Election Victory, But A Rude Awakening For The Thai Democrats

[OzMick]

What's amazing is:

1/ So many people didn't bother to vote. Which leads me to think that whoever won the by-election doesn't have the mandate of the people.

2/ The Reds are still strong and will be a major force in the next general election.

So, to paraphrase an old saying, I would say to you "It's not over till the Red party sings"!

The man has just won a free and fair election, and in your opinion he doesn't have a mandate? How then does he get one? Can he ever get one if he is not a RED?

The current government also won a free and fair election, they will probably win the next, but "It's not over till the Red party wins"!

[stepenwolf1958]

Interesting topic - funny that such a high percentage of posts (about the same as that of the losing Red candidate) come from the one poster, and another posts blatant mis-statements of the nature of the electorate.

To start with, a 15,000 winning margin is not a politician's nightmare - losing is the nightmare. That joy belongs to an alleged terrorist who has played his "get out of jail free" card, and still looks through cellbars.

Then we have the issue of low voter turnout. IMHO this was a result of complacency, and is not unusual in by-elections when a general election is expected in the fairly near future. The Dems were expected to win comfortably (as they did). OTOH, there was a big red push to get their candidate out of jail - was this the best they can do? In the general, I would expect the Dem incumbent to increase his percentage margin, as long as he doesn't get caught doing something nasty, and possibly even then.

You might also reflect that 15000 MARGIN is also a pretty big percentage of what the Reds can turn out when they promised millions - and without promises of big payouts to get them mobilised.

To stand at one side will be not much of help, if any of us can help at all. Try to see WHOLE picture as i am sure analysts in Democrat party are doing now. Victory is victory but this one was kind of testing. And surelly there is a reason for nightmare. Yo can not be happy with just 4% of an advantage. You should not be calm.

Next, it is YOUR stronghold, YOUR base but you won just with 4%. If you want to admit, it is not victory at all. This is a Pyrrhic victory. If you ever were a politician or in any campaign, you would get my point.

[Piengrudee]

It just take a non-Red to win an election in Thailand these days.

[stepenwolf1958]

Interesting topic - funny that such a high percentage of posts (about the same as that of the losing Red candidate) come from the one poster, and another posts blatant mis-statements of the nature of the electorate.

To start with, a 15,000 winning margin is not a politician's nightmare - losing is the nightmare. That joy belongs to an alleged terrorist who has played his "get out of jail free" card, and still looks through cellbars.

Then we have the issue of low voter turnout. IMHO this was a result of complacency, and is not unusual in by-elections when a general election is expected in the fairly near future. The Dems were expected to win comfortably (as they did). OTOH, there was a big red push to get their candidate out of jail - was this the best they can do? In the general, I would expect the Dem incumbent to increase his percentage margin, as long as he doesn't get caught doing something nasty, and possibly even then.

You might also reflect that 15000 MARGIN is also a pretty big percentage of what the Reds can turn out when they promised millions - and without promises of big payouts to get them mobilised.

To lost election is NEVER nightmare. It could be feel of disapointness and it would be normal but oposition role is always easier than Government has. It's easier to criticize as opositions always do anywhere.

One more thing, turnout in so HUGE number is nothing good. It means you failed to motivate people to believe to you and your words and acts in campaign. That is what worry.

If you are speaking about candidate of PTP, i said above they don't match for the situation. They are not so much skilled as i could see but other side allowed histerical statements of their representatives in public and media toward candidate of PTP. That is not expected from sofisticated and well educated people as Democrats should to be.

[way2muchcoffee]

Interesting topic - funny that such a high percentage of posts (about the same as that of the losing Red candidate) come from the one poster, and another posts blatant mis-statements of the nature of the electorate.

To start with, a 15,000 winning margin is not a politician's nightmare - losing is the nightmare. That joy belongs to an alleged terrorist who has played his "get out of jail free" card, and still looks through cellbars.

Then we have the issue of low voter turnout. IMHO this was a result of complacency, and is not unusual in by-elections when a general election is expected in the fairly near future. The Dems were expected to win comfortably (as they did). OTOH, there was a big red push to get their candidate out of jail - was this the best they can do? In the general, I would expect the Dem incumbent to increase his percentage margin, as long as he doesn't get caught doing something nasty, and possibly even then.

You might also reflect that 15000 MARGIN is also a pretty big percentage of what the Reds can turn out when they promised millions - and without promises of big payouts to get them mobilised.

To lost election is NEVER nightmare. It could be feel of disapointness and it would be normal but oposition role is always easier than Government has. It's easier to criticize as opositions always do anywhere.

One more thing, turnout in so HUGE number is nothing good. It means you failed to motivate people to believe to you and your words and acts in campaign. That is what worry.

If you are speaking about candidate of PTP, i said above they don't match for the situation. They are not so much skilled as i could see but other side allowed histerical statements of their representatives in public and media toward candidate of PTP. That is not expected from sofisticated and well educated people as Democrats should to be.

There is nothing hysterical about pointing out that the PTP candidate is presently jailed awaiting trial on terrorism charges.

[stepenwolf1958]

What's amazing is:

1/ So many people didn't bother to vote. Which leads me to think that whoever won the by-election doesn't have the mandate of the people.

2/ The Reds are still strong and will be a major force in the next general election.

So, to paraphrase an old saying, I would say to you "It's not over till the Red party sings"!

The man has just won a free and fair election, and in your opinion he doesn't have a mandate? How then does he get one? Can he ever get one if he is not a RED?

The current government also won a free and fair election, they will probably win the next, but "It's not over till the Red party wins"!

"The current government also won a free and fair election..."

Says who? This Government WAS NOT chosen based on election, do you know? It was delegated IN Parliament by MPs after the party which won in election was forbiden by the court about some elctorial frauds. That is base of the problem. So where you get this, REALLY?

[stepenwolf1958]

Interesting topic - funny that such a high percentage of posts (about the same as that of the losing Red candidate) come from the one poster, and another posts blatant mis-statements of the nature of the electorate.

To start with, a 15,000 winning margin is not a politician's nightmare - losing is the nightmare. That joy belongs to an alleged terrorist who has played his "get out of jail free" card, and still looks through cellbars.

Then we have the issue of low voter turnout. IMHO this was a result of complacency, and is not unusual in by-elections when a general election is expected in the fairly near future. The Dems were expected to win comfortably (as they did). OTOH, there was a big red push to get their candidate out of jail - was this the best they can do? In the general, I would expect the Dem incumbent to increase his percentage margin, as long as he doesn't get caught doing something nasty, and possibly even then.

You might also reflect that 15000 MARGIN is also a pretty big percentage of what the Reds can turn out when they promised millions - and without promises of big payouts to get them mobilised.

To lost election is NEVER nightmare. It could be feel of disapointness and it would be normal but oposition role is always easier than Government has. It's easier to criticize as opositions always do anywhere.

One more thing, turnout in so HUGE number is nothing good. It means you failed to motivate people to believe to you and your words and acts in campaign. That is what worry.

If you are speaking about candidate of PTP, i said above they don't match for the situation. They are not so much skilled as i could see but other side allowed histerical statements of their representatives in public and media toward candidate of PTP. That is not expected from sofisticated and well educated people as Democrats should to be.

There is nothing hysterical about pointing out that the PTP candidate is presently jailed awaiting trial on terrorism charges.

The spokesman is very responsible position in any party, anywhere in the world. So the person should to be at his duty and to don't insult oponents, rivals. And yes, it was histerical but above all it was unfair, dirty language,rude, primitive and insulting to say about oponent words like inviting to vote for the terrorist. It was repeated twice, even. Or i am reading wrong newspaper?

[stepenwolf1958]

Interesting topic - funny that such a high percentage of posts (about the same as that of the losing Red candidate) come from the one poster, and another posts blatant mis-statements of the nature of the electorate.

To start with, a 15,000 winning margin is not a politician's nightmare - losing is the nightmare. That joy belongs to an alleged terrorist who has played his "get out of jail free" card, and still looks through cellbars.

Then we have the issue of low voter turnout. IMHO this was a result of complacency, and is not unusual in by-elections when a general election is expected in the fairly near future. The Dems were expected to win comfortably (as they did). OTOH, there was a big red push to get their candidate out of jail - was this the best they can do? In the general, I would expect the Dem incumbent to increase his percentage margin, as long as he doesn't get caught doing something nasty, and possibly even then.

You might also reflect that 15000 MARGIN is also a pretty big percentage of what the Reds can turn out when they promised millions - and without promises of big payouts to get them mobilised.

To lost election is NEVER nightmare. It could be feel of disapointness and it would be normal but oposition role is always easier than Government has. It's easier to criticize as opositions always do anywhere.

One more thing, turnout in so HUGE number is nothing good. It means you failed to motivate people to believe to you and your words and acts in campaign. That is what worry.

If you are speaking about candidate of PTP, i said above they don't match for the situation. They are not so much skilled as i could see but other side allowed histerical statements of their representatives in public and media toward candidate of PTP. That is not expected from sofisticated and well educated people as Democrats should to be.

There is nothing hysterical about pointing out that the PTP candidate is presently jailed awaiting trial on terrorism charges.

Maybe my word hysterical is bolded, i agree but IF was said as you said here-i would not even mention it. I saw his statement.

[stepenwolf1958]

Interesting topic - funny that such a high percentage of posts (about the same as that of the losing Red candidate) come from the one poster, and another posts blatant mis-statements of the nature of the electorate.

To start with, a 15,000 winning margin is not a politician's nightmare - losing is the nightmare. That joy belongs to an alleged terrorist who has played his "get out of jail free" card, and still looks through cellbars.

Then we have the issue of low voter turnout. IMHO this was a result of complacency, and is not unusual in by-elections when a general election is expected in the fairly near future. The Dems were expected to win comfortably (as they did). OTOH, there was a big red push to get their candidate out of jail - was this the best they can do? In the general, I would expect the Dem incumbent to increase his percentage margin, as long as he doesn't get caught doing something nasty, and possibly even then.

You might also reflect that 15000 MARGIN is also a pretty big percentage of what the Reds can turn out when they promised millions - and without promises of big payouts to get them mobilised.

To lost election is NEVER nightmare. It could be feel of disapointness and it would be normal but oposition role is always easier than Government has. It's easier to criticize as opositions always do anywhere.

One more thing, turnout in so HUGE number is nothing good. It means you failed to motivate people to believe to you and your words and acts in campaign. That is what worry.

If you are speaking about candidate of PTP, i said above they don't match for the situation. They are not so much skilled as i could see but other side allowed histerical statements of their representatives in public and media toward candidate of PTP. That is not expected from sofisticated and well educated people as Democrats should to be.

There is nothing hysterical about pointing out that the PTP candidate is presently jailed awaiting trial on terrorism charges.

Correction, man is Deputy of Spokesman....Maybe his responsibility is lesser?

I know in my country, in campaigns, 7 days before the day of election is forbidden to speak anything about politic nor to publish any promotional material. We consider it as unfair and trying to influence on the electorate, voters. I am not sure here is allowed what happened.

[charmonman]

What's amazing is:

1/ So many people didn't bother to vote. Which leads me to think that whoever won the by-election doesn't have the mandate of the people.

2/ The Reds are still strong and will be a major force in the next general election.

So, to paraphrase an old saying, I would say to you "It's not over till the Red party sings"!

The man has just won a free and fair election, and in your opinion he doesn't have a mandate? How then does he get one? Can he ever get one if he is not a RED?

The current government also won a free and fair election, they will probably win the next, but "It's not over till the Red party wins"!

"The current government also won a free and fair election..."

Says who? This Government WAS NOT chosen based on election, do you know? It was delegated IN Parliament by MPs after the party which won in election was forbiden by the court about some elctorial frauds. That is base of the problem. So where you get this, REALLY?

With all due respect, I don't think you have all your facts straight. This government WAS chosen based on election under the rules of a parliamentary democracy. Yes, the previous party lost out in some part due to a few convictions on electoral fraud (you think electoral fraud is OK?). However, the vast majority of the Pheua Thai MPs from the last election remain in parliament. The PT lost power to the Democrats because of the defection of a number of minority parties. When the PT was in power it was in a coaltion, same as the Democrats now. If you consider the previous Pheua Thai government as legitimate, you have no logical basis for considering the current Democrat government as not legitamate.

Any Pheua Thai or Red supporters who disagree with what I have said, I would appreciate it if you would respond in a respectful and fact-based manner. I am open to any counter-arguments that are put in such a way.

[stepenwolf1958]

What's amazing is:

1/ So many people didn't bother to vote. Which leads me to think that whoever won the by-election doesn't have the mandate of the people.

2/ The Reds are still strong and will be a major force in the next general election.

So, to paraphrase an old saying, I would say to you "It's not over till the Red party sings"!

The man has just won a free and fair election, and in your opinion he doesn't have a mandate? How then does he get one? Can he ever get one if he is not a RED?

The current government also won a free and fair election, they will probably win the next, but "It's not over till the Red party wins"!

"The current government also won a free and fair election..."

Says who? This Government WAS NOT chosen based on election, do you know? It was delegated IN Parliament by MPs after the party which won in election was forbiden by the court about some elctorial frauds. That is base of the problem. So where you get this, REALLY?

With all due respect, I don't think you have all your facts straight. This government WAS chosen based on election under the rules of a parliamentary democracy. Yes, the previous party lost out in some part due to a few convictions on electoral fraud (you think electoral fraud is OK?). However, the vast majority of the Pheua Thai MPs from the last election remain in parliament. The PT lost power to the Democrats because of the defection of a number of minority parties. When the PT was in power it was in a coaltion, same as the Democrats now. If you consider the previous Pheua Thai government as legitimate, you have no logical basis for considering the current Democrat government as not legitamate.

Any Pheua Thai or Red supporters who disagree with what I have said, I would appreciate it if you would respond in a respectful and fact-based manner. I am open to any counter-arguments that are put in such a way.

Fraud in politic, as any other, is not good thing.

Next, i didn't say previous Government was doing right or according to Thai law, as i don't know what happened in THAT election. I see you misunderstood me but it's ok until your attitude for talk here is fair.

However, my point was that this Government, coalition, didn't win in election so to have right to nominate PM. As i could understand, winners were Mr. Thaksin's party or coalition(whatever) but because they were dissolved because of few electorial frauds there was opened space for the second biggest coalition and that coalition had majority in Parliament so they delegated PM.

If i wrong, sorry.

[Phuket Stan]

What's amazing is:

1/ So many people didn't bother to vote. Which leads me to think that whoever won the by-election doesn't have the mandate of the people.

2/ The Reds are still strong and will be a major force in the next general election.

So, to paraphrase an old saying, I would say to you "It's not over till the Red party sings"!

The man has just won a free and fair election, and in your opinion he doesn't have a mandate? How then does he get one? Can he ever get one if he is not a RED?

The current government also won a free and fair election, they will probably win the next, but "It's not over till the Red party wins"!

"The current government also won a free and fair election..."

Says who? This Government WAS NOT chosen based on election, do you know? It was delegated IN Parliament by MPs after the party which won in election was forbiden by the court about some elctorial frauds. That is base of the problem. So where you get this, REALLY?

With all due respect, I don't think you have all your facts straight. This government WAS chosen based on election under the rules of a parliamentary democracy. Yes, the previous party lost out in some part due to a few convictions on electoral fraud (you think electoral fraud is OK?). However, the vast majority of the Pheua Thai MPs from the last election remain in parliament. The PT lost power to the Democrats because of the defection of a number of minority parties. When the PT was in power it was in a coaltion, same as the Democrats now. If you consider the previous Pheua Thai government as legitimate, you have no logical basis for considering the current Democrat government as not legitamate.

Any Pheua Thai or Red supporters who disagree with what I have said, I would appreciate it if you would respond in a respectful and fact-based manner. I am open to any counter-arguments that are put in such a way.

The old adage applies for those who are thick as four short planks "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink"....just give up on them and let them believe what they want to

Edited July 27, 2010 by Phuket Stan

[sbk]

This tired argument gets trotted out nearly every political post. Please do some study on parliamentary systems and how they work. Please do some investigation as to how the current government gained the seat of PM as well as how the prior government gained the seat of PM. Cheers

[OzMick]

Interesting topic - funny that such a high percentage of posts (about the same as that of the losing Red candidate) come from the one poster, and another posts blatant mis-statements of the nature of the electorate.

To start with, a 15,000 winning margin is not a politician's nightmare - losing is the nightmare. That joy belongs to an alleged terrorist who has played his "get out of jail free" card, and still looks through cellbars.

Then we have the issue of low voter turnout. IMHO this was a result of complacency, and is not unusual in by-elections when a general election is expected in the fairly near future. The Dems were expected to win comfortably (as they did). OTOH, there was a big red push to get their candidate out of jail - was this the best they can do? In the general, I would expect the Dem incumbent to increase his percentage margin, as long as he doesn't get caught doing something nasty, and possibly even then.

You might also reflect that 15000 MARGIN is also a pretty big percentage of what the Reds can turn out when they promised millions - and without promises of big payouts to get them mobilised.

To stand at one side will be not much of help, if any of us can help at all. Try to see WHOLE picture as i am sure analysts in Democrat party are doing now. Victory is victory but this one was kind of testing. And surelly there is a reason for nightmare. Yo can not be happy with just 4% of an advantage. You should not be calm.

Next, it is YOUR stronghold, YOUR base but you won just with 4%. If you want to admit, it is not victory at all. This is a Pyrrhic victory. If you ever were a politician or in any campaign, you would get my point.

4% is a ridiculous, self-serving statement that assumes the rest of the voters would be split evenly. No evidence exists that this is the case. The margin was 10% of those who bothered to vote, the expectation should be that this will continue or enlarge as those complacent in victory turn out.

Aw shucks, your boy lost. Tell him that the other side had a Pyrrhic victory - he's still in prison and likely to stay there for a long time. SOM NOM NA

[whybother]

In my country if you don't have 50% + 1 vote of eligible voters, election has to be again. What Thai law says?

In Thailand, the politician with the largest number of votes wins.

There might be some rules about having to have more than 20% of the vote ... but that might only apply if there is no opposition.

In regard to another of your posts, to be in government you need to have more than 50% of the elected MPs to vote for the PM and therefore the party in power.

In the last election, the PPP got the most MPs elected, but less than 50%, so they needed to form a coalition with other parties to elect Samak as PM.

When Samak was forced to step down, the MPs voted for a PM again. The PPP and their coalition partners got more than 50% again and elected Somchai as PM (apparently Samak WAS able to stand again, but the PPP didn't want him and chose Thaksin's brother in law instead).

When the PPP were disbanded and the executive were banned, there were by-elections to fill all vacated seats. The PTP (most of the ex-PPP MPs that weren't banned), who were still in power at that point, could have called an election, but decided to just vote for a PM as they had done previously. Unfortunately for them, most of their coalition partners abandoned them, and backed the Democrats, bring Abhisit and the Democrats to power.

If the smaller parties had backed the Democrats in the first place (which they apparently campaigned on), the Democrats would have been in government from the start.

So, in all cases, the vote for PM was by elected MPs. In all cases, all the voters were represented. Just because the current government didn't form a coalition immediately after the election does not make them un-elected.

Edited July 27, 2010 by whybother

[OzMick]

The PAD guys have been sniping at Abhisit and the Dems for ages. Quite a comfortable win actually and why anyone would be surprised that the red candidate got 80k votes in a constituency where they have a very big base is just silly. Sure if the turnout had been higher the Dems would have had a much bigger majority but that they won so well on a sub 50% turnout in a constituency with a lot of red support is actually a little surprising.

I can understand the apathy towards voting by the Dem.

But I can not understand it by the PAD here was there big chance maybe they don't have the support they claim. As for there candidate being locked up in Jail and unable to speak. Did he not only spend two months speaking but also showing what he was all about.

I would be inerested in hearing of a politician in the world who would consider a victory of over %10 a narrow squeeze.

Well Joe Stalin, Kim Il Sung and Mao would be insulted by a 10% victory; it must be a red thing.

[whybother]

The PTP can't really complain about their guy being in prison. Others were able to campaign for him, and they got huge publicity - more than they otherwise would have - just because he was in prison.

As far as the voting numbers go, the result may have gone either way IF everyone had voted. We can just theorize.

My theory is that the Dem voters thought it would be a walk in so didn't bother. The PTP voters knew they had to turn up to have a chance, and they still didn't win.

[stepenwolf1958]

In my country if you don't have 50% + 1 vote of eligible voters, election has to be again. What Thai law says?

In Thailand, the politician with the largest number of votes wins.

There might be some rules about having to have more than 20% of the vote ... but that might only apply if there is no opposition.

In regard to another of your posts, to be in government you need to have more than 50% of the elected MPs to vote for the PM and therefore the party in power.

In the last election, the PPP got the most MPs elected, but less than 50%, so they needed to form a coalition with other parties to elect Samak as PM.

When Samak was forced to step down, the MPs voted for a PM again. The PPP and their coalition partners got more than 50% again and elected Somchai as PM (apparently Samak WAS able to stand again, but the PPP didn't want him and chose Thaksin's brother in law instead).

When the PPP were disbanded and the executive were banned, there were by-elections to fill all vacated seats. The PTP (most of the ex-PPP MPs that weren't banned), who were still in power at that point, could have called an election, but decided to just vote for a PM as they had done previously. Unfortunately for them, most of their coalition partners abandoned them, and backed the Democrats, bring Abhisit and the Democrats to power.

If the smaller parties had backed the Democrats in the first place (which they apparently campaigned on), the Democrats would have been in government from the start.

So, in all cases, the vote for PM was by elected MPs. In all cases, all the voters were represented. Just because the current government didn't form a coalition immediately after the election does not make them un-elected.

Thanks for this. Now it's clear that smaller parties betried PTP voting for opposit side. Complicated.

[stepenwolf1958]

Interesting topic - funny that such a high percentage of posts (about the same as that of the losing Red candidate) come from the one poster, and another posts blatant mis-statements of the nature of the electorate.

To start with, a 15,000 winning margin is not a politician's nightmare - losing is the nightmare. That joy belongs to an alleged terrorist who has played his "get out of jail free" card, and still looks through cellbars.

Then we have the issue of low voter turnout. IMHO this was a result of complacency, and is not unusual in by-elections when a general election is expected in the fairly near future. The Dems were expected to win comfortably (as they did). OTOH, there was a big red push to get their candidate out of jail - was this the best they can do? In the general, I would expect the Dem incumbent to increase his percentage margin, as long as he doesn't get caught doing something nasty, and possibly even then.

You might also reflect that 15000 MARGIN is also a pretty big percentage of what the Reds can turn out when they promised millions - and without promises of big payouts to get them mobilised.

To stand at one side will be not much of help, if any of us can help at all. Try to see WHOLE picture as i am sure analysts in Democrat party are doing now. Victory is victory but this one was kind of testing. And surelly there is a reason for nightmare. Yo can not be happy with just 4% of an advantage. You should not be calm.

Next, it is YOUR stronghold, YOUR base but you won just with 4%. If you want to admit, it is not victory at all. This is a Pyrrhic victory. If you ever were a politician or in any campaign, you would get my point.

4% is a ridiculous, self-serving statement that assumes the rest of the voters would be split evenly. No evidence exists that this is the case. The margin was 10% of those who bothered to vote, the expectation should be that this will continue or enlarge as those complacent in victory turn out.

Aw shucks, your boy lost. Tell him that the other side had a Pyrrhic victory - he's still in prison and likely to stay there for a long time. SOM NOM NA

You made one mistake, unintentionally i guess. He is not my boy. I have no reason to support reds or any other colour. But something else you can do: explain to me what are those words som nam na? What language is that and you said about who?

Next, maybe i've got the wrong impression but seem like you feel like any one who is not supporting your theory or thoughts, is against you. I just said what i think.

What means SOM NAM NA to you?

[whybother]

Thanks for this. Now it's clear that smaller parties betried PTP voting for opposit side. Complicated.

Actually, some of them betrayed their voters by supporting the PPP in the first place, considering some of them campaigned before the election that they would not support the PPP.

[mazeltov]

The PM did not promise to foreign media that there would be an election this year. The offer was made during negotiations with redshirt leaders during their illegal and violent occupation of central Bangkok. The redshirt leaders rejected the offer and declined to negotiate further. This resulted in thousands injured and many deaths as protesters repeatedly attacked military lines during the containment operation. At the end we saw the immolation of Bangkok by redshirt supporters.

The PM did suggest recently that elections could be held early next year. The primary requirement being that all sides actively come to the table to begin a much needed reconciliation. The PTP has thus far refused to participate and flatly opposes any kind of reconciliation efforts made by the government. Their supporters have continued to take up arms and at present are waging a guerrilla war against the government and citizens of Thailand.

This is why an early election is unlikely.

Yeah, and these red shirt people even dared to vote for the opposition party for the terrorists in the recent by-election.

If it is real really democracy what they want, they should have voted for the ruling party and show support the government.

This is why an early election is unlikely.

[TAWP]

That is what i prefer. Election is a cure for divisions in Thailand. Benefit for all but for recent Government, we could guess according to this so called victory.

Elections isn't a cure for anything, they are a symptom of the disease.

[rubl]

The PM did not promise to foreign media that there would be an election this year. The offer was made during negotiations with redshirt leaders during their illegal and violent occupation of central Bangkok. The redshirt leaders rejected the offer and declined to negotiate further. This resulted in thousands injured and many deaths as protesters repeatedly attacked military lines during the containment operation. At the end we saw the immolation of Bangkok by redshirt supporters.

The PM did suggest recently that elections could be held early next year. The primary requirement being that all sides actively come to the table to begin a much needed reconciliation. The PTP has thus far refused to participate and flatly opposes any kind of reconciliation efforts made by the government. Their supporters have continued to take up arms and at present are waging a guerrilla war against the government and citizens of Thailand.

This is why an early election is unlikely.

Yeah, and these red shirt people even dared to vote for the opposition party for the terrorists in the recent by-election.

If it is real really democracy what they want, they should have voted for the ruling party and show support the government.

This is why an early election is unlikely.

Somehow I think people like to see reds, UDD and PTP as identical, same with yellow, PAD, Dem's. These parties / groups have things in common, but that's all.

An early election seems unlikely as we stuill don't agree on what constitution, which amendments, how to staff the E.C., what powers to give the E.C., who may stand for MP, how to safeguard candidate canvassing in the opposition's 'territory', how to avoid vote-buying / unethical promises, acceptance of results (after check), what type of observers, etc., etc.

Around Songkhran next year may still be too early when I look at how 'friendly' and open-minded everyone approaches these subjects.

[charmonman]

"The current government also won a free and fair election..."

Says who? This Government WAS NOT chosen based on election, do you know? It was delegated IN Parliament by MPs after the party which won in election was forbiden by the court about some elctorial frauds. That is base of the problem. So where you get this, REALLY?

With all due respect, I don't think you have all your facts straight. This government WAS chosen based on election under the rules of a parliamentary democracy. Yes, the previous party lost out in some part due to a few convictions on electoral fraud (you think electoral fraud is OK?). However, the vast majority of the Pheua Thai MPs from the last election remain in parliament. The PT lost power to the Democrats because of the defection of a number of minority parties. When the PT was in power it was in a coaltion, same as the Democrats now. If you consider the previous Pheua Thai government as legitimate, you have no logical basis for considering the current Democrat government as not legitamate.

Any Pheua Thai or Red supporters who disagree with what I have said, I would appreciate it if you would respond in a respectful and fact-based manner. I am open to any counter-arguments that are put in such a way.

Fraud in politic, as any other, is not good thing.

Next, i didn't say previous Government was doing right or according to Thai law, as i don't know what happened in THAT election. I see you misunderstood me but it's ok until your attitude for talk here is fair.

However, my point was that this Government, coalition, didn't win in election so to have right to nominate PM. As i could understand, winners were Mr. Thaksin's party or coalition(whatever) but because they were dissolved because of few electorial frauds there was opened space for the second biggest coalition and that coalition had majority in Parliament so they delegated PM.

If i wrong, sorry.

Thanks for responding in a rational way.

You are incorrect in that the reason the Pheua Thai lost the right to form the government is that the smaller parties decided to leave the governing coalition of the time and form a new majority (not "second biggest") coalition with the Democrats, giving them the right to form the government. It had nothing to do with the loss of a few seats by the PT due to convictions on electoral fraud. The MPs who currently sit on the side of the government represent a slim majority of the votes cast in the last election (but a majority nonetheless). This kind of procedure is completely legitimate if a bit uncommon. It almost occured in Canada a couple of years ago and if it had, I doubt you would have had too many people saying that the resulting government was unelected or illegitimate, but in Thailand this is a common slur against the Democrats.

Again, I would truly appreciate any respectful and fact-based responses from those who disagree.

[mazeltov]

Do you think i am not normal to prefer such idiotic things? Mate, the point is: that WILL be for sure(or going tto be already) if no election general level.

That is what i prefer. Election is a cure for divisions in Thailand. Benefit for all but for recent Government, we could guess according to this so called victory.

Do you honestly believe that Democrat, Pheua Pandin, CTP, and BJT candidates will be able to campaign freely in the North and Northeast at this time without fear of harassment or violence?

During the televised negotiations that occurred early on in the occupation of Bangkok the redshirt leaders decried the constitution as the largest problem in Thailand and declared it the root of all of the troubles. Don't you think then that the constitution should be amended before the next general election so that we do not see history repeat itself?

You maybe wanna study the cases of violence in the last, the 2007 election. And how freely campaigning was, under martial law, in 2007.

As for today days without fear of harassment or violence: What you think could happen if some concerned citizen would try to walk through the city holding a banner with " "I saw dead people at Ratchaprasong" " written on? In Bangkok or Chiang Mai or Chiang Rai for example. Not a big group, just a few maybe close of being a group of five.

The possible restrictions and suppression of the right to campaign freely is indeed of concern and something to worry about. It is even worse, you don't have to be campaign on behalf of a certain political party, it is enough to openly admit that you are pro-election to put yourself at risk.

Just look at the recent past what happened when ordinary citizens, innocent people demanding democracycame together on the streets of Bangkok in a rally for elections.

Elections as the fundamental element of a democracy seems to be not in favour of every group and party in the political scene Thailands. Some prefer Rule by Decree over Rule by the People.

You forget what is the problem with that constitution. In case you don't know:

It is the JUNTA constitution. Wouldn't you as democracy lover object if the the military launched a coup, violates the 'old' constitution, declared martial law all over the country and then writes a new constitution?

Of course the junta hold a referendum about this new constitution. But protest against the junta wasn't allowed and declared illegal and so was it for that referendum.

If you know nothing about the Junta thing or just ignore these facts you will fail to understand whats going on in Thai politics.

[rubl]

You maybe wanna study the cases of violence in the last, the 2007 election. And how freely campaigning was, under martial law, in 2007.

As for today days without fear of harassment or violence: What you think could happen if some concerned citizen would try to walk through the city holding a banner with " "I saw dead people at Ratchaprasong" " written on? In Bangkok or Chiang Mai or Chiang Rai for example. Not a big group, just a few maybe close of being a group of five.

The possible restrictions and suppression of the right to campaign freely is indeed of concern and something to worry about. It is even worse, you don't have to be campaign on behalf of a certain political party, it is enough to openly admit that you are pro-election to put yourself at risk.

Just look at the recent past what happened when ordinary citizens, innocent people demanding democracycame together on the streets of Bangkok in a rally for elections.

Elections as the fundamental element of a democracy seems to be not in favour of every group and party in the political scene Thailands. Some prefer Rule by Decree over Rule by the People.

You forget what is the problem with that constitution. In case you don't know:

It is the JUNTA constitution. Wouldn't you as democracy lover object if the the military launched a coup, violates the 'old' constitution, declared martial law all over the country and then writes a new constitution?

Of course the junta hold a referendum about this new constitution. But protest against the junta wasn't allowed and declared illegal and so was it for that referendum.

If you know nothing about the Junta thing or just ignore these facts you will fail to understand whats going on in Thai politics.

The ordinary citizens in the link were called so by PM Abhisit. He also mentioned that the violent minority spoilt it for the others. The new constitution was not written by the military, but by learned people and the like. Don't remember how input was asked/received to formulate. The referendum was relatively open, there was no obvious thread. Protest were not allowed, but voting was free. Don't know what would have happened if a majority would have voted against, that's speculation. Keep in mind that (at least) at first the army was greeted with flowers by ordinary citizens who started to be really upset by the slowly dictatorial behaviour of PM Thaksin. Papers were threatened with lawsuits or closure, journalists were shut up.

As you say yourself if you just ignore these facts you will fail to understand whats going on in Thai politics.

[mazeltov]

"The current government also won a free and fair election..."

Says who? This Government WAS NOT chosen based on election, do you know? It was delegated IN Parliament by MPs after the party which won in election was forbiden by the court about some elctorial frauds. That is base of the problem. So where you get this, REALLY?

With all due respect, I don't think you have all your facts straight. This government WAS chosen based on election under the rules of a parliamentary democracy. Yes, the previous party lost out in some part due to a few convictions on electoral fraud (you think electoral fraud is OK?). However, the vast majority of the Pheua Thai MPs from the last election remain in parliament. The PT lost power to the Democrats because of the defection of a number of minority parties. When the PT was in power it was in a coaltion, same as the Democrats now. If you consider the previous Pheua Thai government as legitimate, you have no logical basis for considering the current Democrat government as not legitamate.

Any Pheua Thai or Red supporters who disagree with what I have said, I would appreciate it if you would respond in a respectful and fact-based manner. I am open to any counter-arguments that are put in such a way.

Disagreeing with you makes one to a PTP or Red Shirt supporter? Or are only those allowed to reply?

Legitimacy as Prime Minister isn't just something that can be reduced to the number of MP who voted for Abhist as the new PM (235 MP's).

Technically it is maybe right, but politics involves human beings, their society, their history, their believes and opinion, what the politicians say, what the acedemics says, what the newspaper writes, what the people say .... 'legitimacy of a PM has broader semantics than your logic, is a rather complex issue that doesn't fit into an excel sheet or a short 'get your facts straight' web board entry.

And there Abhisits legitimacy is an issue of debate. Never heard before that it was and is questioned? 'Silent coup' or 'judical coup' were and are terms not only used red shirt propaganda.

But if you don't read international papers, even The Nation published shortly after Abhisits election as PM an article with the headline: Legitimacy, or lack there of, is the main problem faced by prime minister-elect Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Let me quote a a few lines from this Nation article, for a short recap and mostly because it describes also how Abhisit 'victory' was perceived by the PAD aka yellow shirts and Abhisit supporter:

The problem began on December 6, when Army Chief Gen Anuphong Paochinda invited key politicians

to offer them "advice" on what the new coalition should look like. Newin Chidchob, a former Thaksin

aide who over the past few months was disenfranchised by his multi-billionaire boss, decided to exploit

the situation. The Democrats and the military jumped in as well.

No wonder it is believed that on Monday, a "silent coup" was staged by the military, with backing from

Abhisit, Newin, the self-styled People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and their sup-porters.

The "election" of Abhisit was a coup so quiet that it even caught anti-coup activists like Chotisak Onsoong

off-guard. From day one academics and activists, including Chotisak, questioned Abhisit's legitimacy.

And it does-n't seem likely that the PM can convince them otherwise - especially since some people are

already calling this government a puppet of the military.

This would not have been pos-sible if the PAD had not seized the two airports and if the Constitution Court

had not dissolved three parties, including the People Power Party.

The PAD, which has a Democrat MP as one of its core leaders, was quick to declare victory. The renamed

ASTV Manager Daily ran photos of PAD members celebrating Abhisit's victory.

Khamnoon Sitthisamarn, a columnist and editor at the paper, wrote on Monday that the new "political

phenomena" with Abhisit as PM "was genuinely a PAD victory!" The editor, who is also an appointed senator,

how-ever did admit in his column that this was an "Anuphong-style coup d'etat."

This comes from some-one who has first-hand experience in military intervention - Khamnoon was made

member of the National Legislative Assembly soon after the 2006 coup.

source: Question loom over new Prime Minister's legitimacy.

The Nation. December 17, 2008

Before people start to argue, yes it is written by Pravit Rojanaphruk. Pravit has opinions that are always a little bit different of that what people usually expect from The Nation.

Funny part is the yellow statement. If i would wrote at this board that Abhist came into power thanks to the PAD bully & rally action and how the coalition was formed is nothing else than an "Anuphong-style coup d'etat." i would get called a 'paid red propaganda poster' by the usual suspects and probably also by those who where 2 years ago web-active PAD apologists.

Anyway, what we could discuss is how the different sources argue or take a look at why Abhisits legitimacy is questioned. If you are not completely naive or clueless or the Dems spokesman you have to admit that Abhisits path to become is not without controversy.

Last year in a BBC interview with Abhisit, the interviewer Zeinab Bedawi covered that issue and mentioned Abhists probably will know that his critics say 'Prime minister Abhisit is a nice guy, but he became prime minister in a way that lacks democratic legitimacy' He replied 'I am surprized by that!' and comes then with his textbook style explanation. the majority of MPs vote, open and transparent, according to the constitution. ...

I am pretty sure that if another journalist would ask a similar question, Abhisit would use even years later exactly the same words and phrases. including the his start sentence 'I am surprized by that!'

watch the interview here^{[starts at 4:45]}: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/business/2009/g20/7946122.stm

Abhisit gave also an explanation why Kasit was picked for the job as foreign minister.

[nisakiman]

Whatever, the result was certainly not a resounding victory for the democrat party, and it would appear that had it been run under more normal circumstances (emergency rule, opposition candidate not able to campaign because he was in jail, censorship of the free press but not of the government machine etc) then the result may have been very different.

I think Abhisit and his cronies have much to be worried about after this result, and will probably try to delay a general election for as long as they are able.

[mazeltov]

The new constitution was not written by the military, but by learned people and the like. Don't remember how input was asked/received to formulate. The referendum was relatively open, there was no obvious thread. Protest were not allowed, but voting was free. Don't know what would have happened if a majority would have voted against, that's speculation. Keep in mind that (at least) at first the army was greeted with flowers by ordinary citizens who started to be really upset by the slowly dictatorial behaviour of PM Thaksin. Papers were threatened with lawsuits or closure, journalists were shut up.

As you say yourself if you just ignore these facts you will fail to understand whats going on in Thai politics.

Ohh, flowers for the putschists, that is indeed a good argument for the military rule.

Of course Thaksin was not a PM without plenty controversies, but i heard he got some flowers at the airport when he returned after the coup.

Anyway, do you realise that specially in terms of civil liberties like freedom of expression and media freedom is has actually much more worse than it ever was under Thaksin.

Thailand currently ranking on 130. of 175 countries on the Press Freedom Index compiled and published by Reporters Without Borders

because in previous years the total number of countries in the list vary lets also compare the Notes/score Thailand got. a lower note indicated more freedom

Year/ note / rank

2009: 44.00 130. of 175 countries

2008: 34.50 124. of 173

2007: 53.50 135. of 169

2006: 33.50 122. of 168

2005: 28.00 107. of 167

2004: 14.00 59. of 167

2003: 19.67 82. of 166

2002: 22.75 65. of 135

http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1001

There is the famous case of NGO-activist Supinya Klangnarong. In 2003 the newspaper Thai Post published a comment by her stating that Shin Corporation benefited from favours in the policies of the Thaksin governnment.

The company filled a lawsuit against her and the newspaper, some ridiculous claim of 400 mio for damage compensation and also for libel, a criminal offense in Thailand which can get you jail. Of course the public outcry was enormous. made that woman famous and a heroine for the the anti thaksin movement. Her case is often quoted as example for media suppression under Thaksin.

The libel case was finally rejected by the criminal court and she was acquitted of theses charges. That happened still under a Thaksin govt, before the coup.

I cannot remember any statements by Thaksin himself about the case, it was Shin Corp. who filled the case.

The current PM Abhisit files lawsuits by himself and is much more successful. Earlier this year two people got a 6 month /1 year jail sentence (suspended, cause first offender)for their defamatory claim the prime minister is unusually rich.

Abhisit brought also Jatuporn to the criminal court. The PM sued him for saying thatAbhisit had improperly behaved during an audience

Back to Supinya Klangnarong. She didn't welcomed the putschists with flowers, but was opposed the coup.

Instead of being thankful that the junta take civil liberties away in order to freed her and all other Thai from the dictatorial Thaksin she took part in protests, tried to enter the parliament building where the unelected and by junta appointed assembly hold a session.

So guess what happend, yep new criminal charges against her:

read about here: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2008/2732/

Today she is active in the Thai Netizen Network and Campaign for Popular Media Reform (CPMR)

google her or that /thainetizen_dot_organisation

the usual suspects would her activities against censorship and pro-freedom of expression and right to access of information probably slag off as a paid by Thaksin campaign against the government.

For all the issues from the Big List Of All The Bad Things The Thakisn Government Did it is generally recommended to check who exposed or addressed these things first and then check what these critics of the Thaksin government have to say today.

[Insight]

The rallies to force an early election under their own terms failed.

The subsequent political impeachment lead by Juttaporn and Charlem failed.

The attempts at bringing international condemnation against Thailand by Amsterdam and Noppadon have clearly not gained much ground.

And now the by-election, fielding a prisoner as an MP with a considerably large putsch featuring a rally on a Friday with a phone-in from Thaksin promising his return by the end of the year, also failed.

Now Jakraprob is saying that elections and rallies are "childish aims". Whatever could he mean?