Abhisit Interviewed By Al Jazeera's Hamish Macdonald

[Oldvisitor]

He should get the blinking thing under control though

blinkers are liars

[tominbkk]

I'm trying to work out why the OP thought the PM look rattled. Job well done in my opinion.

Agreed. Composed, clear, and level headed job. Cheers, PM Abhisit, you are doing a great job and we all commend you. I especially like how he dodged the last unanswerable question the reporter tried to throw out to raise some controversy...Thaksin was asked a similar question a while back and ended up with serious sticky mud all over his face!

[Tony121]

He should get the blinking thing under control though

blinkers are liars

Everyone blinks

[SurinLA]

I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections.

He and his party lost the last election, PPP won.

From Buying Votes from the poor.

[monkfish]

I think he didn't appreciate the implication that his election was illegitimate by the question about new elections.

He and his party lost the last election, PPP won.

From Buying Votes from the poor.

The Dems were clever they got the members to do the dirty work.

Edited March 21, 2010 by monkfish

[neverdie]

He should get the blinking thing under control though

He should get the blinking thing under control though

blinkers are liars

Gentleman, Has it ever dawned on you that Abhisit may have been blinking alot because he was tired .

You are fairly harsh critics to stoop to this level, not all people that are blinking are lying

[neverdie]

I'm trying to work out why the OP thought the PM look rattled. Job well done in my opinion.

Agreed. Composed, clear, and level headed job. Cheers, PM Abhisit, you are doing a great job and we all commend you. I especially like how he dodged the last unanswerable question the reporter tried to throw out to raise some controversy...Thaksin was asked a similar question a while back and ended up with serious sticky mud all over his face!

EXACTLY!

[Donnyboy]

I'm trying to work out why the OP thought the PM look rattled. Job well done in my opinion.

Agreed. Composed, clear, and level headed job. Cheers, PM Abhisit, you are doing a great job and we all commend you. I especially like how he dodged the last unanswerable question the reporter tried to throw out to raise some controversy...Thaksin was asked a similar question a while back and ended up with serious sticky mud all over his face!

agreed

incidently, Abhisit was interviewed by CNN on the same day, but i cant seem to find that on Youtube yet

Edited March 22, 2010 by Donnyboy

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

I'm trying to work out why the OP thought the PM look rattled. Job well done in my opinion.

Agreed. Composed, clear, and level headed job. Cheers, PM Abhisit, you are doing a great job and we all commend you. I especially like how he dodged the last unanswerable question the reporter tried to throw out to raise some controversy...Thaksin was asked a similar question a while back and ended up with serious sticky mud all over his face!

EXACTLY!

I think the answer above, that there was a satellite delay, might explain it. I've seen many interviews of Abhisit on AJN, and he is usually very lucid and fluid in his speech. His speech was more hesitant in this interview, and filled with unintended pauses. I teach public speaking, so I did discern a difference in his speaking style during this interview.

[johndpoole]

I have not seen him speak many times (in English) but thought he came across very well. He certainly could have clarified things more in some of his answers, for those who don't know many facts, but I thought he sounded well spoken and appeared very at ease, with sincerity and nothing to hide.

[Powerband]

The military over threw the Thaksin government because Thaksin was about to put his man in charge of the military. If Thaksin would've succeeded in this, he would have had TOTAL control over Thailand.

Military had nothing to do with the current government. They prevented a tyrant as proven by the extra judicial killings in the south ordered by Thaksin, from becoming a absolute tyrant, with absolute power.

Thaksin's brother inlaw then became PM at one point and it is very well recorded that vote buying had taken place at approx 300 baht per vote, whoever cannot see the fault in this must be blind. i know ive seen it happen. they gather groups of 'known' people who can do things under the table slyly to buy votes, people who are known in th community, not neccesarily village leaders, but maybe the guy that runs the neighborhood corner store or the guy that happens to know 'everybody'.

During the elections after Thaksin was removed, there were simply to many parties and the voters spread themselves thin. Since Thaksin was essentially buying votes and distributing 500 baht banknotes, which was documented on television whenever he visited a village.

The loan scheme has only proven that it put more people in debt, some got out of it, but the vast majority are in deeper debt. To alot of them its just free money, and many still to this day have little comprehension of the word 'debt'... which must be paid back in time. To alot of those folks its about as important as giving you money when they have it, wthout going out of their way to work to pay you back.

Thaksin got his biggest bang per buck by literally buying issan's trust.

It must be taken into consideration 'how' elections are won. Ends don't justify a means.

If you haven't been in Thailand for more than 6 years you will never see the whole story as it unfolded. Thats another problem with alot (not all) of his followers, they had no access to any news EXCEPT for what Thaksin had broadcast in his weekly radio address to those regions which was specifically targeted to reach regions that were never reached before.

Kinda like cavemen stuck in the jungle without contact with the outside world.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Powerband

[Donnyboy]

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva talked with Bloomberg's Haslinda Amin yesterday about the country's political disputes. Abhisit and his opponents failed to agree on ground rules for negotiations aimed at bringing an end to a Bangkok protest entering its second week. About 65,000 protesters demanding an election caravanned through Bangkok yesterday in their latest maneuver to garner support. (Source: Bloomberg)

[Samuian]

He is open to talks regarding calling new elections?

Looks like the protests will be over soon!

In another Interview I watched on TAN, he keeps insisting no matter what,

at the time new elections won't bring any real changes about!

It will just swing one way or the other, both not really favorable.

Wonder what they are waiting about?

Something up the sleeve?

Edited March 22, 2010 by Samuian

[MellowYellow]

As someone who believes the current government is completely illegitimate, I think the PM came off just fine in that interview outting forward his position. His composure is worthy of a PMs position. I think I would probably support him were he to arrive at that position through pure elections vice military intervention, violent mob intervention, and judicial intervention.

[Thai at Heart]

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva talked with Bloomberg's Haslinda Amin yesterday about the country's political disputes. Abhisit and his opponents failed to agree on ground rules for negotiations aimed at bringing an end to a Bangkok protest entering its second week. About 65,000 protesters demanding an election caravanned through Bangkok yesterday in their latest maneuver to garner support. (Source: Bloomberg)

Pretty eloquent. He should have fleshed out better the policies. "We have continued" doesn't sound have as powerful and I have implemented. He can't help but sound all a little distant from the realities.

[Donnyboy]

speaking of eloquent, i unearthed this little gem

[Thai at Heart]

speaking of eloquent, i unearthed this little gem

Absolutely classic.

If ever there was an advertisement for education reform

[WinnieTheKhwai]

A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power.

Sorry. The Thaksin government was a caretaker government at the time of the coup. This caretaker government had been in place longer than the constitution allowed for. It was itself illegal. The coup ended that.

And why did that happen?

Hint: Because the "Democrat" boycotted elections that PM Thaksin called. The resulting stalemate led directly to the coup. So Abhisit most definitely wasn't just a passenger in the rape of what passes for democracy in Thailand and shredding of the only constituation to come about under democratic process; he was a active participant and instigator. Not sure if he realized it at the time of course; he may not have been briefed on all the plans.

It's amazing we can't seem to agree on those basic things so many years after the fact. Next we're going to hear the line the coup was because "demonstrators were planning to protest in Bangkok", the original line by The Nation at the time. We've recently seen that such a protest in Bangkok is of course completely no reason for a coup. In fact NOTHING is a legitimate reason for a coup. It's sad that some people still don't see that basic fact. "Educated Westerners" they call themselves too!!

Edited March 22, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Thai at Heart]

A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power.

Sorry. The Thaksin government was a caretaker government at the time of the coup. This caretaker government had been in place longer than the constitution allowed for. It was itself illegal. The coup ended that.

And why did that happen?

Hint: Because the "Democrat" boycotted elections that PM Thaksin called. The resulting stalemate led directly to the coup. So Abhisit most definitely wasn't just a passenger in the rape of what passes for democracy in Thailand and shredding of the only constituation to come about under democratic process; he was a active participant and instigator. Not sure if he realized it at the time of course; he may not have been briefed on all the plans.

It's amazing we can't seem to agree on those basic things so many years after the fact. Next we're going to hear the line the coup was because "demonstrators were planning to protest in Bangkok", the original line by The Nation at the time. We've recently seen that such a protest in Bangkok is of course completely no reason for a coup. In fact NOTHING is a legitimate reason for a coup. It's sad that some people still don't see that basic fact. "Educated Westerners" they call themselves too!!

And then horror of horrors, after the campaigning under the CNS, the restrictions on TRT, changing the constitution, the bloody Dems STILL couldn't get an absolute majority.

I might quite like Abhisit, but that was the boo boo of all of this to beat all others. If I was one of the coup leaders I would have hit the roof. After all the efforts to clear the way for the Dems they still messed up and TRT/PPP or whatever they were called formed the next government.

So they all had to go back to the drawing board and I presume this is when someone called Sondhi and asked him for a little help.

I wonder what happened when it was discovered that Newin was the key to it all?

I wonder who made the phone call to see if he would switch?

At what price?

A lot of apparently good people, with not an awful lot of which to be proud.

[anotherpeter]

And why did that happen?

Hint: Because the "Democrat" boycotted elections that PM Thaksin called. The resulting stalemate led directly to the coup. So Abhisit most definitely wasn't just a passenger in the rape of what passes for democracy in Thailand and shredding of the only constituation to come about under democratic process; he was a active participant and instigator. Not sure if he realized it at the time of course; he may not have been briefed on all the plans.

It's amazing we can't seem to agree on those basic things so many years after the fact. Next we're going to hear the line the coup was because "demonstrators were planning to protest in Bangkok", the original line by The Nation at the time. We've recently seen that such a protest in Bangkok is of course completely no reason for a coup. In fact NOTHING is a legitimate reason for a coup. It's sad that some people still don't see that basic fact. "Educated Westerners" they call themselves too!!

The Democrats boycotted the elections for a number of reasons, mainly because a fair election was unlikely. The opposition parties had no time to prepare candidates for the elections.

If it's not going to be fair, why get involved.

[Samuian]

. A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power. It was legitimate until such time as the judiciary ruled otherwise. There was no court order, nor was there a consensus in the elected legislature to dissolve the administration. The army had no legal mandate to intervene.

Are you reflecting to the events leading to the coup d état?

If so, may I remind you that there was no legitimate Government left, as it was dissolved!

and Mr.PM was left with a timed caretaker position, new elections, boycotted, yes "won" but boycotted, he said he is going to step down, didn't, even after being in a meeting with ... ah well the one that cant be mentioned

and then he left for some overseas meeting with the UN... and didn''t leave two 747 as well... for Norway?

Remember?

So there was no "legitimate" Government to be toppled... as simple as that or can you confute this?

I thought those were the factors of these days!?

The move as if so, more a move to secure the countries ans it's citizens safety.... as the country was in a stalemate, with out a proper Government, no ruling majority in Parliament!

I really think that I haven't dreamt this up.. I truly believe that this happened, and everything else, as the assets affair, the "honest mistakes", a sentence that followed by one vote margin, the election fraud, the banning of 111 Politicians mostly from his revered Party.... nope, there was no Radjadapisek deal, no Alpine Golf Course.... nope, no "Suvannabhum Parkhouse" deal, no crevasses in broken tarmac of the runways, no scanner scandal, no change of the contracts with TOT where his ShinTel highly benefited from, no Satellite deal with Burma financed by Exim Bank... nope this man and his entourage were as clean as a babies bum.

This all only exists in the books of his critics... yep!

Yes, Sir!

Rebut this and I believe your stance about "illegal military coup" !

[Powerband]

excellent post Samuian

too many people on this board either have a short memory span, weren't here long enough or don't have all their facts together and speak out of their a$$.

[mca]

The army had no legal mandate, except for the fact the the Thaksin caretaker government had exceeded the constitutional time allowed for it's existence. They most certainly had a moral mandate.

Unfortunately the Thai army has proven on so many occasions that it doesn't need a mandate, legal, moral or otherwise to act in whatever way it sees fit.

[Thai at Heart]

The army had no legal mandate, except for the fact the the Thaksin caretaker government had exceeded the constitutional time allowed for it's existence. They most certainly had a moral mandate.

Unfortunately the Thai army has proven on so many occasions that it doesn't need a mandate, legal, moral or otherwise to act in whatever way it sees fit.

If everybody in a position of power in this country was held to moral accountability by the army, they wouldn't have enough bullets in the armouries to carry out the executions.

[brianb1944]

He would have been a good Leader if he'd only done it through election, now some military puppet.

What a crock, guy is a good conservative leader, approaching his horrific political problems with calm and moderate responses.

[way2muchcoffee]

The army had no legal mandate, except for the fact the the Thaksin caretaker government had exceeded the constitutional time allowed for it's existence. They most certainly had a moral mandate.

Unfortunately the Thai army has proven on so many occasions that it doesn't need a mandate, legal, moral or otherwise to act in whatever way it sees fit.

Yes. Very very true. To some they are the great stabilizer of Thai politics. To others they are the great destabilizer. Either way, by law they are not beholden to the government of the day, but they are beholden to one man, at least nominally. In the end they will do as they please. They will do what they think is best for the country, or themselves, or the neighbor's dog....

Edited March 22, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[neverdie]

speaking of eloquent, i unearthed this little gem

That was a perla, thanks for the laugh.

[monkfish]

. A military cannot simply overthrow a government, particularly one that had a legitimate legal right to be in power. It was legitimate until such time as the judiciary ruled otherwise. There was no court order, nor was there a consensus in the elected legislature to dissolve the administration. The army had no legal mandate to intervene.

Are you reflecting to the events leading to the coup d état?

If so, may I remind you that there was no legitimate Government left, as it was dissolved!

and Mr.PM was left with a timed caretaker position, new elections, boycotted, yes "won" but boycotted, he said he is going to step down, didn't, even after being in a meeting with ... ah well the one that cant be mentioned

and then he left for some overseas meeting with the UN... and didn''t leave two 747 as well... for Norway?

Remember?

So there was no "legitimate" Government to be toppled... as simple as that or can you confute this?

I thought those were the factors of these days!?

The move as if so, more a move to secure the countries ans it's citizens safety.... as the country was in a stalemate, with out a proper Government, no ruling majority in Parliament!

I really think that I haven't dreamt this up.. I truly believe that this happened, and everything else, as the assets affair, the "honest mistakes", a sentence that followed by one vote margin, the election fraud, the banning of 111 Politicians mostly from his revered Party.... nope, there was no Radjadapisek deal, no Alpine Golf Course.... nope, no "Suvannabhum Parkhouse" deal, no crevasses in broken tarmac of the runways, no scanner scandal, no change of the contracts with TOT where his ShinTel highly benefited from, no Satellite deal with Burma financed by Exim Bank... nope this man and his entourage were as clean as a babies bum.

This all only exists in the books of his critics... yep!

Yes, Sir!

Rebut this and I believe your stance about "illegal military coup" !

This is scary! do you actually believe the coupe was justified and the correct way to solve the situation?

One thing I do know is it worked and so won't be the last.

May be even Mr Abhisit will experience a coupe if he isn't a good boy who knows?

[Nuchanart]

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva talked with Bloomberg's Haslinda Amin yesterday about the country's political disputes. Abhisit and his opponents failed to agree on ground rules for negotiations aimed at bringing an end to a Bangkok protest entering its second week. About 65,000 protesters demanding an election caravanned through Bangkok yesterday in their latest maneuver to garner support. (Source: Bloomberg)

Pretty eloquent. He should have fleshed out better the policies. "We have continued" doesn't sound have as powerful and I have implemented. He can't help but sound all a little distant from the realities.

He said that "we won the majority of the by-election". Is this a fact? As I remember it, it is otherwise.

[TAWP]

He said that "we won the majority of the by-election". Is this a fact? As I remember it, it is otherwise.

The by-elections to fill the seats of the banned MPs was won in many cases by non-PPP MPs, in many cases democrats. So yes, he is correct in point.