Abhisit Is The Legitimate Thai Prime Minister

[Roadman]

The Puppet is legit, with the assistance (patronage in Thailand will give you more than just money) of the Army, those above and a seemingly very favourable judicary it can't help but be .

Apart from that solid foundation the way he got there stinks a bit...but then in the democratic countries we come from, coup parties are not such a yearly occassion, let along quarterly leader burning. He has however learnt a lot as shown in the much improved ability to deal with politic events. Thailand even with the Reds in their finest costume this weekend seems to be on a better keel with him there.

The Puppet given some patient time in office could end up turning the "Master" trick that Thailand so desperately needs.

[StreetCowboy]

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.

Its not debatable, its wrong. In Thailand, same as the UK, you elect an MP. Many MPs belong to political parties, and generally obey the party whips, so that if you elect an MP then he is likely to sacrifice your own special interests for those of his party, but people seem to like to elect an MP who will help form a specific government, rather than representing their own best interests on a case-by-case basis. This probably leads to a more stable government, but thanks to the vagaries of parliamentary democracy and first-past-the-post elections, can lead to strong but unpopular governments.

However, just as in Thailand, political parties may change sides, opposing or supporting a governing party that they stood alongside or opposed in elections, and individual MPs may change parties. Some do the honourable thing and resign, since most voters probably voted for them to support a specific government, but they are not obliged to resign.

SC

[BloodyBan]

The vast majority of Bhum Jai Thai MPs were voted in on the basis of there then pro PTP/Thaskin stance.

In the parliamentary election they then voted Democrat.

Even the most blinkered of TV posters can see their actions to have shown a complete lack of regard for the electorate.

My home province is Mukdahan the local Bhum Jai thai MP hasn't dared returned since the paliamentary election and its excatly the same scenario in neighbouring provinces.

[anotherpeter]

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

Examples why please?? No point making such a broad statement without some reasoning behind your opinion.

They are protesting because their party is no longer in power. They are upset. That's no reason to call an election.

[anotherpeter]

The vast majority of Bhum Jai Thai MPs were voted in on the basis of there then pro PTP/Thaskin stance.

In the parliamentary election they then voted Democrat.

Even the most blinkered of TV posters can see their actions to have shown a complete lack of regard for the electorate.

My home province is Mukdahan the local Bhum Jai thai MP hasn't dared returned since the paliamentary election and its excatly the same scenario in neighbouring provinces.

1) There have been posts stating the opposite (parties campaigning that they wouldn't form coalition with PPP and then after the election doing just that), although I haven't seen anything besides on TV.

2) Do you mean in the parlimentary election after PPP was disbanded. Since all smaller parties formed a coalition with PPP after the 2007 election.

EDIT: 3) If BJT MPs where voted in based on pro-PTP/Thaksin, why didn't the people vote PTP?

Edited March 15, 2010 by anotherpeter

[anotherpeter]

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!

<snip>

On the question of double standards, has anyone read (or summaries of) the court decisions for any of these charges?

Scenario:

Fred walks into a bar. Gets drunk. Starts a fight. Breaks a bottle. Kills someone.

John walks into a bar. Gets in a fight. Picks up a broken bottle. Kills someone.

Fred gets convicted of murder and John gets convicted of manslaughter.

Is that double standards? No. They are different circumstances.

The PPP were disbanded because the EXECUTIVE were found to have been involved in electoral fraud.

The Democrats were not, because the EXECUTIVE were not found to have been involved in electoral fraud.

Members of both parties were banned for electoral fraud.

[lovelomsak]

Just thought I would let the readers know how the rest of the world see's what caused the change in government in Thailand.

Here is a quote from Yahoo.ca website frontpage.

(Thailand was plagued by political upheaval in 2008 when yellow-shirted protesters who opposed Thaksin's allies in the previous government occupied the prime minister's office for three months and then blockaded Bangkok's international airport until a court ousted the government.)

So how legitimate is this government?

Edited March 15, 2010 by lovelomsak

[jayjayjayjay]

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

Exactly, if a spade was called a spade in Thailand, the Democrates would have been dissolved by now clearing the way for an election. If the cycle continued for the next 50 years then maybe, just maybe the electorate might get an idea that the wealthier elite controlling the Election Commission are not going to accept any form of vote buying. In that case, after generations of it being accepted country-wide might just sink in!

Abhisit lacks the moral mandate to govern the country BECAUSE all other competing parties big enough to form a government were removed by the judicial process. So what do we have. We have a Judical Government, NOT a government of the people.

If Consitution writers had any sense, they would allow for re-election if any more than 20% of MP votes in Parliament were removed by the Election Commission. Therefor allowing for the electorate to still have a say in governance. The people who voted for PPP do not have a say, that is why they are so so so so so so very pissed off............ huMANnatURE

[Ulysses G.]

Abhisit lacks the moral mandate to govern the country BECAUSE all other competing parties big enough to form a government were removed by the judicial process. So what do we have. We have a Judical Government, NOT a government of the people.

The people who voted for PPP do not have a say, that is why they are so so so so so so very pissed off............ huMANnatURE

Thank you for pointing this out.

[anotherpeter]

Just thought I would let the readers know how the rest of the world see's what caused the change in government in Thailand.

Here is a quote from Yahoo.ca website frontpage.

(Thailand was plagued by political upheaval in 2008 when yellow-shirted protesters who opposed Thaksin's allies in the previous government occupied the prime minister's office for three months and then blockaded Bangkok's international airport until a court ousted the government.)

So how legitimate is this government?

Thailand has been plagued by political upheaval for 80 years. Does that make all Thai governments illegitimate?

I could find 100 articles that say similar things about red shirts or Thaksin and his parties. An article (probably just an opinion peice) does not make any difference to the facts.

[BloodyBan]

The Bhum Jai Thai party betrayed the electorate.

Remember they were instrumental in handing power to the Democrats via the parliamentary election.

No regard was shown to the people/electorate who placed these MPs in power.

Thats why the people feel so aggrieved.

New Pro/Red shirt candidates have been put in place to run against Bhum Jai Thai MPs in future elections-prior to the parliamentary election there were no rival candidates..why?..because(at that time)they were coalition partners.

Remember the Democrats have never won a electorate election.

[jdinasia]

The Bhum Jai Thai party betrayed the electorate.

Remember they were instrumental in handing power to the Democrats via the parliamentary election.

No regard was shown to the people/electorate who placed these MPs in power.

Thats why the people feel so aggrieved.

New Pro/Red shirt candidates have been put in place to run against Bhum Jai Thai MPs in future elections-prior to the parliamentary election there were no rival candidates..why?..because(at that time)they were coalition partners.

Remember the Democrats have never won a electorate election.

I think you may find that every one of your points is incorrect

[anotherpeter]

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

Exactly, if a spade was called a spade in Thailand, the Democrates would have been dissolved by now clearing the way for an election. If the cycle continued for the next 50 years then maybe, just maybe the electorate might get an idea that the wealthier elite controlling the Election Commission are not going to accept any form of vote buying. In that case, after generations of it being accepted country-wide might just sink in!

Abhisit lacks the moral mandate to govern the country BECAUSE all other competing parties big enough to form a government were removed by the judicial process. So what do we have. We have a Judical Government, NOT a government of the people.

If Consitution writers had any sense, they would allow for re-election if any more than 20% of MP votes in Parliament were removed by the Election Commission. Therefor allowing for the electorate to still have a say in governance. The people who voted for PPP do not have a say, that is why they are so so so so so so very pissed off............ huMANnatURE

1) Since when has a spade been called a spade in Thailand? If a spade was called a spade, Thaksin would be back in Thailand serving his 2 years in jail.

2) One party (PPP) was removed. MPs from PPP and Democrats were banned. Elections were held to replace these MPs. All the MPs of PPP moved to other parties, mostly to Peau Thai. So theoretically, there were still enough ex-PPP MPs to form government with the as a coalition of smaller parties. But the Democrats were able to form government.

3) You can say anything you like about what should be or shouldn't be in the constitution. People in Thailand HAVE been saying things since there have been consititutions in Thailand. Most of what has happened in the last 5 years is due to what was in the 1997 constitution, not the new things 2007 constitution. Constitutions are a work in progress. Even the US constitution changes.

[jdinasia]

Abhisit lacks the moral mandate to govern the country BECAUSE all other competing parties big enough to form a government were removed by the judicial process. So what do we have. We have a Judical Government, NOT a government of the people.

The people who voted for PPP do not have a say, that is why they are so so so so so so very pissed off............ huMANnatURE

Thank you for pointing this out.

I think JayJayJay means that the other parties were caught red-handed (pun intended) in electoral fraud and thus never had the morale mandate to run anything and certainly couldn't be called democratic

What we have is a legal government put in place by the members of parliament just like the last two.

[anotherpeter]

The Bhum Jai Thai party betrayed the electorate.

Remember they were instrumental in handing power to the Democrats via the parliamentary election.

No regard was shown to the people/electorate who placed these MPs in power.

Thats why the people feel so aggrieved.

New Pro/Red shirt candidates have been put in place to run against Bhum Jai Thai MPs in future elections-prior to the parliamentary election there were no rival candidates..why?..because(at that time)they were coalition partners.

Remember the Democrats have never won a electorate election.

Did the PPP win an "electorate" election? They didn't get more than 50% of the vote (number of MPs). They had to form a coalition.

The people voted for BJT to represent them. The BJT party MIGHT not have done what the electorate wanted. So if that is the case, in the next election the people will vote for someone else. But it doesn't change the fact, THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR THEM.

[Ulysses G.]

Abhisit lacks the moral mandate to govern the country BECAUSE all other competing parties big enough to form a government were removed by the judicial process. So what do we have. We have a Judical Government, NOT a government of the people.

The people who voted for PPP do not have a say, that is why they are so so so so so so very pissed off............ huMANnatURE

Thank you for pointing this out.

I think JayJayJay means...

It is most likely that he means exactly what he said. Why are you putting words in his mouth?

[BloodyBan]

The Bhum Jai Thai party betrayed the electorate.

Remember they were instrumental in handing power to the Democrats via the parliamentary election.

No regard was shown to the people/electorate who placed these MPs in power.

Thats why the people feel so aggrieved.

New Pro/Red shirt candidates have been put in place to run against Bhum Jai Thai MPs in future elections-prior to the parliamentary election there were no rival candidates..why?..because(at that time)they were coalition partners.

Remember the Democrats have never won a electorate election.

I think you may find that every one of your points is incorrect

Enlighten me in that case.

When did the Democrats win an electorate election?

What pa

[anotherpeter]

The Bhum Jai Thai party betrayed the electorate.

Remember they were instrumental in handing power to the Democrats via the parliamentary election.

No regard was shown to the people/electorate who placed these MPs in power.

Thats why the people feel so aggrieved.

New Pro/Red shirt candidates have been put in place to run against Bhum Jai Thai MPs in future elections-prior to the parliamentary election there were no rival candidates..why?..because(at that time)they were coalition partners.

Remember the Democrats have never won a electorate election.

I think you may find that every one of your points is incorrect

Enlighten me in that case.

When did the Democrats win an electorate election?

What pa

(don't think you finished your post ...)

All the MPs in the previous government and the current government were elected in the 2007 election (or subsequent by-elections).

Both the PPP and the Democrats did not get 50% of the voted MPs. So both formed coalition governments. It just happens that the current coalition involves the Democrats and not the PPP.

Also, see post #75.

[BloodyBan]

The Bhum Jai Thai party betrayed the electorate.

Remember they were instrumental in handing power to the Democrats via the parliamentary election.

No regard was shown to the people/electorate who placed these MPs in power.

Thats why the people feel so aggrieved.

New Pro/Red shirt candidates have been put in place to run against Bhum Jai Thai MPs in future elections-prior to the parliamentary election there were no rival candidates..why?..because(at that time)they were coalition partners.

Remember the Democrats have never won a electorate election.

I think you may find that every one of your points is incorrect

Enlighten me in that case.

When did the Democrats win an electorate election?

What pa

(don't think you finished your post ...)

All the MPs in the previous government and the current government were elected in the 2007 election (or subsequent by-elections).

Both the PPP and the Democrats did not get 50% of the voted MPs. So both formed coalition governments. It just happens that the current coalition involves the Democrats and not the PPP.

Also, see post #75.

Thats my point,without the the Bhum Jai Thai party aligning themselves with the Democrats there would be no democrat-led coalition in place now.

People up-country feel the local BJP MPs acted without their approval in 'switching sides' and handing power to the Democrats.

[anotherpeter]

Thats my point,without the the Bhum Jai Thai party aligning themselves with the Democrats there would be no democrat-led coalition in place now.

People up-country feel the local BJP MPs acted without their approval in 'switching sides' and handing power to the Democrats.

Politicians (in any country) don't always do things that get the full approval of their electorate. But that is politics and that is democracy.

If they can't be trusted to do what the electorate want, then they shouldn't have been voted for. Given that they were elected, the electorate should wait until the next election to vote for someone else that they can trust - and then live with that decision until the following election.

That's democracy. It doesn't make the current government illegitimate.

Edited March 15, 2010 by anotherpeter

[ivowatson]

Enlighten me in that case.

When did the Democrats win an electorate election?

What pa

Okay, I'll give it a try.

a) rt of thaksin being a loser don't you understand?

nick? I'm completely calm.

c) prem did or didn't do, is the real question.

d) ssport am i traveling on? Nahnah nah nah nahhh.

e) ranormal activity is he relying on?

f) rkinson's? That's just a rumor.

g) sta dish is the best? Oops, sorry Silvio, you're a real friend.

h) triot's those guys are! Some even brought their children.

i) wn shop will give good money for my watches?

I give up... too d@mn difficult.

Please enlighten us.

[anotherpeter]

Enlighten me in that case.

When did the Democrats win an electorate election?

What pa

Okay, I'll give it a try.

<added for clarity: WHAT PA..>

a) rt of thaksin being a loser don't you understand?

nick? I'm completely calm.

c) prem did or didn't do, is the real question.

d) ssport am i traveling on? Nahnah nah nah nahhh.

e) ranormal activity is he relying on?

f) rkinson's? That's just a rumor.

g) sta dish is the best? Oops, sorry Silvio, you're a real friend.

h) triot's those guys are! Some even brought their children.

i) wn shop will give good money for my watches?

I give up... too d@mn difficult.

Please enlighten us.

[anotherpeter]

Does anyone else have any bright ideas on why Abhisit is not legitimate.

All the reasons so far haven't held water.

[Ulysses G.]

[flame removed]

[jdinasia]

The Bhum Jai Thai party betrayed the electorate.

Remember they were instrumental in handing power to the Democrats via the parliamentary election.

No regard was shown to the people/electorate who placed these MPs in power.

Thats why the people feel so aggrieved.

New Pro/Red shirt candidates have been put in place to run against Bhum Jai Thai MPs in future elections-prior to the parliamentary election there were no rival candidates..why?..because(at that time)they were coalition partners.

Remember the Democrats have never won a electorate election.

I think you may find that every one of your points is incorrect

Enlighten me in that case.

When did the Democrats win an electorate election?

What pa

I think you will find that BJT promised not to form a coalition with PPP when they ran for office and then broke their word by doing so. The fact is that they answer to their electorate and nobody else.

The Dems (nor anyone else) has to WIN they just have to have a coalition of more than 50%. End of story. When did any of the Thaksin parties win without commiting electoral fraud?

Please take a look at the raw numbers on party votes from 2007.

[lannarebirth]

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

Exactly, if a spade was called a spade in Thailand, the Democrates would have been dissolved by now clearing the way for an election. If the cycle continued for the next 50 years then maybe, just maybe the electorate might get an idea that the wealthier elite controlling the Election Commission are not going to accept any form of vote buying. In that case, after generations of it being accepted country-wide might just sink in!

Abhisit lacks the moral mandate to govern the country BECAUSE all other competing parties big enough to form a government were removed by the judicial process. So what do we have. We have a Judical Government, NOT a government of the people.

If Consitution writers had any sense, they would allow for re-election if any more than 20% of MP votes in Parliament were removed by the Election Commission. Therefor allowing for the electorate to still have a say in governance. The people who voted for PPP do not have a say, that is why they are so so so so so so very pissed off............ huMANnatURE

You seem to have a real problem accepting the decrees of Thai courts. Deadbeat mentality. Anyhow the judicial process IS in keeping with the Thai constitution, just as it was in America when the court ended that electoral stalemate. Laws, rules, statutes. process, that's what a government is.

[anotherpeter]

It is nice of you to share your OPINION with us.

My opinion is backed up by some facts. If you have some facts that show that my opinion is incorrect, then please share them.

[Ulysses G.]

You might try reading the rest of the thread.

[anotherpeter]

You might try reading the rest of the thread.

OK ... Done that.

Various points about Abhisit not being elected by the people. Several responses about how elections and coalitions work (here and many other places).

A couple of points about Thaksin being the elected PM when the coup occured. Several responses pointing out that after the 2006 election, he stood down as PM. Then the 2006 election was invalidated. Then he was appointed as CARE TAKER PM. Then the coup occurred.

A couple of points about the PPP being disbanded. Responses pointing out that the executive of the PPP were found to have been involved in electoral fraud and the executive of the Democrats not being involved. Several individual PPP, Democrat and other MPs were banned by the courts for electoral fraud (vote buying).

Did I leave anything out?

EDIT: I did leave one out:

Double Standards - but no one here has read any of the court rulings. They just assume because the PPP/reds were found guilty and the Dems/yellows weren't then it must be double standards, nothing to do with the possibility of one side actually being guilty and another not. It was also pointed out that some Yellow shirt weren't charged for some things they did (ie airports seizure), but with responses stating that charges were still before the courts. The courts move slowly for lots of reasons. Thaksins assets case started 3 years ago.

Edited March 15, 2010 by anotherpeter

[fxe1200]

You might try reading the rest of the thread.

OK ... Done that.

Various points about Abhisit not being elected by the people. Several responses about how elections and coalitions work (here and many other places).

A couple of points about Thaksin being the elected PM when the coup occured. Several responses pointing out that after the 2006 election, he stood down as PM. Then the 2006 election was invalidated. Then he was appointed as CARE TAKER PM. Then the coup occurred.

A couple of points about the PPP being disbanded. Responses pointing out that the executive of the PPP were found to have been involved in electoral fraud and the executive of the Democrats not being involved. Several individual PPP, Democrat and other MPs were banned by the courts for electoral fraud (vote buying).

Did I leave anything out? Yes, you forgot to mention the source (if there is one) of this information, and the names of the ousted politicians!

EDIT: I did leave one out:

Double Standards - but no one here has read any of the court rulings. They just assume because the PPP/reds were found guilty and the Dems/yellows weren't then it must be double standards, nothing to do with the possibility of one side actually being guilty and another not. It was also pointed out that some Yellow shirt weren't charged for some things they did (ie airports seizure), but with responses stating that charges were still before the courts. The courts move slowly for lots of reasons. Thaksins assets case started 3 years ago.

Do not forget, that the PPP did not leave the government after the verdict of the EC was published in May. It needed peaceful demonstrations all through the summer, with no results. Finally with the occupation of the airport the PPP was forced to go. The PPP is to blame that the airport was occupated. If they would have gone freely in May, nobody would have been needed to demonstrate or to orchestrate the occupation of the airport to mount enough pressure on this corrupt PPP-government or the PPP-party.