Abhisit Is The Legitimate Thai Prime Minister

[anotherpeter]

On every thread that is even slightly political there ends up being a post that basically says that Abhisit is not the legitimate elected PM of Thailand.

Following that statement, there are usually explanations that explain why he is the legitimate elected PM, but there are hardly ever any responses refuting the explanations or EXPLAINING why he is not legitimate.

** This isn't about whether the Abhisit government is good or bad, it is about whether it is legitimate **

Below is a time line of events from about the last few years:

- TRT won the 2001 and 2005 elections, the 2005 election convincingly, and Thaksin was selected by them to be PM.

- In 2006 Thaksin disolved parliment and called new elections. It is said he did this to get a popular mandate to get approval to sell his company (Shin Corp) to Temasek in Singapore.

- The Democrats boycotted the 2006 elections. It is said that the Democrats paid some smaller parties to also boycott the elections, and that TRT paid or set up other parties to run against them.

- The TRT got only 61% of the vote (even though there was no opposition).

- Thaksin resigned 2 days after the election (I didn't know this - just read it in wiki).

- The Constitutional Court declard the election invalid.

- New elections were scheduled for October 2006.

- The coup occured un September 2006.

- Elections were held in December 2007.

- The PPP party formed a coalition government with some smaller parties. Apparently some of these smaller parties had campaigned during the election that they would not do this. Samak was elected PM.

- Samak was found guilty of being paid for doing his cooking show. The law stated that the PM could not be paid for jobs other than PM. It wasn't doing the cooking show that was wrong, it was being paid for it.

- The PPP selected Somchai as the new PM.

- The PAD occupied government house and forced the airports to close.

- The courts ruled that the executive of the PPP were involved in electoral fraud and disbanded the party. Some PPP MPs were banned. Most PPP MPs moved to the smaller parties, mainly the Peau Thai party.

- The ex-PPP MPs and existing coalition parties were unable to agree on a new coalition.

- The Democrats were able to form a coalition with the smaller parties to form government.

- The coalition of parties (the Democrats being the largest of the parties) selected Abhisit to be PM.

As far as the people not voting for Abhisit:

- The people vote for an MP to represent them in the government.

- The party with the majority of elected MPs forms government. If they don't have a majority, they form a coalition with smaller parties until they have a majority.

- The MPs from the party or coalition of parties that form government select one of the their MPs to be PM. (In most cases the leader of the major party becomes PM.)

So, that is how a democracy works. That is how a legitimate government is formed.

Did I miss anything? Are there any mistakes?

[soinowinbkk]

Excellent account -- thanks so much. Democracy at work -- at least, the form of it that Thailand's constitution follows (no direct "election" of the Prime Minister as in the US).

There was a lack of a certain decree to allow the acceptance of that election in 2006, as well, if I recall correctly.

UNRELATED: What has happened to the "Thaivisa Bangkok Red-shirt Rally-Live Updates"?

They have gone silent. Hard to believe that there is nothing to report! [at 5.40 PM on Sunday of the 'big day']

[morphem]

The problem is, with a direct general election, like we got here in France, the chain of event would be way much simpler :

- General direct election of prime minister : A red leader ( T or else) is elected with a large majority.

- Stability for the next 5 years. End of the story.

This is Democracy and This scares a couple of Big Dudes in BKK apparently.

[anotherpeter]

The problem is, with a direct general election, like we got here in France, the chain of event would be way much simpler :

- General direct election of prime minister : A red leader ( T or else) is elected with a large majority.

- Stability for the next 5 years. End of the story.

This is Democracy and This scares a couple of Big Dudes in BKK apparently.

Not necessarily. The Democrats got more votes in the proportional component of the 2007 election. 39.63% of votes compared to 39.60% of the votes for the PPP.

Besides, it's just a different process, it doesn't make it any more or less of a democracy.

And, it doesn't make Abhisit any less legitimate.

Edited March 14, 2010 by anotherpeter

[britmaveric]

Ahhh the puppet PM is legitimate?

[anotherpeter]

Ahhh the puppet PM is legitimate?

Well, I posted my reasoning as to why he was.

Rather than the usual one liners that actually mean nothing, how about some reasoning as to why he isn't legitimate.

[neverdie]

Ahhh the puppet PM is legitimate?

In some peoples eyes the only answer is Thaksin. too bad, so sad

[Moonrakers]

Ahhh the puppet PM is legitimate?

Well, I posted my reasoning as to why he was.

Rather than the usual one liners that actually mean nothing, how about some reasoning as to why he isn't legitimate.

UG will be along in a minute to reply with an emoticon, for him it makes a strong case.

At some point Rainman will chip in by mentioning that the yellows closed down the airport or some other soundbite irrelevant to the thread topic.

And you will get a host of people who have just signed up stating that the reds are in the vast majority.

Welcome to thaivisa.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Moonrakers

[neverdie]

Ahhh the puppet PM is legitimate?

Well, I posted my reasoning as to why he was.

Rather than the usual one liners that actually mean nothing, how about some reasoning as to why he isn't legitimate.

At some point Rainman will chip in by mentioning that the yellows closed down the airport or some other soundbite irrelevant to the thread topic.

Ohh something tells me Rainman won't be able to join us. He's probably reading this as I write Som Nom Na Rainman. (I think his keyboard is broken)

[anotherpeter]

And I thought I'd add a little more information from another thread:

<snipped for relevance to this thread>

The facts are:

Thaksin was the self appointed caretaker PM (despite resigning at one point) at the time of the coup. The elections he called in 2006, which were declared null and void by the EC, meant that he had exhausted his mandate.

The coup took place, the Surayad government was sworn in by HM the King. It was the legal government at the time.

Elections have since taken place, in 2007. Every current MP was elected in those, or in more recent by-elections, every current MP has voted for their choice of PM and Abhisit won.

<snipped for relevance to this thread>

[monkfish]

Everyone knows that you don't vote for a person but a party its the same in the UK

The real issue is>

PPP the government at the time were kicked out of office for vote buying.

Democrats were not banned for vote buying although everybody knows they did.

its so simple

also if Thaksin was only caretaker PM why the coupe?

Also why do people yarp on about how many votes? its irrelevant!

Whats important is how many seats they won

PPP = 226

Democrats = 166

Edited March 14, 2010 by monkfish

[animatic]

Excellent account -- thanks so much. Democracy at work -- at least, the form of it that Thailand's constitution follows (no direct "election" of the Prime Minister as in the US).

There was a lack of a certain decree to allow the acceptance of that election in 2006, as well, if I recall correctly.

UNRELATED: What has happened to the "Thaivisa Bangkok Red-shirt Rally-Live Updates"?

They have gone silent. Hard to believe that there is nothing to report! [at 5.40 PM on Sunday of the 'big day']

Note that in USA, beside it is president and not PM.

The 'Electoral College' actual votes in the President, not the people directly.

They EC members are voted for similarly to Senators or Representatives.

But their only job is passing a vote on presidential and vice-presidential candidates

And they SHOULD vote as their States Districts that sent them decree,

but some vote their conscious, unconscionably ignoring their delgated status.

Sadly that is also legal.

Silence is a bad sign with volcanos and vitriolic rallies....

Edited March 14, 2010 by animatic

[way2muchcoffee]

The real issue is>

PPP the government at the time were kicked out of office for vote buying.

Democrats were not banned for vote buying although everybody knows they did.

its so simple

also if Thaksin was only caretaker PM why the coupe?

PPP MPs were yellow carded and red carded and were dealt with on a case by case basis

Democrat MPs were yellow carded and red carded and were dealt with on a case by case basis

Democrat Executive MPs were not found to be guilty of electoral fraud and thus the Dems remained a legal party

PPP Executive MPs were found to be guilty of electoral fraud and thus the PPP was dissolved

[animatic]

Ahhh the puppet PM is legitimate?

Samak and Somchai... yes sad to say for awhile they were legal,

And then Somchai wasn't.

Samak still was but wasn't wanted...

[Moonrakers]

Why all this talk of a coupe on thaivisa anyway?

I though that this was about politics, not cars!

[Ulysses G.]

UG will be along in a minute to reply with an emoticon, for him it makes a strong case.

Someone seems to forget that the Thaksin was removed from office by an illegal military coup and that all his party's best politicians were banned from running for office. That might explain why many Thai people feel that democracy has been thwarted by the Bangkok elite.

[mrtoad]

Everyone knows that you don't vote for a person but a party its the same in the UK

Judging by a significant amount of the posts here on TV that line is pretty debatable.

[monkfish]

The real issue is>

PPP the government at the time were kicked out of office for vote buying.

Democrats were not banned for vote buying although everybody knows they did.

its so simple

also if Thaksin was only caretaker PM why the coupe?

PPP MPs were yellow carded and red carded and were dealt with on a case by case basis

Democrat MPs were yellow carded and red carded and were dealt with on a case by case basis

Democrat Executive MPs were not found to be guilty of electoral fraud and thus the Dems remained a legal party

PPP Executive MPs were found to be guilty of electoral fraud and thus the PPP was dissolved

Yes and that's why the reds are screaming DOUBLE STANDARDS!

Also if elections were due then why the coupe? they didn't need one.

Was it to first get rid of the opposition? which they did

Good idea get rid of the opposition and you are bound to win right?

But even then they lost

[way2muchcoffee]

The real issue is>

PPP the government at the time were kicked out of office for vote buying.

Democrats were not banned for vote buying although everybody knows they did.

its so simple

also if Thaksin was only caretaker PM why the coupe?

PPP MPs were yellow carded and red carded and were dealt with on a case by case basis

Democrat MPs were yellow carded and red carded and were dealt with on a case by case basis

Democrat Executive MPs were not found to be guilty of electoral fraud and thus the Dems remained a legal party

PPP Executive MPs were found to be guilty of electoral fraud and thus the PPP was dissolved

Yes and that's why the reds are screaming DOUBLE STANDARDS!

Also if elections were due then why the coupe? they didn't need one.

Was it to first get rid of the opposition? which they did

Good idea get rid of the opposition and you are bound to win right?

But even then they lost

Instead of screaming double standards they might try to clean up their act and stop committing electoral fraud.

Edited March 14, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[anotherpeter]

Everyone knows that you don't vote for a person but a party its the same in the UK

The real issue is>

PPP the government at the time were kicked out of office for vote buying.

Democrats were not banned for vote buying although everybody knows they did.

its so simple

The PPP executive (meaning the party leaders) were convicted of electoral fraud, so the executive were banned and the party disbanded. The rest of the PPP MPs moved to other parties.

There are some Democrat MPs that have been charged with electoral fraud. These cases are still with the courts. But it isn't at the executive level (the leaders) where the charges are.

also if Thaksin was only caretaker PM why the coupe?

Also why do people yarp on about how many votes? its irrelevant!

Whats important is how many seats they won

PPP = 226

Democrats = 166

Yarping on about the votes was relevant to that post by 'morphem'

He suggested that if there was an election to vote directly for a PM, rather than MPs, then Thaksin (or relevant party leader) would win a comfortable majority.

The Proportional votes, where everyone is voting directly for a party at a national level (effectively voting directly for the PM) rather than for their local MP, is a reflection of how Thailand as a whole would vote.

It isn't relevant to the current situation in Thailand, because people vote for their local MPs for them to select the Prime Minister.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Tywais
Reference to the monarchy deleted

[emsfeld]

Under Thai law, Abhisit's election as prime minister by parliament was/ is legal. Look at this Wiki entry to understand how he basically became prime minister:

"After Somchai was removed and the PPP dissolved, many MPs defected to the Democrat side thus forging a new alliance. Defectors included MPs from the For Thais Party (Puea Thai, the successor of the PPP), the former Chart Thai Party under Sanan Krachonprasat, the Thais United National Development Party, and the Neutral Democratic Party, and the "Friends of Newin" faction of the former Peoples Power Party. The enlarged Democrat-led coalition was able to endorse Abhisit as Prime Minister. Abhisit became Prime Minister after winning a special vote in parliament on 15 December 2008." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejja...r_2007_election

Now, I am not sure how your political system works, but where I am from MPs don't simply "defect" to another party. Greens don't just form a coalition with Conservatives without a new public election being held. Moreover, you don't have a group of the Greens defect and join the Conservatives.

If a prime minister had come into office under these circumstances back home, people would be on the streets as well!!

[monkfish]

The real issue is>

PPP the government at the time were kicked out of office for vote buying.

Democrats were not banned for vote buying although everybody knows they did.

its so simple

also if Thaksin was only caretaker PM why the coupe?

PPP MPs were yellow carded and red carded and were dealt with on a case by case basis

Democrat MPs were yellow carded and red carded and were dealt with on a case by case basis

Democrat Executive MPs were not found to be guilty of electoral fraud and thus the Dems remained a legal party

PPP Executive MPs were found to be guilty of electoral fraud and thus the PPP was dissolved

Yes and that's why the reds are screaming DOUBLE STANDARDS!

Also if elections were due then why the coupe? they didn't need one.

Was it to first get rid of the opposition? which they did

Good idea get rid of the opposition and you are bound to win right?

But even then they lost

Instead of screaming double standards they might try to clean up their act and stop committing electoral fraud.

Would you believe me if I told you I know people who were paid to vote for the Dems.

So you see I know the Reds are right and couldn't claim otherwise or I would just be sticking my head in the sand.

Edited March 14, 2010 by monkfish

[Moonrakers]

Now, I am not sure how your political system works, but where I am from MPs don't simply "defect" to another party. Greens don't just form a coalition with Conservatives without a new public election being held. Moreover, you don't have a group of the Greens defect and join the Conservatives.

I understand that it is fairly common in some European countries for a coalition government to be formed.

[way2muchcoffee]

Would you believe me if I told you I know people who were paid to vote for the Dems.

Of course I would. I already agreed that some Democrat MPs engaged in vote buying. Those MPs were punished accordingly. Same with the PPP. But this isn't why the PPP was dissolved. The PPP was dissolved because the party leadership engaged in electoral fraud. This is something the Democrat party leadership did not do.

Edited March 14, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Ulysses G.]

I know people who were paid to vote for the Dems.

We ALL do!

[emsfeld]

Now, I am not sure how your political system works, but where I am from MPs don't simply "defect" to another party. Greens don't just form a coalition with Conservatives without a new public election being held. Moreover, you don't have a group of the Greens defect and join the Conservatives.

I understand that it is fairly common in some European countries for a coalition government to be formed.

Yes, it is very common, but not in the constellation described above on a federal level. I also have no problems with coalitions per se - I have a problem with coalitions being formed without new votes being cast. It's a cheat on the voter.

[PeaceBlondie]

And Unfaithful claims that the Yellows didn't close the airports - the parties of Thaksin and the AOT closed them.

[jayjayjayjay]

UG will be along in a minute to reply with an emoticon, for him it makes a strong case.

Someone seems to forget that the Thaksin was removed from office by an illegal military coup and that all his party's best politicians were banned from running for office. That might explain why many Thai people feel that democracy has been thwarted by the Bangkok elite.

Oh your so so wrong........ !!!! The Democrate's never ever buy votes, therefore they are legitimate. Thaksin buys votes, only Thaksin, do I need to repeat, only Thaksin buys votes.

[scorecard]

Would you believe me if I told you I know people who were paid to vote for the Dems.

So you see I know the Reds are right and couldn't claim otherwise or I would just be sticking my head in the sand.

Nobody is suggesting that there is a squeaky clean party. It's true, they have all been involved in vote buying but some a lot lot more than others, and some much more blatant than others.

Suggest you reread some of the previous posts for further details.

You might also like to note that Abhisit has become very strong on this point, in fact very strong on all forms of corruption, even removing people from his own party from high positions, previously unheard of. And demaning much more accountability and transparency from the coalition partners, also unheard of in the past.

Give Abhisit a chance, he won't be able to stop corruption in one swoop, it will take years, but he's trying, also unheard of in the past.

Edited March 14, 2010 by scorecard

[anotherpeter]

Under Thai law, Abhisit's election as prime minister by parliament was/ is legal. Look at this Wiki entry to understand how he basically became prime minister:

"After Somchai was removed and the PPP dissolved, many MPs defected to the Democrat side thus forging a new alliance. Defectors included MPs from the For Thais Party (Puea Thai, the successor of the PPP), the former Chart Thai Party under Sanan Krachonprasat, the Thais United National Development Party, and the Neutral Democratic Party, and the "Friends of Newin" faction of the former Peoples Power Party. The enlarged Democrat-led coalition was able to endorse Abhisit as Prime Minister. Abhisit became Prime Minister after winning a special vote in parliament on 15 December 2008." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejja...r_2007_election

Now, I am not sure how your political system works, but where I am from MPs don't simply "defect" to another party. Greens don't just form a coalition with Conservatives without a new public election being held. Moreover, you don't have a group of the Greens defect and join the Conservatives.

If a prime minister had come into office under these circumstances back home, people would be on the streets as well!!

Where you come from MPs don't *usually* defect, but they can. And it's legal. They may not get voted in at the next election, though, if their electorate don't like what they did.

Also, a smaller party may form a coalition based on promises of the larger party. When those promises aren't honoured, the smaller party may decide that they like the other major party instead.