Abhisit Is The Legitimate Thai Prime Minister

[scorecard]

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.

Nobody is suggesting that there ia 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.

I guess you know that corruption and graft invades everything in this country.

We've recently had to get very serious with some staff in my condo:

- Staff 'engineer' gets a quote fora new ceiling - 40,000Baht. One of the condo committee members gets a company she uses regularly to give another quote - 6,000Baht. Internal engineer gets told to stop this or he'll be fired. Rest of staff stage a protest because their friend (the engineer) was spoken to rudely (meaning he was confronted about his quotation, also emaning that the committee have no right to suggest he's wrong).

- Reception girl tells a walk in farang that there are some condos for rent. Farang looks at condo, like it, asks to speak to actual owner. Reception girl says that's not allowed, she has to prepare the documents. End of story, discovered later by accidental meeting of tenant and owner, reception girl is skimming 5,000Baht off the rent every month. When confronted she says she has a right to do so because her salary is low.

- New committee member queries why one of the regular services to the building uses very old materials, and asks the internal staff to get a quotation for more modern materials. Staff make every excuse in the world to not get a new quotation. Turns out they get 20% kickback from the long term supplier who in reality cannot provide more modern materials.

and more.

[anotherpeter]

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.

No one has said it's ethical, but it's legal, and it's legal in most democracies. Why should it be different here?

[twschw]

It is not unknown in the States for a Democrat congressman to change to the Republican party in mid term. We don't demand new elections because of it.

Edited March 14, 2010 by twschw

[Topprofile]

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

We ALL do!

Another useful post

[emsfeld]

Where you come from MPs don't *usually* defect, but they can. And it's legal.

Never stated otherwise. Haven't come across a case though where a group of people/MPs defect to join another party.

They may not get voted in at the next election, though, if their electorate don't like what they did.

Exactly.

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.

Where did I ever state otherwise??

As I said (I know I am repeating myself) I have no problems with governments being formed through coalitions AFTER a public vote had been cast. There is nothing wrong with bigger and smaller parties sorting out where interests are aligned and where they aren't and, on the basis of this process, form or do not form a government. The electorate also has a good idea as to which parties are likely to group up and which aren't based on the parties' pre-election campaigning. Hence, when voters tick their boxes, they know what they are voting for - or have a very good idea at least.

Come on, if a government was formed in such a way, eg without a public vote preceding, people would be out on the streets in any European country.

[anotherpeter]

<snip>

Come on, if a government was formed in such a way, eg without a public vote preceding, people would be out on the streets in any European country.

That all depends on WHY the party or MPs defected. Maybe the major party wasn't doing what it promised to do.

These are PPP (Thaksin party) supporters out there, not necessarily (ex)supporters of the parties that defected.

[elkangorito]

Even though I dislike Thaksin hugely, I still think that he was the last "democratically elected" PM. All others that succeeded him were as a result of coups or other spurious interruptions.

[7by7]

The Thai system of government is modeled after the Westminster system, so a brief explanation of that may help.

In the UK, after an election the party with the majority of seats forms a government. If no one party commands a majority then a coalition is formed so that one group can do so.

This means that the party with the largest single number of seats may find itself in opposition if they hold less than 50% of the seats and two or more other parties combine.

The Prime Minister is not directly elected by the electorate; s/he is the leader of the party who commands a majority in the House of Commons. This means that the Prime Minister can resign/retire/die/whatever and be replaced without there having to be an election. As happened when Blair resigned to be replaced by Brown.

The system of voting is 'first past the post.' Which means that the candidate who obtains the largest number of votes in a constituency is elected; even if that candidate actually received less than 50% of the votes. This often means that whichever party forms the government actually received less than 50% of all votes cast; even though they won more than 50% of the seats.

Supporters of this system say that this leads to a more stable government as it means that usually one party is able to command an overall majority in the Commons; whereas under a proportional representation system no one party would be able to do so and coalitions would have to be formed. Those in favour of proportional representation argue that such is a system is more democratic as it better follows the wishes of the electorate. (A very simplified explanation of the differences, I know.)

Although patently not the case, the system assumes that voters vote for the candidate, not the party that candidate represents. Therefore if an MP decides to resign from one party and join another s/he does not have to stand for reelection until the next general election.

Of course, in the UK we do not have problems with parties or candidates buying votes ( ). Although it does seem that governments often have a tendency to pour government money into projects, such as improving local hospitals, in marginal constituencies when an election is looming, I'm sure that this is just a coincidence!

So, following this example one can see that as Abhisit is the leader of the party that commands a majority in Parliament then his premiership is legitimate. Whether the elections that placed him in that position were is not for me to comment on.

(My spell check wants to change 'Abhisit' to 'Oboist.' Any one know if he can play?)

(Guy Fawkes; the only person to enter Parliament with honest intentions!)

[anotherpeter]

Even though I dislike Thaksin hugely, I still think that he was the last "democratically elected" PM. All others that succeeded him were as a result of coups or other spurious interruptions.

What happened before Thaksin? Coups, elections, coups, elections ...

Also, at the time of the coup, he wasn't PM. He actually stood down as PM after the 2006 election and then the election was invalidated by the Election Commission. He was just care-taker PM until the next elections.

[anotherpeter]

The Thai system of government is modeled after the Westminster system, so a brief explanation of that may help.

In the UK, after an election the party with the majority of seats forms a government. If no one party commands a majority then a coalition is formed so that one group can do so.

This means that the party with the largest single number of seats may find itself in opposition if they hold less than 50% of the seats and two or more other parties combine.

The Prime Minister is not directly elected by the electorate; s/he is the leader of the party who commands a majority in the House of Commons. This means that the Prime Minister can resign/retire/die/whatever and be replaced without there having to be an election. As happened when Blair resigned to be replaced by Brown.

The system of voting is 'first past the post.' Which means that the candidate who obtains the largest number of votes in a constituency is elected; even if that candidate actually received less than 50% of the votes. This often means that whichever party forms the government actually received less than 50% of all votes cast; even though they won more than 50% of the seats.

Supporters of this system say that this leads to a more stable government as it means that usually one party is able to command an overall majority in the Commons; whereas under a proportional representation system no one party would be able to do so and coalitions would have to be formed. Those in favour of proportional representation argue that such is a system is more democratic as it better follows the wishes of the electorate. (A very simplified explanation of the differences, I know.)

Although patently not the case, the system assumes that voters vote for the candidate, not the party that candidate represents. Therefore if an MP decides to resign from one party and join another s/he does not have to stand for reelection until the next general election.

Of course, in the UK we do not have problems with parties or candidates buying votes ( ). Although it does seem that governments often have a tendency to pour government money into projects, such as improving local hospitals, in marginal constituencies when an election is looming, I'm sure that this is just a coincidence!

So, following this example one can see that as Abhisit is the leader of the party that commands a majority in Parliament then his premiership is legitimate. Whether the elections that placed him in that position were is not for me to comment on.

(My spell check wants to change 'Abhisit' to 'Oboist.' Any one know if he can play?)

(Guy Fawkes; the only person to enter Parliament with honest intentions!)

Yes, Australia is basically the same, except that we use a "Preferential" voting system. The candidate has to get more than 50% of the preferred vote.

[emsfeld]

So, following this example one can see that as Abhisit is the leader of the party that commands a majority in Parliament then his premiership is legitimate. Whether the elections that placed him in that position were is not for me to comment on.

The English system is very similar to the one I am used to, so I am quite familiar with what you are saying. I also never argued that Abhisit's prime ministership is illegal. How it came into being, is nevertheless a cheat on the voter IMO!

My problem is that there were no general elections in December 2008. The last general elections that had been held took place in late 2007 with two prime ministers from PPP in between. So, a year after a general election was held, all of a sudden a prime minister from a different party is in office - simply because some MPs decided to change sides. This just doesn't stand up anywhere else - the public would never agree with this. And apparently quite a few people here in TH don't agree either.

Edit: Just wondering, as I am not up to date with this:

When Blair retreated and Brown became PM, were there any votes held in the House of Commons?

Edited March 14, 2010 by emsfeld

[7by7]

all of a sudden a prime minister from a different party is in office - simply because some MPs decided to change sides. This just doesn't stand up anywhere else - the public would never agree with this.

It happened in the UK in 1974 when the Ulster Unionists refused to support the Conservative (as they traditionally did) government under Ted Heath, and so Harold Wilson formed a minority Labour government in coalition with the Liberals.

I don't recall massive demonstrations and civil unrest.

Although this did happen immediately after a general election, were it to happen mid term then there would be nothing illegal nor unconstitutional about it.

When Blair retreated and Brown became PM, were there any votes held in the House of Commons?

No. Brown was, IIRC, unopposed. Even if he had not been, he, or another candidate, would have been elected as leader by the Labour party. No one else would have had a vote.

[anotherpeter]

The English system is very similar to the one I am used to, so I am quite familiar with what you are saying. I also never argued that Abhisit's prime ministership is illegal. How it came into being, is nevertheless a cheat on the voter IMO!

My problem is that there were no general elections in December 2008. The last general elections that had been held took place in late 2007 with two prime ministers from PPP in between. So, a year after a general election was held, all of a sudden a prime minister from a different party is in office - simply because some MPs decided to change sides. This just doesn't stand up anywhere else - the public would never agree with this. And apparently quite a few people here in TH don't agree either.

Edit: Just wondering, as I am not up to date with this:

When Blair retreated and Brown became PM, were there any votes held in the House of Commons?

The people that don't agree with it in Thailand are the people supporting the PPP because their party got kicked out of government when the minor parties defected.

Re Brown/Blair: In Aus (basically the same system), the MPs of their governing party would elect "Brown" as the leader of their party. He would therefore become PM. No new elections. No vote of the people.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

The Thai system of government is modeled after the Westminster system, so a brief explanation of that may help.

In the UK, after an election the party with the majority of seats forms a government. If no one party commands a majority then a coalition is formed so that one group can do so.

This means that the party with the largest single number of seats may find itself in opposition if they hold less than 50% of the seats and two or more other parties combine.

The Prime Minister is not directly elected by the electorate; s/he is the leader of the party who commands a majority in the House of Commons. This means that the Prime Minister can resign/retire/die/whatever and be replaced without there having to be an election. As happened when Blair resigned to be replaced by Brown.

The system of voting is 'first past the post.' Which means that the candidate who obtains the largest number of votes in a constituency is elected; even if that candidate actually received less than 50% of the votes. This often means that whichever party forms the government actually received less than 50% of all votes cast; even though they won more than 50% of the seats.

Supporters of this system say that this leads to a more stable government as it means that usually one party is able to command an overall majority in the Commons; whereas under a proportional representation system no one party would be able to do so and coalitions would have to be formed. Those in favour of proportional representation argue that such is a system is more democratic as it better follows the wishes of the electorate. (A very simplified explanation of the differences, I know.)

Although patently not the case, the system assumes that voters vote for the candidate, not the party that candidate represents. Therefore if an MP decides to resign from one party and join another s/he does not have to stand for reelection until the next general election.

Of course, in the UK we do not have problems with parties or candidates buying votes ( ). Although it does seem that governments often have a tendency to pour government money into projects, such as improving local hospitals, in marginal constituencies when an election is looming, I'm sure that this is just a coincidence!

So, following this example one can see that as Abhisit is the leader of the party that commands a majority in Parliament then his premiership is legitimate. Whether the elections that placed him in that position were is not for me to comment on.

(My spell check wants to change 'Abhisit' to 'Oboist.' Any one know if he can play?)

(Guy Fawkes; the only person to enter Parliament with honest intentions!)

Thanks for that effort, very good post. The only point I would add though is that if in the UK one party was in government, and if MP's in that party or coalition defected to the opposition, then most likely new elections would be called so that the new coalition could get its own mandate.

It's a minor point however, and overall I don't have a huge problem with what happened in a legal and constitutional sense. PTP/UDD supporters disagree, of course.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

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

We ALL do!

Another useful post

Yup, almost as useful as yours would you say? (And this one, of course. I made a contribution that included actual content directly above, though.)

Edited March 14, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[anotherpeter]

Thanks for that effort, very good post. The only point I would add though is that if in the UK one party was in government, and if MP's in that party or coalition defected to the opposition, then most likely new elections would be called so that the new coalition could get its own mandate.

It's a minor point however, and overall I don't have a huge problem with what happened in a legal and constitutional sense. PTP/UDD supporters disagree, of course.

As I said above, ofcourse they disagree. Their party got kicked out of government. They don't know that it was legal. They don't know if it was democratic. They've been told it was neither. That's what they believe.

[7by7]

The only point I would add though is that if in the UK one party was in government, and if MP's in that party or coalition defected to the opposition, then most likely new elections would be called so that the new coalition could get its own mandate.

Yes, they probably would; as Wilson did in 1974. Although constitutionally they would not have to do so and Wilson called a new election not so much to get a mandate, but mainly because the Liberals were demanding too many concessions from him for their support.

[emsfeld]

Re Brown/Blair: In Aus (basically the same system), the MPs of their governing party would elect "Brown" as the leader of their party. He would therefore become PM. No new elections. No vote of the people.

That's what I thought. However, smaller parties defecting implies to some extent a motion of no-confidence. Again, at least where I am from, a new general election would be held if the motion passed. I suppose it would be the same in Australia. Can't imagine Labour MPs to defect, join the Liberals and then vote Tony Abbot into office through the lower house.

[7by7]

First a motion of no confidence would have to be tabled and won; if the new PM commands the majority of votes then it would be defeated; no dissolution, no election.

[Moonrakers]

IIRC (and I am going on memory here so excuse me if I am wrong).

I seem to remember the smaller parties in the PTP coalition stating that they were not happy. Much to do with the PTP's leaders such as Samak and Somchai being hel_l bent on changing the constitution rather than concentrating on fixing the country, amongst other things

Or something like that. The point being that they were not far off from defecting anyway and so the current status quo may have come about even without the courts intervention.

We may never know that for sure though of course.

[Ulysses G.]

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

We ALL do!

Another useful post

It makes a valid point and succinctly.

Maybe some of the rambling, tedious, red-baiting blowhards will learn something from it.

[monkfish]

You can't compare the Blair, Brown situation in the UK with what's happening in Thailand.

If you want to try imagine this scenario Labor win the a general election and then get kicked out of office for vote buying.

On top of that there will never be another Labour government again as they have been made illegal.

I think even in the UK there would be riots

By the way wasn't Blair in office 8 years before Brown took over?

[7by7]

The situation is not the same, for sure, but can be used as an example that a change of Prime Minister does not mean there has to be an election.

Not sure if it was 8 years, but it was certainly longer than Blair originally agreed when Brown supported him in his candidacy for the Labour leadership.

But this topic is supposed to be about Thai politics, not British ones!

[elkangorito]

I still think that there has been far too much "interference" to absolutely say that the current government has been elected democratically. I'm glad that Thaksin is gone but the whole thing has subverted a procedure...a procedure that would normally not involve coups etc when someone resigns from office.

[emsfeld]

Thanks for that effort, very good post. The only point I would add though is that if in the UK one party was in government, and if MP's in that party or coalition defected to the opposition, then most likely new elections would be called so that the new coalition could get its own mandate.

It's a minor point however, and overall I don't have a huge problem with what happened in a legal and constitutional sense. PTP/UDD supporters disagree, of course.

Personally, I am not a supporter of any party/ politician in TH. All too blatantly self serving. Not even an attempt to hide true intentions. Nevertheless, I believe it should always be up to the people to decide which party/ies (not so much the PM) govern(s) the country. If coalition parties defect and as a result, a government is no longer in the position to govern, general elections should be held. Especially when the last elections took place a year prior to whatever event caused the government's desolution. That's a huge problem for me. I really don't quite understand why that wouldn't be a problem for anyone. Whatever, let's just rally against Facebook's new layout - shall we?

Edited March 14, 2010 by emsfeld

[anotherpeter]

Thanks for that effort, very good post. The only point I would add though is that if in the UK one party was in government, and if MP's in that party or coalition defected to the opposition, then most likely new elections would be called so that the new coalition could get its own mandate.

It's a minor point however, and overall I don't have a huge problem with what happened in a legal and constitutional sense. PTP/UDD supporters disagree, of course.

Personally, I am not a supporter of any party/ politician in TH. All too blatantly self serving. Not even an attempt to hide true intentions. Nevertheless, I believe it should always be up to the people to decide which party/ies (not so much the PM) govern(s) the country. If coalition parties defect and as a result, a government is no longer in the position to govern, general elections should be held. Especially when the last elections took place a year prior to whatever event caused the government's desolution. That's a huge problem for me. I really don't quite understand why that wouldn't be a problem for anyone. Whatever, let's just rally against Facebook's new layout - shall we?

It's not a perfect situation, but it's moving forward and it's legal. There is still corruption. Bringing back Thaksin will just validate his corruption and be a huge step back for Thailand.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Thanks for that effort, very good post. The only point I would add though is that if in the UK one party was in government, and if MP's in that party or coalition defected to the opposition, then most likely new elections would be called so that the new coalition could get its own mandate.

It's a minor point however, and overall I don't have a huge problem with what happened in a legal and constitutional sense. PTP/UDD supporters disagree, of course.

Personally, I am not a supporter of any party/ politician in TH. All too blatantly self serving. Not even an attempt to hide true intentions. Nevertheless, I believe it should always be up to the people to decide which party/ies (not so much the PM) govern(s) the country. If coalition parties defect and as a result, a government is no longer in the position to govern, general elections should be held. Especially when the last elections took place a year prior to whatever event caused the government's desolution. That's a huge problem for me. I really don't quite understand why that wouldn't be a problem for anyone. Whatever, let's just rally against Facebook's new layout - shall we?

I like Facebook's new layout. I don't like the selection I'm served with on my News page, but then I'm used to the concept of putting in some effort to get a good balance of information. Thai life and the local media have prepared me well.

[emsfeld]

It happened in the UK in 1974 when the Ulster Unionists refused to support the Conservative (as they traditionally did) government under Ted Heath, and so Harold Wilson formed a minority Labour government in coalition with the Liberals.

I don't recall massive demonstrations and civil unrest.

Although this did happen immediately after a general election, were it to happen mid term then there would be nothing illegal nor unconstitutional about it.

When Blair retreated and Brown became PM, were there any votes held in the House of Commons?

No. Brown was, IIRC, unopposed. Even if he had not been, he, or another candidate, would have been elected as leader by the Labour party. No one else would have had a vote.

Now rereading your post, the concept of coalitions in the UK/ OZ appears to be a different one to Continental Europe. Before an election, no coalitions are set in stone (not like the Liberals and Nationals in OZ for instances). Coalitions are formed after public votes have been cast and counted, eg when the results of an election are officially known. From your posts it just sounds like the Ulster Unionists pledged allegiance to the Conservatives and then decided not to support after the elections, when the government had not officially been formed yet. Of course, that wouldn't cause unrest anywhere!

The process of forming a government through coalitions works very differently where I am from. If votes are close and there are multiple ways of forming a government, the major parties (usually two of them) have talks with the smaller parties to sort out where their agendas align and where not. Once one of the major parties has found a partner with whose support it would achieve 50% + x seats in parliament/ lower house, the partners will then sign a treaty of coalition. This treaty outlines several aspects such as who will be heading which ministry but also, most importantly, the framework of issues the coalition agrees to tackle (tax cuts, health care reforms, retirement,...). If one of the parties defect, the treaty no longer applies. If that happened, especially after a year of governing, there is no way that the major party would just look for another partner. Maybe legal and constitutional, but it would never happen. We had a case similar to that just over 20 years ago and new general elections were held.

Edited March 14, 2010 by emsfeld

[smokie36]

^ Abhisit lacks a moral mandate to govern the country. That's why they are protesting. He should call an election now.

Edited March 14, 2010 by smokie36

[slimdog]

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

The royal decree which dissolved parliament was signed on the 2nd March 2006.

The Constitutional Court, in it's ruling on May 9th 2006 nullified the election of April 2nd 2006, and whilst it criticised the time period allowed for the election as being unfair, it upheld the Royal Decree.

In it's ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that a new election would have to take place, and an additional Royal decree would be required, but this would be classified as an amendment to the original. As such the Cabinet in place at the time of the original decree being issued had to, by law remain in place, and act as the outgoing Government. No new Cabinet members were allowed to be appointed.

Officially, Thaksin Shinawatra remained the Prime Minister of Thailand until 20th September 2006, when Sonthi Boonyaratglin as President of The Administrative Reform Council (ARC) officially took over the powers of Prime Minister. His position was Royally endorsed on the 22nd October.