PM Abhisit Announces Next Election Will Be Held On Nov 14

[jdinasia]

The issue is not the legality - it is his non existent mandate.

Using UK - Tony Blair had been "removed or whatever, it would have been acceptable for another member of his party to take over.

however if the Tories had made an impromptu alliance with the Lib Dems - resulting in a Tory PM - it would have raised a lot of problems - as it has in Thailand.

THis is further complicated in Thailand by the apparent ease with which they can "dissolve" - legally - political parties.

the normal procedure in this hypothetical situation UK if the Labour Party could not have formed a govt., would be to go back to the poles.

North or South Pole?

LOL

This just isn't the UK. The law in Thailand assumes that the EXECUTIVES of a political party work together. That Thailand has problems with corruption and they hold party EXECUTIVES to a higher standard. What could or could not happen in the UK is immaterial as it is the law in Thailand that matters.

[way2muchcoffee]

The issue is not the legality - it is his non existent mandate.

Using UK - Tony Blair had been "removed or whatever, it would have been acceptable for another member of his party to take over.

however if the Tories had made an impromptu alliance with the Lib Dems - resulting in a Tory PM - it would have raised a lot of problems - as it has in Thailand.

THis is further complicated in Thailand by the apparent ease with which they can "dissolve" - legally - political parties.

the normal procedure in this hypothetical situation UK if the Labour Party could not have formed a govt., would be to go back to the poles.

I disagree. The mandate comes from the MPs - not the voters directly. Therefore Abhisit is legal, legitimate, and has a mandate.

If the majority of Thai people believe that a coalition realignment resulting in a new MP from another party (without a no confidence vote) is not appropriate then there should be laws prohibiting it.

Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of the MPs. Those MPs represent over 50% of the electorate. So therefore Abhisit has a mandate and the legal right and duty to be PM.

I also don't know why you bring up UK, particularly with respect to 'normal'. Is Thailand the UK? Are there things that are normal in UK that are not here, or vice versa?

Edited May 5, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Chaimai]

The issue is not the legality - it is his non existent mandate.

Using UK - Tony Blair had been "removed or whatever, it would have been acceptable for another member of his party to take over.

however if the Tories had made an impromptu alliance with the Lib Dems - resulting in a Tory PM - it would have raised a lot of problems - as it has in Thailand.

THis is further complicated in Thailand by the apparent ease with which they can "dissolve" - legally - political parties.

the normal procedure in this hypothetical situation UK if the Labour Party could not have formed a govt., would be to go back to the poles.

I disagree. The mandate comes from the MPs - not the voters directly. Therefore Abhisit is legal, legitimate, and has a mandate.

If the majority of Thai people believe that a coalition realignment resulting in a new MP from another party (without a no confidence vote) is not appropriate then there should be laws prohibiting it.

Abhisit was elected PM by a majority of the MPs. Those MPs represent over 50% of the electorate. So therefore Abhisit has a mandate and the legal right and duty to be PM.

The FACT remains; Abhisit IS Prime Minister of Thailand. It says so on his business card and here:-

<H1 class=firstHeading id=firstHeading>Abhisit Vejjajiva</H1><H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3>Jump to: navigation, searchAbhisit Vejjajiva

อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ

Abhisit Vejjajiva as Prime Minister of ThailandPrime Minister of ThailandIncumbentAssumed office

17 December 2008MonarchBhumibol AdulyadejPreceded byChaovarat Chanweerakul (Acting)Leader of the OppositionIn office

23 April 2005 – 19 September 2006

27 February 2008 – 17 December 2008MonarchBhumibol AdulyadejPreceded byBanyad BantadthanBorn3 August 1964 (1964-08-03) (age 45)

Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom^[1][2]Political partyDemocrat PartySpouse(s)Pimpen SakuntabhaiChildrenPrang Vejjajiva

Punnasit Vejjajiva^[3]ProfessionEconomist^[4]ReligionBuddhismSignaturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thai-PM-...t_signature.PNGAbhisit Vejjajiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-us-Ab...t-Vejjajiva.ogg English pronunciation (help·info); Thai: อภิสิทธิ์ เวชชาชีวะ (Thai pronunciation), RTGS: Aphisit Wetchachiwa, IPA: [à.pʰí.sìt wêːt.tɕʰāː.tɕʰīː.wáʔ], born 3 August 1964) is the 27th and current Prime Minister of Thailand.

[Thai at Heart]

So please, is this correct:

The head of state appoints a prime minister who has a set timescale within which s/he must gain a vote of confidence: (Example: Italy, Romania, Thailand)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_minister

Is this an accurate description of the way in which a PM is officially appointed in Thailand? I would prefer yes or no answers since no one deserves to get into trouble debating such a question.

Is "THIS" an accurate description -- THIS is an artcle that describes all Prime Ministers in the world (roughly). The answer to "Is where Thailand is mentioned in this article accurate?" then the answer is "no"

I quoted the entire article earlier and no one answered, so here it is. I had assumed that Thailand was very similar to the UK. I was sadly mis-informed, but apparently it is also not the Romanian or Italian system that is relevant here.

So here we go again.

Appointment by the head of state after parliament nominates a candidate: Example: The Republic of Ireland where the President of Ireland appoints the Taoiseach on the nomination of the Dáil Éireann.

The head of state nominates a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to parliament for approval before appointment as prime minister: Example: Spain, where the King sends a nomination to parliament for approval. Also Germany where under the German Basic Law (constitution) the Bundestag votes on a candidate nominated by the federal president. In these cases, parliament can choose another candidate who then would be appointed by the head of state.

The head of state appoints a prime minister who has a set timescale within which s/he must gain a vote of confidence: (Example: Italy, Romania, Thailand)

The head of state appoints the leader of the political party with the majority of the votes in the Parliament as Prime Minister: (Example: Greece)

Direct election by parliament: (Example: Japan, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan.)

Direct election by popular vote: (Example: Israel, 1996–2001, where the prime minister was elected in a general election, with no regard to political affiliation.)

Nomination by a state office holder other than the head of state or his/her representative: (Example: Under the modern Swedish Instrument of Government, the power to appoint someone to form a government has been moved from the monarch to the Speaker of Parliament and the parliament itself. The speaker nominates a candidate, who is then elected to prime minister (statsminister) by the parliament if an absolute majority of the members of parliament does not vote no (i.e. he can be elected even if more MP:s vote no than yes).

So as I stated earlier, apparently Thailand wants to mimic the successful, stable democracies of the world such as Italy that have had almost as many PM's in 60 years as Thailand has probably has had in 40, and ironically has Berlusconi in an elected position but worth only 9bn USD by most measurements.

I had no idea that the last Thai constitution had drawn it's inspiration from such a place with such high moral probity expected from it's politicians. I mean, Italy and Romania, why wouldn't you want to shoot for the top?

[jdinasia]

Like I said --- No that is not how it is done in Thailand.

[Deeral]

Well mandate ia woolly expression and as far as I'm concerned it comes from the way the electorate behaved in the last general election - to state categorically as you do it comes from MPs is just not how democracies work

i'd love to know - though it's not for this thread how people think that the UK and some other democracies get their PMs - some of the theories here are downright hilarious

please if you're going to post - check out your history, constitution etc - but better still - if you have a child over 10 year old ask them - they'll have more of an idea than most on this thread.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Deeral

[pornsasi]

The issue is not the legality - it is his non existent mandate.

Using UK - Tony Blair had been "removed or whatever, it would have been acceptable for another member of his party to take over.

however if the Tories had made an impromptu alliance with the Lib Dems - resulting in a Tory PM - it would have raised a lot of problems - as it has in Thailand.

THis is further complicated in Thailand by the apparent ease with which they can "dissolve" - legally - political parties.

the normal procedure in this hypothetical situation UK if the Labour Party could not have formed a govt., would be to go back to the poles.

Of course , that how normaly a democracy works .

How about settling for Abhisit for now on the ground that no one else , at the moment , wants his job ?

[way2muchcoffee]

Well mandate ia woolly expression and as far as I'm concerned it comes from the way the electorate behaved in the last general election - to state categorically as you do it comes from MPs is just not how democracies work

i'd love to know - though it's not for this thread how people think that the UK and some other democracies get their PMs - some of the theories here are downright hilarious

please if you're going to post - check out your history, constitution etc - but better still - if you have a child over 10 year old ask them - they'll have more of an idea than most on this thread.

It isn't so difficult to understand. Read slowly if you must.

- The voters do not select the PM. This is a fact. It is fact common to many parliamentary systems.

- The MPs are selected by the electorate. Then the MPs select the PM in a parliamentary vote.

- The only mandate a PM has is by virtue of the MPs.

- Those same MPs can remove that mandate by having a no confidence vote.

- If the majority of the MPs vote to remove the PM parliament will be dissolved.

- If the majority of the MPs vote in confidence of the PM then he stays with his mandate preserved and renewed.

Some MPs from PTP tried this and failed. Why did they fail? Because Abhisit has a parliamentary mandate.

Edited May 5, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Thai at Heart]

Well mandate ia woolly expression and as far as I'm concerned it comes from the way the electorate behaved in the last general election - to state categorically as you do it comes from MPs is just not how democracies work

i'd love to know - though it's not for this thread how people think that the UK and some other democracies get their PMs - some of the theories here are downright hilarious

please if you're going to post - check out your history, constitution etc - but better still - if you have a child over 10 year old ask them - they'll have more of an idea than most on this thread.

Hello? Is anyone there? It isn't so difficult to understand. Read slowly if you must.

The voters do not select the PM. This is a basic fact. It is common to many parliamentary systems. The MPs are selected by the electorate. Then the MPs select the PM in a parliamentary vote. The only mandate a PM has is by virtue of the MPs. The same MPs can have a no confidence vote to remove that mandate. If the majority of the MPs vote to remove the PM parliament will be dissolved. Some MPs from PTP tried this route and failed. Why did they fail? Because Abhisit has a parliamentary mandate.

Reading around, there isn't actually a standard way for nominating a PM in even some places that are recognised as being equaly democratic to many places in the world.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[pornsasi]

Well mandate ia woolly expression and as far as I'm concerned it comes from the way the electorate behaved in the last general election - to state categorically as you do it comes from MPs is just not how democracies work

i'd love to know - though it's not for this thread how people think that the UK and some other democracies get their PMs - some of the theories here are downright hilarious

please if you're going to post - check out your history, constitution etc - but better still - if you have a child over 10 year old ask them - they'll have more of an idea than most on this thread.

Hello? Is anyone there? It isn't so difficult to understand. Read slowly if you must.

The voters do not select the PM. This is a basic fact. It is common to many parliamentary systems. The MPs are selected by the electorate. Then the MPs select the PM in a parliamentary vote. The only mandate a PM has is by virtue of the MPs. Those same MPs can remove that mandate by having a no confidence vote. If the majority of the MPs vote to remove the PM parliament will be dissolved. If the majority of the MPs vote in confidence of the PM then he stays Some MPs from PTP tried this and failed. Why did they fail? Because Abhisit has a parliamentary mandate.

Yes the MP's are selected by the electorate to form the parliament , fair . This parliament selected Samak , and then Somchai . Was the parliament that elected Abhisit the same as the one that was elected by the polls . Answer is NO , it was not elected in his current form by the electorate , it was doctored by a court . Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed and claim that the rest of MPs are elected but that is not how a democracy works . Or alternatively 50 MPs can switch side and join the opposition but that would raise so much questions in mature democracies that it is unthinkable , that the PM resulting from such a move assuming you could find any accepting the job (doubtfull) , would even pretend beeing legally elected without disolving the parliament and asking for new fresh elections . I can not even start to imagine something similar to Thailand happening in the UK .

[whybother]

Yes the MP's are selected by the electorate to form the parliament , fair . This parliament selected Samak , and then Somchai . Was the parliament that elected Abhisit the same as the one that was elected by the polls . Answer is NO , it was not elected in his current form by the electorate , it was doctored by a court . Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed and claim that the rest of MPs are elected but that is not how a democracy works . Or alternatively 50 MPs can switch side and join the opposition but that would raise so much questions in mature democracies that it is unthinkable , that the PM resulting from such a move assuming you could find any accepting the job (doubtfull) , would even pretend beeing legally elected without disolving the parliament and asking for new fresh elections . I can not even start to imagine something similar to Thailand happening in the UK .

There were by-elections for all electorates of banned MPs, except the banned ones on the party list. I believe the PPP party list MPs that were not banned, continued on.

[Thai at Heart]

Well mandate ia woolly expression and as far as I'm concerned it comes from the way the electorate behaved in the last general election - to state categorically as you do it comes from MPs is just not how democracies work

i'd love to know - though it's not for this thread how people think that the UK and some other democracies get their PMs - some of the theories here are downright hilarious

please if you're going to post - check out your history, constitution etc - but better still - if you have a child over 10 year old ask them - they'll have more of an idea than most on this thread.

Hello? Is anyone there? It isn't so difficult to understand. Read slowly if you must.

The voters do not select the PM. This is a basic fact. It is common to many parliamentary systems. The MPs are selected by the electorate. Then the MPs select the PM in a parliamentary vote. The only mandate a PM has is by virtue of the MPs. Those same MPs can remove that mandate by having a no confidence vote. If the majority of the MPs vote to remove the PM parliament will be dissolved. If the majority of the MPs vote in confidence of the PM then he stays Some MPs from PTP tried this and failed. Why did they fail? Because Abhisit has a parliamentary mandate.

No well fortunately the UK has a few leaders of political parties with just the smallest feeling of morals. In that for example, the lib dems leader has said that he won't support Gordon Brown back to be PM. Of course the leader of the Lib Dems wouldn't have the chance at a couple of mn GBP back hander to make such a decision either.

I wouldn't doubt that he would tell the world how wonderful our Gordon is if it got him a gold plated bank account in Switzerland.

It isn't that the UK is more moral than anywhere else in the world, it is just that the consequences of getting caught land you at her Majesty's pleasure for a significant amount of time if caught.

Yes the MP's are selected by the electorate to form the parliament , fair . This parliament selected Samak , and then Somchai . Was the parliament that elected Abhisit the same as the one that was elected by the polls . Answer is NO , it was not elected in his current form by the electorate , it was doctored by a court . Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed and claim that the rest of MPs are elected but that is not how a democracy works . Or alternatively 50 MPs can switch side and join the opposition but that would raise so much questions in mature democracies that it is unthinkable , that the PM resulting from such a move assuming you could find any accepting the job (doubtfull) , would even pretend beeing legally elected without disolving the parliament and asking for new fresh elections . I can not even start to imagine something similar to Thailand happening in the UK .

[Deeral]

way3much - take dunces hat - stand in corner - think about reading posts before you reply,your language and making a fool of yourself in public, then try to get a hold on what is being talked about. when you have done this check with your mum to see if you are anyway near understanding other people's posts. then timorously and with respect proffer your opinion.

[Deeral]

"it is just that the consequences of getting caught" - it's not just the consequences so much as the chances - much higher in UK....and most other countries with the notable exception of Italy.

[whybother]

So please, is this correct:

The head of state appoints a prime minister who has a set timescale within which s/he must gain a vote of confidence: (Example: Italy, Romania, Thailand)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_minister

Is this an accurate description of the way in which a PM is officially appointed in Thailand? I would prefer yes or no answers since no one deserves to get into trouble debating such a question.

The way I understand it in most parliamentary 'democracies' is that the PMs are elected by the MPs, who have been elected by the people. The PM is effectively rubber stamped by the head of state (King here, Queen in UK, Governer General (rep of Queen) in Aus).

The difference between here and Aus and the UK is that there are no swinging MPs (smaller parties) in Aus and UK.

In Aus there are a couple of 'independent' MPs that sometimes hold the balance of power. They are usually known to back one party or the other in general, but may cross the floor and vote against the government on some issues. Aus also has a semi-permanent coalition between the Liberals and Nationals. Occasionally in state elections (parliamentary system) the Liberals will go it alone.

Also, in Australia, there have been MPs that have changed sides during the electoral term. It has never resulted in a change of government, but there is nothing from stopping from happening. It would be more likely result in a no-confidence vote and election, than a mid-term change of government. But that doesn't mean a mid-term change would be impossible.

At the moment, you can not compare what would happen in Aus or the UK IF a similar thing happened there. It is VERY unlikely to happen, but that doesn't mean that it could NOT happen.

In the long run in Thailand, the minor parties will stop swinging. The voters will know which major party a smaller party will support before they vote.

[Thai at Heart]

"it is just that the consequences of getting caught" - it's not just the consequences so much as the chances - much higher in UK....and most other countries with the notable exception of Italy.

Which as a country, as I quoted earlier from Wikipedia, has the same system for selecting a PM.

I am astonished actually to find out that there are people who consider in specific terms that Thailand has the same system as Italy and Romania for selecting its PM. I wonder if the writers of the constitution did this deliberately or actually came upon this eventuality under their own steam.

Explains a lot of Thailand's problems really.

[pornsasi]

Yes the MP's are selected by the electorate to form the parliament , fair . This parliament selected Samak , and then Somchai . Was the parliament that elected Abhisit the same as the one that was elected by the polls . Answer is NO , it was not elected in his current form by the electorate , it was doctored by a court . Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed and claim that the rest of MPs are elected but that is not how a democracy works . Or alternatively 50 MPs can switch side and join the opposition but that would raise so much questions in mature democracies that it is unthinkable , that the PM resulting from such a move assuming you could find any accepting the job (doubtfull) , would even pretend beeing legally elected without disolving the parliament and asking for new fresh elections . I can not even start to imagine something similar to Thailand happening in the UK .

There were by-elections for all electorates of banned MPs, except the banned ones on the party list. I believe the PPP party list MPs that were not banned, continued on.

There was no more PPP . I tell you how it works in a democracy . And there is more to the thai case , assume just for a moment that both the dems and the PPP , not only the PPP had been found guilty of vote buying , not an unlikely event in the thai context , you would agree . Even now the Dems are on the grill right ? What the court do then ? Dissolve the parliament ? Looks to me more like Iran , not even Italy or Romania , where a handfull bunch of unelected clowns in robes decide what the governement should be . Hardly a democracy ...

[Thai at Heart]

So please, is this correct:

The head of state appoints a prime minister who has a set timescale within which s/he must gain a vote of confidence: (Example: Italy, Romania, Thailand)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_minister

Is this an accurate description of the way in which a PM is officially appointed in Thailand? I would prefer yes or no answers since no one deserves to get into trouble debating such a question.

The way I understand it in most parliamentary 'democracies' is that the PMs are elected by the MPs, who have been elected by the people. The PM is effectively rubber stamped by the head of state (King here, Queen in UK, Governer General (rep of Queen) in Aus).

The difference between here and Aus and the UK is that there are no swinging MPs (smaller parties) in Aus and UK.

In Aus there are a couple of 'independent' MPs that sometimes hold the balance of power. They are usually known to back one party or the other in general, but may cross the floor and vote against the government on some issues. Aus also has a semi-permanent coalition between the Liberals and Nationals. Occasionally in state elections (parliamentary system) the Liberals will go it alone.

Also, in Australia, there have been MPs that have changed sides during the electoral term. It has never resulted in a change of government, but there is nothing from stopping from happening. It would be more likely result in a no-confidence vote and election, than a mid-term change of government. But that doesn't mean a mid-term change would be impossible.

At the moment, you can not compare what would happen in Aus or the UK IF a similar thing happened there. It is VERY unlikely to happen, but that doesn't mean that it could NOT happen.

In the long run in Thailand, the minor parties will stop swinging. The voters will know which major party a smaller party will support before they vote.

Contained in the link it shows there are actually many different ways employed by several major democracies for coming to select a PM. The MP's vote in most cases, but the initial selection is different in many ways.

Yes the smaller parties don't swing in many of the more major democracies, but then that doesn't mean that they didn't play all sides a couple of hundred years ago whilst the systems were evolving.

The issue is actually, that they should compel every party leader to declare in a binding fashion or another with which party they would join.

[Deeral]

from Wiki - The Prime Minister is appointed by a vote in the Thai House of Representatives by a simple majority, he is then officially sworn-in and endorsed by the King of Thailand. His selection is usually based on the fact that he is either the leader of the largest political party in the lower house or the leader of the largest coalition of parties. In accordance with the constitution the Prime Minister can only be appointed twice and is therefore limited to a maximum of two consecutive terms. The current incumbent is Abhisit Vejjajiva, leader of the Democrat Party, since 17 December 2008.[1]

this of course has nothing to do with MANDATE!!!!

Edited May 5, 2010 by Deeral

[jcbangkok]

Here is a link that provides English versions of the Thai Constitutions (1997, 2006 & 2007) ... http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/

[whybother]

One of the comments you see a lot on here is "the people didn't vote for Abhisit".

In reality, they did.

In the Aus and UK, the people often don't know the MP they are actually voting for. They just vote for a party and they know that the leader of that party will become PM if the party gets a majority.

So 40% of the people voted for Samak as PM, and 40% voted for Abhisit as PM (give or take, numbers are irrelevant if < 50%). I have no idea who the other 20% were expecting to be PM.

Initially, because the smaller parties decided to back the PPP, that put Samak in as PM.

If the smaller parties had decided to back the Democrats following the election, Abhisit would have been PM from the start.

What would the reds have done then?

[pornsasi]

"it is just that the consequences of getting caught" - it's not just the consequences so much as the chances - much higher in UK....and most other countries with the notable exception of Italy.

Of course . Same in France as in the UK . One french minister got a 10% discount on an appartement purchase for his son . The press published the story . The guy was ask politely to resign , never to be seen again in any elected or ministerial capacity

Edited May 5, 2010 by pornsasi

[whybother]

Yes the MP's are selected by the electorate to form the parliament , fair . This parliament selected Samak , and then Somchai . Was the parliament that elected Abhisit the same as the one that was elected by the polls . Answer is NO , it was not elected in his current form by the electorate , it was doctored by a court . Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed and claim that the rest of MPs are elected but that is not how a democracy works . Or alternatively 50 MPs can switch side and join the opposition but that would raise so much questions in mature democracies that it is unthinkable , that the PM resulting from such a move assuming you could find any accepting the job (doubtfull) , would even pretend beeing legally elected without disolving the parliament and asking for new fresh elections . I can not even start to imagine something similar to Thailand happening in the UK .

There were by-elections for all electorates of banned MPs, except the banned ones on the party list. I believe the PPP party list MPs that were not banned, continued on.

There was no more PPP . I tell you how it works in a democracy . And there is more to the thai case , assume just for a moment that both the dems and the PPP , not only the PPP had been found guilty of vote buying , not an unlikely event in the thai context , you would agree . Even now the Dems are on the grill right ? What the court do then ? Dissolve the parliament ? Looks to me more like Iran , not even Italy or Romania , where a handfull bunch of unelected clowns in robes decide what the governement should be . Hardly a democracy ...

After the PPP were disbanded, most of the ex-PPP MPs were still in parliament. Only a few were actually banned. The PTP could have formed government IF the smaller parties supported them.

IF the Democrats get disbanded, the New Dem party (ex-Dem MPs that were not banned, and new MPs elected in by-elections) MAY still be able to form government, with the continued support of the smaller parties.

Ofcourse the reds will protest about that, because they don't understand that it ALL comes down to the support of the smaller parties.

edit: all the unelected clowns in robes (ie the judicary) do is rule on the laws of the land. It is irrelevant that they are elected or not. They are (theoretically) just ruling on the cases brought to them and the evidence presented. People don't trust the judges, partly because they don't understand, and partly because corruption is so endemic in Thailand that they assume that the judges must be corrupt also.

Edited May 5, 2010 by whybother

[danc]

From wikipedia:-

In an interview published in early 2006, Prem explained his vision of a distinctive Thai-style democracy in which the monarch remains the ultimate defender of the public interest and retains control of the armed forces. Prem used an equestrian metaphor to describe the relative roles of Monarch, Prime Minister and the army: "In horse racing they have the stable and the owner of the stable owns the horse. The jockey comes and rides the horse during the race, but the jockey does not own the horse. It’s very easy [to comprehend]". General Prem Tinsulanonda.

Thailand has what has been termed "a vertical sociopolitical hierarchy" under which the nascent idea of democracy is allowed to germinate and hopefully take root. Mandates, floor crossings, party dissolutions, vote-buying are all part and parcel of a system finding its feet - for the time being rules and laws are bent, twisted and used by all sides to their own benefit, meaning that all sides can at some point cry foul or fair; Abhisit is legal or illegal, for example, depends on which part of the overall picture one wants to use, hence the endless arguments here. Dare I say it, to compare the parliament and democracy that the Thais have at present with other more mature systems is ultimately disingenuous.

Edited May 5, 2010 by danc

[Old Man River]

Well mandate ia woolly expression and as far as I'm concerned it comes from the way the electorate behaved in the last general election - to state categorically as you do it comes from MPs is just not how democracies work

i'd love to know - though it's not for this thread how people think that the UK and some other democracies get their PMs - some of the theories here are downright hilarious

please if you're going to post - check out your history, constitution etc - but better still - if you have a child over 10 year old ask them - they'll have more of an idea than most on this thread.

Hello? Is anyone there? It isn't so difficult to understand. Read slowly if you must.

The voters do not select the PM. This is a basic fact. It is common to many parliamentary systems. The MPs are selected by the electorate. Then the MPs select the PM in a parliamentary vote. The only mandate a PM has is by virtue of the MPs. Those same MPs can remove that mandate by having a no confidence vote. If the majority of the MPs vote to remove the PM parliament will be dissolved. If the majority of the MPs vote in confidence of the PM then he stays Some MPs from PTP tried this and failed. Why did they fail? Because Abhisit has a parliamentary mandate.

Yes the MP's are selected by the electorate to form the parliament , fair . This parliament selected Samak , and then Somchai . Was the parliament that elected Abhisit the same as the one that was elected by the polls . Answer is NO , it was not elected in his current form by the electorate , it was doctored by a court . Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed and claim that the rest of MPs are elected but that is not how a democracy works . Or alternatively 50 MPs can switch side and join the opposition but that would raise so much questions in mature democracies that it is unthinkable , that the PM resulting from such a move assuming you could find any accepting the job (doubtfull) , would even pretend beeing legally elected without disolving the parliament and asking for new fresh elections . I can not even start to imagine something similar to Thailand happening in the UK .

How did you get the number of 50 MP's? You made it up didn't you? The dissolution of the PPP resulted in 15 (not 50) being banned for 5 years. Other parties were also dissolved, total still less than 35, and some of these are known PAD supporters.

[pornsasi]

Yes the MP's are selected by the electorate to form the parliament , fair . This parliament selected Samak , and then Somchai . Was the parliament that elected Abhisit the same as the one that was elected by the polls . Answer is NO , it was not elected in his current form by the electorate , it was doctored by a court . Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed and claim that the rest of MPs are elected but that is not how a democracy works . Or alternatively 50 MPs can switch side and join the opposition but that would raise so much questions in mature democracies that it is unthinkable , that the PM resulting from such a move assuming you could find any accepting the job (doubtfull) , would even pretend beeing legally elected without disolving the parliament and asking for new fresh elections . I can not even start to imagine something similar to Thailand happening in the UK .

There were by-elections for all electorates of banned MPs, except the banned ones on the party list. I believe the PPP party list MPs that were not banned, continued on.

There was no more PPP . I tell you how it works in a democracy . And there is more to the thai case , assume just for a moment that both the dems and the PPP , not only the PPP had been found guilty of vote buying , not an unlikely event in the thai context , you would agree . Even now the Dems are on the grill right ? What the court do then ? Dissolve the parliament ? Looks to me more like Iran , not even Italy or Romania , where a handfull bunch of unelected clowns in robes decide what the governement should be . Hardly a democracy ...

After the PPP were disbanded, most of the ex-PPP MPs were still in parliament. Only a few were actually banned. The PTP could have formed government IF the smaller parties supported them.

IF the Democrats get disbanded, the New Dem party (ex-Dem MPs that were not banned, and new MPs elected in by-elections) MAY still be able to form government, with the continued support of the smaller parties.

Ofcourse the reds will protest about that, because they don't understand that it ALL comes down to the support of the smaller parties.

edit: all the unelected clowns in robes (ie the judicary) do is rule on the laws of the land. It is irrelevant that they are elected or not. They are (theoretically) just ruling on the cases brought to them and the evidence presented. People don't trust the judges, partly because they don't understand, and partly because corruption is so endemic in Thailand that they assume that the judges must be corrupt also.

The judges in any OTHER democracy may punish those MPs or ministers guilty of wrong doing . I have nothing against that on the contrary . However they are not entitled anywhere else but Thailand to disolve entire political parties . More to the point

The only way a parliament can get a Mandate is directly from the people, either as the result of a referendum or as a result of the people organising and gathering the signatures of over 50% of the appropriate voters on individual Mandate forms which are exactly the same in form and content so there can be no mistaking exactly what it is the people command.

Directly from the people . The people commands , not any court , corrupt or not . This is a matter of principle .

Edited May 5, 2010 by pornsasi

[TheOldWolf]

I don´t understand the problem. Everything is done within the constitution. Every party that showed up for the election knew the rules. If you got caught vote buying, they know the punishment.

When PPP was banned, PTP put forward their candidate and the democrates their for voting in the parlament. The democrates candidate got more then 50% of votes and formed a new goverment. PPP could have dissolved the parlament before they got banned.

I don´t remember thet the smaller parties swore any oath in the election to support PPP. So my point is when you enter a game, you know the rules and have to play after them.

[whybother]

The judges in any OTHER democracy may punish those MPs or ministers guilty of wrong doing . I have nothing against that on the contrary . However they are not entitled anywhere else but Thailand to disolve entire political parties . More to the point

The only way a parliament can get a Mandate is directly from the people, either as the result of a referendum or as a result of the people organising and gathering the signatures of over 50% of the appropriate voters on individual Mandate forms which are exactly the same in form and content so there can be no mistaking exactly what it is the people command.

Directly from the people . The people commands , not any court , corrupt or not . This is a matter of principle .

Countries have different laws. This country has a law that says if the party executive are involved in electoral fraud, then the party gets disbanded.

The leaders of the party were banned. Not all the MPs of the party were banned.

You make is sound as if the party being disbanded actually made a difference.

How many times do you need to be told that only a few MPs were actually banned, and there were by-elections to replace them. The PPP still effectively exist in the PTP.

And you are basically right - to get a "mandate" you should get more than 50% of the vote. So NONE of the last 3 governments had a mandate.

edit: But just because you are elected, doesn't mean you can break the law. If you do break the law, there are consequences.

Edited May 5, 2010 by whybother

[pornsasi]

How did you get the number of 50 MP's? You made it up didn't you? The dissolution of the PPP resulted in 15 (not 50) being banned for 5 years. Other parties were also dissolved, total still less than 35, and some of these are known PAD supporters.

I dont care if PTP , dems , friends of Newin ect... , I just gave an example . Numbers are not important here . In democracies , parliamentary or otherwise , the parliament or house must have the mandate of the people . That is where they derive their authority from , and same for the PM they elect . This a basic point of constitutional law for a democracy . As i said earlier in any true democratic system , UK for instance , if a group of MPs switch side so that the majority become the minority and as a result a new PM is elected by the new majority , that PM will righfully feel that he has no mandate from the people and that he needs one , so he will dissolve the parliament and call for general election . Why is that so difficult to understand ?

[pornsasi]

The judges in any OTHER democracy may punish those MPs or ministers guilty of wrong doing . I have nothing against that on the contrary . However they are not entitled anywhere else but Thailand to disolve entire political parties . More to the point

The only way a parliament can get a Mandate is directly from the people, either as the result of a referendum or as a result of the people organising and gathering the signatures of over 50% of the appropriate voters on individual Mandate forms which are exactly the same in form and content so there can be no mistaking exactly what it is the people command.

Directly from the people . The people commands , not any court , corrupt or not . This is a matter of principle .

Countries have different laws. This country has a law that says if the party executive are involved in electoral fraud, then the party gets disbanded.

The leaders of the party were banned. Not all the MPs of the party were banned.

You make is sound as if the party being disbanded actually made a difference.

How many times do you need to be told that only a few MPs were actually banned, and there were by-elections to replace them. The PPP still effectively exist in the PTP.

And you are basically right - to get a "mandate" you should get more than 50% of the vote. So NONE of the last 3 governments had a mandate.

edit: But just because you are elected, doesn't mean you can break the law. If you do break the law, there are consequences.

No a PM dont need 51% of the vote to get a mandate , the PM can get a mandate by forming a coalition , provided that coalition comes from parties in a parliament that has itself a mandate . For the rest see my previous reply .