Thailand could hold early 2011 elections: PM

NEW YORK (AFP) -- Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Friday that early elections could take place early in 2011 if the opposition Red Shirts prove they can remain peaceful.

"We believe that six more months of continued stability... should be able to set the scene for a possible early election next year," he told a think tank in New York, where he was attending the UN General Assembly.

"But that very much depends, still, on how the opposition and the Redshirts respond," Abhisit added in the talk at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"If they would prove that they are interested in democratic movement, peaceful assembly and rejection of any illegal activity -- and of course violent activity -- then I think we should be on course to achieve a solution."

Early elections are a key demand of the opposition Red Shirts movement.

Abhisit, the British-born, Oxford-educated head of the establishment Democrat Party, does not have to go to the polls until the end of next year.

He had proposed holding polls this November but shelved the plan when opposition protests in April and May ended in a bloody government crackdown and riots in Bangkok.

Ninety people died and nearly 1,900 were injured in the army assault to clear away the protestors on May 19.

The protesters were campaigning for elections they hoped would oust the government, which they view as undemocratic because it came to power with the backing of the army after a court ruling threw out the previous administration.

Most of the Red Shirt leaders are now in jail or wanted on terrorism charges for their roles in the two-month-long mass rally.

Abhisit insisted that elections could take place, but only once stability had returned. "I don't believe in elections where there can be intimidation, threats or use of force," he said.

He acknowledged that "we cannot claim to have returned the situation to complete normalcy," but said that "ordinary people are not affected" by the continuing emergency rule.

He also defended himself against accusations of damaging media freedoms, saying that only outlets which "incite violence" had been closed.

"I'm not sure whether you'd allow any special station for Al-Qaeda here," he told his mostly American audience.

Sporadic violence continues to afflict the country. A small bomb hidden in a rubbish bin exploded in a residential area of Bangkok on Friday, wounding three people, police said.

Despite the instability, Thailand's economy is performing strongly, the premier said. GDP is projected to grow eight percent this year and exports are growing at 30 percent a year, he said

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-09-25

I am sure one would have to commend the PM for continually holding out an olive branch to these reds and has continued to display tolerance despite their arrogance and ignorance. But he is not giving it away fro free. Toe the line - prove it over time - and you can get a compromise from us. If only some of the red leaders could recognise the gesture and then control their rabble the country could move forward. But that is wishful thinking.

Unfortunately there isn't going to be any election - regardless of what Abhisit says in the USA, unless the ruling classes can guarantee that the Dems will win. Which they cant do at the moment.

Imagine the payback if the reds and their supporters were elected into power? More worrying for the army is that their budget, which has doubled since 2006 would probably be trimmed.

Abhisit will make all the right noises for sure, but at some point in the run up to a proposed election there will be unexplained bombings or some other incident which causes the elections to be postponed indefinitely.

"More worrying for the army is that their budget, which has doubled since 2006 would probably be trimmed."

The reply never came from two days, so I'll repeat the request here, "Do you have a source for that?"

While admittedly it's a tasty sound bite that people like to throw out there, but unfortunately, they never seem to like to prove it.

quote name='jayboy'

The massive increase in the military budget since the coup is a matter of record not speculation.

unquote

To keep things in perspective, regionally and internationally.

ASEAN countries military expenditure as a percent of GDP

?.? (unreported) Myanmar

4.1 Singapore

3.9 Brunei

2.4 Vietnam

2.0 Malaysia

1.5 Thailand

1.1 Cambodia

1.0 Indonesia

0.8 Philippines

0.4 Laos

ASEAN average (not counting unreported Myanmar) = 1.9

On a world scale of military expenditure as a percent of GDP, Thailand ranks # 89.

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

Defense spending in Thailand, as in most countries of the world, waxes and wanes, with later spending balancing years of defense cuts.

How can you possibly try and defend / justify the defence budgets ??

Spending has more than doubled in the last couple of years and I very much doubt it's going down in the foreseeable future.

The perspective is corruption and diversion of funds.

Don't have to defend nor justify it, just letting reality state what the real amounts are instead of just hyperbolic rhetoric. It is, as said, common with many countries that defense budgets go up and down from year to year. Is Thailand, at 89th place globally, spending excessively? Even within ASEAN, it's below average in expenditures.

Do you have a source that the defense budget more than doubled?

Edited September 25, 201015 yr by Buchholz

Unfortunately there isn't going to be any election - regardless of what Abhisit says in the USA, unless the ruling classes can guarantee that the Dems will win. Which they cant do at the moment.

Imagine the payback if the reds and their supporters were elected into power?

Abhisit will make all the right noises for sure, but at some point in the run up to a proposed election there will be unexplained bombings or some other incident which causes the elections to be postponed indefinitely.

Noting, of course, that the early elections put forth earlier was refused by the Reds, and not Abhisit.

The Reds are the reason that there are not elections in 40 days from now, as was offered to them.

But hey, let's blame Abhisit that they aren't, right?

Edited September 25, 201015 yr by Buchholz

Unfortunately there isn't going to be any election - regardless of what Abhisit says in the USA, unless the ruling classes can guarantee that the Dems will win. Which they cant do at the moment.

Imagine the payback if the reds and their supporters were elected into power? More worrying for the army is that their budget, which has doubled since 2006 would probably be trimmed.

Abhisit will make all the right noises for sure, but at some point in the run up to a proposed election there will be unexplained bombings or some other incident which causes the elections to be postponed indefinitely.

He only says what was expected - he is in New York - he has been prepared for interviews with foreign journalists who actually ask questions that might be embarrassing - nothing but a face saving exercise!

The PM is getting so desperate now that he gets defensive in an interview and compares the opposition in this country to Al - Qaeda. The prime minister has no idea how lucky he is that he has no Al-Qaeda here - previous governments as well as his and the armed forces of this country can not even handle a bunch of amateur insurgents in the South!

Fact is that freedom of expression for the opposition in this country has been suppressed by the military dictators who run this country - Abhisit is not in charge here so it does not matter what he says!

There will be no word of elections ones he returns to Thailand where his government is preparing to rise VAT from 7% to 10%. - They have to recoup the billions spent on the coup, military budget and 2000 Baht "handouts" to millions of Thais.

So be prepared to add another 3% to already rising prices - happy shopping everybody!

"More worrying for the army is that their budget, which has doubled since 2006 would probably be trimmed."

Do you have a source that the defense budget more than doubled?

Source Bangkok Post:

EDIT: Bangkok Post doesn't allow linking or quoting, text deleted.

You have to visit their website and find the article yourself.

Edited September 25, 201015 yr by Mario2008

Unfortunately there isn't going to be any election - regardless of what Abhisit says in the USA, unless the ruling classes can guarantee that the Dems will win. Which they cant do at the moment.

Imagine the payback if the reds and their supporters were elected into power?

Abhisit will make all the right noises for sure, but at some point in the run up to a proposed election there will be unexplained bombings or some other incident which causes the elections to be postponed indefinitely.

Noting, of course, that the early elections put forth earlier was refused by the Reds, and not Abhisit.

The Reds are the reason that there are not elections in 40 days from now, as was offered to them.

But hey, let's blame Abhisit that they aren't, right?

there were more than a few caveats in his election promise to the reds. If they had taken him up on his offer then the 'powers from above 'would have made sure some 'incident' was pinned to the reds and therefore caused a delay in the election. Both sides are untrustworthy and therefore no reconciliation can be made as nobody keeps their word. Too many outside influences from the 'real power houses' of Thailand.

Edited September 25, 201015 yr by jucel

He will not hold an election because he gained power by lots of palm greasing.People often get it wrong when they say he wasn't elected properly. He was using Thai laws, but the parties who joined his coalition were originally on the other side and jumped ship when cash & power were thrown at them. Therefore, the inital voters voted for an mp who they thought was red, who then converted to yellow (in basic terms). This is was upsets people, the fact that they voted for somebody thinking they were red and then they jumped on the abhasit bandwagon. To sum up my convoluted statement; he was not properly 'democratically' elected because the people would have not voted for the mp's (who changed sides) in the first place if they knew a few years down the line they would be corrupted by cash and change sides.

Power, greed and money. That's what keeps a dictatorship going, oh and no freedom of speech etc etc

Edited September 25, 201015 yr by jucel

there were more than a few caveats in his election promise to the reds. If they had taken him up on his offer then the 'powers from 'would have made sure some 'incident' was pinned to the reds and therefore caused a delay in the election. Both sides are untrustworthy and therefore no reconciliation can be made as nobody keeps their word. Too many outside influences from the 'real power' of Thailand.

Nobody knows for certain whether what you say about the powers that be making an incident happen to avoid elections would have happened. It might have but we just don't know. The reds should have accepted the offer of elections and then cried blue murder if the promise was broken. They would have been justified and they would have had a lot of public support. Instead they refused the offer and burnt down the city. People got shot at. People died. Wasn't exactly what you'd call a masterstroke. The reds should be condemned for that decision they took. Instead we have people condemning the government for what they believe the government would have done.

Unfortunately there isn't going to be any election - regardless of what Abhisit says in the USA, unless the ruling classes can guarantee that the Dems will win. Which they cant do at the moment.

Imagine the payback if the reds and their supporters were elected into power? More worrying for the army is that their budget, which has doubled since 2006 would probably be trimmed.

Abhisit will make all the right noises for sure, but at some point in the run up to a proposed election there will be unexplained bombings or some other incident which causes the elections to be postponed indefinitely.

Scoring political points in USA.

He will not hold an election because he gained power by lots of palm greasing and he is considered quite arcticulate by some. People often get it wrong when they say he wasn't elected properly. He was using Thai laws, but the parties who joined his coalition were originally on the other side and jumped ship when cash was thrown at them. Therefore, the inital voters voted for an mp who they thought was red, who then converted to yellow (in basic terms). This is was upsets people, the fact that they voted for somebody thinking they were red and then they jumped on the abhasit bandwagon. To sum up my convoluted statement; he was not properly democratically elected because the people would have not voted for the mp's in the first place if they knew a few years down the line they would be corrupted by cash and change sides.

Power, greed and money. That's what keeps a dictatorship going, oh and no freedom of speech etc etc

You seemed to have missed the fact that when the PPP formed their coalition government in 2007 after the elections, they did so thanks to the support of certain MPs who had run their campaigns promising that they would not work with the PPP.

"More worrying for the army is that their budget, which has doubled since 2006 would probably be trimmed."

Do you have a source that the defense budget more than doubled?

un-quotable Bangkok Post article comments removed

Thank you for that. Getting a straight reply sometimes seems like pulling wisdom teeth, so I appreciate your input.

I see that, according to an opposition PTP MP no less, the budget will now at least match the average for its ASEAN neighbors (as per earlier post) at 1.5 of GDP. Good to see Thailand is at least up on a regional par. Additionally, it should move Thailand up from its abysmal 89th place globally.

Anudit Nakorntap, Bangkok MP for Pheu Thai, told Parliament yesterday that the defence budget, which accounts for 1.5 per cent of the GDP

The Nation - August 20, 2010

Edited September 25, 201015 yr by Buchholz

Unfortunately there isn't going to be any election - regardless of what Abhisit says in the USA, unless the ruling classes can guarantee that the Dems will win. Which they cant do at the moment.

Imagine the payback if the reds and their supporters were elected into power? More worrying for the army is that their budget, which has doubled since 2006 would probably be trimmed.

Abhisit will make all the right noises for sure, but at some point in the run up to a proposed election there will be unexplained bombings or some other incident which causes the elections to be postponed indefinitely.

People were saying exactly the same thing after the 2006 coup - that there would never be elections all the while there was a risk that Thaksin's party would get into power. They were wrong. There were elections and Thaksin's party did get into power. The fact that they didn't stay in power doesn't change those facts.

there were more than a few caveats in his election promise to the reds. If they had taken him up on his offer then the 'powers from 'would have made sure some 'incident' was pinned to the reds and therefore caused a delay in the election. Both sides are untrustworthy and therefore no reconciliation can be made as nobody keeps their word. Too many outside influences from the 'real power' of Thailand.

Nobody knows for certain whether what you say about the powers that be making an incident happen to avoid elections would have happened. It might have but we just don't know. The reds should have accepted the offer of elections and then cried blue murder if the promise was broken. They would have been justified and they would have had a lot of public support. Instead they refused the offer and burnt down the city. People got shot at. People died. Wasn't exactly what you'd call a masterstroke. The reds should be condemned for that decision they took. Instead we have people condemning the government for what they believe the government would have done.

i agree with you but the two sides are so polarised now its unbelievable. The worst thing that ever happened was the colours scenario ie red, yellow etc. This has made everything so complicated as its so easy to make propaganda on both sides.

Unfortunately there isn't going to be any election - regardless of what Abhisit says in the USA, unless the ruling classes can guarantee that the Dems will win. Which they cant do at the moment.

Imagine the payback if the reds and their supporters were elected into power?

Abhisit will make all the right noises for sure, but at some point in the run up to a proposed election there will be unexplained bombings or some other incident which causes the elections to be postponed indefinitely.

Noting, of course, that the early elections put forth earlier was refused by the Reds, and not Abhisit.

The Reds are the reason that there are not elections in 40 days from now, as was offered to them.

But hey, let's blame Abhisit that they aren't, right?

there were more than a few caveats in his election promise to the reds. If they had taken him up on his offer then the 'powers from above 'would have made sure some 'incident' was pinned to the reds and therefore caused a delay in the election. Both sides are untrustworthy and therefore no reconciliation can be made as nobody keeps their word. Too many outside influences from the 'real power houses' of Thailand.

Yeah, the caveat for no further violence from them was a sure tough one to comply with.

The Reds refused the offer, so speculating as to what might have happened had they accepted is rather a futile effort of redundancy. At the end of the day, the Reds refused, and instead of having electioneering occurring now, it won't happen until next year... provided, of course, they have learned to comply with that real tough caveat of no further violence.

He will not hold an election because he gained power by lots of palm greasing and he is considered quite arcticulate by some. People often get it wrong when they say he wasn't elected properly. He was using Thai laws, but the parties who joined his coalition were originally on the other side and jumped ship when cash was thrown at them. Therefore, the inital voters voted for an mp who they thought was red, who then converted to yellow (in basic terms). This is was upsets people, the fact that they voted for somebody thinking they were red and then they jumped on the abhasit bandwagon. To sum up my convoluted statement; he was not properly democratically elected because the people would have not voted for the mp's in the first place if they knew a few years down the line they would be corrupted by cash and change sides.

Power, greed and money. That's what keeps a dictatorship going, oh and no freedom of speech etc etc

You seemed to have missed the fact that when the PPP formed their coalition government in 2007 after the elections, they did so thanks to the support of certain MPs who had run their campaigns promising that they would not work with the PPP.

two wrongs don't make a right. Also it gives ammo for the red leaders to use for the northern people, who don't get to read news from outside Thailand, and therefore are not fully informed.

there were more than a few caveats in his election promise to the reds. If they had taken him up on his offer then the 'powers from 'would have made sure some 'incident' was pinned to the reds and therefore caused a delay in the election. Both sides are untrustworthy and therefore no reconciliation can be made as nobody keeps their word. Too many outside influences from the 'real power' of Thailand.

Nobody knows for certain whether what you say about the powers that be making an incident happen to avoid elections would have happened. It might have but we just don't know. The reds should have accepted the offer of elections and then cried blue murder if the promise was broken. They would have been justified and they would have had a lot of public support. Instead they refused the offer and burnt down the city. People got shot at. People died. Wasn't exactly what you'd call a masterstroke. The reds should be condemned for that decision they took. Instead we have people condemning the government for what they believe the government would have done.

i agree with you but the two sides are so polarised now its unbelievable. The worst thing that ever happened was the colours scenario ie red, yellow etc. This has made everything so complicated as its so easy to make propaganda on both sides.

With respect, i don't know what any of that has to do with the comments i made. I was questioning why you were trying to justify the reds refusal of the offer of early elections and why you were condemning the government for something they didn't do but you suspect they would have.

Unfortunately there isn't going to be any election - regardless of what Abhisit says in the USA, unless the ruling classes can guarantee that the Dems will win. Which they cant do at the moment.

Imagine the payback if the reds and their supporters were elected into power?

Abhisit will make all the right noises for sure, but at some point in the run up to a proposed election there will be unexplained bombings or some other incident which causes the elections to be postponed indefinitely.

Noting, of course, that the early elections put forth earlier was refused by the Reds, and not Abhisit.

The Reds are the reason that there are not elections in 40 days from now, as was offered to them.

But hey, let's blame Abhisit that they aren't, right?

there were more than a few caveats in his election promise to the reds. If they had taken him up on his offer then the 'powers from above 'would have made sure some 'incident' was pinned to the reds and therefore caused a delay in the election. Both sides are untrustworthy and therefore no reconciliation can be made as nobody keeps their word. Too many outside influences from the 'real power houses' of Thailand.

Yeah, the caveat for no further violence from them was a sure tough one to comply with.

The Reds refused the offer, so speculating as to what might have happened had they accepted is rather a futile effort of redundancy. At the end of the day, the Reds refused, and instead of having electioneering occurring now, it won't happen until next year... provided, of course, they have learned to comply with that real tough caveat of no further violence.

You must know by now that their are powers way above the govt that make things happen to fit their needs. Look at all the constant small bombs in Bkk that keep going off to make sure the SOE is kept in place. It is in the govt's interests to keep the SOE in place as they are scared shitless of another catastrophe.

He will not hold an election because he gained power by lots of palm greasing and he is considered quite arcticulate by some. People often get it wrong when they say he wasn't elected properly. He was using Thai laws, but the parties who joined his coalition were originally on the other side and jumped ship when cash was thrown at them. Therefore, the inital voters voted for an mp who they thought was red, who then converted to yellow (in basic terms). This is was upsets people, the fact that they voted for somebody thinking they were red and then they jumped on the abhasit bandwagon. To sum up my convoluted statement; he was not properly democratically elected because the people would have not voted for the mp's in the first place if they knew a few years down the line they would be corrupted by cash and change sides.

Power, greed and money. That's what keeps a dictatorship going, oh and no freedom of speech etc etc

You seemed to have missed the fact that when the PPP formed their coalition government in 2007 after the elections, they did so thanks to the support of certain MPs who had run their campaigns promising that they would not work with the PPP.

two wrongs don't make a right. Also it gives ammo for the red leaders to use for the northern people, who don't get to read news from outside Thailand, and therefore are not fully informed.

Two wrongs do not indeed make a right. And identifying one supposed wrong from one side and ignoring the same supposed wrong from the other side, as you have done, does not make for a balanced presentation of the facts, wouldn't you say?

there were more than a few caveats in his election promise to the reds. If they had taken him up on his offer then the 'powers from 'would have made sure some 'incident' was pinned to the reds and therefore caused a delay in the election. Both sides are untrustworthy and therefore no reconciliation can be made as nobody keeps their word. Too many outside influences from the 'real power' of Thailand.

Nobody knows for certain whether what you say about the powers that be making an incident happen to avoid elections would have happened. It might have but we just don't know. The reds should have accepted the offer of elections and then cried blue murder if the promise was broken. They would have been justified and they would have had a lot of public support. Instead they refused the offer and burnt down the city. People got shot at. People died. Wasn't exactly what you'd call a masterstroke. The reds should be condemned for that decision they took. Instead we have people condemning the government for what they believe the government would have done.

i agree with you but the two sides are so polarised now its unbelievable. The worst thing that ever happened was the colours scenario ie red, yellow etc. This has made everything so complicated as its so easy to make propaganda on both sides.

With respect, i don't know what any of that has to do with the comments i made. I was questioning why you were trying to justify the reds refusal of the offer of early elections and why you were condemning the government for something they didn't do but you suspect they would have.

I was just saying that the reds do not believe the govt and who can blame them! There was no reason why they couldn't have held snap elections. In the UK, the govt picks the date of the election and then within a few weeks its all done and dusted. It can be organised quickly. if theres a will, theres a way. I condemn the govt because they are governed by the real power of Thailand who have an agenda to keep the dems in power. These people would/will stop at nothing to retain power!

Yeah, the caveat for no further violence from them was a sure tough one to comply with.

The Reds refused the offer, so speculating as to what might have happened had they accepted is rather a futile effort of redundancy. At the end of the day, the Reds refused, and instead of having electioneering occurring now, it won't happen until next year... provided, of course, they have learned to comply with that real tough caveat of no further violence.

Look at all the constant small bombs in Bkk that keep going off to make sure the SOE is kept in place. It is in the govt's interests to keep the SOE in place as they are scared shitless of another catastrophe.

What I find interesting about a fair amount of the recent bombings:

The six suspects facing prosecution are Mr Kampol Kamkong, Mr Dejpol Puthajong, Mr Kobchai Boonplod, Ms Varisariya Boonsom, Mr Anek Singkhunthod and Mr Suriya Phumwong. They are charged for producing, possessing and detonating bombs as well as terrorism.

The six suspects facing prosecution are -

Kampol Kamkong:

(Red Shirt Bomb Assembler)

http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1031284

Mr Dejpol Puthajong:

(Red Shirt Bomb Assembler)

http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1031284

Mr Kobchai Boonplod:

(Red Shirt Bomb Mastermind)

http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1032047[/b]

Ms Varisariya Boonsom,

(Red Shirt Bomb Mastermind)

http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1032047

Mr Anek Singkhunthod

(Non-specific Bomb Pushcarter)

http://www.mcot.net/cfcustom/cache_page/74325.html

Mr Suriya Phumwong

(Non-specific Bomb Assembler)

Edited September 25, 201015 yr by Buchholz

Please refer to last Sundays edition of the other English language paper.

Also try New Mandela,BKK pundit, Prachatai, Politival Prisoners Thailand and the rest.

It's pretty common knowledge.

Do you have a source that the defense budget more than doubled?

Do you have a source that the defense budget more than doubled?

Please refer to last Sundays edition of the other English language paper.

Also try New Mandela,BKK pundit, Prachatai, Politival Prisoners Thailand and the rest.

It's pretty common knowledge.

Thank you, but the answer was finally provided already a couple of hours ago and then addressed in Post #13.

I do realize whenever things turn sensitive he plays the stick and carrot game. How many times have we heard this now? I remember five times, but it is maybe more. This is a sign of insecurity. Will he lose his job as army spokesman anytime soon?

I understand that there are many issues to tackle, but the gov has to concentrate full steam on poverty issues (people are literally dying upcountry because of the situation now). Corruption needs to be addressed in a tough way, whether gov or executive and without mercy (providing inactive posts for culprits and squanderers of public monetary sources is not sufficient).

I don't think that there is much chance of early elections, though I do believe that the next elections will occur no later than they are regularly scheduled to be (Nov/Dec 2011). This is because I really don't think that they Reds will refrain from violence for 6 months, and I'm not referring to anonymous bombs, but something like riots/attacks or arson.

The Reds are not a homogeneous group. While most of them want want peaceful change and social reform, there is a substantial number of them who would like to see continuing chaos (so they can stay on Thaksin's payroll) or a violent revolution with their leaders ending up as the new elite (or rather the ones who will be "more equal than others"!)

In addition to having different goals than a democratic election, the Red leaders will also be looking at possible outcomes of an early election. Right now, there is no guarantee that the PT would win the next election. At best, they would probably be the largest minority partner and would have to go to Newin, Sanoh, Banharn and Somkit with pockets full of bribe money & promises:jap: to form a coalition. A worse-case scenario would be for them to win fewer seats than the Democrats!

A more promising strategy for PT would be to pay lip-service to wanting early elections while encouraging the Reds to go on another rampage during the upcoming high season. If they could succeed in derailing the Thai economy and blame the Dems for it, they would have a much better chance of winning more seats in the next election.

I was just saying that the reds do not believe the govt and who can blame them! There was no reason why they couldn't have held snap elections. In the UK, the govt picks the date of the election and then within a few weeks its all done and dusted. It can be organised quickly. if theres a will, theres a way. I condemn the govt because they are governed by the real power of Thailand who have an agenda to keep the dems in power. These people would/will stop at nothing to retain power!

You seem to be under the misapprehension that a snap election means an instant election, or something close to it. It does not. Snap election simply means an election that is early and is usually unexpected. The amount of time it takes to organise depends on the country and the circumstances. If you think that a country like Thailand in that situation it was in at that time, could organise an election in the space of 3 or 4 weeks then you obviously haven't been living here long enough.

The three month time frame for elections was a massive compromise as it was on the part of the government considering the fact that they still had more than a year and a half in which to govern, and considering the fact that the first offer on the table was nine months. The reds should have taken it and given everyone a chance to see for themselves whether or not the government would be true to its word. They didn't. They chose destruction and death.

He will not hold an election because he gained power by lots of palm greasing.People often get it wrong when they say he wasn't elected properly. He was using Thai laws, but the parties who joined his coalition were originally on the other side and jumped ship when cash & power were thrown at them. Therefore, the inital voters voted for an mp who they thought was red, who then converted to yellow (in basic terms). This is was upsets people, the fact that they voted for somebody thinking they were red and then they jumped on the abhasit bandwagon. To sum up my convoluted statement; he was not properly 'democratically' elected because the people would have not voted for the mp's (who changed sides) in the first place if they knew a few years down the line they would be corrupted by cash and change sides.

Power, greed and money. That's what keeps a dictatorship going, oh and no freedom of speech etc etc

This piece is purely your opinion, no more, no less. Incorrect as well I think, but you don't provide your assumptions. So, difficult to judge.

As for 'properly', 'democratic', 'people wouldn't have voted for mp's', I guess this means you also sent in letters to major British and Australian newspapers to urge them to pick up the 'democratic thread' and have a snap election because the last one led to a PM and cabinet only through un-democratic hagling and if people had known before they would definitely have voted differently

Edited September 25, 201015 yr by rubl

people would have not voted for the mp's (who changed sides) in the first place if they knew a few years down the line they would be corrupted by cash and change sides.

Power, greed and money. That's what keeps a dictatorship going, oh and no freedom of speech etc etc

I'm pretty sure that those MPs were corrupted long before the Democrats made them an offer! If the Thai electorate was concerned about MPs being interested in 'Power, greed and money' I don't think that any of the current MPs would be sitting in Parliament.

PM-Abhisit offers the possibility of early-2011 elections, following a hoped-for and entirely-reasonable period of six months, without riots/bombs/murders/peaceful-protests from the usual suspects.

Applying their usual tactics/logic, isn't it now time for Jatuporn & his co-leaders to threaten to bring the masses back onto the streets, to protest such an undemocratic-action, as offering to hold an election ?