I'll Opt For Losing Election If It Restores Peace: Abhisit

[craigt3365]

bisit is a good man and about an honest a politician as you are likely to get. I think his statement means its a difficult fix this reconcilliation thing and the thought of losing if could be fixed shows he would give up a lot for that end game. I think he will win and I hope the new governemnt can make it a number one priority with a hug effort, it will need to be, to solve the situation. As we know it takes to 2 to tango and the other dancer may not want to leave their seat, without a stick. As far as the earlier election that was promised is concerned, I thought the UDD failed to take up the offer and it was cancelled.

Who was that bloke who said "Give peace a chance"

Agreed. Lots of people slag him off, but given the alternatives, he's about the best Thailand is going to get...and the best in the recent past. Or am I totally wrong about this?

If you look at his comments in terms of the overall context of the meeting, it makes perfect sense. He was talking at a conference on "Thailand's Economic Risks and the Government Cooperation". So saying he would step down to help the economy is a good thing to say when you are speaking there.

[OzMick]

To the critics, what would you have had him say?

Perhaps something like Thaksin, if my side doesn't win, we will destroy the country and burn down Bangkok?

When did former PM Thaksin state that? Please provide the documentation.

Thank you

You have to learn to guess where the punctuation is meant to be. You read:

Perhaps something like Thaksin, " if my side doesn't win, we will destroy the country and burn down Bangkok?"

Whereas I read

"Perhaps something like "Thaksin, if my side doesn't win, we will destroy the country and burn down Bangkok?"

That way, he has also not failed to capitalise his first word.

[jayjay0]

Anyone still believing a single word coming out of Abhisit's mouth can only be classified as a delusional fool .

Sssshhh. Don't upset the abhisit fan club of Thai Visa. They have a habit of frothing at the mouth and having cyber tantrums when such unpleasantries are uttered.

Just repeat after me, The Emperor's clothes are beautiful.........................

Did you ever stop to think that maybe they are not a fan club just people trying to make do with what they have. At the moment Abhist is not only the best they have but he is what they have. There are people in Thailand who wish to make it even a better place to live in than it all ready is.

Yes there are people who wish to make it a dictatorship under Thaksin and will not miss a trick when it comes to undermining the legally elected government. As always you are free to choose your side. That is the great part about it being a democracy.

[webfact]

POLITICS

PM promises general election next year

By The Nation

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva stressed yesterday that he would prefer to lose the election if his winning could lead to violence, while adding there "will definitely be a general election next year".

"I will opt for losing an election if that will restore peace in the country, rather than achieve an election victory that will lead to violence. I hope the election next year will be smooth. If that is the case, there will be political stability and we will get closer to normalcy," he said.

He was not specific about when he would dissolve the House and call an election, but said he had no intention of staying on until his term ends in early 2012.

Abhisit, who is the Democrat Party leader, was delivering a speech on "Thailand's Economic Risks and Government Cooperation" at a seminar organised by the Economic Reporters Association at Sofitel Centara Grand Hotel.

He said political risks remain, as certain groups of people do not want peace to be restored in the country, as manifested by the recent violent incidents, including bomb attacks.

"But we will be able to hold a peaceful election," he said.

Although it appeared he had no ambition to remain in power, he said the public's welfare was paramount in his mind.

"I don't like it if there's bloodshed although I may win the election. I prefer to lose the election if there's peace and our country can go on. It's not about the party's time in power, it's rather about benefits for the country when the election is peaceful," he said.

-- The Nation 2010-10-28

[Deeral]

Common perceptions of TV members include

All those who don't support Abhisit are Redshirts..

All Redshirts brown-nose Thaksin..All Redshirts are "terrorists"..

Policies, constitutional issues etc are for puffs as......

All issues and allegiances are black and white (or Red and Yellow). .

All politics are just llike football -- who you "support" dictates what strip you wear.....this obviates the need to think about any issues.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Deeral

[Deeral]

bisit is a good man and about an honest a politician as you are likely to get. I think his statement means its a difficult fix this reconcilliation thing and the thought of losing if could be fixed shows he would give up a lot for that end game. I think he will win and I hope the new governemnt can make it a number one priority with a hug effort, it will need to be, to solve the situation. As we know it takes to 2 to tango and the other dancer may not want to leave their seat, without a stick. As far as the earlier election that was promised is concerned, I thought the UDD failed to take up the offer and it was cancelled.

Who was that bloke who said "Give peace a chance"

Agreed. Lots of people slag him off, but given the alternatives, he's about the best Thailand is going to get...and the best in the recent past. Or am I totally wrong about this?

If you look at his comments in terms of the overall context of the meeting, it makes perfect sense. He was talking at a conference on "Thailand's Economic Risks and the Government Cooperation". So saying he would step down to help the economy is a good thing to say when you are speaking there.

Abhisit has been around in thai politics for a longtime - he has tried several times to be elected to govt and consequently PM....and he failed.......so he seized the opportunity to get in by the back door.he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one; He now has failed to ratify that appointment with an election because he can be pretty sure he'd fail....He now has the "support" and influence of the army and is using increasingly draconian measures to smother any potential opposition.

This man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk

[Deeral]

To those who are paranoid about thaksin.

one thing that you can be sure of; whoever wins the next election/coup or whatever, the next PM will not be Thaksin. so chill out OK?

[Deeral]

I'm a little concerned by those who use the "what's the alternative" argument to justify Abhisit's PM-ship.

It reminds me of an example I heard on the radio once..

You come downstairs in the middle of the night to find your partner making love to the toaster.....when you ask what's going on, the reply comes

"Well, what's the alternative?"

[whybother]

Abhisit has been around in thai politics for a longtime - he has tried several times to be elected to govt and consequently PM....and he failed.......so he seized the opportunity to get in by the back door.he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one; He now has failed to ratify that appointment with an election because he can be pretty sure he'd fail....He now has the "support" and influence of the army and is using increasingly draconian measures to smother any potential opposition.

This man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk

How does a government or politician get a mandate? By getting a majority of people to support you? Given that the majority of MPs (therefore the majority of Thailand) currently support Abhisit, doesn't that give him a mandate?

Or maybe it's that the PPP didn't have a mandate either, since they didn't get a majority to support them after the election.

In both cases, they had the support of coalition partners, so either they both had/have a mandate, or neither do.

[RedNIvar]

Or why someone wants to be an honest politician in Thailand......

Oh, I've heard of that, its a Cryptid.....like the Yeti, Loch Ness Monster, Honest Thai Politician, Bigfoot,.....

[hyperdimension]

If you really think Abhisit is so bad, who do you think would be better to lead Thailand into the future?

[RedNIvar]

If you really think Abhisit is so bad, who do you think would be better to lead Thailand into the future?

George W. Bush is looking for a job!

[Deeral]

Abhisit has been around in thai politics for a longtime - he has tried several times to be elected to govt and consequently PM....and he failed.......so he seized the opportunity to get in by the back door.he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one; He now has failed to ratify that appointment with an election because he can be pretty sure he'd fail....He now has the "support" and influence of the army and is using increasingly draconian measures to smother any potential opposition.

This man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk

How does a government or politician get a mandate? By getting a majority of people to support you? Given that the majority of MPs (therefore the majority of Thailand) currently support Abhisit, doesn't that give him a mandate?

Or maybe it's that the PPP didn't have a mandate either, since they didn't get a majority to support them after the election.

In both cases, they had the support of coalition partners, so either they both had/have a mandate, or neither do.

I could go into your response and explain why your argument is so facile - but your avatar sums my feelings up completely.

[Deeral]

If you really think Abhisit is so bad, who do you think would be better to lead Thailand into the future?

here is someone making love to their toaster!

[Ricardo]

well he also said there would be an election this November to stop the troubles maybe he just forgot, again, or maybe he is lining his pockets as quickly as possible like erm erm let me think! same shit different day.

You forget that the red-shirt leaders rejected this offer, when it was made, preferring to lead an orgy of death & arson rather than hold an election.

Anyone still believing a single word coming out of Abhisit's mouth can only be classified as a delusional fool .

Then there are many TV-posters & ordinary-Thais, who you would write-off as delusional fools, but who simply see a more-honest-than-usual Thai-PM doing his best under difficult circumstances.

[whybother]

Abhisit has been around in thai politics for a longtime - he has tried several times to be elected to govt and consequently PM....and he failed.......so he seized the opportunity to get in by the back door.he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one; He now has failed to ratify that appointment with an election because he can be pretty sure he'd fail....He now has the "support" and influence of the army and is using increasingly draconian measures to smother any potential opposition.

This man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk

How does a government or politician get a mandate? By getting a majority of people to support you? Given that the majority of MPs (therefore the majority of Thailand) currently support Abhisit, doesn't that give him a mandate?

Or maybe it's that the PPP didn't have a mandate either, since they didn't get a majority to support them after the election.

In both cases, they had the support of coalition partners, so either they both had/have a mandate, or neither do.

I could go into your response and explain why your argument is so facile - but your avatar sums my feelings up completely.

or because you can't?

The fact is Abhisit became PM in the same way as the last 2 PMs. He has as much a mandate as they did.

[Deeral]

Abhisit has been around in thai politics for a longtime - he has tried several times to be elected to govt and consequently PM....and he failed.......so he seized the opportunity to get in by the back door.he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one; He now has failed to ratify that appointment with an election because he can be pretty sure he'd fail....He now has the "support" and influence of the army and is using increasingly draconian measures to smother any potential opposition.

This man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk

How does a government or politician get a mandate? By getting a majority of people to support you? Given that the majority of MPs (therefore the majority of Thailand) currently support Abhisit, doesn't that give him a mandate?

Or maybe it's that the PPP didn't have a mandate either, since they didn't get a majority to support them after the election.

In both cases, they had the support of coalition partners, so either they both had/have a mandate, or neither do.

I could go into your response and explain why your argument is so facile - but your avatar sums my feelings up completely.

or because you can't?

The fact is Abhisit became PM in the same way as the last 2 PMs. He has as much a mandate as they did.

Dear oh dear - I said your argument was facile - it actually is fallacious - you don't seem to realise what I'm talking about especially in terms of MANDATE - now if you were to present an argument that was relevant, intelligent or even remotely showed some understanding of what I said I'd answer but it seems you really don't grasp the proposal in the first place - to respond would be to engage in a pointless round of gainsaying - so in your own words"Why bother"?

[whybother]

You said Abhisit doesn't have a mandate. How is he different to previous PMs.

[craigt3365]

bisit is a good man and about an honest a politician as you are likely to get. I think his statement means its a difficult fix this reconcilliation thing and the thought of losing if could be fixed shows he would give up a lot for that end game. I think he will win and I hope the new governemnt can make it a number one priority with a hug effort, it will need to be, to solve the situation. As we know it takes to 2 to tango and the other dancer may not want to leave their seat, without a stick. As far as the earlier election that was promised is concerned, I thought the UDD failed to take up the offer and it was cancelled.

Who was that bloke who said "Give peace a chance"

Agreed. Lots of people slag him off, but given the alternatives, he's about the best Thailand is going to get...and the best in the recent past. Or am I totally wrong about this?

If you look at his comments in terms of the overall context of the meeting, it makes perfect sense. He was talking at a conference on "Thailand's Economic Risks and the Government Cooperation". So saying he would step down to help the economy is a good thing to say when you are speaking there.

Abhisit has been around in thai politics for a longtime - he has tried several times to be elected to govt and consequently PM....and he failed.......so he seized the opportunity to get in by the back door.he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one; He now has failed to ratify that appointment with an election because he can be pretty sure he'd fail....He now has the "support" and influence of the army and is using increasingly draconian measures to smother any potential opposition.

This man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk

I think you are a bit off here...but everybody has their own opinion...

[tig28]

To the critics, what would you have had him say?

Perhaps something like Thaksin, if my side doesn't win, we will destroy the country and burn down Bangkok?

Hi Jingthing

Another really telling point .......except .......... erh.........."Thaksins side" has won all recent elections ... well all this century anyway.

[hammered]

There are many things on different levels going on and this statement needs to be viewed in context.

There is what happens with the Dem disolution after which Abhisit may be out of the game or not. If he is out this statement is irrelevant. If he is still in it could be seen as a gambit to lessen the red backlash if the Dems survive

Then there is the election. The real potential flash points are not who wins the election , but what they do. If PTP wins an overall majority and tries bringing Thaksin back or amnestying the more extreme red leaders there will be a backlash from several directions. If the Dems and their buddies win the election - meaning between them they can put together a coalition regardless of what party won the most seats - the red shirts will go bonkers as they believe (erroniously by international standards) democracy means only the party winning the most seats can form a government. The no overall majority option tends to be one most think will happen. However, whatever the outcome there wont be peace unless all the different sides in the power games, and there are way more than 2, agree on a set of groundrules and red lines before the election.

Try finding anyone who is optomistic about the upcomign election or its possible cancellation as even many Thai freinds predict

[random]

He will be serving a 5 year ban anyway so it's a pointless statement from him.

Your crystal ball seems to work different from mine, dear chap.

Well, when one break two election laws and it is not really in dispute the surely if the court is free and fair then disbandment and banning must surely follow.

But as this is Thailand and since the dems are corrupt and clearly controlling the courts I guess my crystal ball is clouded.

[Deeral]

You said Abhisit doesn't have a mandate. How is he different to previous PMs.

Now you're making love to your toaster!

[Pi Sek]

How does a government or politician get a mandate? By getting a majority of people to support you? Given that the majority of MPs (therefore the majority of Thailand) currently support Abhisit, doesn't that give him a mandate?

Or maybe it's that the PPP didn't have a mandate either, since they didn't get a majority to support them after the election.

In both cases, they had the support of coalition partners, so either they both had/have a mandate, or neither do.

I could go into your response and explain why your argument is so facile - but your avatar sums my feelings up completely.

or because you can't?

The fact is Abhisit became PM in the same way as the last 2 PMs. He has as much a mandate as they did.

Dear oh dear - I said your argument was facile - it actually is fallacious - you don't seem to realise what I'm talking about especially in terms of MANDATE - now if you were to present an argument that was relevant, intelligent or even remotely showed some understanding of what I said I'd answer but it seems you really don't grasp the proposal in the first place - to respond would be to engage in a pointless round of gainsaying - so in your own words"Why bother"?

By the looks of it he understands just fine. You're right - Abhisit's govt never won an outright majority; but you're wrong to suggest Thaksin, Samak or Somchai ever won an outright majority, because they didn't. In truth, no party has ever won an outright majority in Thailand, except for Thaksin in 2005 when the opposition boycotted the elections due to... yep, you got it, unfair election processes.

So, in short, YOU don't know what you're talking about - no government in Thai history has ever had "the mandate of the people", probably because no government to date has done anything to win the trust of the Thai people. Abhisit might win their trust one day, if he can prove that the reds really were killing their own and he was innocent all along (even though I believe this to be the case, it will a very hard one to pull off), and if his policies actually improve the lives of those who don't like him (this has already started to come to fruition).

The only correct thing that the reds stand for is that the military threw out a democratically elected government, the one that their vote put in - and this obviously highlights problems in Thai society that some are more equal than others. Abhisit has always complained that this wasn't democratic and wrong - so, whether or not he profited from it or not, don't blame him!

Of course, the counter argument was that this government had already been dissolved and Thaksin had appointed himself as caretaker prime minister by his own approval. That wasn't democratic either - so in came the army to "restore democracy", which is how we ended up in this mess in the first place. Nonetheless, I'm glad they did.

[Deeral]

There are many things on different levels going on and this statement needs to be viewed in context.

There is what happens with the Dem disolution after which Abhisit may be out of the game or not. If he is out this statement is irrelevant. If he is still in it could be seen as a gambit to lessen the red backlash if the Dems survive

Then there is the election. The real potential flash points are not who wins the election , but what they do. If PTP wins an overall majority and tries bringing Thaksin back or amnestying the more extreme red leaders there will be a backlash from several directions. If the Dems and their buddies win the election - meaning between them they can put together a coalition regardless of what party won the most seats - the red shirts will go bonkers as they believe (erroniously by international standards) democracy means only the party winning the most seats can form a government. The no overall majority option tends to be one most think will happen. However, whatever the outcome there wont be peace unless all the different sides in the power games, and there are way more than 2, agree on a set of groundrules and red lines before the election.

Try finding anyone who is optomistic about the upcomign election or its possible cancellation as even many Thai freinds predict

THe last time a party was dissolved there wasn't an election.

[Deeral]

As ever the argument is lost here in a series of facile posts. You have failed completely to address the point and are merely giving other instances that you think might be connected to my argument.please try and comprehend the initial statement and if you have a contrary opinion post it. At present your are not presenting an opinion that is contrary to mine so how can I possible answer you other than to point out that you and "whybother" are not on the same topic as me.

[Pi Sek]

As ever the argument is lost here in a series of facile posts. You have failed completely to address the point and are merely giving other instances that you think might be connected to my argument.please try and comprehend the initial statement and if you have a contrary opinion post it. At present your are not presenting an opinion that is contrary to mine so how can I possible answer you other than to point out that you and "whybother" are not on the same topic as me.

No - I don't think the point has been missed at all.

- Your point is that the current government does not have "the mandate of the people" and the last ones did.

- I'm saying that no Thai government has ever had the mandate of the people.

- whybother is saying that their is no difference in relationships of the last 4 governments and the mandate of the people, which you do not subscribe to.

This is where the contrary opinions fall.

[LikeHeat]

Anyone still believing a single word coming out of Abhisit's mouth can only be classified as a delusional fool .

hahaha You funny guy. Now get back on your meds, OK?

[random]

As ever the argument is lost here in a series of facile posts. You have failed completely to address the point and are merely giving other instances that you think might be connected to my argument.please try and comprehend the initial statement and if you have a contrary opinion post it. At present your are not presenting an opinion that is contrary to mine so how can I possible answer you other than to point out that you and "whybother" are not on the same topic as me.

No - I don't think the point has been missed at all.

- Your point is that the current government does not have "the mandate of the people" and the last ones did.

- I'm saying that no Thai government has ever had the mandate of the people.

- whybother is saying that their is no difference in relationships of the last 4 governments and the mandate of the people, which you do not subscribe to.

This is where the contrary opinions fall.

I think the difference is that the previous governments won the most seats, although not enough to form the Govt they still won the most seats out of any party and quite rightly went on to form coalitions and form the government, however the dems fell short of winning the most seats so there is some level of unfairness in the fact that they are now the government, added to the fact they are the government only because the government at that time were disbanded for vote buying, while the dems were also found guilty of vote buying but not disbanded.

I realize you are talking about the mandate however but we could argue that the PPP/TRT did have the mandate by virtue of the fact they held the most seats, the dems were only handed that mandate after the largest party in parliament were disbanded, it would be fair to say that more constituencies did not vote for their representative and therefore do not want them in power, they voted for the party that eventually won most seats and therefore handed them the mandate, we could say they won the mandate, while the dems had it handed to them.

[LikeHeat]

I'm a little concerned by those who use the "what's the alternative" argument to justify Abhisit's PM-ship.

It reminds me of an example I heard on the radio once..

You come downstairs in the middle of the night to find your partner making love to the toaster.....when you ask what's going on, the reply comes

"Well, what's the alternative?"

Was it plugged in?