group gave itself in the '07 constitution (any reasonable explanation why a retro-active amnesty for coup makers is in a constitution?), PAD with Democrat party support staged last year's debilitating protests.

[sriracha john]

Do you get to vote?

If any of haven't already caught on, the reason why dbrenn is asking this question, and the reason why in fact he asks it so regularly, is because he can.

I'd just add that his status is "alleged".

As someone once said on the forum, "You can be anybody you want to be...on the Internet."

Edited May 2, 2009 by sriracha john

[dbrenn]

Do you get to vote?

If any of haven't already caught on, the reason why dbrenn is asking this question, and the reason why in fact he asks it so regularly, is because he can.

I'd just add that his status is "alleged".

As someone once said on the forum, "You can be anybody you want to be...on the Internet."

What's your status SJ, and how do we know that it is not just 'alleged'? Your name makes a claim that you live in Sri Racha, but thanks to the wonders of the Internet you could actually be living in a suburb of Milton Keynes for all we know, having visited Thailand for a week as a tourist years back

Edited May 2, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

Do you get to vote?

If any of haven't already caught on, the reason why dbrenn is asking this question, and the reason why in fact he asks it so regularly, is because he can. Were this thread a few years ago before his Thai citizenship application, my guess is that this question wouldn't have been on his lips all the time.

Rixalex - for once we agree on something. Those who hold the citizenship of a country should be allowed to participate in its democratic process in equal measure. Coercing and/or rewarding his Missus to vote on Animatic's behalf is just the kind of behaviour that the Dems eschew and call a red-only phenomenon. Don't you see the hypocrisy there? Using influence to cast a vote that would otherwise not have been cast is an undemocratic thing to do, and perverts the proper course of democracy, right? Only the Antichrist Thaksin is guilty of that, right?

You can maybe now understand why I feel so indignant when some tired old generals put tanks on the streets to install their favourite party, against the wishes of my fellow Thai voting public.

Edited May 2, 2009 by dbrenn

[sriracha john]

Do you get to vote?

If any of haven't already caught on, the reason why dbrenn is asking this question, and the reason why in fact he asks it so regularly, is because he can.

I'd just add that his status is "alleged".

As someone once said on the forum, "You can be anybody you want to be...on the Internet."

What's your status SJ, and how do we know that it is not just 'alleged'? Your name makes a claim that you live in Sri Racha, but thanks to the wonders of the Internet you could actually be living in a suburb of Milton Keynes for all we know, having visited Thailand for a week as a tourist years back

I have a large number of long-term and respected members of this forum that have met me in person and verified my status.

[sbk]

Enough bickering guys. thanks.

[dbrenn]

I have a large number of long-term and respected members of this forum that have met me in person and verified my status.

I would guess that the majority of people who post on TV have never met each other, so are you saying that we should all go back to meeting in person only to avoid contact with all the reams of unverified information that is Thaivisa? It makes no difference - the real world is full of people who tell fibs too.

Happy to prove if we do ever meet SJ

[sbk]

Last time I will repeat myself.

Drop the off topic bickering or I will just delete every off topic post in this thread. That should reduce it down to one page.

[bf2002]

It's nothing, just a regular pep talk to show people that he is in charge.

Or, for conspiracy theorists, he got inside information from the courts that in eight months Thaksin will have nothing to fight for left, and on their own red leaders are not a threat.

I find that doubtful. For Thaksin to have nothing to fight for would insinuate the current government or the legal authorities have the power to take away his power....you can get a pretty good clue of their abilities from what has been "acheived" in the last 4 years....zero.

[Old Man River]

Your facts are a bit twisted. The crime the TRT committed was not related to the coup. What the TRT did was still a crime under the 1997 constitution (the People's Constitution) and the Organic Act on Political Parties (1998). Dissolution could have still been called for under the old constitution for illegally bankrolling smaller parties to make an election look legitimate.

In addition, under the old laws, an executive of a banned party could not apply for the formation of a new political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of a political party nor be a promoter of a new political party for a period of 5 years. What changed is that under the 2007 Constitution, for a period of 5 years, executives of a banned political party were prohibited from running for election.

I am confused by your comments against Abhisit. You seem to support politicians elected by the people as well as a return to the 1997 People's Constitution. Abhisit was elected by the people of Thailand and supports a return to the People's Constitution. In addition, he even supports giving the banned politicians amnesty.

What you need to understand is that this is a coalition government. Abhisit and the Democrats cannot put into place what they believe in without first getting the support of the other political parties in this coalition. This is according to the laws of Thailand that existed long before the 2006 coup.

Abhsit has been elected by the members of parliament, and not by the people. That means he has a parliamentary mandate, but lacks a popular mandate. By itself - this is legal. How though this parliamentary mandate came to pass (Newin's defection, etc...) is more than fishy. That is one of the reasons normal countries in those circumstances would call for elections, and not use extreme sophism to explain why they have to cling to power.

Abhsit has installed a commission looking into changes into the constitution. That does not necessarily mean a return to the '97 constitution. Some say that these changes he proposes could be to prevent a possible dissolution of his own party.

Abhsit may have made statements for an amnesty for the banned politicians, but Suthep has several times stated that he is against an amnesty. Abhsit is head of the small Bangkok faction of the Democrats. Within the party itself, Suthep wields much more power.

The dissolution of TRT was related to the coup. Previously the party would not have been dissolved, only the executive members found guilty would have been banned from politics. The same way the PPP dissolution was clearly related to the '07 constitution, as the same announcement by the coup group that led to the dissolution of TRT creeped its way into the new constitution.

Which is rather ironic, the PPP government tried to change this article, and also the amnesty that the coup group gave itself in the '07 constitution (any reasonable explanation why a retro-active amnesty for coup makers is in a constitution?), PAD with Democrat party support staged last year's debilitating protests.

Let's not try to confuse people with semantics and rhetoric and stick with the facts. MP's are elected by the people of Thailand. These elected MP's then vote for their PM and the PM with the most votes received from the elected members of parliament gains the parliamentary mandate to become PM. This is how it worked with Thaksin and Abhisit and all PM's who became PM after a parliamentary vote by elected MP's.

There seems to be much confusion on the parties being dissolved. I will say this again. If you do your homework you will find that the TRT and PPP parties could have been dissolved by the election laws prior to the 2006 coup. However, the laws brought in by the military junta increased the punishment to where all executives at the time a political party broke the law, could be banned from entering politics in any form for a period of 5 years. Previously, they could still run for election.

Abhist agrees that these laws are too punitive and supports rolling back to the 1997 constitution, save and accept for a few minor areas that he thinks can be amended. He discussed this in the Senate just yesterday, and Senators were elated that he went to the senate to hear their suggestions. They said they weren't used to a PM with an open mind since neither Thaksin nor any from the PPP ever valued the opinions of the Senate.

This is sad when people who do have the right to vote in Thailand don't make the best of this opportunity. If they kept an open mind, they would find that the best chance they have to achieving what they want is to support Abhisit and the Democrats. Many say Abhisit is ahead of his time in Thailand in that he actually wants to cross party lines and do what is best for this country. Voters, who are used to voting blindly simply don't see it, which is obvious from the posters here who can vote, who still close their eyes, take their payments and go on to complain ad nauseum.

[hammered]

Over and over again, posters continue to make the same mistakes about the election laws of Thailand. Voters don't vote for the PM. They vote for MP's who then select the PM. The PM must be an elected MP. Abhisit as an elected MP. He was elected by the people who do vote.

I share the same opinion that has been made several times by others. An election right now is the worst thing that could happen to Thailand. In this economy, this country needs stability which is what national reconciliation would bring.

Ahhh so the army throwing a coup, then banning the members of one side but not the other - is that what you call 'elected by the people that do vote'? Only the people with guns and uniforms count, right?

There was an election after the coup whihc every side accepted. Since then there have been several realignments in parliament. First MPs voted Samak as PM. Then MPs voted Somchai as PM (controversially not backing Samak again). Then MPs voted for Abhisit as PM. Whether or not therer will be yet another realignmnet in the tenure of this parliament remains to be seen. That is the beauty of parliamentary systems and a historical study of such systems world wide reveals a rich and varied history. Praliamnetray sytem is a very different system from presidential system where the people directly elect a president. In the parliamentary system the people elect representatives who then have the right to vote as their conciencse dictates.

Funnily enough if the elected representatives had voted the way they told the electorate they would before the 2007 election. The country would have had a very very weak Dem lead government with a coalition of every party except PTP. However, the smaller parties decdied to break their electoral promise and back PTP to give it a majority. That might seem ethically wrong but in parlimentary democracy MPs and parties can vote any way they like and the people get their subsequent say at the end of the existing parliament. Parliament remains the supreme body in such a democracy and the government answers to parliament and not the people.

If the largets party in a parliament doesnt win an overall majority it is not uncommon that it ends up in opposition. This has recently happened in Israel and the Ukraine. This is a mistake many on this board make in their arguements. Presumably they come from countries with presidential systems or just dont understand how parlaimentary systems work.

[hammered]

Your facts are a bit twisted. The crime the TRT committed was not related to the coup. What the TRT did was still a crime under the 1997 constitution (the People's Constitution) and the Organic Act on Political Parties (1998). Dissolution could have still been called for under the old constitution for illegally bankrolling smaller parties to make an election look legitimate.

In addition, under the old laws, an executive of a banned party could not apply for the formation of a new political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of a political party nor be a promoter of a new political party for a period of 5 years. What changed is that under the 2007 Constitution, for a period of 5 years, executives of a banned political party were prohibited from running for election.

I am confused by your comments against Abhisit. You seem to support politicians elected by the people as well as a return to the 1997 People's Constitution. Abhisit was elected by the people of Thailand and supports a return to the People's Constitution. In addition, he even supports giving the banned politicians amnesty.

What you need to understand is that this is a coalition government. Abhisit and the Democrats cannot put into place what they believe in without first getting the support of the other political parties in this coalition. This is according to the laws of Thailand that existed long before the 2006 coup.

Abhsit has been elected by the members of parliament, and not by the people. That means he has a parliamentary mandate, but lacks a popular mandate. By itself - this is legal. How though this parliamentary mandate came to pass (Newin's defection, etc...) is more than fishy. That is one of the reasons normal countries in those circumstances would call for elections, and not use extreme sophism to explain why they have to cling to power.

Abhsit has installed a commission looking into changes into the constitution. That does not necessarily mean a return to the '97 constitution. Some say that these changes he proposes could be to prevent a possible dissolution of his own party.

Abhsit may have made statements for an amnesty for the banned politicians, but Suthep has several times stated that he is against an amnesty. Abhsit is head of the small Bangkok faction of the Democrats. Within the party itself, Suthep wields much more power.

The dissolution of TRT was related to the coup. Previously the party would not have been dissolved, only the executive members found guilty would have been banned from politics. The same way the PPP dissolution was clearly related to the '07 constitution, as the same announcement by the coup group that led to the dissolution of TRT creeped its way into the new constitution.

Which is rather ironic, the PPP government tried to change this article, and also the amnesty that the coup group gave itself in the '07 constitution (any reasonable explanation why a retro-active amnesty for coup makers is in a constitution?), PAD with Democrat party support staged last year's debilitating protests.

As Abhisit is offering a parliamentary route to solve differences on charter ammendments and amnesty, it would seem that all parties should at least take the offerin good faith and see where it goes. The alternative is more mayhem which it seems the Thai people dont want. Whatever the motivation of any side a deal struck in parliament is the way ahead, and right now it probably has the best chance yet. We must be patient and see what happens and be open minded on it. The process is only about months. Surely everyone can wait a few months and see what happens.

Changes of party in power during a parliament are not exactly unheard of and machinations around them can be extreme, more so than has happened here - what did Harper in Canada do to cling to power when threatened with a no confidence. However, that is to digress. The people will have their sya when parliament is disolved which is 3 years max and likely less. If they dont like Abhisit they can reject his party en masse. A point many miss though is such parliamentary changes are usually avoided by the party in power disolving parliament before the opposition win the vote. Somchai had the chance to do this and was even urged to by some. He chose not to and then parliament changed government. PTP can hardly complain when they could have avoided this, but that is just parlaimentary machinations the same as the world over.

[animatic]

Your facts are a bit twisted. The crime the TRT committed was not related to the coup. What the TRT did was still a crime under the 1997 constitution (the People's Constitution) and the Organic Act on Political Parties (1998). Dissolution could have still been called for under the old constitution for illegally bankrolling smaller parties to make an election look legitimate.

In addition, under the old laws, an executive of a banned party could not apply for the formation of a new political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of a political party nor be a promoter of a new political party for a period of 5 years. What changed is that under the 2007 Constitution, for a period of 5 years, executives of a banned political party were prohibited from running for election.

I am confused by your comments against Abhisit. You seem to support politicians elected by the people as well as a return to the 1997 People's Constitution. Abhisit was elected by the people of Thailand and supports a return to the People's Constitution. In addition, he even supports giving the banned politicians amnesty.

What you need to understand is that this is a coalition government. Abhisit and the Democrats cannot put into place what they believe in without first getting the support of the other political parties in this coalition. This is according to the laws of Thailand that existed long before the 2006 coup.

Abhsit has been elected by the members of parliament, and not by the people. That means he has a parliamentary mandate, but lacks a popular mandate. By itself - this is legal. How though this parliamentary mandate came to pass (Newin's defection, etc...) is more than fishy. That is one of the reasons normal countries in those circumstances would call for elections, and not use extreme sophism to explain why they have to cling to power.

Abhsit has installed a commission looking into changes into the constitution. That does not necessarily mean a return to the '97 constitution. Some say that these changes he proposes could be to prevent a possible dissolution of his own party.

Abhsit may have made statements for an amnesty for the banned politicians, but Suthep has several times stated that he is against an amnesty. Abhsit is head of the small Bangkok faction of the Democrats. Within the party itself, Suthep wields much more power.

The dissolution of TRT was related to the coup. Previously the party would not have been dissolved, only the executive members found guilty would have been banned from politics. The same way the PPP dissolution was clearly related to the '07 constitution, as the same announcement by the coup group that led to the dissolution of TRT creeped its way into the new constitution.

Which is rather ironic, the PPP government tried to change this article, and also the amnesty that the coup group gave itself in the '07 constitution (any reasonable explanation why a retro-active amnesty for coup makers is in a constitution?), PAD with Democrat party support staged last year's debilitating protests.

[animatic]

Your facts are a bit twisted. The crime the TRT committed was not related to the coup. What the TRT did was still a crime under the 1997 constitution (the People's Constitution) and the Organic Act on Political Parties (1998). Dissolution could have still been called for under the old constitution for illegally bankrolling smaller parties to make an election look legitimate.

In addition, under the old laws, an executive of a banned party could not apply for the formation of a new political party, be a member of an Executive Committee of a political party nor be a promoter of a new political party for a period of 5 years. What changed is that under the 2007 Constitution, for a period of 5 years, executives of a banned political party were prohibited from running for election.

I am confused by your comments against Abhisit. You seem to support politicians elected by the people as well as a return to the 1997 People's Constitution. Abhisit was elected by the people of Thailand and supports a return to the People's Constitution. In addition, he even supports giving the banned politicians amnesty.

What you need to understand is that this is a coalition government. Abhisit and the Democrats cannot put into place what they believe in without first getting the support of the other political parties in this coalition. This is according to the laws of Thailand that existed long before the 2006 coup.

Abhsit has been elected by the members of parliament, and not by the people. That means he has a parliamentary mandate, but lacks a popular mandate. By itself - this is legal. How though this parliamentary mandate came to pass (Newin's defection, etc...) is more than fishy. That is one of the reasons normal countries in those circumstances would call for elections, and not use extreme sophism to explain why they have to cling to power.

Abhsit has installed a commission looking into changes into the constitution. That does not necessarily mean a return to the '97 constitution. Some say that these changes he proposes could be to prevent a possible dissolution of his own party.

Abhsit may have made statements for an amnesty for the banned politicians, but Suthep has several times stated that he is against an amnesty. Abhsit is head of the small Bangkok faction of the Democrats. Within the party itself, Suthep wields much more power.

The dissolution of TRT was related to the coup. Previously the party would not have been dissolved, only the executive members found guilty would have been banned from politics. The same way the PPP dissolution was clearly related to the '07 constitution, as the same announcement by the coup group that led to the dissolution of TRT creeped its way into the new constitution.

Which is rather ironic, the PPP government tried to change this article, and also the amnesty that the coup group gave itself in the '07 constitution (any reasonable explanation why a retro-active amnesty for coup makers is in a constitution?), PAD with Democrat party support staged last year's debilitating protests.

The only difference is that the 'party iconography' died with the 110 executives 5 year political rights.

The dregs of TRT became PPP, and it's dregs sans executive, became PTP, and we watch that flounder.

It just made it one extra punishment for malfeasance KNOWN and CONDONED by the executive.

The party members were never stopped from continuing in politics. So really a bit of a red herring.

[animatic]

Do you get to vote?

If any of haven't already caught on, the reason why dbrenn is asking this question, and the reason why in fact he asks it so regularly, is because he can. Were this thread a few years ago before his Thai citizenship application, my guess is that this question wouldn't have been on his lips all the time.

Rixalex - for once we agree on something. Those who hold the citizenship of a country should be allowed to participate in its democratic process in equal measure. Coercing and/or rewarding his Missus to vote on Animatic's behalf is just the kind of behaviour that the Dems eschew and call a red-only phenomenon. Don't you see the hypocrisy there? Using influence to cast a vote that would otherwise not have been cast is an undemocratic thing to do, and perverts the proper course of democracy, right? Only the Antichrist Thaksin is guilty of that, right?

You can maybe now understand why I feel so indignant when some tired old generals put tanks on the streets to install their favourite party, against the wishes of my fellow Thai voting public.

You are shameless, now you accuse me of coercing my wife.

Or treating her like a trained animal, carrot and stick style... How dare you.

In spite of statements to the contrary.

How my wife and I decide to cast 'our families vote' is nothing to do with how generals put tanks on the street either.

I have an interest in how Thailand progress for more than just one reason.

But insulting myself and my wife does NOT WIN YOU ANY POINTS TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

[justanothercybertosser]

Let's not try to confuse people with semantics and rhetoric and stick with the facts. MP's are elected by the people of Thailand. These elected MP's then vote for their PM and the PM with the most votes received from the elected members of parliament gains the parliamentary mandate to become PM. This is how it worked with Thaksin and Abhisit and all PM's who became PM after a parliamentary vote by elected MP's.

There seems to be much confusion on the parties being dissolved. I will say this again. If you do your homework you will find that the TRT and PPP parties could have been dissolved by the election laws prior to the 2006 coup. However, the laws brought in by the military junta increased the punishment to where all executives at the time a political party broke the law, could be banned from entering politics in any form for a period of 5 years. Previously, they could still run for election.

Abhist agrees that these laws are too punitive and supports rolling back to the 1997 constitution, save and accept for a few minor areas that he thinks can be amended. He discussed this in the Senate just yesterday, and Senators were elated that he went to the senate to hear their suggestions. They said they weren't used to a PM with an open mind since neither Thaksin nor any from the PPP ever valued the opinions of the Senate.

This is sad when people who do have the right to vote in Thailand don't make the best of this opportunity. If they kept an open mind, they would find that the best chance they have to achieving what they want is to support Abhisit and the Democrats. Many say Abhisit is ahead of his time in Thailand in that he actually wants to cross party lines and do what is best for this country. Voters, who are used to voting blindly simply don't see it, which is obvious from the posters here who can vote, who still close their eyes, take their payments and go on to complain ad nauseum.

Semantics?

No, parliamentary mandate and popular mandate are not semantics at all, especially when this parliamentary mandate came to pass with one banned politician switching allegiance and pulling a sizable number of MP's under his control to the Democrats. Furthermore, the persistent rumors of the military having had a role in the formation of this new coalition would demand new elections. Parliamentary representation does not mean that the voice of the voter should be circumvented and ignored. If the forming of the coalition is ignored, the parliamentary election of Abhsit was legal, but it surly did not fulfill the spirit of democracy.

Stop blathering about Abhisit does this, Abhisit does that. That may work for the superficially knowledgeable foreigner. Reality is, and you know that very well, that the man who wields more power is Suthep, who is Newin's counterpart in the Democrat Party - a ruthless and corrupt godfather politician. And what the semi-elected/semi-appointed Senate may be glad about, is completely besides the point as long as it is not fully elected.

Where are you people living? You brag about Abhisit as PM, and you ignore that the polarization of Thailand's society has never been as bad as now. Already three months talk of "reconciliation" and "rule of law" - and we had the worst clashes since may '92, the setting up of the "Blue Shirts" by Suthep and Newin, an Army that is right back in politics, and more split than even before and during the coup period and worse infractions against free speech and media freedom than even under Thaksin.

[hammered]

Let's not try to confuse people with semantics and rhetoric and stick with the facts. MP's are elected by the people of Thailand. These elected MP's then vote for their PM and the PM with the most votes received from the elected members of parliament gains the parliamentary mandate to become PM. This is how it worked with Thaksin and Abhisit and all PM's who became PM after a parliamentary vote by elected MP's.

There seems to be much confusion on the parties being dissolved. I will say this again. If you do your homework you will find that the TRT and PPP parties could have been dissolved by the election laws prior to the 2006 coup. However, the laws brought in by the military junta increased the punishment to where all executives at the time a political party broke the law, could be banned from entering politics in any form for a period of 5 years. Previously, they could still run for election.

Abhist agrees that these laws are too punitive and supports rolling back to the 1997 constitution, save and accept for a few minor areas that he thinks can be amended. He discussed this in the Senate just yesterday, and Senators were elated that he went to the senate to hear their suggestions. They said they weren't used to a PM with an open mind since neither Thaksin nor any from the PPP ever valued the opinions of the Senate.

This is sad when people who do have the right to vote in Thailand don't make the best of this opportunity. If they kept an open mind, they would find that the best chance they have to achieving what they want is to support Abhisit and the Democrats. Many say Abhisit is ahead of his time in Thailand in that he actually wants to cross party lines and do what is best for this country. Voters, who are used to voting blindly simply don't see it, which is obvious from the posters here who can vote, who still close their eyes, take their payments and go on to complain ad nauseum.

Semantics?

No, parliamentary mandate and popular mandate are not semantics at all, especially when this parliamentary mandate came to pass with one banned politician switching allegiance and pulling a sizable number of MP's under his control to the Democrats. Furthermore, the persistent rumors of the military having had a role in the formation of this new coalition would demand new elections. Parliamentary representation does not mean that the voice of the voter should be circumvented and ignored. If the forming of the coalition is ignored, the parliamentary election of Abhsit was legal, but it surly did not fulfill the spirit of democracy.

Stop blathering about Abhisit does this, Abhisit does that. That may work for the superficially knowledgeable foreigner. Reality is, and you know that very well, that the man who wields more power is Suthep, who is Newin's counterpart in the Democrat Party - a ruthless and corrupt godfather politician. And what the semi-elected/semi-appointed Senate may be glad about, is completely besides the point as long as it is not fully elected.

Where are you people living? You brag about Abhisit as PM, and you ignore that the polarization of Thailand's society has never been as bad as now. Already three months talk of "reconciliation" and "rule of law" - and we had the worst clashes since may '92, the setting up of the "Blue Shirts" by Suthep and Newin, an Army that is right back in politics, and more split than even before and during the coup period and worse infractions against free speech and media freedom than even under Thaksin.

Which is why it is time for the ammendment and amnesty to be discussed in parlaiment and via referenda if necesasary. The violence has created an opportunity for people to move this forward via talks.

By the way, while noting negatu ive developmenmts on one side you dont balance it with the very negative developments on the other;)

I would also add that what the senate thinks is important as right now we are in a position where if we want to do this peacefully the senate are going to have to vote it up too. Ignoring the senate means advocating violence or revolution. It doesnt even matter who is in government. The senate is still a legal body right now and one charged with voting on any proposed changes. How the senate is chosen is something that may very well be changed for the next constitution. However, under this one it needs to be involved.

It is arguable whether Suthep is the most powerful democrat. There are sevral others with a lot of behind the scenes power. All Dems rely on alliances for their position and these change. The Dem party is very large. Apart form Chuan they dont really have an option of leader from Abhisit right now which also increases his power. Interestingly he is clealr aware of divisions in his party but is willing to push the ammendment and manesty as he knows full well there will be majority support for it in parliament if not his party. that is something newfor a Thai PM. No Thai PM has ever thoguht beyond party and self interest before. How Abhisit wil be seen by hisotry remains to be seen and will be at least partly judged on what transpires from reform. His first 3month period ha sbeen overshadowed by a movement that was manipulated to violence against his government. However, there is now an opporunity for peaceful resolution. Whether the players involved will allow this remains to be sen, and one of those self interested players is Thaksin who by removal of the family before Songkhran telegraphed his willingness to encourage violence. Whether he is in a positon to do this again remains moot as the noises coming from the 111 have not been encouraging for him on this front and there seems little public support. Thyat could change if things are mishandled by the government side or the anti-violent sentiment could be reinforced if the extreme red side try more violence. There is also the PAD but right now they are biding their time.

In short, surely all reasonable peopel should now support the government offers of negotiation. Even some ex-TRT are encouraging Abhisit to go this way.

[animatic]

Except that polarization is Thaksin bred and born, Abhisit inherited it.

[dbrenn]

You are shameless, now you accuse me of coercing my wife.

Or treating her like a trained animal, carrot and stick style... How dare you.

In spite of statements to the contrary.

How my wife and I decide to cast 'our families vote' is nothing to do with how generals put tanks on the street either.

I have an interest in how Thailand progress for more than just one reason.

But insulting myself and my wife does NOT WIN YOU ANY POINTS TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

No insult to your wife - she sounds like a very nice lady who goes out of her way to make you happy.

In a democracy, there is a rule of one person, one vote.

You told us that your wife doesn't care about politics, but that you franchise out your vote through her. I was making the point that this is reminiscent of vote buying - people allowing their voting decisions to be made by others. After all, you were the one who was complaining about how the reds buy votes, that you had seen it with your own eyes, and how despicable the practice is. Do you realise that you are doing the very thing that you so despise, albeit on a smaller scale, by telling your wife who to vote for, and by renaming her vote a 'franchise' or 'families vote'? Don't you see the irony there? Does she show you her ballot paper before she puts it in the box?

That mindset looks very much like the kind of double standard that is tearing Thailand apart.

Edited May 3, 2009 by dbrenn

[Old Man River]

Let's not try to confuse people with semantics and rhetoric and stick with the facts. MP's are elected by the people of Thailand. These elected MP's then vote for their PM and the PM with the most votes received from the elected members of parliament gains the parliamentary mandate to become PM. This is how it worked with Thaksin and Abhisit and all PM's who became PM after a parliamentary vote by elected MP's.

There seems to be much confusion on the parties being dissolved. I will say this again. If you do your homework you will find that the TRT and PPP parties could have been dissolved by the election laws prior to the 2006 coup. However, the laws brought in by the military junta increased the punishment to where all executives at the time a political party broke the law, could be banned from entering politics in any form for a period of 5 years. Previously, they could still run for election.

Abhist agrees that these laws are too punitive and supports rolling back to the 1997 constitution, save and accept for a few minor areas that he thinks can be amended. He discussed this in the Senate just yesterday, and Senators were elated that he went to the senate to hear their suggestions. They said they weren't used to a PM with an open mind since neither Thaksin nor any from the PPP ever valued the opinions of the Senate.

This is sad when people who do have the right to vote in Thailand don't make the best of this opportunity. If they kept an open mind, they would find that the best chance they have to achieving what they want is to support Abhisit and the Democrats. Many say Abhisit is ahead of his time in Thailand in that he actually wants to cross party lines and do what is best for this country. Voters, who are used to voting blindly simply don't see it, which is obvious from the posters here who can vote, who still close their eyes, take their payments and go on to complain ad nauseum.

Semantics?

No, parliamentary mandate and popular mandate are not semantics at all, especially when this parliamentary mandate came to pass with one banned politician switching allegiance and pulling a sizable number of MP's under his control to the Democrats. Furthermore, the persistent rumors of the military having had a role in the formation of this new coalition would demand new elections. Parliamentary representation does not mean that the voice of the voter should be circumvented and ignored. If the forming of the coalition is ignored, the parliamentary election of Abhsit was legal, but it surly did not fulfill the spirit of democracy.

Stop blathering about Abhisit does this, Abhisit does that. That may work for the superficially knowledgeable foreigner. Reality is, and you know that very well, that the man who wields more power is Suthep, who is Newin's counterpart in the Democrat Party - a ruthless and corrupt godfather politician. And what the semi-elected/semi-appointed Senate may be glad about, is completely besides the point as long as it is not fully elected.

Where are you people living? You brag about Abhisit as PM, and you ignore that the polarization of Thailand's society has never been as bad as now. Already three months talk of "reconciliation" and "rule of law" - and we had the worst clashes since may '92, the setting up of the "Blue Shirts" by Suthep and Newin, an Army that is right back in politics, and more split than even before and during the coup period and worse infractions against free speech and media freedom than even under Thaksin.

I will never understand how some people who profess to understand Thailand and Thai election laws cannot understand that an elected MP who is selected by the majority of the other elected MP's is the PM. This is simple. It is black and white. There is no gray area in this.

I do understand that some may find fault with the way Abhisit gained control, as the election laws that allowed him to gain control were brought in by the coup, but it is Abhisit himself who wants to change this. He wants to revert back to the 1997 People's Constitution and even supports granting amnesty to the politicians that were banned!

People who argue against this simply are ignorant about the economic mess Thailand is in and the polarization that exists in its society. Here we finally have a PM seeking to rectify both and instead of support, people argue against him because he doesn't wear the right colored shirt. Ridiculous. Simply, unbelievably ridiculous.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Old Man River

[dbrenn]

I will never understand how some people who profess to understand Thailand and Thai election laws cannot understand that an elected MP who is selected by the majority of the other elected MP's is the PM. This is simple. It is black and white. There is no gray area in this.

I do understand that some may find fault with the way Abhisit gained control, as the election laws that allowed him to gain control were brought in by the coup, but it is Abhisit himself who wants to change this. He wants to revert back to the 1997 People's Constitution and even supports granting amnesty to the politicians that were banned!

People who argue against this simply are ignorant about the economic mess Thailand is in and the polarization that exists in its society. Here we finally have a PM seeking to rectify both and instead of support, people argue against him because he doesn't wear the right colored shirt. Ridiculous. Simply, unbelievably ridiculous.

People argue against Abhisit because they didn't vote for him and because he was put there by the army. Sure, he can talk about reconciliation all he likes. Talking is easy, but it's whether people listen that matters. From a platform of authoritarian military rule, he has a fundamental weakness, and his olive branches of reconciliation look more like poison ivy to a large segment of the population.

Shirt colour is merely a symptom of an underlying division in Thai society, not its root cause.

[animatic]

You are shameless, now you accuse me of coercing my wife.

Or treating her like a trained animal, carrot and stick style... How dare you.

In spite of statements to the contrary.

How my wife and I decide to cast 'our families vote' is nothing to do with how generals put tanks on the street either.

I have an interest in how Thailand progress for more than just one reason.

But insulting myself and my wife does NOT WIN YOU ANY POINTS TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

No insult to your wife - she sounds like a very nice lady who goes out of her way to make you happy.

In a democracy, there is a rule of one person, one vote.

You told us that your wife doesn't care about politics, but that you franchise out your vote through her. I was making the point that this is reminiscent of vote buying - people allowing their voting decisions to be made by others. After all, you were the one who was complaining about how the reds buy votes, that you had seen it with your own eyes, and how despicable the practice is. Do you realise that you are doing the very thing that you so despise, albeit on a smaller scale, by telling your wife who to vote for, and by renaming her vote a 'franchise' or 'families vote'? Don't you see the irony there? Does she show you her ballot paper before she puts it in the box?

That mindset looks very much like the kind of double standard that is tearing Thailand apart.

Not in the least the same thing.

No irony at all except in your attempts to belittle it.

it has always been her franchise to use as she sees fit.

My wife acknowledges that her vote represents all of us

for our family group's benefit.

'Telling' is changed from 'discussing and advising', because it makes your argument possible.

But belittles my Mrs. as if she can't think for herself. She can and does.

She obviously wants the best for her family.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[animatic]

The military has been behind every government in Thailand's history.

When the generals don't like the government they let it be known.

So yes we know this is not for the best, but dam_n hard to change.

So having Army backing Abhisit is not anything unusual.

The PPP and Democrats were very very close in the per head national voting.

PPP more via party list and Dems MORE via proportional voting.

Most of the party list from PPP was wiped out from election fraud of their own doing.

So the NEXT largest EXISTING party was the Dems and the margine of 2nd place for them

was statistically quite small.

They have every legal RIGHT to form a coalition when PTP failed to.

There is a close enough POPULAR mandate for Dems to take power.

If a 7% win party tried this I would also cry foul, but at 30% each Dems / PPP

it is a near draw and both are valid popular 1st and second place parties.

This is valid on most parliamentary systems and no they don't 'ALWAYS' call an election,

inter-party horse trading of the Newin sort is far from unknown and atypical.

If the army says we will back this move, if it happens,

then one more player mollified into the future.

No matter what the losing side will whine and kvetch and cry foul.

But the thing is in MOST democracies they do NOT start street fighting

and threaten insurrection and underground guerrilla wars if they lose.

Most people are not best pleased with the Red Shirts act lately,

even if some people find they still have SOME support in certain neighborhoods.

Edited May 3, 2009 by animatic

[rixalex]

No insult to your wife - blah blah blah

Your claim to not be insulting his wife is insincere and about as believable as your claim to not be a supporter of Thaksin.

[Old Man River]

I will never understand how some people who profess to understand Thailand and Thai election laws cannot understand that an elected MP who is selected by the majority of the other elected MP's is the PM. This is simple. It is black and white. There is no gray area in this.

I do understand that some may find fault with the way Abhisit gained control, as the election laws that allowed him to gain control were brought in by the coup, but it is Abhisit himself who wants to change this. He wants to revert back to the 1997 People's Constitution and even supports granting amnesty to the politicians that were banned!

People who argue against this simply are ignorant about the economic mess Thailand is in and the polarization that exists in its society. Here we finally have a PM seeking to rectify both and instead of support, people argue against him because he doesn't wear the right colored shirt. Ridiculous. Simply, unbelievably ridiculous.

People argue against Abhisit because they didn't vote for him and because he was put there by the army. Sure, he can talk about reconciliation all he likes. Talking is easy, but it's whether people listen that matters. From a platform of authoritarian military rule, he has a fundamental weakness, and his olive branches of reconciliation look more like poison ivy to a large segment of the population.

Shirt colour is merely a symptom of an underlying division in Thai society, not its root cause.

Let me put it to you this way, if Abhisit fails in bringing national reconciliation to Thailand, you will never see the type of Thailand you argue for. Abhisit is fighting uphill as it is. He does not have complete support from his own party and certainly his wishing to trash the military's constitution isn't winning him a lot of supporters there either. He may well fail, and if he does, your right to vote will become even less meaningless that it is now. He is your last chance, unless you still think Thaksin is going to ride in on a white horse.