Thailand Could Hold Early 2011 Elections: PM Abhisit

[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

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

you are comparing apples and pears! the mp's were not paid off like in Thailand. I admit though the lust of power brought the lib dems and conservatives together. Big diff in UK as 3 parties who are nowhere near as polarised in their views

[jucel]

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 ?

i am not being argumentative here but most historical fights for democracy have been bloody and nasty (because it is the only way to change things! diplomcay does not work re iran, iraq etc etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). It is only the fact we live in a big brother world that it is so accessible to the masses. There have been some horrendous murderings by the govt/army in Thailand before the cameras were allowed to participate. Anyone who cant see that is bonkers!! Anyone who doesn't think Thailand is run by a junta reads the BK or Nation way toooooooo much.

[jucel]

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.

[rixalex]

you are comparing apples and pears! the mp's were not paid off like in Thailand. I admit though the lust of power brought the lib dems and conservatives together. Big diff in UK as 3 parties who are nowhere near as polarised in their views

I'm not at all comfortable with horse-trading but accept in one form or another, it is standard practice. Your argument that the current prime minister was not "properly democratically elected" can be equally applied to the prime minister before him and in all likelihood, the prime minister that comes after him.

[rixalex]

i am not being argumentative here but most historical fights for democracy have been bloody and nasty (because it is the only way to change things! diplomcay does not work re iran, iraq etc

The leaders of the red movement are not fighting for democracy and to quote you:

Anyone who cant see that is bonkers!!

[tigermonkey]

An interesting set of questions come forward in this debate about the timing of a new election.

Is it legally possible to hold an election while the SOE continues to exist ? If it is possible ( and I don't see how), what would be the net effect on the style and substance of the campaign?

...and if the SOE is continued for another year or eightenn months, because of ongoing 'violence' , threats of violence and bombings,would the election be posponed indefinitely ?

Edited September 25, 2010 by tigermonkey

[jucel]

i am not being argumentative here but most historical fights for democracy have been bloody and nasty (because it is the only way to change things! diplomcay does not work re iran, iraq etc

The leaders of the red movement are not fighting for democracy and to quote you:

Anyone who cant see that is bonkers!!

yes the leaders are (bonkers) but i think the country wants democracy. The leaders have marginalised themselves with crazy tactics

[Buchholz]

An interesting set of questions come forward in this debate about the timing of a new election.

Is it legally possible to hold an election while the SOE continues to exist ? If it is possible ( and I don't see how), what would be the net effect on the style and substance of the campaign?

...and if the SOE is continued for another year or eightenn months, because of ongoing 'violence' , threats of violence and bombings,would the election be posponed indefinitely ?

The election of 2004, which saw Thaksin re-elected, was conducted while he had declared martial law (which is even a higher state of alert than the SOE) for some parts of the country.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Buchholz

[rubl]

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

you are comparing apples and pears! the mp's were not paid off like in Thailand. I admit though the lust of power brought the lib dems and conservatives together. Big diff in UK as 3 parties who are nowhere near as polarised in their views

"apples & pears": I'm talking about the un-democratic haggling which is not that much different from your accusation of "he gained power by lots of palm greasing". An accusation I still have to see proof of by the way.

"nowhere near as polarised": has nothing to do with whether or not it's un-democratic.

My description was exaggerated, but in the forming of any coalition there is some haggling based on what each partner 'values'. The result is the same: voters may not be satisfied with the result of a general election. To say "k. Abhisit was not properly elected" is completely incorrect. A PM is not elected. As MP k. Abhisit was elected, as PM selected by other MP's. Under Thai law and parliamentary rules the current government is the legal government. You don't have to like them, that's up to you.

[Changian]

"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?

Do you doubt everything just because it doesn't appear in The Nation?

You mean like this source:

Asia Times. Thai military puts up spending defense.

or this:

OpinionAsia. Thai military budget set to rise. Again.

or this:

The Economist. Where Power Lies. Thailand's Political Army. ( no link as the story is subscription only but the graph below is idiot proof enough. I hope. )

or this from just last week:

Time Magazine - 17 September

'Another example is the battered democracy of Thailand. Since 2006, when the military toppled an elected government, defense spending has more than doubled to $5.5 billion. It is tempting to see this as the price the current Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, must pay to ensure his generals' loyalty.'

Even the B**g**k P**t which isn't exactly known for it's anti-govt stance had an article about excessive spending in the July 27 issue. Headline was:

'Military shopping list grows. Govt eager to okay big-ticket items ahead of army chief's retirement, despite controversies.'

and it mentioned that 'Controversies over the wisdom of the purchases tend to be ignored, such is the government's eagerness to please.'

[rubl]

"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?

Do you doubt everything just because it doesn't appear in The Nation?

You mean like this source:

Asia Times. Thai military puts up spending defense.

or this:

OpinionAsia. Thai military budget set to rise. Again.

or this:

The Economist. Where Power Lies. Thailand's Political Army. ( no link as the story is subscription only but the graph below is idiot proof enough. I hope. )

or this from just last week:

Time Magazine - 17 September

'Another example is the battered democracy of Thailand. Since 2006, when the military toppled an elected government, defense spending has more than doubled to $5.5 billion. It is tempting to see this as the price the current Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, must pay to ensure his generals' loyalty.'

Even the B**g**k P**t which isn't exactly known for it's anti-govt stance had an article about excessive spending in the July 27 issue. Headline was:

'Military shopping list grows. Govt eager to okay big-ticket items ahead of army chief's retirement, despite controversies.'

and it mentioned that 'Controversies over the wisdom of the purchases tend to be ignored, such is the government's eagerness to please.'

Military budget more than doubled from 0.75% to 1.5%, right. What about the other budgets? Like the billions of THB on farmers and farm prices.

Interesting is that the Times article says

"The acquisition of sophisticated weapons indicates two things: First, that Southeast Asian nations are more wary of each other than fraternal declarations at ASEAN meetings suggest. Second, that a region that publicly welcomes China's soft power is also quietly tooling up for the hard version."

This seems to imply that the military budget increase is more a regional issue than just 'payback time'.

[Buchholz]

"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?

Do you doubt everything just because it doesn't appear in The Nation?

Thank you, but once again the answer was finally provided 7 hours prior to your post and then addressed in Post # 13.

[Ricardo]

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 ?

i am not being argumentative here but most historical fights for democracy have been bloody and nasty (because it is the only way to change things! diplomcay does not work re iran, iraq etc etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). It is only the fact we live in a big brother world that it is so accessible to the masses. There have been some horrendous murderings by the govt/army in Thailand before the cameras were allowed to participate. Anyone who cant see that is bonkers!! Anyone who doesn't think Thailand is run by a junta reads the BK or Nation way toooooooo much.

I disagree with you about how to change things, but would defend your right, to your own opinions.

The military have certainly been responsible, for some bad deeds over the years, and have always had a big say (since 1932) in who runs the country. I would hope that a bloodless-coup, followed by a fairly-ineffective military-appointed junta-government, which returned power on-schedule to a government it probably didn't like much, might suggest that they're moving in the right direction. Progress comes in small steps.

Would you in turn agree, that it would indeed be "bonkers" and also pretty undemocratic, if the next election were to be run in a climate of fear and intimidation, such as the Red-Shirts & UDD might currently be thought to be encouraging ? Pouring blood & burning buildings, rioting & shooting senior army-officers, can have nothing to contribute towards a more-democratic future.

And surely a period (you can argue about how long) of relative-peace would be a good thing, during the run-up to an election, if it is to be run at all fairly ?

[Changian]

Thank you, but once again the answer was finally provided 7 hours prior to your post and then addressed in Post # 13.

No worries. Here's a good site to use for info on defence spending in Thailand or for any other info you need on government expenditure.

[tigermonkey]

An interesting set of questions come forward in this debate about the timing of a new election.

Is it legally possible to hold an election while the SOE continues to exist ? If it is possible ( and I don't see how), what would be the net effect on the style and substance of the campaign?

...and if the SOE is continued for another year or eightenn months, because of ongoing 'violence' , threats of violence and bombings,would the election be posponed indefinitely ?

The election of 2004, which saw Thaksin re-elected, was conducted while he had declared martial law (which is even a higher state of alert than the SOE) for some parts of the country.

You certainly have an interesting , but faulty knowledge of Thai history.

The martial law declared by Thaksin in early 2004 was in the southern provinces, due to the insurgency there.. The only election of note that year was the election for governor of Bangkok later in that year.( 2004)'

The election in which Thaksin was re-elected was in 2005.

All of this occured while the old emergency statute was in place. The new Internal Security Act under which we have the current SOE, was passed in 2007 -- I believe it was October.

I still do not have an answer to my question -- only another swipe at Thaksin.

[phiphidon]

An interesting set of questions come forward in this debate about the timing of a new election.

Is it legally possible to hold an election while the SOE continues to exist ? If it is possible ( and I don't see how), what would be the net effect on the style and substance of the campaign?

...and if the SOE is continued for another year or eightenn months, because of ongoing 'violence' , threats of violence and bombings,would the election be posponed indefinitely ?

The election of 2004, which saw Thaksin re-elected, was conducted while he had declared martial law (which is even a higher state of alert than the SOE) for some parts of the country.

You certainly have an interesting , but faulty knowledge of Thai history.

The martial law declared by Thaksin in early 2004 was in the southern provinces, due to the insurgency there.. The only election of note that year was the election for governor of Bangkok later in that year.( 2004)'

The election in which Thaksin was re-elected was in 2005.

All of this occured while the old emergency statute was in place. The new Internal Security Act under which we have the current SOE, was passed in 2007 -- I believe it was October.

I still do not have an answer to my question -- only another swipe at Thaksin.

Can't wait for the reply, Source? Source!

[Buchholz]

Thank you, but once again the answer was finally provided 7 hours prior to your post and then addressed in Post # 13.

No worries. Here's a good site to use for info on defence spending in Thailand or for any other info you need on government expenditure.

Thank you. That's more in line with the typical reply to inquiries made here.

[Buchholz]

An interesting set of questions come forward in this debate about the timing of a new election.

Is it legally possible to hold an election while the SOE continues to exist ? If it is possible ( and I don't see how), what would be the net effect on the style and substance of the campaign?

...and if the SOE is continued for another year or eightenn months, because of ongoing 'violence' , threats of violence and bombings,would the election be posponed indefinitely ?

The election of 2004, which saw Thaksin re-elected, was conducted while he had declared martial law (which is even a higher state of alert than the SOE) for some parts of the country.

You certainly have an interesting , but faulty knowledge of Thai history.

The martial law declared by Thaksin in early 2004 was in the southern provinces, due to the insurgency there.. The only election of note that year was the election for governor of Bangkok later in that year.( 2004)'

The election in which Thaksin was re-elected was in 2005.

All of this occured while the old emergency statute was in place. The new Internal Security Act under which we have the current SOE, was passed in 2007 -- I believe it was October.

I still do not have an answer to my question

Yes, you are correct it was 2005.

Yes, the southern provinces were under martial law.

Yes, the southern provinces are a part of Thailand.

Yes, elections were held there.

Yes, martial law is a higher state of alert than an SOE.

No, none of my post reflected any sort of "faulty knowledge"... except for the aforementioned 2005 vice 2004.

[Buchholz]

Can't wait for the reply, Source? Source!

Refer to the above.

[phiphidon]

Can't wait for the reply, Source? Source!

Refer to the above.

OK so basically Martial Law has no checks and balances (except presumably by a responsible Military) but the SOE has checks and balances by CRES. Am I right?

[GeorgeO]

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.

I don't believe it is such wishful thinking.

The longer PM Abhisit stays in office, the stronger he appears to get. I would not rule out the offer of early elections in 2011 subsequently being withdrawn as the red shirt leaders see their influence slipping away, and ultimately resort to further "incidents" as those that we are currently seeing.

Given that these "leaders" have a distinct lack of common sense, they fail to recognise that such actions alienate them even more from the masses. They will, therefore, bring about their own demise, and the PM can get on with what's good for the country.

If I might be permitted to offer him some advice, it would be that he should dismantle the police force and start again! They currently represent the most serious barrier to development in Thailand, as without fair and equitable law and order, anything that the PM does can be undermined by their desire for personal gains.

[Buchholz]

Can't wait for the reply, Source? Source!

Refer to the above.

OK so basically Martial Law has no checks and balances (except presumably by a responsible Military) but the SOE has checks and balances by CRES. Am I right?

Not sure what you're talking about or why you're asking in response as my reply above, which was simply to specifically answer the question:

quote name=tigermonkey

Is it legally possible to hold an election while the SOE continues to exist ?

unquote

however, there are guidelines for both martial law and SOE.

Perhaps Changian's beneficial post might be of equal help to you in finding those details as it was to me in finding an answer to my inquiry:

Here's a good site to use for info

Edited September 26, 2010 by Buchholz

[Roadman]

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.

I don't believe it is such wishful thinking.

The longer PM Abhisit stays in office, the stronger he appears to get. I would not rule out the offer of early elections in 2011 subsequently being withdrawn as the red shirt leaders see their influence slipping away, and ultimately resort to further "incidents" as those that we are currently seeing.

Given that these "leaders" have a distinct lack of common sense, they fail to recognise that such actions alienate them even more from the masses. They will, therefore, bring about their own demise, and the PM can get on with what's good for the country.

If I might be permitted to offer him some advice, it would be that he should dismantle the police force and start again! They currently represent the most serious barrier to development in Thailand, as without fair and equitable law and order, anything that the PM does can be undermined by their desire for personal gains.

Agreed. I think the country can go forward if the Reds rabble accept that the jungle border type of politics that they bring to the table throught Thaksin and his henchmen ain't acceptable in modern Thailand. That garbage was assigned to the dust bin with Chavalit's demise and should never ever be allowed in Thailand. As long as the Thai Army is controlled through the Bangkok regiments then the country is safe.

Pinochio is then making a judgement call same as any western governemnt of when within his elected (suck it up Reddie's) term he will hold an election. His call as to when the ball is likely to be most in his court. With the Thai economy running very smoothly he's doing just dandy.

[whybother]

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!

"the govt picks the date of the election"

That's correct. It doesn't get forced upon them by minority groups by the threat of, and actual, violence.

[phiphidon]

From Bucholz

Not sure what you're talking about or why you're asking in response as my reply above, which was simply to specifically answer the question:

quote name=tigermonkey

Is it legally possible to hold an election while the SOE continues to exist ?

unquote

however, there are guidelines for both martial law and SOE.

Perhaps Changian's beneficial post might be of equal help to you in finding those details as it was to me in finding an answer to my inquiry:

Here's a good site to use for info

It was a simple question. I could not access the "good site" offered by Changian last night and as of this morning I still can't. So without the benefit of that knowledge I wanted to satisfy myself that I had some understanding of the difference between Military Rule and the SOE as background (for me) to your response to Tigermonkey. Perhaps I should have included that whole thread but thought I'd ask you direct - If Changians' link had been available to me I'm sure it might have been of equal help to me as it was to you.

[SamritT]

Election will happen in 2011. I can bet on that.

[rubl]

From Bucholz

Not sure what you're talking about or why you're asking in response as my reply above, which was simply to specifically answer the question:

quote name=tigermonkey

Is it legally possible to hold an election while the SOE continues to exist ?

unquote

however, there are guidelines for both martial law and SOE.

Perhaps Changian's beneficial post might be of equal help to you in finding those details as it was to me in finding an answer to my inquiry:

Here's a good site to use for info

It was a simple question. I could not access the "good site" offered by Changian last night and as of this morning I still can't. So without the benefit of that knowledge I wanted to satisfy myself that I had some understanding of the difference between Military Rule and the SOE as background (for me) to your response to Tigermonkey. Perhaps I should have included that whole thread but thought I'd ask you direct - If Changians' link had been available to me I'm sure it might have been of equal help to me as it was to you.

The 'good site' link provided brings me to Google Thailand. Thank you, member Changian, I would have been lost without you