A Knife To Everyone's Back - Thailand's Political Landscape

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME

A knife to everyone's back

By Tulsathit Taptim

The hate triangle has finally presented itself in full. On a day when the red shirts returned to Rajprasong intersection to remember the April and May dead and to curse those who murdered them, the yellow shirts issued their strongest ever statement against the Abhisit government, calling the administration a compulsive liar and shameless betrayer. Yesterday they began a three-day rally.

All this has been happening as Bangkok remains under a state of emergency. Not that it matters, anyway.

Let’s recap: The yellow shirts, or the People’s Alliance for Democracy, hate the government for mishandling the red shirts (in other words, being too soft on them), for meddling with the 2007 Constitution and for double-crossing them in favour of the Cambodians. The red shirts hate the government for “stealing” power from their political party, for the Rajprasong “massacre”, and for being biased when it comes to legal cases involving them and the yellow shirts.

Either Abhisit Vejjajiva has done things the right way or he has messed up big time. The question, however, is what he should do next. The red shirts will never forgive him as long as he sits in the chief executive’s chair, while his relations with the PAD are going from bad to worse. Is the best strategy to remain on the fence and hope that the two camps cancel each other out in his favour?

Good thing is, Abhisit doesn’t really have to worry about it now. A Constitution Court ruling, due in a matter of weeks, if not days, will either absolve his Democrat Party of financial mischief or disband it and banish him from politics for five years. A guilty verdict and a political ban will render both the red and yellow shirts irrelevant. However, if the party gets off the hook, the situation will get very interesting.

If Abhisit survives the Constitution Court, the red shirts will predictably scream “double standard” and probably stage another huge rally. How the yellow shirts react, though, will be the real issue. Judging from its statement issued last Friday, nothing will make the PAD happier than seeing the prime minister go out with a whimper. But what will the yellow shirts do if he and his party walk free?

The PAD is in trouble. While the yellow shirts can’t celebrate Abhisit’s survival for obvious reasons, his demise will only lead to three scenarios that they don’t like: a new election that they will lose; a political change that will usher the red shirts back to power; or the Democrats – the “stubborn, compulsive liars and shameless betrayers” – managing to hold on to power.

If you think Thai political life is complicated, at least be thankful that General Anupong Paochinda is no longer the Army chief. The yellow shirts never trusted him and the Democrats didn’t like him that much. As for the red shirts, well, we have heard some conspiracy stories, but on the surface, Anupong sat in the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), and the bloody crackdown on May 19 took place when he was at the Army’s helm.

The new Army chief, Prayuth Chan-o-cha, has started off more or less like Anupong – as the yellow shirts’ darling, the red shirts’ nemesis and someone who could either protect the Democrats or bring them down in the blink of an eye. Whether he will end up like Anupong – with fewer friends and subject to conspiracy theories – remains to be seen.

Where does Newin Chidchob stand amid all this? First off, he has not mended the fences with Thaksin Shinawatra and thus is still the red shirts’ and the Pheu Thai Party’s arch-enemy. He is not popular with the yellow shirts, and is eyed suspiciously by the Democrats. And if he was on good terms with Anupong, there is no evidence of similar rapport where Prayuth is concerned.

And how will splits within the PAD, the red-shirt movement, the Democrat Party and the Pheu Thai Party affect the future political course? The factional problems – especially within the red and yellow camps – may have escaped public attention, but they have weakened the political activism of both camps substantially. That, however, provides the ingredients for the previously unthinkable: a temporary and/or partial alliance between the reds and yellows on specific issues or occasions.

So, nobody can trust anybody.

Enter the Constitution Court, with all the recent video-clip scandals, and the picture becomes even more puzzling yet intriguing. We are looking at a political landscape in which everyone’s holding a knife behind everyone else’s back. Friendship, allegiance or animosity may not dictate what happens next. Maybe who falls first will.

-- The Nation 2010-11-24

[siampolee]

A mindset resulting from the days of the Japanese being guests here in Thailand and no doubt instilling the , '' Kamikaze mindset,'' amongst the politicians and assorted self serving individuals who profess to love Thailand and its people."

Or should that read what's in it for me, how much can I cream off ?

[LaoPo]

Thailand is hopelessly divided, more than ever before.

If Abhisit falls and with him the Democratic party, Thailand doesn't lose much but doesn't win either.

But the question is, will his replacement and new Government be any better...or even worse?

LaoPo

[yellow1red1]

I must be in one of my lucid dreams. A well written, concise, open minded information packed article by a Nation writer? WOT the..

of course the Army part is off Topic, it's about knives not guns. ha ha ha

[whybother]

If the Democrats survive the court case, I believe he will still be PM after the next election. The current coalition and recent by-elections point to that result.

The red shirts will come out for another large protest following the court decision, at which time the PM will call elections and will get enough coalition seats to stay PM.

If the Democrats get disbanded, and Abhisit is banned, the new democrat party will not be able to find a leader with the quality of Abhisit, and strong enough to hold a democrat led coalition together.

[geriatrickid]

Well, the article sums it up nicely.

Nothing new, nothing different and life will go on.

The only thing that can make matters worse is a subject that cannot be discussed.

If Lena Horne was still alive this would be her cue to sing Stormy Weather...............

[Thaddeus]

I must be in one of my lucid dreams. A well written, concise, open minded information packed article by a Nation writer? WOT the..

Indeed, somebody pinch me.

Whatever happens in the coming months, the only real losers will be the ordinary Thai people...... again.

[random]

If the Democrats survive the court case, I believe he will still be PM after the next election. The current coalition and recent by-elections point to that result.

The red shirts will come out for another large protest following the court decision, at which time the PM will call elections and will get enough coalition seats to stay PM.

If the Democrats get disbanded, and Abhisit is banned, the new democrat party will not be able to find a leader with the quality of Abhisit, and strong enough to hold a democrat led coalition together.

The recent by-elections (or should that be 'buy elections) were held in Dem strongholds anyway so they really give no insight into a General Election, and as for the Dems not finding someone with the qualities of Abhist, well thank god for that, they might find someone with balls to stand up to the army that is controlling abhisit, all i can see in Abhisit is cowardice and other poor qualities, in fact I am ashamed that he was educated in my country, I guess you can take the boy out of Thailand but you can't take Thailand out of the boy, he is as bad, if not worse, than the rest of them.

[rubl]

If the Democrats survive the court case, I believe he will still be PM after the next election. The current coalition and recent by-elections point to that result.

The red shirts will come out for another large protest following the court decision, at which time the PM will call elections and will get enough coalition seats to stay PM.

If the Democrats get disbanded, and Abhisit is banned, the new democrat party will not be able to find a leader with the quality of Abhisit, and strong enough to hold a democrat led coalition together.

The recent by-elections (or should that be 'buy elections) were held in Dem strongholds anyway so they really give no insight into a General Election, and as for the Dems not finding someone with the qualities of Abhist, well thank god for that, they might find someone with balls to stand up to the army that is controlling abhisit, all i can see in Abhisit is cowardice and other poor qualities, in fact I am ashamed that he was educated in my country, I guess you can take the boy out of Thailand but you can't take Thailand out of the boy, he is as bad, if not worse, than the rest of them.

The recent by-elections were held in different parts of Thailand. Surat Thani may be a Dem's stronghold, but the districts in Bangkok were not. In BKK stiff competition by PTP and a few others.

As for k. Abhisit having been educated in England, you can hardly blame him for that. That's baggage he has to carry with him the rest of his life. He'll manage, lots of us do

[hammered]

If the Democrats survive the court case, I believe he will still be PM after the next election. The current coalition and recent by-elections point to that result.

The red shirts will come out for another large protest following the court decision, at which time the PM will call elections and will get enough coalition seats to stay PM.

If the Democrats get disbanded, and Abhisit is banned, the new democrat party will not be able to find a leader with the quality of Abhisit, and strong enough to hold a democrat led coalition together.

The recent by-elections (or should that be 'buy elections) were held in Dem strongholds anyway so they really give no insight into a General Election, and as for the Dems not finding someone with the qualities of Abhist, well thank god for that, they might find someone with balls to stand up to the army that is controlling abhisit, all i can see in Abhisit is cowardice and other poor qualities, in fact I am ashamed that he was educated in my country, I guess you can take the boy out of Thailand but you can't take Thailand out of the boy, he is as bad, if not worse, than the rest of them.

The recent by-elections were held in different parts of Thailand. Surat Thani may be a Dem's stronghold, but the districts in Bangkok were not. In BKK stiff competition by PTP and a few others.

As for k. Abhisit having been educated in England, you can hardly blame him for that. That's baggage he has to carry with him the rest of his life. He'll manage, lots of us do

Indeed few realise the Bangkok constituency was a previous TRT stronghold. By elections dont tell us much though especially if we move to single seat constituencies

This Nation piece is very well written and touches on things (factionalism) that other poltical analysts in English language in papers and on the generally poor quality English language blogs do not

[whybother]

If the Democrats survive the court case, I believe he will still be PM after the next election. The current coalition and recent by-elections point to that result.

The red shirts will come out for another large protest following the court decision, at which time the PM will call elections and will get enough coalition seats to stay PM.

If the Democrats get disbanded, and Abhisit is banned, the new democrat party will not be able to find a leader with the quality of Abhisit, and strong enough to hold a democrat led coalition together.

The recent by-elections (or should that be 'buy elections) were held in Dem strongholds anyway so they really give no insight into a General Election, and as for the Dems not finding someone with the qualities of Abhist, well thank god for that, they might find someone with balls to stand up to the army that is controlling abhisit, all i can see in Abhisit is cowardice and other poor qualities, in fact I am ashamed that he was educated in my country, I guess you can take the boy out of Thailand but you can't take Thailand out of the boy, he is as bad, if not worse, than the rest of them.

Yes, the by-elections were held in Democrat areas, but there was no back lash. So we can assume (not guarantee) that there will be no back lash against the Democrats in other Democrat areas, which means the Democrats won't lose any seats in the next election. The upcoming by-elections will be more of an indication of what will happen in a general election, especially the BJT/PTP areas.

I don't really understand your hatred of Abhisit. He's standing up to corrupt politicians. He's standing up to the red shirts ... oh, now I get it.

Abhisit will never free of the "controlled by the army", "army puppet", "elite puppet", "PAD puppet" tags that red shirt supporters give him. But he continues to show that he is not being controlled by them with proposals and plans that go against them.

The PTP and the red shirts show more puppet qualities than Abhisit ever has. Everything that they do has to be checked by Thaksin. Everything that they do is about Thaksin.

Abhisit is doing things for the poor with his welfare policies. Abhisit is doing things against the rich with the land tax and anti-corruption policies.

Unfortunately, the army will be a thorn in politics side for a while yet, whichever side is in power. There are too many generals and ex-generals in politics, once again, on all sides.

[random]

If the Democrats survive the court case, I believe he will still be PM after the next election. The current coalition and recent by-elections point to that result.

The red shirts will come out for another large protest following the court decision, at which time the PM will call elections and will get enough coalition seats to stay PM.

If the Democrats get disbanded, and Abhisit is banned, the new democrat party will not be able to find a leader with the quality of Abhisit, and strong enough to hold a democrat led coalition together.

The recent by-elections (or should that be 'buy elections) were held in Dem strongholds anyway so they really give no insight into a General Election, and as for the Dems not finding someone with the qualities of Abhist, well thank god for that, they might find someone with balls to stand up to the army that is controlling abhisit, all i can see in Abhisit is cowardice and other poor qualities, in fact I am ashamed that he was educated in my country, I guess you can take the boy out of Thailand but you can't take Thailand out of the boy, he is as bad, if not worse, than the rest of them.

Yes, the by-elections were held in Democrat areas, but there was no back lash. So we can assume (not guarantee) that there will be no back lash against the Democrats in other Democrat areas, which means the Democrats won't lose any seats in the next election. The upcoming by-elections will be more of an indication of what will happen in a general election, especially the BJT/PTP areas.

I don't really understand your hatred of Abhisit. He's standing up to corrupt politicians. He's standing up to the red shirts ... oh, now I get it.

Abhisit will never free of the "controlled by the army", "army puppet", "elite puppet", "PAD puppet" tags that red shirt supporters give him. But he continues to show that he is not being controlled by them with proposals and plans that go against them.

The PTP and the red shirts show more puppet qualities than Abhisit ever has. Everything that they do has to be checked by Thaksin. Everything that they do is about Thaksin.

Abhisit is doing things for the poor with his welfare policies. Abhisit is doing things against the rich with the land tax and anti-corruption policies.

Unfortunately, the army will be a thorn in politics side for a while yet, whichever side is in power. There are too many generals and ex-generals in politics, once again, on all sides.

Sorry but I have to disagree, Abhisit is saying he will do things for the poor etc, there is a massive difference between saying something and doing it.

I also do not see the correlation between Thaksin and the army, one still controls a political party from outside and is an ex pm, the other is the army, non elected and should not be involved in politics.

As for his plans that go agaisnt the PAD, you can see how annoyed the PAD are by this as this was not part of the deal when they helped him gain his ill gotten power, even their buddy kasit is talking agaisnt them now and trying to distance himself, they have had what they needed now from the PAD so they are being cast aside, but lets make no mistake he is where he is because they helped put him there, now he is stabbing them in the back so some credit has to go to him for that, but the fact is without them he would not be in the seat now. He now has two enemies.

As for my hatred, don't trot out the same tired argument please about red shirts, it is tedious. I dislike him because of how he came to power, I dislike his hypocrisy, I dislike his management skills, who the hel_l would appoint kasit as foreign minister and would expect no backlash, I dislike his cover ups over what happened this year, I dislike the fact he is surrounded by corruption even in his own cabinet and not being strong enough to deal with it, the guy is a coward, pure and simple.

One bad apple can make the whole barrel bad, in this case one good apple can not cure the barrel full of bad apples, I am not saying he is good however, you are saying that, he is weak, indecisive, and leading a party that maybe gained these seats based on electoral fraud as can be seen by the current case agaisnt them. It would be unfair to say all these seats were won fairly, we know there were instances of vote buying that could account for seats, and now there is the financial irregularities and the sign issue that could have led to unfairly winning seats.

Lets hold off from talking about their fairly won seats as to be honest if this goes agaisnt them (which it should) we can say none of the seats were won fairly as they did not follow EC rules.

edited for spelling, I put god instead of good

Edited November 24, 2010 by random

[LomSak27]

Hammered Posted

This Nation piece is very well written and touches on things (factionalism) that other poltical analysts in English language in papers and on the generally poor quality English language blogs do not

This Nation piece is indeed a much needed splash of cold water reality. However I have read blogs, newspaper and online articles for over a couple years that dealt with Thai factionalism. It has taken the Nation how long to finally come out and state the obvious?

Obviously Denial is not working, good to see the Nation is finally seeing the light

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Lets hold off from talking about their fairly won seats as to be honest if this goes agaisnt them (which it should) we can say none of the seats were won fairly as they did not follow EC rules.

All recent by-elections have been declared valid by the EC. A possible ruling against the Dem's party and a possible dissolution of that party doesn't invalidate the by-elections. New election may be necessary, that's all.

[random]

begin removed ...

Lets hold off from talking about their fairly won seats as to be honest if this goes agaisnt them (which it should) we can say none of the seats were won fairly as they did not follow EC rules.

All recent by-elections have been declared valid by the EC. A possible ruling against the Dem's party and a possible dissolution of that party doesn't invalidate the by-elections. New election may be necessary, that's all.

I am not talking about the by elections and I guess you already know that, The EC offences were committed in the General Election, the seats won in the General Election can be deemed to have not been won fairly based on the fact that EC rules were broken by the dems in relation to size of their signs, and an illegal donation, added to the fact they were found to be involved in vote buying.

It would be unfair therefore to suggest they are in power because they deserve to be there, once the EC case is over will you change your tune and agree that seats were won because they breached EC rules, and if those rules had not been breached would they have won the seats.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Lets hold off from talking about their fairly won seats as to be honest if this goes agaisnt them (which it should) we can say none of the seats were won fairly as they did not follow EC rules.

All recent by-elections have been declared valid by the EC. A possible ruling against the Dem's party and a possible dissolution of that party doesn't invalidate the by-elections. New election may be necessary, that's all.

I am not talking about the by elections and I guess you already know that, The EC offences were committed in the General Election, the seats won in the General Election can be deemed to have not been won fairly based on the fact that EC rules were broken by the dems in relation to size of their signs, and an illegal donation, added to the fact they were found to be involved in vote buying.

It would be unfair therefore to suggest they are in power because they deserve to be there, once the EC case is over will you change your tune and agree that seats were won because they breached EC rules, and if those rules had not been breached would they have won the seats.

We were talking about the by-elections till you changed the scope.

The charges are two-fold, irregularities with THB 29M for billboards (they are too small according to regulations) and THB 290M illegal donation. The first case is being discussed in another topic, the second case is still is progress. Vote-buying is not part of either case.

If the EC decides to rule against the Dem's in the first case I would have to accept the ruling. I'm not sure you can say the Dem's won unfairly as that case is about 2004/2005, the Dem's didn't win much that time. The second case is still very far from being completed, I won't speculate on it or it's possible effects.

Edited November 24, 2010 by rubl

[random]

begin removed ...

Lets hold off from talking about their fairly won seats as to be honest if this goes agaisnt them (which it should) we can say none of the seats were won fairly as they did not follow EC rules.

All recent by-elections have been declared valid by the EC. A possible ruling against the Dem's party and a possible dissolution of that party doesn't invalidate the by-elections. New election may be necessary, that's all.

I am not talking about the by elections and I guess you already know that, The EC offences were committed in the General Election, the seats won in the General Election can be deemed to have not been won fairly based on the fact that EC rules were broken by the dems in relation to size of their signs, and an illegal donation, added to the fact they were found to be involved in vote buying.

It would be unfair therefore to suggest they are in power because they deserve to be there, once the EC case is over will you change your tune and agree that seats were won because they breached EC rules, and if those rules had not been breached would they have won the seats.

We were talking about the by-elections till you changed the scope.

The charges are two-fold, irregularities with THB 29M for billboards (they are too small according to regulations) and THB 290M illegal donation. The first case is being discussed in another topic, the second case is still is progress. Vote-buying is not part of either case.

If the EC decides to rule against the Dem's in the first case I would have to accept the ruling. I'm not sure you can say the Dem's won unfairly as that case is about 2004/2005, the Dem's didn't win much that time. The second case is still very far from being completed, I won't speculate on it or it's possible effects.

I am aware that the EC is not currently discussing vote buying in the General Election as that was already discussed and certain dems were found guilty, my point is that when the current EC cases find the dems guilty of both issues currently being dealt with, the signs and the donation, since both issues were at the time of the previous General Election will you agree that these two acts (along with the already dealt with vote buying) will pretty much render all the seats won by the dems during the General Election were won as a result of election fraud, they broke EC rules on three matters to win seats, so when the guilty verdict quite rightly comes in I guess you and I can agree that the seats won by the dems were as a result of electoral fraud and there needs to be no more discussion about who won seats etc, as the seats were not won, they were in effect gained because of fraud.

Stop trying to deflect the conversation off at another tangent, it is a simple question i ask you and I will simplify it.

If/When the dems are found guilty of breaching EC rules, in relation to signs and a donation (added to their already proven guilt in vote buying) so you agree that ALL seats won by them (in the General Election) now have to be put in doubt as ALL seats were won as a result of breaching EC rules. (whether the breaches affected the outcome or not is irrelevant as there is no way of proving this, the fact is there is a great possibility that it affected it).

[whybother]

I am aware that the EC is not currently discussing vote buying in the General Election as that was already discussed and certain dems were found guilty, my point is that when the current EC cases find the dems guilty of both issues currently being dealt with, the signs and the donation, since both issues were at the time of the previous General Election will you agree that these two acts (along with the already dealt with vote buying) will pretty much render all the seats won by the dems during the General Election were won as a result of election fraud, they broke EC rules on three matters to win seats, so when the guilty verdict quite rightly comes in I guess you and I can agree that the seats won by the dems were as a result of electoral fraud and there needs to be no more discussion about who won seats etc, as the seats were not won, they were in effect gained because of fraud.

Stop trying to deflect the conversation off at another tangent, it is a simple question i ask you and I will simplify it.

If/When the dems are found guilty of breaching EC rules, in relation to signs and a donation (added to their already proven guilt in vote buying) so you agree that ALL seats won by them (in the General Election) now have to be put in doubt as ALL seats were won as a result of breaching EC rules. (whether the breaches affected the outcome or not is irrelevant as there is no way of proving this, the fact is there is a great possibility that it affected it).

How does a case in relation to the 2005 election, particularly in relation to poster sizes, apply to seats won in the 2007 election?

[rubl]

I am aware that the EC is not currently discussing vote buying in the General Election as that was already discussed and certain dems were found guilty, my point is that when the current EC cases find the dems guilty of both issues currently being dealt with, the signs and the donation, since both issues were at the time of the previous General Election will you agree that these two acts (along with the already dealt with vote buying) will pretty much render all the seats won by the dems during the General Election were won as a result of election fraud, they broke EC rules on three matters to win seats, so when the guilty verdict quite rightly comes in I guess you and I can agree that the seats won by the dems were as a result of electoral fraud and there needs to be no more discussion about who won seats etc, as the seats were not won, they were in effect gained because of fraud.

Stop trying to deflect the conversation off at another tangent, it is a simple question i ask you and I will simplify it.

If/When the dems are found guilty of breaching EC rules, in relation to signs and a donation (added to their already proven guilt in vote buying) so you agree that ALL seats won by them (in the General Election) now have to be put in doubt as ALL seats were won as a result of breaching EC rules. (whether the breaches affected the outcome or not is irrelevant as there is no way of proving this, the fact is there is a great possibility that it affected it).

Deflect? You mix if's and when's, make paragraph-long single sentences which may or may not be logically correct depending on whether to use the 'if' or the 'when'. You also keep adding things to your list of accusations. You say 'agree, two cases' following by 'broke rules on three matters'. Stick to facts, not speculation, nor activities not under consideration.

If the EC decides against the Dem's in the THB 29M case it will be a breach of election rules, not election fraud. The second case is still very unclear, any comment now would be useless speculation.

Under your conditions I cannot give an answer on fairness of won seats as I do not accept some of your conditions or more correctly some assumptions behind them. As said before I will not speculate and certainly not when someone tries his best to push me towards an answer someone likes to hear.

[random]

I am aware that the EC is not currently discussing vote buying in the General Election as that was already discussed and certain dems were found guilty, my point is that when the current EC cases find the dems guilty of both issues currently being dealt with, the signs and the donation, since both issues were at the time of the previous General Election will you agree that these two acts (along with the already dealt with vote buying) will pretty much render all the seats won by the dems during the General Election were won as a result of election fraud, they broke EC rules on three matters to win seats, so when the guilty verdict quite rightly comes in I guess you and I can agree that the seats won by the dems were as a result of electoral fraud and there needs to be no more discussion about who won seats etc, as the seats were not won, they were in effect gained because of fraud.

Stop trying to deflect the conversation off at another tangent, it is a simple question i ask you and I will simplify it.

If/When the dems are found guilty of breaching EC rules, in relation to signs and a donation (added to their already proven guilt in vote buying) so you agree that ALL seats won by them (in the General Election) now have to be put in doubt as ALL seats were won as a result of breaching EC rules. (whether the breaches affected the outcome or not is irrelevant as there is no way of proving this, the fact is there is a great possibility that it affected it).

How does a case in relation to the 2005 election, particularly in relation to poster sizes, apply to seats won in the 2007 election?

Seats unfairly gained in 2005 as a result of signs were held in 2007, it is not rocket science, add this to the vote buying and illegal donation, what was the donation used for? If those seats were not won as a result of a breaching of EC regulations would they have been held in 2007? It would be unfair to say they would as a member from another party that could have would the seats in 2005 could have held on in 2007 as a result of the work he/she did while in office, a chance denied by them by the dems breaking EC regulations in order to win seats in 2005.

It's not rocket science.

[random]

I am aware that the EC is not currently discussing vote buying in the General Election as that was already discussed and certain dems were found guilty, my point is that when the current EC cases find the dems guilty of both issues currently being dealt with, the signs and the donation, since both issues were at the time of the previous General Election will you agree that these two acts (along with the already dealt with vote buying) will pretty much render all the seats won by the dems during the General Election were won as a result of election fraud, they broke EC rules on three matters to win seats, so when the guilty verdict quite rightly comes in I guess you and I can agree that the seats won by the dems were as a result of electoral fraud and there needs to be no more discussion about who won seats etc, as the seats were not won, they were in effect gained because of fraud.

Stop trying to deflect the conversation off at another tangent, it is a simple question i ask you and I will simplify it.

If/When the dems are found guilty of breaching EC rules, in relation to signs and a donation (added to their already proven guilt in vote buying) so you agree that ALL seats won by them (in the General Election) now have to be put in doubt as ALL seats were won as a result of breaching EC rules. (whether the breaches affected the outcome or not is irrelevant as there is no way of proving this, the fact is there is a great possibility that it affected it).

Deflect? You mix if's and when's, make paragraph-long single sentences which may or may not be logically correct depending on whether to use the 'if' or the 'when'. You also keep adding things to your list of accusations. You say 'agree, two cases' following by 'broke rules on three matters'. Stick to facts, not speculation, nor activities not under consideration.

If the EC decides against the Dem's in the THB 29M case it will be a breach of election rules, not election fraud. The second case is still very unclear, any comment now would be useless speculation.

Under your conditions I cannot give an answer on fairness of won seats as I do not accept some of your conditions or more correctly some assumptions behind them. As said before I will not speculate and certainly not when someone tries his best to push me towards an answer someone likes to hear.

Give a hypothetical answer, I have seen you give them before in relation to the reds.

if the dems are found guilty of the two charges they currently face, will you agree that these breaches won them seats, and therefore agree that those breaches could have stopped the opposition having a clear majority, and also agree that these ill gotten seats put them in position to lead a coalition when a free and fair election on their part would have hindered this?

I guess a refusal of a simple yes or no answer pretty much answers my question and will show a high level of hypocrisy, you are not happy to be truthful when it comes to the dems, but will happily throw round aspersions as though they are facts about anyone that opposes the dems.

It's ok, we can all see it, no need to try and hide it, just come out and say what you think, you think it is ok for the dems to break rules without punishment.

[rubl]

I am aware that the EC is not currently discussing vote buying in the General Election as that was already discussed and certain dems were found guilty, my point is that when the current EC cases find the dems guilty of both issues currently being dealt with, the signs and the donation, since both issues were at the time of the previous General Election will you agree that these two acts (along with the already dealt with vote buying) will pretty much render all the seats won by the dems during the General Election were won as a result of election fraud, they broke EC rules on three matters to win seats, so when the guilty verdict quite rightly comes in I guess you and I can agree that the seats won by the dems were as a result of electoral fraud and there needs to be no more discussion about who won seats etc, as the seats were not won, they were in effect gained because of fraud.

Stop trying to deflect the conversation off at another tangent, it is a simple question i ask you and I will simplify it.

If/When the dems are found guilty of breaching EC rules, in relation to signs and a donation (added to their already proven guilt in vote buying) so you agree that ALL seats won by them (in the General Election) now have to be put in doubt as ALL seats were won as a result of breaching EC rules. (whether the breaches affected the outcome or not is irrelevant as there is no way of proving this, the fact is there is a great possibility that it affected it).

Deflect? You mix if's and when's, make paragraph-long single sentences which may or may not be logically correct depending on whether to use the 'if' or the 'when'. You also keep adding things to your list of accusations. You say 'agree, two cases' following by 'broke rules on three matters'. Stick to facts, not speculation, nor activities not under consideration.

If the EC decides against the Dem's in the THB 29M case it will be a breach of election rules, not election fraud. The second case is still very unclear, any comment now would be useless speculation.

Under your conditions I cannot give an answer on fairness of won seats as I do not accept some of your conditions or more correctly some assumptions behind them. As said before I will not speculate and certainly not when someone tries his best to push me towards an answer someone likes to hear.

Give a hypothetical answer, I have seen you give them before in relation to the reds.

if the dems are found guilty of the two charges they currently face, will you agree that these breaches won them seats, and therefore agree that those breaches could have stopped the opposition having a clear majority, and also agree that these ill gotten seats put them in position to lead a coalition when a free and fair election on their part would have hindered this?

I guess a refusal of a simple yes or no answer pretty much answers my question and will show a high level of hypocrisy, you are not happy to be truthful when it comes to the dems, but will happily throw round aspersions as though they are facts about anyone that opposes the dems.

It's ok, we can all see it, no need to try and hide it, just come out and say what you think, you think it is ok for the dems to break rules without punishment.

Your opinion to which you are entitled. So we can all see. I'm wrong when I refuse to play the game by your rules? You even presume to tell what I think ? Fine, no further discussion necessary, you know it all

And just to remind you, this discussion we have concentrated at first on this:

[jayjay0]

I must be in one of my lucid dreams. A well written, concise, open minded information packed article by a Nation writer? WOT the..

Indeed, somebody pinch me.

Whatever happens in the coming months, the only real losers will be the ordinary Thai people...... again.

Beg to differ

If Abhist survives the upcoming election Thailand will finally have a chance to clean up the mess they call government.

Lots of talk about education. The one thing that all Thai's should learn i that who they elect makes a big difference.

[jdinasia]

deleted ....

Random's posturing and speculation just isn't worth it. In 2006 there was a coup ..... everything changed and pretending 2005 reflects on 2007 is plain silly.

Edited November 24, 2010 by jdinasia

[Lancelot]

If Lena Horne was still alive this would be her cue to sing Stormy Weather...............

Oh so true...

[whybother]

I am aware that the EC is not currently discussing vote buying in the General Election as that was already discussed and certain dems were found guilty, my point is that when the current EC cases find the dems guilty of both issues currently being dealt with, the signs and the donation, since both issues were at the time of the previous General Election will you agree that these two acts (along with the already dealt with vote buying) will pretty much render all the seats won by the dems during the General Election were won as a result of election fraud, they broke EC rules on three matters to win seats, so when the guilty verdict quite rightly comes in I guess you and I can agree that the seats won by the dems were as a result of electoral fraud and there needs to be no more discussion about who won seats etc, as the seats were not won, they were in effect gained because of fraud.

Stop trying to deflect the conversation off at another tangent, it is a simple question i ask you and I will simplify it.

If/When the dems are found guilty of breaching EC rules, in relation to signs and a donation (added to their already proven guilt in vote buying) so you agree that ALL seats won by them (in the General Election) now have to be put in doubt as ALL seats were won as a result of breaching EC rules. (whether the breaches affected the outcome or not is irrelevant as there is no way of proving this, the fact is there is a great possibility that it affected it).

How does a case in relation to the 2005 election, particularly in relation to poster sizes, apply to seats won in the 2007 election?

Seats unfairly gained in 2005 as a result of signs were held in 2007, it is not rocket science, add this to the vote buying and illegal donation, what was the donation used for? If those seats were not won as a result of a breaching of EC regulations would they have been held in 2007? It would be unfair to say they would as a member from another party that could have would the seats in 2005 could have held on in 2007 as a result of the work he/she did while in office, a chance denied by them by the dems breaking EC regulations in order to win seats in 2005.

It's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science. Rocket science is simple compared to your "logic".

Does that mean that any seat that the PPP gained in 2007 as a result of TRT vote buying in 2006 was unfair? Or any PTP seats gained in by-elections previously held by banned PPP MPs was unfair. They may have had different names, but they were all Thaksin puppet parties.

Where do you draw the line? Does any seat that will ever be won by a Democrat or new-Democrat get tarred with the same brush, all because of a sign that was a little too small in some distant past election?

[jayjay0]

begin removed ...

Lets hold off from talking about their fairly won seats as to be honest if this goes agaisnt them (which it should) we can say none of the seats were won fairly as they did not follow EC rules.

All recent by-elections have been declared valid by the EC. A possible ruling against the Dem's party and a possible dissolution of that party doesn't invalidate the by-elections. New election may be necessary, that's all.

I am not talking about the by elections and I guess you already know that, The EC offences were committed in the General Election, the seats won in the General Election can be deemed to have not been won fairly based on the fact that EC rules were broken by the dems in relation to size of their signs, and an illegal donation, added to the fact they were found to be involved in vote buying.

It would be unfair therefore to suggest they are in power because they deserve to be there, once the EC case is over will you change your tune and agree that seats were won because they breached EC rules, and if those rules had not been breached would they have won the seats.

Good God man. Are you maintaining that if the signs had been a different size Abhist would not be the PM today.

To listen to you one would get the idea that all the other parties ran strictly moral races. Never bought votes. If you don't like the man say it and don't apologize it is your right to dislike him. But don't go reaching out into never never land for a reason.

Abhist is the legal PM of Thailand who uses a system that is common in the rest of the world. In fact is there a country where the people elect who is PM or President or what ever? How about Afghanistan? Not sure of that one.

[quiksilva]

The nice thing about Mexican stand offs is that nobody dares do anything... and long may this period of inactivity last!

[random]

begin removed ...

Lets hold off from talking about their fairly won seats as to be honest if this goes agaisnt them (which it should) we can say none of the seats were won fairly as they did not follow EC rules.

All recent by-elections have been declared valid by the EC. A possible ruling against the Dem's party and a possible dissolution of that party doesn't invalidate the by-elections. New election may be necessary, that's all.

I am not talking about the by elections and I guess you already know that, The EC offences were committed in the General Election, the seats won in the General Election can be deemed to have not been won fairly based on the fact that EC rules were broken by the dems in relation to size of their signs, and an illegal donation, added to the fact they were found to be involved in vote buying.

It would be unfair therefore to suggest they are in power because they deserve to be there, once the EC case is over will you change your tune and agree that seats were won because they breached EC rules, and if those rules had not been breached would they have won the seats.

Good God man. Are you maintaining that if the signs had been a different size Abhist would not be the PM today.

To listen to you one would get the idea that all the other parties ran strictly moral races. Never bought votes. If you don't like the man say it and don't apologize it is your right to dislike him. But don't go reaching out into never never land for a reason.

Abhist is the legal PM of Thailand who uses a system that is common in the rest of the world. In fact is there a country where the people elect who is PM or President or what ever? How about Afghanistan? Not sure of that one.

I am making a point, many on here are quick to point to the wrongdoings of the TRT/PTP etc, however when the shoe is on the other foot they try to defend the indefensible, the dems are guilty of acts that breach EC regulations, therefore any seats gained during that time must be tarnished, like I said, it is not rocket science.

Are laws and regulations ok to quote when others break them, but when the dems break them it is ok? Do you agree with the removal of Samak for breaching the rules or was it wrong to remove him, after all he broke the rules, just like the dems have done. It has to be one rule for all or no point going on, if the reds see any unfairness then they will have a point to demonstrate again.

As for would abhisit be pm now, well who knows, if the EC rules were not broken then possibly not, like I have already said it is hard to prove either way how much the wrong signs influenced voters, or what the illegal donation was used for, we already know they are not above using underhand tactics having been found guilty of vote buying, and now the incidents regarding the signs and money are not in doubt, it just comes down to the punishment and disbandment has to be forthcoming.

So is it fair to say that breaching the EC regulations gave them an unfair advantage and it is possible that they won seats based on these unfair advantages. Anyone that says different to this is not being even handed with their reply, as it is possible.

[random]

I am aware that the EC is not currently discussing vote buying in the General Election as that was already discussed and certain dems were found guilty, my point is that when the current EC cases find the dems guilty of both issues currently being dealt with, the signs and the donation, since both issues were at the time of the previous General Election will you agree that these two acts (along with the already dealt with vote buying) will pretty much render all the seats won by the dems during the General Election were won as a result of election fraud, they broke EC rules on three matters to win seats, so when the guilty verdict quite rightly comes in I guess you and I can agree that the seats won by the dems were as a result of electoral fraud and there needs to be no more discussion about who won seats etc, as the seats were not won, they were in effect gained because of fraud.

Stop trying to deflect the conversation off at another tangent, it is a simple question i ask you and I will simplify it.

If/When the dems are found guilty of breaching EC rules, in relation to signs and a donation (added to their already proven guilt in vote buying) so you agree that ALL seats won by them (in the General Election) now have to be put in doubt as ALL seats were won as a result of breaching EC rules. (whether the breaches affected the outcome or not is irrelevant as there is no way of proving this, the fact is there is a great possibility that it affected it).

How does a case in relation to the 2005 election, particularly in relation to poster sizes, apply to seats won in the 2007 election?

Seats unfairly gained in 2005 as a result of signs were held in 2007, it is not rocket science, add this to the vote buying and illegal donation, what was the donation used for? If those seats were not won as a result of a breaching of EC regulations would they have been held in 2007? It would be unfair to say they would as a member from another party that could have would the seats in 2005 could have held on in 2007 as a result of the work he/she did while in office, a chance denied by them by the dems breaking EC regulations in order to win seats in 2005.

It's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science. Rocket science is simple compared to your "logic".

Does that mean that any seat that the PPP gained in 2007 as a result of TRT vote buying in 2006 was unfair? Or any PTP seats gained in by-elections previously held by banned PPP MPs was unfair. They may have had different names, but they were all Thaksin puppet parties.

Where do you draw the line? Does any seat that will ever be won by a Democrat or new-Democrat get tarred with the same brush, all because of a sign that was a little too small in some distant past election?

buying seats was localised so it would be unfair to compare to the signs which were national. It is easy to say vote buying bought one particular seat and did not influence people outside of that one constituency. Signs placed nationwide or in more than one constituency would affect more than one constiuency.

yes, it is not rocket science when logic is used.

edit to add:

the fact is, however much spin you guys want to try and put on this, the dems had an unfair advantage by breaching EC regulations, none of you can say for sure how it affected results, but it would be fair to say it must have had some effect. now your boys will be disbanded and quite rightly so, hopefully 5 year banning all round, including abhisit.

The hypocrisy of him is clear, he talks about not wanting corruption but was a senior member in a party that breached Ec regulations on at least 3 occasions and now rather than hold their hands up they try to weasel out of it, clean PM, my arse.

Edited November 24, 2010 by random