Thai Pm Rejects Protesters' Demand Amid March On Barracks

[moresomekl]

Abhisit wons the vote of 0.000000001% of the thai people , that is true

More like 30% of voters

In fact, in the last election more people voted for the Dems' than voted for the PTP.

How do ya' like that fact?

I am talking about the people who voted directly for ABHISIT . Or directly for any other past thai PM...

[Moonrakers]

Abhisit wons the vote of 0.000000001% of the thai people , that is true

More like 30% of voters

In fact, in the last election more people voted for the Dems' than voted for the PTP.

How do ya' like that fact?

I am talking about the people who voted directly for ABHISIT . Or directly for any other past thai PM...

Sorry, I misread it.

[moresomekl]

Abhisit wons the vote of 0.000000001% of the thai people , that is true

More like 30% of voters

In fact, in the last election more people voted for the Dems' than voted for the PTP.

How do ya' like that fact?

I am talking about the people who voted directly for ABHISIT . Or directly for any other past thai PM...

No probs . I was'nst clear

Sorry, I misread it.

[Carib]

Without thaksin and his personal fight, they wouldnot be in the streets.

Probably not as they would have no money to come to BKK . Does that seem fair to you ?

I am not saying that their cause is a bad one, absolutely not !!

The way that they are used now, on this moment sadly hasn't got much to do with their problems.

It is just a nice "opportunity" for thaksin, who has much more to gain than the handouts he is giving out now to make this sad display possible.

[Sparkles]

Seems the red shirt protest is winding down and many people are heading home. Will this force organisers to do something really dramatic or outrageous. ?Lets hope not. Thaksin sitting, and watching, wherever, must be mortified, it hasnt gone to plan at all. Have no idea the numbers who came to Bangkok and the expected 20,000 monks who were said to want to march didnt eventuate . A big loss of face for organisers and a huge blow to everday life for a lot of Bangkokians, workers and school children not to mention Thailands standing around the world. Lets hope no more until the elections next yearv where people can expres their feelings without the circus

[moresomekl]

Probably not as they would have no money to come to BKK . Does that seem fair to you ?

I am not saying that their cause is a bad one, absolutely not !!

The way that they are used now, on this moment sadly hasn't got much to do with their problems.

It is just a nice "opportunity" for thaksin, who has much more to gain than the handouts he is giving out now to make this sad display possible.

*************************************************************

yes it is not a bad cause

they are various factions in the red camp . Not all of them are Thaksin die-hard . Who is using who ? An interesting question !

[anotherpeter]

Electing the leader (PM, President, whatever) by popular vote is not in use in the USA. I don't know the exact details, but basically, people in each state vote for a party. Depending on the state (as they can each have their own rules), the party that wins has a number of votes (depending on population) towards voting for the President.

In France, they have a Prime Minister and a President. Not sure how both of them are done.

In the UK and Australia, they have the same system as here.

That's all I know off the top of my head.

No system is perfect.

But they have a system here that works pretty well in a lot of other countries.

With all due respect , i think you are misinformed .

In USA each party nominates his candidate , yes . However during the presidential election one of the choosen candidates is elected as president by the whole of the american people (its the one that has the more vote)

In France the president is elected by the whole of the french people (like in USA) . The prime minister is nominated by the president , who (the PM) then nominates his cabinet . The PM is only one of the minister and unlike the president can be dismissed by the parliament .

In UK the PM is elected by the whole of the british ppl

In Germany the chancellor is elected by the whole of the german nation .

Same principle in all european country .

Thank you

I think you need to do some serious research ... actually, maybe even a little bit of research may be useful.

[anotherpeter]

Yes I do, and I think they will.

Abhisit never won a popular election but was installed by a Parliamentary vote.

Why not accept the gauntlet and stand for election?

It isn't gonna happen. Why don't the redshirts just wait for the 2011 elections instead of further discrediting themselves?

Because the puppet master will have lost his momentum in his troubled times. He and his personal plan are the only reasons they are out there now. If he doesnot cut it now, he may be too late.

Correct. The puppet master (Thaksin) will be irrelevent by the next elections.

[Jonathanpattaya]

Yes I do, and I think they will.

Abhisit never won a popular election but was installed by a Parliamentary vote.

Why not accept the gauntlet and stand for election?

"Abhisit never won a popular election but was installed by a Parliamentary vote."

Please explain to me how that is any different than Samak, and especially Somchai.

I didn't say it wasn't.

So why would he even think about calling an election?

Because the Redshirts will force his hand.

And mark my words force his hand they will.

Most Thais don't want Abhisit.

[animatic]

Electing the leader (PM, President, whatever) by popular vote is not in use in the USA. I don't know the exact details, but basically, people in each state vote for a party. Depending on the state (as they can each have their own rules), the party that wins has a number of votes (depending on population) towards voting for the President.

In France, they have a Prime Minister and a President. Not sure how both of them are done.

In the UK and Australia, they have the same system as here.

That's all I know off the top of my head.

No system is perfect.

But they have a system here that works pretty well in a lot of other countries.

With all due respect , i think you are misinformed .

In USA each party nominates his candidate , yes . However during the presidential election one of the choosen candidates is elected as president by the whole of the american people (its the one that has the more vote)

In France the president is elected by the whole of the french people (like in USA) . The prime minister is nominated by the president , who (the PM) then nominates his cabinet . The PM is only one of the minister and unlike the president can be dismissed by the parliament .

In UK the PM is elected by the whole of the british ppl

In Germany the chancellor is elected by the whole of the german nation .

Same principle in all european country .

Thank you

I think you need to do some serious research ... actually, maybe even a little bit of research may be useful.

Too many mistakes to address. You need to do some research, yes indeedy.

Three words will do; USA Electoral Collage.

[anotherpeter]

Abhisit wons the vote of 0.000000001% of the thai people , that is true

It's also irrelevant.

The system here is that voters vote for an MP to represent them in the parliment (not 100% sure what they call it here).

So Abhisit needs to win 50% (or the largest number of votes) in his electorate.

Once he has done that, all the elected MPs get together and vote for the person they want to be PM. That is usually done by parties forming a coalition to have greater than 50% of the MPs forming a government, and that group selecting the MP that they want to be PM.

That is the way it works here. That is the way it works in Aus. That is the way it works in the UK. Not sure about France (PM, not President).

The selected PM is then sworn in by the head of state (the King here, the Queen in England, the governer general - representative of the queen of england - in Australia, probably the President in France).

The PM can actually have far less than the majority of the popular vote, since (assuming only 2 parties) one party can get 100% of the vote in 45% of the electorates and the second party can get 55% of the vote in 55% of the electorates. In numbers, assuming 100 electorates (MPs) and 100 voters in each electorate (so 10,000 votes), party one gets 45 x 100 + 55 x 45 = 4500 + 2475 = 6975 votes and the second party gets 45 x 0 + 55 x 55 = 0 + 3025 = 3025. Obviously, party one has a majority of the votes, but party two has the majority of the electorate (MPs). Party two can form government. THAT'S DEMOCRACY.

[anotherpeter]

So why would he even think about calling an election?

Because the Redshirts will force his hand.

And mark my words force his hand they will.

Most Thais don't want Abhisit.

Most Thais don't want Thaksin either.

And I will mark you words ... I'll come back here in a couple of days to follow up on them.

Not saying you aren't correct, I don't know what the red shirts are going to do. But I think they have made great progress to make people aware of the plight of the poor farmers, and if they do "force" Abhisit's hand they will take a big step backwards.

[moresomekl]

Electing the leader (PM, President, whatever) by popular vote is not in use in the USA. I don't know the exact details, but basically, people in each state vote for a party. Depending on the state (as they can each have their own rules), the party that wins has a number of votes (depending on population) towards voting for the President.

In France, they have a Prime Minister and a President. Not sure how both of them are done.

In the UK and Australia, they have the same system as here.

That's all I know off the top of my head.

No system is perfect.

But they have a system here that works pretty well in a lot of other countries.

With all due respect , i think you are misinformed .

In USA each party nominates his candidate , yes . However during the presidential election one of the choosen candidates is elected as president by the whole of the american people (its the one that has the more vote)

In France the president is elected by the whole of the french people (like in USA) . The prime minister is nominated by the president , who (the PM) then nominates his cabinet . The PM is only one of the minister and unlike the president can be dismissed by the parliament .

In UK the PM is elected by the whole of the british ppl

In Germany the chancellor is elected by the whole of the german nation .

Same principle in all european country .

Thank you

I think you need to do some serious research ... actually, maybe even a little bit of research may be useful.

Too many mistakes to address. You need to do some research, yes indeedy.

Three words will do; USA Electoral Collage.

Yes the US president is elected by the US electoral college and the presidential election is just a show for streets vendors to help sell their hamburgers and hot-dogs .

And the planet earth is square ......

Thank you

[moresomekl]

***********************************************************************

How many times must i tell that in France the prime minister is just another minister and is not elected by anyone but nominated by the president who is elected by the whole of the french people . In France the PM has no equivalence to other PM in democratic countries . The PM is a reliq of the french 4th republic . When the PM of UK visits France , his equivalent is the french president , not the french PM

In UK the prime minister is also elected by the whole of the british people . If the system was the same as in Thailand he would be elected by the house of commons . Is he ? Ok .. thank you .

Now back to this thread , yes some countries have parlementary system , but first in those countries the social fabric is more homegenous then in Thailand , secundly you cant buy votes as one can in Thailand which has been amply demonstrated by some ex PM .

When 100,000 thai ppl or so demonstrate in the street of BKK now or 2 years back at the airport saying that the PM is not legally elected then something is very wrong . I never saw such things happening in real democracies where the PM is elected by the people .

Frankly i think many thais have had enough with their system

[ballpoint]

How many times must i tell that in France the prime minister is just another minister and is not elected by anyone but nominated by the president who is elected by the whole of the french people . In France the PM has no equivalence to other PM in democratic countries . The PM is a reliq of the french 4th republic . When the PM of UK visits France , his equivalent is the french president , not the french PM

In UK the prime minister is also elected by the whole of the british people . If the system was the same as in Thailand he would be elected by the house of commons . Is he ? Ok .. thank you .

Now back to this thread , yes some countries have parlementary system , but first in those countries the social fabric is more homegenous then in Thailand , secundly you cant buy votes as one can in Thailand which has been amply demonstrated by some ex PM .

When 100,000 thai ppl or so demonstrate in the street of BKK now or 2 years back at the airport saying that the PM is not legally elected then something is very wrong . I never saw such things happening in real democracies where the PM is elected by the people .

Frankly i think many thais have had enough with their system

Crikey mate, give it a rest. You've had the facts pointed out to you by so many here, and yet you go on and on with your misguided and off topic little ramblings. France is a republic and has nothing whatsoever to do with Thailand's parliamentary system. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, just like Thailand, and elects its PM in exactly the same way as Thailand. People vote for a party in their constituency. The MP's nominate the PM. In just about every case that will be the leader of the party that wins the election. The only people that elect the PM into parliament are those voters living in his constituency, and then they are only voting for him/her to become an MP, and not voting for him/her to be PM. Because the PM is nominated by the sitting MP's there is nothing constitutionally wrong by changing him out mid way through a term, as the UK did with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and as Thailand did with Somchai for Samak and then Abhisit for Somchai.

[moresomekl]

Sorry for implying that Thailand is not a real democracy , it is a real democracy , but the system is open to too many machinations inside the parliement and vote changes to be either credible or efficient .

Congratulations to Abhisit for his cool handling of the crisis , he knows he is a pinochio , but he does his best .

He also knows that most red shirt real grievances are far more diverses then just restoring Mr T power and money.

That argument is just a political trick to discredit them

[moresomekl]

Crikey mate, give it a rest. You've had the facts pointed out to you by so many here, and yet you go on and on with your misguided and off topic little ramblings. France is a republic and has nothing whatsoever to do with Thailand's parliamentary system. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, just like Thailand, and elects its PM in exactly the same way as Thailand. People vote for a party in their constituency. The MP's nominate the PM. In just about every case that will be the leader of the party that wins the election. The only people that elect the PM into parliament are those voters living in his constituency, and then they are only voting for him/her to become an MP, and not voting for him/her to be PM. Because the PM is nominated by the sitting MP's there is nothing constitutionally wrong by changing him out mid way through a term, as the UK did with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and as Thailand did with Somchai for Samak and then Abhisit for Somchai.

********************************************************************************

************

Check my post 114 in this forum , thanks

Here it was

But then France is not a constitutional monarchy , so UK system would be perhaps more relevant to Thailand hypothetically that is . I am not so sure of the UK system , sorry for that .

Before 1960 , France had a same system as Thailand , but it was found to be very unstable with governements changing sometimes every 6 months . THey cant do a good job

Alright might have somewhat confused about UK .

Back to Thailand i still maintain there are some consistent legitimacy problem for its governements .

[scorecard]

Sorry for implying that Thailand is not a real democracy , it is a real democracy , but the system is open to too many machinations inside the parliement and vote changes to be either credible or efficient .

Congratulations to Abhisit for his cool handling of the crisis , he knows he is a pinochio , but he does his best .

He also knows that most red shirt real grievances are far more diverses then just restoring Mr T power and money.

That argument is just a political trick to discredit them

Let's try to get filing done here, please:

1. Yes, the rural poor should have a much much better deal, very few Thais would argue with that point, and PM Abhisit and Khun Korn have already said this many times and they have already put a blueprint in place to get some real institutional change in terms of better spread of wealth for all Thais, much better quality education for all Thais and more. They are not trying to fix the poverty / the lack of opportunity etc., simply by more handouts which long-term does nothing at all to fix the problems and is actually just a cover up for vote buying by ruthless incapable leeches to get into power to raid the coffers.

2. The red shirts claim to the champions of democracy (or whatever their warcry is this week - it's changed several times in the last few months) but the truth is as obvious as the nose on your face that they have zero credibility as the 'champions of democracy'. They claim they want equal justice for all then they say they want a pardon for a masively corrupt abuser. They conveniently ignore the utterly disgraceful Alpine golf scandal of massive proportions but claim / demand 'no double standards'. Their purpose / their intent is not democracy, they have been fooled by a nasty salesman who goes on holidays while his troops do the dirty work.

Edited March 16, 2010 by scorecard

[miksguevara]

 

True Democracy...? Meaning...? majority rule...?

The best model of governing ourselves is a 'Representative' republic, thereby giving a voice to all citizens. This doesn't mean that everyone is heard or every little concern is addressed, it is simply the most feasible method.

A true democracy means - for example: Five people finish dinner. They vote on who will do the dishes... three men vs. two women... guess who is doing the dishes? This is 'pure' democracy and you don't want any part of it...

well I would suggest that anyone who can come up with a system that is not unfairly influenced / dominated by a minority/minorities with vested interests such as the one that exists in the US etc would have a true democracy. Its all very well lauding how great a democracy, it just doesn't seem democratic if you only get vote for candidates from the same small group of the population..just a lay mans thought, I am no expert   sorry I messed my qoutes up!! One thing I don't want to see is more blood shed on the streets of bangkok,I was having a beer with some bloke the other night who's remark was ' I hope there is loads of trouble so the exchange rate gets better. ' I thought your an ass h0l%

Edited March 16, 2010 by miksguevara

[Richard W]

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

[CLOD]

I have to laugh at the descriptor "thai democracy".

In no way shape or form is thailand a democracy.

thailand is plain and simple a Military junta ruled failed state, incorporating "coup-issued law", whatever that is in a" democracy!".

As long as military coup's and junta appointed judiciary are interfering with the democratic process to the benefit of the elites, there is no democracy, whichever way you do your sums.

[shawndoc]

I'd go so far as to say that Thailand has a better system than the USA. In the USA, you're stuck with the current President for 4 years. There's no provisions to get rid of him, even if he's breaking the law (And there's some debate as to if he can even be charged for crimes while President).

In Thailand, the people can overthrow the PM any time they want and install a new one. All they have to do is convince their representatives (MPs) to pass a No Confidence motion on the current government. Which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a simple 50%+1 vote by the MPs.

Also by having multiple parties forming coalitions, there's much more chance for different ideas to be put forward and integrated into law, vs the US system of 2 parties, where there's only two sides to any debate, and rather than debate the issues, the minority party (at least in recent history) has become the party of "no" to whatever the majority party wants, regardless of validity or need.

[moresomekl]

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

Really ?

Well then maybe Thailand should adopt the UK system which as far as I know is working pretty well .

Or alternatively elect the prime minister by the whole of the thai nation , same as in US or in France .

The first aim beeing to garantee that once elected the parliament members dont relax in their plush seat givin just

lip service to the needs of the people that have elected them . The secund aim beeing to garantee that the PM is stable and can

devote its attention to his program rather then to remaining in power .

[anotherpeter]

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

Whether that is technically true or not (which I don't believe it is), it's still the same result. The majority of MPs still get who they want.

[moresomekl]

I'd go so far as to say that Thailand has a better system than the USA. In the USA, you're stuck with the current President for 4 years. There's no provisions to get rid of him, even if he's breaking the law (And there's some debate as to if he can even be charged for crimes while President).

In Thailand, the people can overthrow the PM any time they want and install a new one. All they have to do is convince their representatives (MPs) to pass a No Confidence motion on the current government. Which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a simple 50%+1 vote by the MPs.

Also by having multiple parties forming coalitions, there's much more chance for different ideas to be put forward and integrated into law, vs the US system of 2 parties, where there's only two sides to any debate, and rather than debate the issues, the minority party (at least in recent history) has become the party of "no" to whatever the majority party wants, regardless of validity or need.

Generally speaking in Thailand its not the people that overthrows the thai PM but the military . Is that good ?

In USA as far as I know the president can be removed by the two chambers (both senate and house of reps ) , see what was about to happen to Nixon , or could have happened to Clinton (after the Levinsky affair).

Even assuming the thai peole can remove the PM at anytime , is it a good thing ? If the people is unhappy with the PM , then on poll day they can vote for another party . Else the PM is so preoccupied with keeping in power (generally by compromising ,or bribing) that he has precious little time to work for the people

[anotherpeter]

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

Really ?

Well then maybe Thailand should adopt the UK system which as far as I know is working pretty well .

Or alternatively elect the prime minister by the whole of the thai nation , same as in US or in France .

The first aim beeing to garantee that once elected the parliament members dont relax in their plush seat givin just

lip service to the needs of the people that have elected them . The secund aim beeing to garantee that the PM is stable and can

devote its attention to his program rather then to remaining in power .

moresomekl: it's been explained to you in several posts - the US don't directly elect the president.

[moresomekl]

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

Whether that is technically true or not (which I don't believe it is), it's still the same result. The majority of MPs still get who they want.

What the MP's want is to keep their plush seat !!! Nothing else . Thats the all point

[moresomekl]

Actually, there is one difference between the British and Thai systems. In the British system, parliament rejects a prime minister, whereas in the Thai system, parliament chooses a prime minister.

Really ?

Well then maybe Thailand should adopt the UK system which as far as I know is working pretty well .

Or alternatively elect the prime minister by the whole of the thai nation , same as in US or in France .

The first aim beeing to garantee that once elected the parliament members dont relax in their plush seat givin just

lip service to the needs of the people that have elected them . The secund aim beeing to garantee that the PM is stable and can

devote its attention to his program rather then to remaining in power .

moresomekl: it's been explained to you in several posts - the US don't directly elect the president.

Fine its the senate who elects the US president if that suits you .

And France the same ... LOL

[moresomekl]

I have to laugh at the descriptor "thai democracy".

In no way shape or form is thailand a democracy.

thailand is plain and simple a Military junta ruled failed state, incorporating "coup-issued law", whatever that is in a" democracy!".

As long as military coup's and junta appointed judiciary are interfering with the democratic process to the benefit of the elites, there is no democracy, whichever way you do your sums.

Thailand is nominally a democracy in which unfortunately what you describe has happened time and time again .

[anotherpeter]

How many times must i tell that in France the prime minister is just another minister and is not elected by anyone but nominated by the president who is elected by the whole of the french people . In France the PM has no equivalence to other PM in democratic countries . The PM is a reliq of the french 4th republic . When the PM of UK visits France , his equivalent is the french president , not the french PM

In UK the prime minister is also elected by the whole of the british people . If the system was the same as in Thailand he would be elected by the house of commons . Is he ? Ok .. thank you .

Now back to this thread , yes some countries have parlementary system , but first in those countries the social fabric is more homegenous then in Thailand , secundly you cant buy votes as one can in Thailand which has been amply demonstrated by some ex PM .

When 100,000 thai ppl or so demonstrate in the street of BKK now or 2 years back at the airport saying that the PM is not legally elected then something is very wrong . I never saw such things happening in real democracies where the PM is elected by the people .

Frankly i think many thais have had enough with their system

Besides knowing how the French president was elected, I wasn't sure how the PM was 'elected'. I understand now. Thankyou.

BUT, in the UK, electorates vote for MPs, the majority of MPs form a government, the Queen "commissions" the *leader* for the majority party to be Prime Minister. He becomes *leader* of the party by being elected by his party, not by the *whole* British people.

It is the same system as here.

The Yellows were not protesting against Samak/Somchai/PPP because they were not 'democratically' elected. They were protesting because the courts were slow in processing charges of electoral fraud against them (and ofcourse, they didn't like their links with Thaksin).

There is nothing wrong# with the system. There is a huge lack of understanding of the system.

(#nothing wrong that any other system would necessarily fix).