Thai PM Abhisit Says Seeking Political Solution To Crisis

[FarangCravings]

LOL he just could not agree he was not voted in by the people could he LOL simple clear consise question

If he cant answer that he should not be running a country

But he was voted for by the people. The people vote for MPs. He is an MP. MPs vote for PM.

Thats exactly what its all about he came through the back door people did not vote for him and thats what the problem with his office is

He was voted for the same way Thaksin, Samak and Somchai were.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so whybother

[whybother]

But he was voted for by the people. The people vote for MPs. He is an MP. MPs vote for PM.

Thats exactly what its all about he came through the back door people did not vote for him and thats what the problem with his office is

He was voted for the same way Thaksin, Samak and Somchai were.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so whybother

Maybe you can explain to me how they were different.

edit: which I don't think you can ... since they were the same.

Edited April 28, 2010 by whybother

[ThisIsMadness]

PM looked good on BBC Hard Talk. Interviewer really tried to paint him in a negative light, and he rebutted every one of her assertions and looked very good, imo.

However, if a person ever interrupted me repeatedly, like that, I'd but my foot in their ass. (Which is what the PM did).

Agreed ,did the best he could with to be honest what is a poor excuse for a BBC journalist.

Where was the research on the subject matter,i understand it is her job to be confrontational on the subject but to have that poor an understanding is a joke.

But being an adviser to the left wing foreign policy centre think tank,it makes her intentions far more clear to see now.

[Jingthing]

I thought the interviewer lost points by attacking Abhisit with "that's a long answer" strongly implying that she took the answer as false. Complexities requires detailed explanations, sorry. If she was confident that any parts of the "long answer" were flawed, she should have attacked those parts on point, rather than the BS "long answer." It was as if she didn't even know the history. That's one of the problems with the international reporting on this crisis. It doesn't easily fit into a ten second sound bite box to fully explain it. I agree Abhisit did well, not great.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[ThisIsMadness]

I thought the interviewer lost points by attacking Abhisit with "that's a long answer" strongly implying that she took the answer as false. Complexities requires detailed explanations, sorry. That's one of the problems with the international reporting on this crisis. It doesn't easily fit into a ten second sound bite box to fully explain it. I agree Abhisit did well, not great.

Again,spot on

[kissdani]

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Actually, I believe the PPP were banned using laws under the 1997 constitution, so the junta constitution doesn't come into it.

You're thinking of the TRT ban whybother. The PPP were banned from provisions in the current constitution.

What a lot forget is the evidence against the excecs in both cases was slam dunk level. The PPP one was an outrageous attempt to undermine the democraqtic process in multiple districts. Apart form the contropvery in the whole party disolution stuff the two actual cases should be celebrated as moves forward in Thai democracy. Of course you cannot find anyone who claims to be a democracy activist in the whole country who sees it this way which is kind of odd. The culture is well everyone is at it. So what if we get caught. It is no big deal. It is unfair because others werent caught.

The Demo case will be interesting as the evidence is very weak but the poltical pressure from every side will be to do it. Still both the othjer cases took 9 months so anything less thna that would be a double stanbdard and unacceptable to any true democracy activist or anti-double standard campaigner not that the country really has any of those

Don't fool yourself.

Just look into the evidence of the PPP cases, what was enough to declare them guilty. And now look at the Democrats... Weak evidence? No questions, the court will rule firm and fair and that means dissolution for the Democrats and a ban form politics for members of the executive committee.

[Publicus]

I thought the interviewer lost points by attacking Abhisit with "that's a long answer" strongly implying that she took the answer as false. Complexities requires detailed explanations, sorry. That's one of the problems with the international reporting on this crisis. It doesn't easily fit into a ten second sound bite box to fully explain it. I agree Abhisit did well, not great.

Again,spot on

Agreed......and I must say the Oxbridge 'pretty boy' naive gentleman we used to hear so much about now looks ten years older than he did a year ago and recently is conducting himself as if he had the seasoning and experience of a 55-year old. Abhisit's a combat veteran now.

[eltelboy]

On BBC Hardtalk Abhisit was professional, calm and assertive in the face of a tirade of sensationalistic questions which seemed to be amateurishly put together to try and get a rise out of the present Thai PM. How many more times must we here that he was not legitimately elected when time and time again this has been explained ...the BBC of course must have known these facts. The BBC even seemed to be saying that holding new elections within 15 days is acceptable and why is Abhisit not doing this...c'mon how ridiculous can you get. A very disappointing interview but not for Abhisit but for the poor journalistic questioning from yet another so-called reliable western media source. For me Abhisit is damned if he does and damned if he don’t….he gets my full sympathy as I’m sure he could be the start of a long road to real democracy in Thailand

[midas]

LOL he just could not agree he was not voted in by the people could he LOL simple clear consise question

If he cant answer that he should not be running a country

But he was voted for by the people. The people vote for MPs. He is an MP. MPs vote for PM.

its not unheard of that when " MPs vote for PM " they do shady deals between themselves that

no ever hears about..............that is not " voted for by the people "

[Jingthing]

LOL he just could not agree he was not voted in by the people could he LOL simple clear consise question

If he cant answer that he should not be running a country

But he was voted for by the people. The people vote for MPs. He is an MP. MPs vote for PM.

its not unheard of that when " MPs vote for PM " they do shady deals between themselves that

no ever hears about..............that is not " voted for by the people "

I'll give you that. But the red party had the same option to make such alleged deals, and failed to form a coalition to rule. Whoever formed the coalition legally rules, whether it is your side or not. That's the parliamentary system. You want to change that system? Maybe a good idea. Work on legal means of changing the constitution then.

[SomTumTiger]

LOL he just could not agree he was not voted in by the people could he LOL simple clear consise question

If he cant answer that he should not be running a country

But he was voted for by the people. The people vote for MPs. He is an MP. MPs vote for PM.

its not unheard of that when " MPs vote for PM " they do shady deals between themselves that

no ever hears about..............that is not " voted for by the people "

Then change the system. dam_n Brits and their ambiguous parliamentary system...

[rixalex]

LOL he just could not agree he was not voted in by the people could he LOL simple clear consise question

If he cant answer that he should not be running a country

But he was voted for by the people. The people vote for MPs. He is an MP. MPs vote for PM.

Thats exactly what its all about he came through the back door people did not vote for him and thats what the problem with his office is

What do you mean "that's exactly what it's all about"? whybother has just explained to you the process and how it is identical to the one that gave us Samak and Somchai, and a host of other PMs.

[Jingthing]

Abhisit did what needed to be done, and came over as a reasonable man

That is because Abhisit IS a reasonable man! Sadly that will likely be his downfall as the majority of Thai people (not only reds) are not particularly reasonable. Edited April 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[rixalex]

PM looked good on BBC Hard Talk. Interviewer really tried to paint him in a negative light, and he rebutted every one of her assertions and looked very good, imo.

However, if a person ever interrupted me repeatedly, like that, I'd but my foot in their ass. (Which is what the PM did).

You gotta be joking mate he did not look good at all

I thought he did okay though not perhaps brilliantly.For those who criticise the interviewer's style (which personally I thought was fine) I would point out that Abhisit knows the rules and can handle incisive questioning very well.Tim Sebastian was far more direct in his approach by the way.And I thought Abhisit made a great point when he observed the red blockade would not have been tolerated under the UK's Public Order Act.Basically Abhisit did what needed to be done, and came over as a reasonable man.

Never thought I'd see the day where Jayboy and I would stand on the same side of the issue.

jayboy has his preferences, some of which i don't share, but regardless of those, he usually views matters in a fair-minded manner without prejudice. It's what separates him from a lot of the other red sympathisers on this forum and what makes his opinion worthy of attention.

[viking75]

so verey clever falangs think they elite class in thailand

no solution with guns because we see in patani already and it not work

[Groongthep]

2.) When the red shirts win by landslide numbers once again,

Are you not aware of the last election results?

Are you not aware of TRT's original election results?

[Groongthep]

Red mind sees what is wants to see, i suppose.

Yellow Mind sees what it wants to see i suppose

Why not just have a fair election and find out for sure? Might it be that neither side is willing to cede anything to the other?

[whybother]

2.) When the red shirts win by landslide numbers once again,

Are you not aware of the last election results?

Are you not aware of TRT's original election results?

2001 - TRT 40% of the votes.

2005 - TRT 60% of the votes.

2006 - TRT 60% of the votes (with no opposition).

2007 - PPP 40% of the votes.

So they peaked at 60% but dropped down to 40%. Will the results of the next election follow the previous election, the last election, or the trend (dropping off)?

[Groongthep]

2001 - TRT 40% of the votes.

2005 - TRT 60% of the votes.

2006 - TRT 60% of the votes (with no opposition).

2007 - PPP 40% of the votes

.

Sixty percent is a landslide in any national election. In multi party parlimentary elections 40% is still a very strong showing. But the question remains, why not just hold new fair elections and let the people decide for themselves. Clearly it is because the leaders of the present government fear they will at best end up a weak minority player in a coalition government, or at worst end up being an impotent minority opposition party.

[whybother]

2001 - TRT 40% of the votes.

2005 - TRT 60% of the votes.

2006 - TRT 60% of the votes (with no opposition).

2007 - PPP 40% of the votes

.

Sixty percent is a landslide in any national election. In multi party parlimentary elections 40% is still a very strong showing. But the question remains, why not just hold new fair elections and let the people decide for themselves. Clearly it is because the leaders of the present government fear they will at best end up a weak minority player in a coalition government, or at worst end up being an impotent minority opposition party.

60% is a land slide. But that was 2 elections ago.

40% is a strong showing. Both the PPP and the Democrats got about 40% in the last election.

Why should a government hold elections because of a minority group come out protesting?

Elections don't have to be held until 2011. Why don't the protestors wait until then? That would be the democratic thing to do.

Edited April 29, 2010 by whybother

[midas]

I dont believe for one minute Abhisit would honour an agreement to hold an election

even in 9 months . When asked by CNN about rejecting the 3 months time frame

offered by the red shirts this is what he said :-

AMANPOUR: " Well, let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, it seemed for a few days that there might be a solution, some kind of new elections, perhaps within about three months, and then you rejected that."

VEJJAJIVA: " No. The -- the so-called offer was made by the leaders of the red shirts that this solution must take place in 30 days. ( it 30 days for dissolution and then 90 days for election wasnt it ? )I

It just doesn't make sense. When we had two rounds of open negotiations, I made it very clear that we need to make sure that there is a roadmap so that true reconciliation can be achieved. ( so this suggests Abhisit was being totally disingenious about his 9 month offer ? )

What we want to do is to make sure that the Thai economy is well underway as far as recovery is concerned. We want to make sure that the conditions and environment is right so that reconciliation can take place, that we would have free, fair and peaceful elections. And there is -- there are a number of things that need to be done before this solution can take place." ( so all Abhisit would have to say is that the Thai economy isnt well underway as afar as a recovery and he has grounds for postponing iy indefinately ? )

This is why the red shirts dont agree to wait......its now or never.

[Siripon]

2001 - TRT 40% of the votes.

2005 - TRT 60% of the votes.

2006 - TRT 60% of the votes (with no opposition).

2007 - PPP 40% of the votes

.

Sixty percent is a landslide in any national election. In multi party parlimentary elections 40% is still a very strong showing. But the question remains, why not just hold new fair elections and let the people decide for themselves. Clearly it is because the leaders of the present government fear they will at best end up a weak minority player in a coalition government, or at worst end up being an impotent minority opposition party.

60% is a land slide. But that was 2 elections ago.

40% is a strong showing. Both the PPP and the Democrats got about 40% in the last election.

Why should a government hold elections because of a minority group come out protesting?

Elections don't have to be held until 2011. Why don't the protestors wait until then? That would be the democratic thing to do.

Thaksin can't wait, over half his assets have been seized and more may go the same way.

The leaders can't wait because Thaksin's promised 10 of them jobs in the next cabinet if they can force elections now.

Local red leaders can't wait because they've been promised money if elections are held now and Pheua Thai win.

The people themselves don't matter, have you seen one red policy to help the poor yet?

apisit has done a lot to help the poor in 15 months, 15 years free schooling, pension for old folks9 though only 500 baht a month). subsidies for rice, cassava, corn and cassava that far surpassed any subsidies offered by Thaksion.

He must be stopped now in case of further success.

[whybother]

I dont believe for one minute Abhisit would honour an agreement to hold an election

even in 9 months . When asked by CNN about rejecting the 3 months time frame

offered by the red shirts this is what he said :-

AMANPOUR: " Well, let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, it seemed for a few days that there might be a solution, some kind of new elections, perhaps within about three months, and then you rejected that."

VEJJAJIVA: " No. The -- the so-called offer was made by the leaders of the red shirts that this solution must take place in 30 days. ( it 30 days for dissolution and then 90 days for election wasnt it ? )I

It just doesn't make sense. When we had two rounds of open negotiations, I made it very clear that we need to make sure that there is a roadmap so that true reconciliation can be achieved. ( so this suggests Abhisit was being totally disingenious about his 9 month offer ? )

What we want to do is to make sure that the Thai economy is well underway as far as recovery is concerned. We want to make sure that the conditions and environment is right so that reconciliation can take place, that we would have free, fair and peaceful elections. And there is -- there are a number of things that need to be done before this solution can take place." ( so all Abhisit would have to say is that the Thai economy isnt well underway as afar as a recovery and he has grounds for postponing iy indefinately ? )

This is why the red shirts dont agree to wait......its now or never.

Abhisit made it very clear in the negotiations what needed to be done before elections were called - change the constitution, referendum, then elections. He also mentioned the budget and the amry reshuffle.

Seeing as he clearly stated that, and with the timeframe expected to be 9 months, on tv with millions watching, there would be more than just the reds out there in 9 months if he didn't hold to his promise.

If the red leaders had continued negotiations, they would have most likely got something definite in writing and accepted by all parties.

The fact is that 9 months didn't suit the reds, so they rejected it outright. It was nothing to do with not believing it.

[mazeltov]

I dont believe for one minute Abhisit would honour an agreement to hold an election

even in 9 months . When asked by CNN about rejecting the 3 months time frame

offered by the red shirts this is what he said :-

AMANPOUR: " Well, let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, it seemed for a few days that there might be a solution, some kind of new elections, perhaps within about three months, and then you rejected that."

VEJJAJIVA: " No. The -- the so-called offer was made by the leaders of the red shirts that this solution must take place in 30 days. ( it 30 days for dissolution and then 90 days for election wasnt it ? )I

It just doesn't make sense. When we had two rounds of open negotiations, I made it very clear that we need to make sure that there is a roadmap so that true reconciliation can be achieved. ( so this suggests Abhisit was being totally disingenious about his 9 month offer ? )

What we want to do is to make sure that the Thai economy is well underway as far as recovery is concerned. We want to make sure that the conditions and environment is right so that reconciliation can take place, that we would have free, fair and peaceful elections. And there is -- there are a number of things that need to be done before this solution can take place." ( so all Abhisit would have to say is that the Thai economy isnt well underway as afar as a recovery and he has grounds for postponing iy indefinately ? )

This is why the red shirts dont agree to wait......its now or never.

Don't trust Abhisit. He is full of lies. On the streets they call him "The Butcher of Bangkok".

[Siripon]

I dont believe for one minute Abhisit would honour an agreement to hold an election

even in 9 months . When asked by CNN about rejecting the 3 months time frame

offered by the red shirts this is what he said :-

AMANPOUR: " Well, let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, it seemed for a few days that there might be a solution, some kind of new elections, perhaps within about three months, and then you rejected that."

VEJJAJIVA: " No. The -- the so-called offer was made by the leaders of the red shirts that this solution must take place in 30 days. ( it 30 days for dissolution and then 90 days for election wasnt it ? )I

It just doesn't make sense. When we had two rounds of open negotiations, I made it very clear that we need to make sure that there is a roadmap so that true reconciliation can be achieved. ( so this suggests Abhisit was being totally disingenious about his 9 month offer ? )

What we want to do is to make sure that the Thai economy is well underway as far as recovery is concerned. We want to make sure that the conditions and environment is right so that reconciliation can take place, that we would have free, fair and peaceful elections. And there is -- there are a number of things that need to be done before this solution can take place." ( so all Abhisit would have to say is that the Thai economy isnt well underway as afar as a recovery and he has grounds for postponing iy indefinately ? )

This is why the red shirts dont agree to wait......its now or never.

In the second round of talks Apisit offered 9 months, he couldn't renege on that, being on every TV channel. Veera seemed open to negotiations but Jatupon refused, who is in charge of the reds if it's not Thaksin?

[SomTumTiger]

I dont believe for one minute Abhisit would honour an agreement to hold an election

even in 9 months . When asked by CNN about rejecting the 3 months time frame

offered by the red shirts this is what he said :-

AMANPOUR: " Well, let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, it seemed for a few days that there might be a solution, some kind of new elections, perhaps within about three months, and then you rejected that."

VEJJAJIVA: " No. The -- the so-called offer was made by the leaders of the red shirts that this solution must take place in 30 days. ( it 30 days for dissolution and then 90 days for election wasnt it ? )I

It just doesn't make sense. When we had two rounds of open negotiations, I made it very clear that we need to make sure that there is a roadmap so that true reconciliation can be achieved. ( so this suggests Abhisit was being totally disingenious about his 9 month offer ? )

What we want to do is to make sure that the Thai economy is well underway as far as recovery is concerned. We want to make sure that the conditions and environment is right so that reconciliation can take place, that we would have free, fair and peaceful elections. And there is -- there are a number of things that need to be done before this solution can take place." ( so all Abhisit would have to say is that the Thai economy isnt well underway as afar as a recovery and he has grounds for postponing iy indefinately ? )

This is why the red shirts dont agree to wait......its now or never.

Don't trust Abhisit. He is full of lies. On the streets they call him "The Butcher of Bangkok".

Lol - guess what we call you in here?

[quiksilva]

I dont believe for one minute Abhisit would honour an agreement to hold an election

even in 9 months . When asked by CNN about rejecting the 3 months time frame

offered by the red shirts this is what he said :-

AMANPOUR: " Well, let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, it seemed for a few days that there might be a solution, some kind of new elections, perhaps within about three months, and then you rejected that."

VEJJAJIVA: " No. The -- the so-called offer was made by the leaders of the red shirts that this solution must take place in 30 days. ( it 30 days for dissolution and then 90 days for election wasnt it ? )I Nope it was 30 days for dissolution and sixty days for an election 90 days in total

It just doesn't make sense. When we had two rounds of open negotiations, I made it very clear that we need to make sure that there is a roadmap so that true reconciliation can be achieved. ( so this suggests Abhisit was being totally disingenious about his 9 month offer ? ) Nope. The roadmap was discussed in the original talks when the 9 months was discussed. This is why 9 months was offered in the first place, (well that and its half of his remaining term)

What we want to do is to make sure that the Thai economy is well underway as far as recovery is concerned. We want to make sure that the conditions and environment is right so that reconciliation can take place, that we would have free, fair and peaceful elections. And there is -- there are a number of things that need to be done before this solution can take place." ( so all Abhisit would have to say is that the Thai economy isnt well underway as afar as a recovery and he has grounds for postponing iy indefinately ? ) Here though Midas, we agree. I also dont think the economy is a vaild excuse to wait longer, its far too vague, besides the longer we wait the more the economy will slide

This is why the red shirts dont agree to wait......its now or never.

Never say never..

[midas]

Abhisit made it very clear in the negotiations what needed to be done before elections were called - change the constitution, referendum, then elections. He also mentioned the budget and the amry reshuffle.

Seeing as he clearly stated that, and with the timeframe expected to be 9 months, on tv with millions watching, there would be more than just the reds out there in 9 months if he didn't hold to his promise.

If the red leaders had continued negotiations, they would have most likely got something definite in writing and accepted by all parties.

The fact is that 9 months didn't suit the reds, so they rejected it outright. It was nothing to do with not believing it.

do you honestly think given all the people that have died so far because he wants a " roadmap " that he gives a toss about what millions of people watching tv

would think about an " essential postponement.........in the interests of the country of course " ?

The red leaders broke off negotiations because they knew he was disingenious just as all his interviews on CNN and BBC have shown.

[ThaksinKharma]

The red leaders broke off negotiations because they knew he was disingenious

The red leaders broke off negotiations because Thaksin told them to

[midas]

VEJJAJIVA: " No. The -- the so-called offer was made by the leaders of the red shirts that this solution must take place in 30 days. ( it 30 days for dissolution and then 90 days for election wasnt it ? )I Nope it was 30 days for dissolution and sixty days for an election 90 days in total

Never say never..

Thanks quiksilva

Yes that is what i meant to say..........90 days in total.

Abhisit not once either on BBC hardtalk yesterday or with CNN acknowledged the 90 days timeframe.

On BBC he even was talking about rejecting 15 days - what a red herring.

Not to be trusted.