Thai PM Abhisit Says Seeking Political Solution To Crisis

[midas]

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?

Please show me the evidence that offer made by Abhisit was totally UNCONDITIONAL ?

[whybother]

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.

I don't believe that calling elections because a minority group demand it is the way to move Thailand forward.

I generally believe what Abhisit says as I haven't seen any situations where he has clearly lied. He doesn't have a history of corrupt activities.

I don't believe a thing that the red leaders say, since they are continuously telling lies and going back on anything that they have said. The efforts of the PPP and PTP to try and whitewash Thaksin's crimes show that they are only interested in one thing.

I am not saying Abhisit is perfect, I am sure he is far from it, but he is leagues ahead of the alternatives.

[whybother]

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?

Please show me the evidence that offer made by Abhisit was totally UNCONDITIONAL ?

He offered 9 months. No one said it was unconditional.

Abhisit's main condition was that the constitution should be changed (with input from all parties) and accepted (by referendum) BEFORE elections.

[midas]

I don't believe that calling elections because a minority group demand it is the way to move Thailand forward.

I generally believe what Abhisit says as I haven't seen any situations where he has clearly lied. He doesn't have a history of corrupt activities.

I don't believe a thing that the red leaders say, since they are continuously telling lies and going back on anything that they have said. The efforts of the PPP and PTP to try and whitewash Thaksin's crimes show that they are only interested in one thing.

I am not saying Abhisit is perfect, I am sure he is far from it, but he is leagues ahead of the alternatives.

How can you say the reds are a minority group before holding the election ?

[way2muchcoffee]

I don't believe that calling elections because a minority group demand it is the way to move Thailand forward.

I generally believe what Abhisit says as I haven't seen any situations where he has clearly lied. He doesn't have a history of corrupt activities.

I don't believe a thing that the red leaders say, since they are continuously telling lies and going back on anything that they have said. The efforts of the PPP and PTP to try and whitewash Thaksin's crimes show that they are only interested in one thing.

I am not saying Abhisit is perfect, I am sure he is far from it, but he is leagues ahead of the alternatives.

How can you say the reds are a minority group before holding the election ?

Perhaps from the results of the last elections? Perhaps from their inability to field more than 100,000 demonstrators on their best day?

[tombradly]

I don't believe that calling elections because a minority group demand it is the way to move Thailand forward.

I generally believe what Abhisit says as I haven't seen any situations where he has clearly lied. He doesn't have a history of corrupt activities.

I don't believe a thing that the red leaders say, since they are continuously telling lies and going back on anything that they have said. The efforts of the PPP and PTP to try and whitewash Thaksin's crimes show that they are only interested in one thing.

I am not saying Abhisit is perfect, I am sure he is far from it, but he is leagues ahead of the alternatives.

How can you say the reds are a minority group before holding the election ?

Perhaps from the results of the last elections? Perhaps from their inability to field more than 100,000 demonstrators on their best day?

If the current government thought it would win, it would of course quickly call for an election to silence the reds.

The fact that it is not calling for an election soon, means it believes it would not do well in the election.

Simple facts.

[rixalex]

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?

As fellow posters have already mentioned, the only time the red shirts (by that of course i mean Thaksin's party) have ever won a legitimate landslide was in 2005.

When you state the possibility of something happening "once again" it implies an action that has been repeated over and over.

[way2muchcoffee]

I don't believe that calling elections because a minority group demand it is the way to move Thailand forward.

I generally believe what Abhisit says as I haven't seen any situations where he has clearly lied. He doesn't have a history of corrupt activities.

I don't believe a thing that the red leaders say, since they are continuously telling lies and going back on anything that they have said. The efforts of the PPP and PTP to try and whitewash Thaksin's crimes show that they are only interested in one thing.

I am not saying Abhisit is perfect, I am sure he is far from it, but he is leagues ahead of the alternatives.

How can you say the reds are a minority group before holding the election ?

Perhaps from the results of the last elections? Perhaps from their inability to field more than 100,000 demonstrators on their best day?

If the current government thought it would win, it would of course quickly call for an election to silence the reds.

The fact that it is not calling for an election soon, means it believes it would not do well in the election.

Simple facts.

That is not a fact. That is your assumption.

[midas]

Perhaps from the results of the last elections? Perhaps from their inability to field more than 100,000 demonstrators on their best day?

Oh that is history

After 26 people have died.......i predict even the little old Thai lady in a remote village outside Buriram

is going to be just a little more politically aware this time around.....just a little..........

Anyway give them the chance - only way to stop deaths and get this country back on the road

[way2muchcoffee]

Perhaps from the results of the last elections? Perhaps from their inability to field more than 100,000 demonstrators on their best day?

Oh that is history

After 26 people have died.......i predict even the little old Thai lady in a remote village outside Buriram

is going to be just a little more politically aware this time around.....just a little..........

Anyway give them the chance - only way to stop deaths and get this country back on the road

I disagree completely. The only way to stop the deaths is if the red shirts leave soon. That is the bottom line.

Now there are many ways this could happen, but immediate dissolution followed by elections is just as bad as a dispersal of protesters would be for the long-term health of the country.

IMO honest negotiation and real compromise is the only mechanism that can achieve this. The Democrats have 19-20 months left on their term of government. The UDD wants immediate dissolution. They should start from there and come to a fair and honest agreement. This agreement also needs to take into consideration that the election laws are flawed. This is one of the primary reasons for the present situation. In order to ensure that the next election is legitimate the constitution must be changed first.

Edited April 29, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[rixalex]

If the current government thought it would win, it would of course quickly call for an election to silence the reds.

The fact that it is not calling for an election soon, means it believes it would not do well in the election.

Simple facts.

Whether a party would win an election today or not, is neither here nor there if that party already has power. Calling an election when you still have well over a year to serve, serves no purpose other than to give the opposition a chance to depose you. Why give them that chance? Because they are creating mayhem on the streets? Is that a good reason for the country to go to the polls? To appease a violent mob. Is it not likely that the exact same thing will happen the next time a group decides they want another crack of the whip to get in power?

[midas]

I disagree completely. The only way to stop the deaths is if the red shirts leave soon. That is the bottom line.

Now there are many ways this could happen, but I immediate dissolution and elections is just as bad as a dispersal of protesters would be for the long-term health of the country.

IMO honest negotiation and real compromise is the only mechanism that can achieve this. The Democrats have 19-20 months left on their term of government. The UDD wants immediate dissolution. They should start from there and come to a fair and honest agreement. This agreement also needs to take into consideration that the election laws are flawed. This is one of the primary reasons for the present situation. In order to ensure that the next election is legitimate the constitution must be changed first.

Well a good portion of 22 million people living in Isaan might disagree with you

Dispersal wont acheive anything it will just send them underground.

[way2muchcoffee]

I disagree completely. The only way to stop the deaths is if the red shirts leave soon. That is the bottom line.

Now there are many ways this could happen, but I immediate dissolution and elections is just as bad as a dispersal of protesters would be for the long-term health of the country.

IMO honest negotiation and real compromise is the only mechanism that can achieve this. The Democrats have 19-20 months left on their term of government. The UDD wants immediate dissolution. They should start from there and come to a fair and honest agreement. This agreement also needs to take into consideration that the election laws are flawed. This is one of the primary reasons for the present situation. In order to ensure that the next election is legitimate the constitution must be changed first.

Well a good portion of 22 million people living in Isaan might disagree with you

Dispersal wont acheive anything it will just send them underground.

Well a good portion of the 44 million people not living in Isaan might disagree with you

Immediate elections won't achieve anything as it gives the green light for further violent demonstrations by groups who feels that the electoral process has been subverted against their interests.

Edited April 29, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[midas]

If the current government thought it would win, it would of course quickly call for an election to silence the reds.

The fact that it is not calling for an election soon, means it believes it would not do well in the election.

Simple facts.

Whether a party would win an election today or not, is neither here nor there if that party already has power. Calling an election when you still have well over a year to serve, serves no purpose other than to give the opposition a chance to depose you. Why give them that chance? Because they are creating mayhem on the streets? Is that a good reason for the country to go to the polls? To appease a violent mob. Is it not likely that the exact same thing will happen the next time a group decides they want another crack of the whip to get in power?

But there is also a good chance people will respect the leader THEY voted for directly themselves and not via some

shady behind closed doors deals between fellow MP 's.

Anyway surely trying this out is far better than people killing each other ?

Edited April 29, 2010 by midas

[way2muchcoffee]

But there is also a good chance people will respect the leader THEY voted for directly themselves and not via some

shady deal behind closed doors deals between fellow MP 's.

Anyway surely trying this out is far better than people killing each other ?

The people don't vote for the PM. In the last election almost exactly the same number of people voted for the PPP as did for the Democrats. It was an even split.

Edited April 29, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[midas]

I disagree completely. The only way to stop the deaths is if the red shirts leave soon. That is the bottom line.

Now there are many ways this could happen, but I immediate dissolution and elections is just as bad as a dispersal of protesters would be for the long-term health of the country.

IMO honest negotiation and real compromise is the only mechanism that can achieve this. The Democrats have 19-20 months left on their term of government. The UDD wants immediate dissolution. They should start from there and come to a fair and honest agreement. This agreement also needs to take into consideration that the election laws are flawed. This is one of the primary reasons for the present situation. In order to ensure that the next election is legitimate the constitution must be changed first.

Well a good portion of 22 million people living in Isaan might disagree with you

Dispersal wont acheive anything it will just send them underground.

Well a good portion of the 44 million people not living in Isaan might disagree with you

Immediate elections won't achieve anything as it gives the green light for further violent demonstrations by groups who feels that the electoral process has been subverted against their interests.

Put it the test then

[way2muchcoffee]

I disagree completely. The only way to stop the deaths is if the red shirts leave soon. That is the bottom line.

Now there are many ways this could happen, but I immediate dissolution and elections is just as bad as a dispersal of protesters would be for the long-term health of the country.

IMO honest negotiation and real compromise is the only mechanism that can achieve this. The Democrats have 19-20 months left on their term of government. The UDD wants immediate dissolution. They should start from there and come to a fair and honest agreement. This agreement also needs to take into consideration that the election laws are flawed. This is one of the primary reasons for the present situation. In order to ensure that the next election is legitimate the constitution must be changed first.

Well a good portion of 22 million people living in Isaan might disagree with you

Dispersal wont acheive anything it will just send them underground.

Well a good portion of the 44 million people not living in Isaan might disagree with you

Immediate elections won't achieve anything as it gives the green light for further violent demonstrations by groups who feels that the electoral process has been subverted against their interests.

Put it the test then

It already was tested. One party was disqualified for being filmed committing electoral fraud. So sorry. There are consequences when the executives of a party cheat during elections. There are 20 months left in the term of this government. A violent minority is holding the capitol hostage. This is not the time for elections.

Negotiations are the way forward. If those fail then the illegal occupation of Bangkok by the red shirts must be ended by security forces in the least violent way possible.

Edited April 29, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[tombradly]

There is NO WAY this current government will last 20 months.

You know that.

It will not last 20 weeks.

[midas]

It already was tested. One party was disqualified for being filmed committing electoral fraud. So sorry. There are consequences when the executives of a party cheat during elections. There are 20 months left in the term of this government. A violent minority is holding the capitol hostage. This is not the time for elections.

Negotiations are the way forward. If those fail then the illegal occupation of Bangkok by the red shirts must be ended by security forces in the least violent way possible.

Correct !

" The Democrat Party, Thailand's oldest political party, was accused of receiving more than 258 million baht in illegal donations "

[midas]

There is NO WAY this current government will last 20 months.

You know that.

It will not last 20 weeks.

what makes me laugh is the way they consider themselves to be " democratically elected "

[whybother]

There is NO WAY this current government will last 20 months.

You know that.

It will not last 20 weeks.

What makes me laugh is the way they consider themselves to be " democratically elected "

There are plenty of explanations why they are democratically elected. Can you please explain why you think they are not?

[way2muchcoffee]

It already was tested. One party was disqualified for being filmed committing electoral fraud. So sorry. There are consequences when the executives of a party cheat during elections. There are 20 months left in the term of this government. A violent minority is holding the capitol hostage. This is not the time for elections.

Negotiations are the way forward. If those fail then the illegal occupation of Bangkok by the red shirts must be ended by security forces in the least violent way possible.

Correct !

" The Democrat Party, Thailand's oldest political party, was accused of receiving more than 258 million baht in illegal donations "

And if they are found guilty they should be dissolved. But they have not been found guilty and they, like the PPP before them, have every right to carry on in government until the case has run through the constitutional court. That result won't be available for at least another year.

[zorm999]

I don't believe that calling elections because a minority group demand it is the way to move Thailand forward.

I generally believe what Abhisit says as I haven't seen any situations where he has clearly lied. He doesn't have a history of corrupt activities.

I don't believe a thing that the red leaders say, since they are continuously telling lies and going back on anything that they have said. The efforts of the PPP and PTP to try and whitewash Thaksin's crimes show that they are only interested in one thing.

I am not saying Abhisit is perfect, I am sure he is far from it, but he is leagues ahead of the alternatives.

How can you say the reds are a minority group before holding the election ?

Perhaps from the results of the last elections? Perhaps from their inability to field more than 100,000 demonstrators on their best day?

If the current government thought it would win, it would of course quickly call for an election to silence the reds.

The fact that it is not calling for an election soon, means it believes it would not do well in the election.

Simple facts.

You are no doubt correct. Every single government around the world calls an election when they think they have the best chance to win, or hold off until the last possible moment to stay in power a bit longer. This government is no different. Why are people so mystified by this?

The other "simple fact" is that the government doesn't HAVE to call an election. They are legally entitled to stay in office for another 18 months. Opponents of governments in every call for early elections when they think they have a good chance of winning. Which the red shirts are doing now. And guess what - no government in the world would give in just because of that.

People jump up and down about the coup and the government being "illegitimate" and Abhisit is too weak to lead, blah blah, but the simple fact is we are here where we are right now and the past cannot be changed. The government is legal and doesn't have to call an early election. If they choose to, fine, but they would be going against a global trend.

[midas]

There is NO WAY this current government will last 20 months.

You know that.

It will not last 20 weeks.

What makes me laugh is the way they consider themselves to be " democratically elected "

There are plenty of explanations why they are democratically elected. Can you please explain why you think they are not?

Hitler , Kim Jong-il, Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Alexander Lukashenko are all referred to as having being " democratically elected " but it does it mean much in those countries ?

[Groongthep]

When you state the possibility of something happening "once again" it implies an action that has been repeated over and over.

No it doesn't. It implies as it is clearly written that it could happen "once again" that's all. Besides, the subject of my original post that you decided to dissect was about coups not Thaksin. You guys have become obsessed with Thaksin. I was in Thailand nearly the entire time he was in power too and I know he was no saint but he wasn't half as evil as you Thaksin hating nuts have made him out to be. His cleaning up of the drug dealers and "dark influences" (read organized criminals) was unjudicial and would never have flown in any western county but it did succeed in significantly reducing the amount of drugs and crime on the streets and was at the time quite popular with the average citizen. It wasn't until after the organized elite lead media attack on him began when the tide of popular opinion began to change. He owned AIS when he sold it to Singapore's Temasek through offshore banks but this sort of thing is legal and happens in other countries all the time. He did it this way to avoid taxes as any businessman would do and he was hardly "selling the country" like his distracters claimed he was. I will admit that his systematic eroding of the 1997 constitution to keep him in power was despicable but the actions of the coup makers and other anti Thaksin forces (read the PAD) were no less undemocratic or unfair.

Let's take a step back and look at the whole situation. The red shirts are doing what they are doing because they feel aggrieved and rightfully so. Yeah, Thaksin is still meddling in the whole mess but I don't believe this movement is anywhere near as much of a result of Thaksin's influence as it is being made out to be. The average red shirt cites the same grievances the poor have been complaining about for years. Things like the lack of credit, irrigation and infrastructure projects in the provinces. The power in this country lies centralized in Bangkok and is branched out from there. Even the governors of the provinces are not elected by the prachachon they are appointed by the central government in Bangkok as are all the bureaucrats in the police, agriculture and irrigation departments. I for one can't blame the red shirts for being pissed off that the elites threw Thaksin out even as corrupt as he was. He was the only one who EVER showed any real support for them even though that support came with strings attached. If the red shirts could only divorce themselves from the influence of Thaksin their credibility would be greatly enhanced. Trouble is he is still remembered as their only champion. The present government shows them nothing but contempt except when they are speaking to the international press. It is all a product of centuries of a class hierarchy system that is finally beginning to be challenged. It was bound to happen sometime. If it is not resolved now it will only get worse in the future.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Groongthep

[quiksilva]

There is NO WAY this current government will last 20 months.

You know that.

It will not last 20 weeks.

What makes me laugh is the way they consider themselves to be " democratically elected "

There are plenty of explanations why they are democratically elected. Can you please explain why you think they are not?

Hitler , Kim Jong-il, Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Alexander Lukashenko are all referred to as having being " democratically elected " but it does it mean much in those countries ?

If you apply that logic the same could be said for Thaksin's administrations...

[rixalex]

When you state the possibility of something happening "once again" it implies an action that has been repeated over and over.

No it doesn't. It implies as it is clearly written that it could happen "once again" that's all.

I disagree. Suggesting that something will happen "once again" has a different connotation to suggesting that something will happen "again".

[zorm999]

When you state the possibility of something happening "once again" it implies an action that has been repeated over and over.

No it doesn't. It implies as it is clearly written that it could happen "once again" that's all. Besides, the subject of my original post that you decided to dissect was about coups not Thaksin. You guys have become obsessed with Thaksin. I was in Thailand nearly the entire time he was in power too and I know he was no saint but he wasn't half as evil as you Thaksin hating nuts have made him out to be. His cleaning up of the drug dealers and "dark influences" (read organized criminals) was unjudicial and would never have flown in any western county but it did succeed in significantly reducing the amount of drugs and crime on the streets and was at the time quite popular with the average citizen. It wasn't until after the organized elite lead media attack on him began when the tide of popular opinion began to change. He owned AIS when he sold it to Singapore's Temasek through offshore banks but this sort of thing is legal and happens in other countries all the time. He did it this way to avoid taxes as any businessman would do and he was hardly "selling the country" like his distracters claimed he was. I will admit that his systematic eroding of the 1997 constitution to keep him in power was despicable but the actions of the coup makers and other anti Thaksin forces (read the PAD) were no less undemocratic or unfair.

Let's take a step back and look at the whole situation. The red shirts are doing what they are doing because they feel aggrieved and rightfully so. Yeah, Thaksin is still meddling in the whole mess but I don't believe this movement is anywhere near as much of a result of Thaksin's influence as it is being made out to be. The average red shirt cites the same grievances the poor have been complaining about for years. Things like the lack of credit, irrigation and infrastructure projects in the provinces. The power in this country lies centralized in Bangkok and is branched out from there. Even the governors of the provinces are not elected by the prachachon they are appointed by the central government in Bangkok as are all the bureaucrats in the police, agriculture and irrigation departments. I for one can't blame the red shirts for being pissed off that the elites threw Thaksin out even as corrupt as he was. He was the only one who EVER showed any real support for them even though that support came with strings attached. If the red shirts could only divorce themselves from the influence of Thaksin their credibility would be greatly enhanced. Trouble is he is still remembered as their only champion. The present government shows them nothing but contempt except when they are speaking to the international press. It is all a product of centuries of a class hierarchy system that is finally beginning to be challenged. It was bound to happen sometime. If it is not resolved now it will only get worse in the future.

It's refreshing to see some well-argued and balanced opinion here. Thanks.

I have absolutely no issue with what the red shirts are demanding. I am all for more equality in all societies. But if this is what they want then why don't they negotiate along these lines? I'm sure the government would be willing negotiate for policies to better assist the poor in return for a peaceful resolution. So why do the reds insist on an election as the only solution? This is where I can't help but get cynical and think that the red leaders are really only wanting a shift of power towards themselves. In which case I find the whole manner and method of their protest very disappointing.

[whybother]

There is NO WAY this current government will last 20 months.

You know that.

It will not last 20 weeks.

What makes me laugh is the way they consider themselves to be " democratically elected "

There are plenty of explanations why they are democratically elected. Can you please explain why you think they are not?

Hitler , Kim Jong-il, Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Alexander Lukashenko are all referred to as having being " democratically elected " but it does it mean much in those countries ?

Well, I'm talking about Thailand. Using references to other leaders is not an explanation.

It seems to be common amongst the red supporters that they come out with one line statements saying "illigitimate government", "not elected by the people", and "not democratically elected" but fail to come up with any sort of explaination as to why.

Even when an explanation is given as to why the current government IS legitimate and democratically elected by the people, there is never any response saying where these explanations are incorrect.

One liners are just propaganda. How about giving some details and discussion.

[Honolulu]

In case you have not noticed, a "civil war" has been happening in Thailand for many years now, although it has not been very violent as civil wars go. The problems in Thailand will never be solved by Thai's, peacefully, because they are all too uneducated to understand the changes that are required. Mabey, if they bring in a " a ringer", or if some other external force causes a change, but short of that, they are doomed by their own corruption, constant bickering,

mistrust of each other, and ineffectiveness. The answers to all of their problems exist, but they do not know where to find them.

" I cannot lie to you about your chances, but you have my sympathies"