Has Thailand Made Progress? Thaksin Taunts

[Supernova]

Thaksin got a huge mandate from actual elections. people voted for Thaksin, So did the government which then had Samak hoisted on them (moron though he was and is). Abhisit just does not have the same legitimacy. What's to understand? The electoral numbers are out there, it isn't exactly rocket science.

Why not try looking at, and understanding, the electoral numbers, or is sub-rocket science not your forte? Thaksin was a list MP for the TRT, so nobody actually voted for him. Most people voted for the same politicians, or their family members / nominees, as they always have. The politicians were either pre bought by Thaksin, skipping their old party to join the TRT, or joined his coalition because they don't have the moral integrity of the Democrats, and knew that they could get a bigger share of the trough if they were in the ruling coalition. A fact well illustrated by the 1996 election results, where the Thaksin led PDP party received only one seat in parliament. It wasn't until he spent big, forming TRT in 1998 by buying up MP's and doing deals with smaller parties, that he was able to be a serious contender. As an example, the New Aspiration Party, which had the most seats in 1996, with 125, dropped to only 36 in 2001. Not surprisingly, mainy of its former MP's were now in the TRT party, taking their guaranteed votes with them. This number dropped to no seats in 2005, again very few of its old MPs were out of a job, they were swilling out in the TRT trough. If you want my prediction for the next election, the list of MP's will be very similar to todays, only their parties and coalitions may have changed. This is with or without Thaksin, who has far less of a role than many here would have us believe. Something he very much realises, hence his increasing agitations from his rathole.

Finally, please name me one MP who voted for Abhisit as PM who was not elected in a democratic election? (I use the democratic term very loosely, as, in my opinion, there has never been a truely democratic election in Thailand, but if an election is good enough for all you red huggers, as the 2007 one is claimed to be, then I suppose it's good enough for this purpose).

This post would have been a lot better had it not include the part about the Democrats having 'moral integrity'. In Thai politics, the concept of moral integrity does not exist. Thai politicians (as you've pointed out) will only do what benefits them most.

[hammered]

Thaksin got a huge mandate from actual elections. people voted for Thaksin, So did the government which then had Samak hoisted on them (moron though he was and is). Abhisit just does not have the same legitimacy. What's to understand? The electoral numbers are out there, it isn't exactly rocket science.

Why not try looking at, and understanding, the electoral numbers, or is sub-rocket science not your forte? Thaksin was a list MP for the TRT, so nobody actually voted for him. Most people voted for the same politicians, or their family members / nominees, as they always have. The politicians were either pre bought by Thaksin, skipping their old party to join the TRT, or joined his coalition because they don't have the moral integrity of the Democrats, and knew that they could get a bigger share of the trough if they were in the ruling coalition. A fact well illustrated by the 1996 election results, where the Thaksin led PDP party received only one seat in parliament. It wasn't until he spent big, forming TRT in 1998 by buying up MP's and doing deals with smaller parties, that he was able to be a serious contender. As an example, the New Aspiration Party, which had the most seats in 1996, with 125, dropped to only 36 in 2001. Not surprisingly, mainy of its former MP's were now in the TRT party, taking their guaranteed votes with them. This number dropped to no seats in 2005, again very few of its old MPs were out of a job, they were swilling out in the TRT trough. If you want my prediction for the next election, the list of MP's will be very similar to todays, only their parties and coalitions may have changed. This is with or without Thaksin, who has far less of a role than many here would have us believe. Something he very much realises, hence his increasing agitations from his rathole.

Finally, please name me one MP who voted for Abhisit as PM who was not elected in a democratic election? (I use the democratic term very loosely, as, in my opinion, there has never been a truely democratic election in Thailand, but if an election is good enough for all you red huggers, as the 2007 one is claimed to be, then I suppose it's good enough for this purpose).

Your description of how party hopping and buying sitting MPs works in Thailand should be required reading for anyone who wants an understanding of Thai politcs. It puts to shame anything on the shoddy politcal Thai blogosphere.

For a little additional history NAP became prevalent when they sucked up a large group of MPs previosuly aligned with Banharn and thereby gained an almost totqal monopoly of the Isaan which credit to Chavalit he was the first to identify as being enough on its own to slip him into power. Poltically hoovering up MPs wasnt invented by Thaksin he just took it to a new level helped by his businesses having survived the naive Chavlit administrations disatrous control of the baht better than busienss of other poltical power brokers such including Chavalits clan. He was also helped by the 1997 constitution which he first recognized as suiting very large parties and recognizing that while the checks and balances the new constittuion introduced were theoretically able to limit poltiicans in reality their newness and existance unsupported in the country made them very vulnerable to traditonal poltical games. Thaksin's great suck as it was termed was well covered in its day when the Thai media were still quite free and nowhere near as polticially intimidated as they became under Thaiksin and subsequent governments.

[ballpoint]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

This is called dissembling and if you cant do better than this then frankly I am not going to bother with you.

The facts as I understand them are these:

Thaksin's party was elected in 2002. Thaksin was elected PM. In normal conversation, this is called Thaksi winning the election.

Thailand went to the polls in 2006. The Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get a world-class kicking and were unelectable, boycotted the election, which was later declared unconstitutional For shame. before the re-run election, the powers behind the Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get another world-class kicking and were unelectable, engineered a coup.

in 2008, the PPP were elected and Samak was appointed PM.

Now all of this is really easy to understand, like I said, it isnlt rocket science.

So what you can do for me before I completely give up on you is this. How was it that the Democrats (according to you) won the election in the Thai voting system but were not elected? Please explain because this appears to be seriously out of the ball park thinking.

TRT/PPP/Thaksin have been elected by the electorate 3 times. No matter how much you twist, writhe, gyrate and dissemble, The Democrats/Abhisit have not been elected by the electorate.

I honestly didn't think it was going to be this hard. This really is democracy 101 and frankly if you cannot make sense at this level of rationality then you really ought to put in some study and come back later.

I don't know why you bother either, you don't even know what year the first TRT win was in. And please show me where I said the democrats "won the election in the Thai voting system"?

In 2001, Thaksin's TRT won the election by buying up politicians it knew were going to get voted for.

In 2005, seeing the way the land lay, many more smaller party politicians joined TRT.

In April 2006, the Democrats exercised their democratic right and chose not to contest the election on the principle that Thaksin had behaved unethically in his sale of Shin Corp, and was not fit to be PM. Following the lack of a mandate in this election, Thaksin resigned two days later, but surprise surprise, went back on his word and came back as caretaker PM following the finding of the constitution court that the election was invalid, and new ones would be held in October. In September 2006, the army stepped in and overthrew his caretaker government while he was attending the UN general assembly. To the great relief of the general population.

In 2007, the PPP got 36.63% of the constituency vote, compared to 30.3% for the Democrats. However, it got less slightly votes over all (no, I didn't say it before, and I'm still waiting for you to show me where I did, but I'm saying it now), with 39.60% of the proportional vote, compared to 39.63% for the Democrats. If you don't understand how this could be, I suggest you really ought to put in some study and come back later. As a starter, if I have three electorates, each with a million voters and two parties A and B. In electorate one, A gets 800,000 votes, B gets 200,000. In electorate two, A gets 400,000 votes, B gets 600,000. In electorate three, A gets 350,000 votes, B gets 650,000. Who wins the election? B with two seats. Who got the most votes? A with 1,550,000 compared to B's 1,450,000. Come one, do keep up, it isn't rocket science.

Again, show me one MP who voted for Abhisit as PM who was not elected by the electorate?

[ballpoint]

This post would have been a lot better had it not include the part about the Democrats having 'moral integrity'. In Thai politics, the concept of moral integrity does not exist. Thai politicians (as you've pointed out) will only do what benefits them most.

Okay, I admit that may have been going a little far. But, the point was, the core Democrats chose to be in opposition rather than jump onto the TRT bandwagon along with all the other self serving party deserters. I also believe Abhisit himself has more integrity that Thaksin, and a party of thieves and scum led by an honest man is at least a step up from a party of thieves and scum led by a thief and scumbag.

[mca]

In April 2006, the Democrats exercised their democratic right and chose not to contest the election on the principle that Thaksin had behaved unethically in his sale of Shin Corp, and was not fit to be PM.

In my humble opinion if the Democrats had thought they had a snowball's chance in hel_l of winning they wouldn't have given a flying one about Thaksin's ethics. Tbey would have used the sale of Shin Corp as a the cherry on the trifle as to why they should be the ones in power and he should be booted out.

[ajarnmark]

Well, some people tried to attack Thaksin as if he was their enemy. Maybe true because in his time many foreigners (mostly western people) find it difficult to get visa for the purpose they are not staying in Thailand, i.e. getting back to back tourist visas to live here for 10+ years.

The fact is that in Thaksin's time Thailand was cleared of many things, such as drugs and unwanted people (read above). Surely there were many innocent lives were lost, but not even 0.0001% of those compared to in Afghanistan or Iraq.

If anyone (including my ex-gf) thinks that Thailand without Thaksin can be a better place, then they are grossly mistaken. He did many good things for Thailand, if we just think neutrally, but sadly few people in bkk are very narrow minded and cant think of anything other than opposing a person, who did nothing bad to them but was giving benefits to poors. If anyone thinks its vote buying, then good for u.

No, I am not Thai and yes, I am merely interested in good things happen to Thailand and Thai people in general.

[samran]

In April 2006, the Democrats exercised their democratic right and chose not to contest the election on the principle that Thaksin had behaved unethically in his sale of Shin Corp, and was not fit to be PM.

In my humble opinion if the Democrats had thought they had a snowball's chance in hel_l of winning they wouldn't have given a flying one about Thaksin's ethics. Tbey would have used the sale of Shin Corp as a the cherry on the trifle as to why they should be the ones in power and he should be booted out.

That ignores though how huge a risk it was for them to boycott the election. Had the 20% quota have been reached, they would have been shut out of government for 5 years, it would have been a disaster.

It also ignores the fact that boycotts, while admirable if done once, quickly become ‘old’ with the electorate, yes, even in Thailand. You force people to go to the polls too often, and they can and do turn on you. This is what the democrats, I believe, were relying on, but with Thaksin making the people go to the polls too often.

I think people forget the political dynamics at the time. Thaksin was on the ropes electorally. The sale of Sh!tcorp to Tamasek pissed off even his own nationalistically inclined rural base, not to mention those in the cities who had previously supported him. In addition, you had the PAD rallies going on, the defamation cases going against journo’s all which were adding to his unpopularity.

He went back to the polls twice, quite quickly, to try and renew his mandate, but the democrats smelt blood the second time, and hence the boycott. Three or four elections in two years, all called by dear leader, would have weakened him substantially.

I don’t buy that the Democrats were necessarily in cahoots with the Military with the coup. Why would they? A legitimate, but politically bruising victory against TRT would have been quite close, after a gridlocked 2006 and 2007 had the coup not have happened.

Would have senior democrats known about it? Sure they would have. Just like senior TRT politicians would have. The political class here, on both sides is so incestuous that it is impossible for people not to have known. Does that make them complicit? No.

While the democrats are now in government, they are subject to questions about their legitimacy (whether founded or not), they’ve had to get into bed with some of the more unsavoury members of TRT who have jumped ship. And as others have said, the military have more of a say in politics than anytime since the early 1990’s.

Edited September 23, 2009 by samran

[manjara]

....

I honestly didn't think it was going to be this hard. This really is democracy 101, it really doesn't get any more basic than this, and frankly if you cannot make sense at this level of rationality then you really ought to put in some study and come back later.

Don't apply 'western' democracy standards to Thailand. A democratic election in Thailand is not the same as a democratic election in, say, Germany. Before you start giving me the 'one person, one vote' story, I'm well aware of that, but speak to any (rural) Thai about any of the issues in the election and you will see how much 'choice' is being exercised.

Now, if you want to start arguing that western electorates are equally clueless, I might have some time for that!

[TAWP]

The only party with any ideology is the Democrat Party.

Yes, as odious and abhorrent as the ideology is, you are right.

Uh, what?

What exactly is it you think their ideology is?

1. Maintain the status quo

2. Maintain the sakdina

3. Keep the elites elite

4. Keep the troughs full and your snouts and two front trotters in them (same as any Thai government)

5. Clampdown. Clampdown, Clampdown. The nal that stands out must be hammered down

6. Conformity at all costs

7. Give the armed forces whatever they want

8. <deleted> the poor over at every opportunity

9. Maintain the illusion of integrity for the stupid foreigners who donlt understand thailand (same as every Thai government).

10. If it moves, swindle it. if it doesn't move, swindle it.

Just off the top of my head... My their actions shall you know them.

This isn't any ideology the party has, this is your childish attack on them what you think their secret agenda is.

Not the same thing.

But since you still think Samak was elected while Abhisit wasn't...nothing can really educate you.

[TAWP]

I see. Well if he got more votes than PPP, why did he not get elected then? (this ought to be good). You seem to have some difficulty understanding the democratic principle that they who get the votes get elected, whereas they who don't don't. You seem to be saying (and I assume with a straight face) that Abhisit got more votes and yet didn't get elected...

I want to quote this section for future debates so everyone that ever feel inclined to start to argue with KBW can see first hand that he has no clue how the electoral system works here in Thailand.

No need to correct him, he will not read the reply.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

This is called dissembling and if you cant do better than this then frankly I am not going to bother with you.

The facts as I understand them are these:

Thaksin's party was elected in 2002. Thaksin was elected PM. In normal conversation, this is called Thaksi winning the election.

Thailand went to the polls in 2006. The Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get a world-class kicking and were unelectable, boycotted the election, which was later declared unconstitutional For shame. before the re-run election, the powers behind the Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get another world-class kicking and were unelectable, engineered a coup.

in 2008, the PPP were elected and Samak was appointed PM.

Now all of this is really easy to understand, like I said, it isnlt rocket science.

So what you can do for me before I completely give up on you is this. How was it that the Democrats (according to you) won the election in the Thai voting system but were not elected? Please explain because this appears to be seriously out of the ball park thinking.

TRT/PPP/Thaksin have been elected by the electorate 3 times. No matter how much you twist, writhe, gyrate and dissemble, The Democrats/Abhisit have not been elected by the electorate.

I honestly didn't think it was going to be this hard. This really is democracy 101 and frankly if you cannot make sense at this level of rationality then you really ought to put in some study and come back later.

I don't know why you bother either, <snip>

Then we are agreed.

You're right. Thaksin never won an election. Abhisit was properly elected by the people. Fairies live at the bottom of my garden and Thailand is an outer province of Antarctica.

I'm sorry, I hope you will forgive me but you just don't seem to understand what everyone else in Thailand already knows. You seem only to want to use Schopenhauer dissembling techniques to get some kind of self-esteem boost and I just don't have the time to engage in silliness. Good luck with it though, doubtless you need the boost.

I am reminded of sage advice from a friend when I was in a similar position to this one. He said "Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and will win because of greater experience of being idiots".

Say hello from me to Santa Claus and the tooth fairy when you see them next.

Edited September 23, 2009 by KevinBloodyWilson

[samran]

I see. Well if he got more votes than PPP, why did he not get elected then? (this ought to be good). You seem to have some difficulty understanding the democratic principle that they who get the votes get elected, whereas they who don't don't. You seem to be saying (and I assume with a straight face) that Abhisit got more votes and yet didn't get elected...

I want to quote this section for future debates so everyone that ever feel inclined to start to argue with KBW can see first hand that he has no clue how the electoral system works here in Thailand.

No need to correct him, he will not read the reply.

the orginal kevin bloody wilson was much funnier too.

Hey Santa...wheres my fukcing bike?

[KevinBloodyWilson]

the orginal kevin bloody wilson was much funnier too.

Hey Santa...wheres my fukcing bike?

The full quote was Hey! Santa you <snip>! Where's my f*cking bike.

Not as entertaining as hearing that Thaksin never won an election though...

My personal favourite though is: "My face is leaving town on the next stage, and I want you to be on it..."

[samran]

the orginal kevin bloody wilson was much funnier too.

Hey Santa...wheres my fukcing bike?

The full quote was Hey! Santa you <snip>! Where's my f*cking bike.

Not as entertaining as hearing that Thaksin never won an election though...

My personal favourite though is: "My face is leaving town on the next stage, and I want you to be on it..."

note the ...

enough children here that must be protected from the badest of the bad swear words...

[ballpoint]

Then we are agreed.

You're right. Thaksin never won an election. Abhisit was properly elected by the people. Fairies live at the bottom of my garden and Thailand is an outer province of Antarctica.

I'm sorry, I hope you will forgive me but you just don't seem to understand what everyone else in Thailand already knows. You seem only to want to use Schopenhauer dissembling techniques to get some kind of self-esteem boost and I just don't have the time to engage in silliness. Good luck with it though, doubtless you need the boost.

I am reminded of sage advice from a friend when I was in a similar position to this one. He said "Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and will win because of greater experience of being idiots".

Say hello from me to Santa Claus and the tooth fairy when you see them next.

You're obviously not interested in anything other than trolling and flaming. You haven't countered a point I've raised. You accuse all who disagree with you of childishness and being idiots, without making a single fact to backup your statements. You suddenly appeared on the forum without taking the courtesy of introducing yourself in the new members section, and you have made it clear your thoughts on the intelligence of the very Thai's you laud for voting for Thaksin. Par for the course for the red huggers, I'm afraid.

[mca]

 without making a single fact to backup your statements.  

So Thaksin didn't win an election? Apahsit was voted in by the people in a general election?

I must be reading the wrong newspapers. 

[webfact]

//advise//

Before this discussion runs into the wrong direction I advise everybody to keep it civil and refrain from flaming. Otherwise warnings will be given

Thanks for your cooperation

[TAWP]

 without making a single fact to backup your statements.  

So Thaksin didn't win an election? Apahsit was voted in by the people in a general election?

Neither was voted into position of PM by the people.

Maybe you need to learn how the electoral process works here too?

They where both in the position of PM the same way, as was Samak et al.

You do know how, right?

[mca]

TAWP. I knew somebody was going to come back with that. Now you know full well what I meant but, as par for the course, it's the nitpicking over generally accepted terms because there's no real rebuttal to get your teeth into is there?

OK Let's make it easy. The people who form a government are said to have won right? I think that would be the generally accepted usage of about 99.9% of the population who weren't morons wouldn't it? Now splitting hairs about how Thaksin didn't win is the last resort of somebody who can't refute the facts.  Did TRT or PPP not form a government after an election? Were Thaksin and Samak then the PMs? Would that not be  a win in your book? Are these not the facts that were questioned?

I notice you didn't pull me up on Aphasit not being voted in by the people in an election but then again you couldn't really could you. 

[Ulysses G.]

Then we are agreed.

You're right. Thaksin never won an election. Abhisit was properly elected by the people. Fairies live at the bottom of my garden and Thailand is an outer province of Antarctica.

I'm sorry, I hope you will forgive me but you just don't seem to understand what everyone else in Thailand already knows. You seem only to want to use Schopenhauer dissembling techniques to get some kind of self-esteem boost and I just don't have the time to engage in silliness. Good luck with it though, doubtless you need the boost.

I am reminded of sage advice from a friend when I was in a similar position to this one. He said "Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and will win because of greater experience of being idiots".

Say hello from me to Santa Claus and the tooth fairy when you see them next.

You're obviously not interested in anything other than trolling and flaming. You haven't countered a point I've raised. You accuse all who disagree with you of childishness and being idiots, without making a single fact to backup your statements. You suddenly appeared on the forum without taking the courtesy of introducing yourself in the new members section, and you have made it clear your thoughts on the intelligence of the very Thai's you laud for voting for Thaksin. Par for the course for the red huggers, I'm afraid.

How can you claim that he has not countered a single point that you have made? He has countered them all using both logical facts and sarcasm. He has ripped you a new butthole if we were to get technical about it.

KevinBloodyWilson' date='2009-09-23 18:18:06' post='3032158']

This is called dissembling and if you cant do better than this then frankly I am not going to bother with you.

The facts as I understand them are these:

Thaksin's party was elected in 2002. Thaksin was elected PM. In normal conversation, this is called Thaksi winning the election.

Thailand went to the polls in 2006. The Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get a world-class kicking and were unelectable, boycotted the election, which was later declared unconstitutional For shame. before the re-run election, the powers behind the Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get another world-class kicking and were unelectable, engineered a coup.

in 2008, the PPP were elected and Samak was appointed PM.

Now all of this is really easy to understand, like I said, it isnlt rocket science.

So what you can do for me before I completely give up on you is this. How was it that the Democrats (according to you) won the election in the Thai voting system but were not elected? Please explain because this appears to be seriously out of the ball park thinking.

TRT/PPP/Thaksin have been elected by the electorate 3 times. No matter how much you twist, writhe, gyrate and dissemble, The Democrats/Abhisit have not been elected by the electorate.

I honestly didn't think it was going to be this hard. This really is democracy 101 and frankly if you cannot make sense at this level of rationality then you really ought to put in some study and come back later.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Neither was voted into position of PM by the people.

Diversion. This is like saying that swine flu doesn't kill anyone, it is pneumonia that kills them. But swine flu causes the pneumonia so the diversion is both irrelevant and transparent. It is - if you will - an accountant statement - technically correct but useless for all purposes other than a fine point of principle. In psychology we recognise this as characteristic of an anal retentive.

Never-the-less, you are entitled to make the anally-retentive fine distinction and I am entitled to draw conclusions from that.

Maybe you need to learn how the electoral process works here too?

Diversion and attempted straw man. I know how the electoral system works just fine thanks, I just don't stake my self-esteem on a pointless splitting of hairs. The point I made was clear enough. Thaksin won elections and Abhisit did not.

Dear oh dear you really are in the most awful trouble with this one arent you?

They where both in the position of PM the same way, as was Samak et al.

Diversion - you know, you really are not very good at this. We all know that the people who voted for TRT and PPP were voting for Thaksin by proxy. Including those who voted for Newin and his friends. The only way Abhisit scrambled his way into the PM's chair was that Newin was offered inducements to change sides by the army, who were believed to have brokered the deal on behalf of Prem.

You do know how, right?

I know a few things, and after your not very-skilled and almost completely off-topic contribution, I now know a few more.

Edited September 23, 2009 by KevinBloodyWilson

[KevinBloodyWilson]

<snippety>

Just off the top of my head... By their actions shall you know them.

This isn't any ideology the party has, this is your childish attack on them what you think their secret agenda is.

OK Sparky, what is their ideaology? Shall I wizz out for a meal and a pint while you are trying to remember?

Not the same thing.

Indeed, but the only response in the absence of any ideology at all. Nature abhors a vacuum.

But since you still think Samak was elected while Abhisit wasn't...nothing can really educate you.

:D

Thats right lad, TRT was never elected, Thaksin was never PM, PPP was never elected, Samak was never PM. The Democrats were elected, Abhisit is the choice of the people.

:D

Oh dear... is that snow?

Let me buy you a good-natured pint lad, it looks like you need it.

Edited September 23, 2009 by KevinBloodyWilson

[KevinBloodyWilson]

the orginal kevin bloody wilson was much funnier too.

Hey Santa...wheres my fukcing bike?

The full quote was Hey! Santa you <snip>! Where's my f*cking bike.

Not as entertaining as hearing that Thaksin never won an election though...

My personal favourite though is: "My face is leaving town on the next stage, and I want you to be on it..."

note the ...

enough children here that must be protected from the badest of the bad swear words...

Ahhh. Fair play to you.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

You're obviously not interested in anything other than trolling and flaming. You haven't countered a point I've raised. You accuse all who disagree with you of childishness and being idiots, without making a single fact to backup your statements.

And out comes the fol-de-ro argument. careful - next youlll call me a nazi and you will automaticall lose under Godwin's rule.

You suddenly appeared on the forum without taking the courtesy of introducing yourself in the new members section,...

Oh I see! You are pissed because I didn't present myself for inspection...

and you have made it clear your thoughts on the intelligence of the very Thai's you laud for voting for Thaksin. Par for the course for the red huggers, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry. I have out-argued you and I understand you are unhappy with it. I apologise for my offence. Tell me where you live and I'll come round and buy you a beer to cry into.

[TAWP]

[Credo]

Kevin: Thanks. It's nice to see someone argue the facts and win. It's been a good and educational discussion.

Too bad for the people whose basic arguement is that they don't like him and he shouldn't be allowed to come back (to politics).

Unless there is some remedial attempt to allow the electoral process to work in the country, there will be little chance of resolving the conflicts facing the nation.

[Plus]

Which 'allegation' shall we start with? The fact that Thaksin was elected and re-elected, then served as caretaker PM after the result was anulled because the democratic democrat party decided it couldn't win so took their ball and went home?

No, I specifically asked you about Prem's alleged involvement with police chief appointment.

That would be a start.

Where are those "reports" and why do they not make any sense?

Which side is Prem backing? Abhisit's or Newin's?

..the facts as I understand them are these:

Thaksin's party was elected in 2002. Thaksin was elected PM. In normal conversation, this is called Thaksi winning the election.

...

in 2008, the PPP were elected and Samak was appointed PM.

Samak was appointed?

Never mind the dates you hopelessly screwed up, but there was a vote in parliament, which Samak won.

Moving forward to about a year later, there was another vote in parliament, and it was won by Abhisit.

People in Thailand NEVER vote for the PM, they vote for their local representative and for their favorite party on the party list.

Thaksin, Abhisit, and Samak were all candidates on a party list system, and those are the only votes they get from people. I mentioned it because you insisted on "elected by people" and party list is the closest approximation to party leaders being voted in by people, and Abhisit got more votes than Samak.

But again, when the PM vote takes place, it happens in parliament, with both party list MPs and consituency MPs casting votes together. That's a parliamentary vote that Abhisit won squarely.

[brahmburgers]

Thai politics works on a Parliamentary method. Abhisit, and most other PMs who preceded him are a result of that.

T got in to power in a similar fashion, by building coalitions among elected MPs and other power brokers. The MPs were largely elected by rote (voters were told who to vote for by their elders and/or pu yai ban). It's also no secret, and few deny that TRT had a widespread and efficient vote-buying network. Perhaps a dirty democratic process is better than no democracy at all, that's debatable.

All would have been reasonably well if T had taken his position and done right for the Thai people. Unfortunately, he got excessively greedy for self-enrichment and power consolidation. Hand in hand with that are the slew of other ugly characteristics that we've been noticing and hearing about for the past half dozen years. Coup d'etats are not democratic, but there comes a time when the interests of the country and its citizens take precedence over a harmful leader.

Thankfully, the coup was bloodless. Now Thailand is on a long painful process back toward being governed by comparatively decent and wise people. It doesn't take much decency and wisdom to outshine those that were previously in top positions, as the bar has been lowered almost to ground level.

[Siripon]

I'm trying to think of decent public figures who still side with Thaksin.

Before power went to his head there was a slew of names but now I can't think of anyone apart from Jaturon Chaisaeng.

[hammered]

I wonder if Netanhyahu and Timoshenko among others should be removed from PM positions after not winning elections but being voted in as PM in parliament?

Amazing how so many people dont understand the (Westminster) Parliamentary system which Thailand in a slightly adapted form uses. I guess if bought up under one of the several different presidential systems that is understandable. Usually the head of the largest party becomes PM. However, that is not a requirement as the parliament of the elected representatives of the people has the authority to select anyone within constitutional limits they want to be PM. It really doeant matter if they are from a party of one or 400 seats and in some cases (not Thailand) it doesnt even matter if they are an MP. The parliamentary system also has the inbuilt check that if a PM falls or is disgraced then a new election doesnt have to be called but parliament can then choose another PM although in many cases as in Thailand a PM has the right to disolve the parliament. If as in Thailand the PM chooses not to disolve the parliament (Somchai made this decision) then the selection of the next PM is returned to parliament. What a parlaiment does is judged by the people when they reselect their representatives at a subsequent election and they can turf them out if they dont like what they did. However while in session the parliamnet is the supreme body and can do what it wants within constitutional limits including changing which party the PM coems from. This is not unique to Thailand in any way. Abhisit has as much right to be PM as any other constiotutionally qualified person who parliament choose. That is quite simple and that is under the parlaimentary system democratic. The people as mentioned get their say later although unless th esystem is changed will continue to not have a direct choice of who the PM is. In many places using this system the head of state invites a leader to form a government. That is how Netanyahu fornmed his government. Inviting the head of a party without the most seats in parlaiment to form a government.... That must cause utter confusion in the minds of those who confuse presidential systems with parlaimanetary ones not that it would bnother pure propagandists tryign to sell a marketable line.

By the way, I wonder if anyone can name a Thai PM not so long ago who was elected PM by parliament after his party got about 13 seats?

Sometimes it is better to look at things away from the direct propaganda of Red and yellow and the power players. Parlaimentary Poltics 101 althoug simplistic still clearly has something to offer.