Key Element Missing In Thai Army 'Coup Plot' - A Good Excuse

[rubl]

QUOTE(rubl):"It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less."

Source?

From my reply:

PS almost forgot, like the post I reply to, all this is opinion

[bulmercke]

QUOTE(rubl):"It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less."

Source?

From my reply:

PS almost forgot, like the post I reply to, all this is opinion

Wishful thinking.

The last election was held on 23 December 2007 -

PPP - 233

Democrats - 165

This is why there will be a coup in the not too distant future future. O.K.?

[rubl]

QUOTE(rubl):"It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less."

Source?

From my reply:

PS almost forgot, like the post I reply to, all this is opinion

Wishful thinking.

The last election was held on 23 December 2007 -

PPP - 233

Democrats - 165

This is why there will be a coup in the not too distant future future. O.K.?

That was four years ago. Since that time PPP and later PTP have mostly been busy trying to get k. Thaksin back and ridicule anything the Dem's lead government does. Even now the main PTP campaign slogan is 'bring back k. Thaksin' and k. Thaksin saying 'I have the solution, but get me back first before I tell'. Latests by-elections seem to indicate BJT may nibble a bit of PTP and even Dem's may gain some north/north-east. Rumour (yes I know only rumours) have it that there are some PTP MP's who may jump the sinking ship.

That's why I don't think there will be a coup. Of course if there is I will have no problem saying I was wrong. When we have no coup before the elections will you do the same?

Edited February 4, 2011 by rubl

[bulmercke]

QUOTE(rubl):"It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less."

Source?

From my reply:

PS almost forgot, like the post I reply to, all this is opinion

Wishful thinking.

The last election was held on 23 December 2007 -

PPP - 233

Democrats - 165

This is why there will be a coup in the not too distant future future. O.K.?

That was four years ago. Since that time PPP and later PTP have mostly been busy trying to get k. Thaksin back and ridicule anything the Dem's lead government does. Even now the main PTP campaign slogan is 'bring back k. Thaksin' and k. Thaksin saying 'I have the solution, but get me back first before I tell'. Latests by-elections seem to indicate BJT may nibble a bit of PTP and even Dem's may gain some north/north-east. Rumour (yes I know only rumours) have it that there are some PTP MP's who may jump the sinking ship.

That's why I don't think there will be a coup. Of course if there is I will have no problem saying I was wrong. When we have no coup before the elections will you do the same?

QUOTE(rubl):"Latests by-elections seem to indicate BJT may nibble a bit of PTP and even Dem's may gain some north/north-east."

Peanuts in the grand scheme of things. There has to be a coup.

[whybother]

Thaksin had a little more of a mandate than that!! He had the mandate of the voters of Thailand. I realise that some here would prefer to impose their views rather than accept the choice of the Thai voter ..... but....

Thaksin had achieved victory in 2001 and after serving the full term -- again in 2005 ( with the TRT: 374 seats / Democrats: 96 seats.) This trouncing of the Democrat party resulted in them choosing not to campaign in the 2006 election (called by Thaksin) ---- for very obvious reasons.

If he was so "unbeatable" why then did he not call the election and get his mandate? By simply nominating an election date, he could have short-circuited the coup.

Shortly after the 2006 election was declared invalid due to the placement of voting booths - a new election was called and set for 15 October 2006 -- This election date was affirmed by the signing of the royal decree on July 20, 2006.

Less than one month before these elections were due to be held ..... Thailand received the benefit of yet another coup ( #18 since 1931) and very obviously for the exact same reason that the Democrats chose to boycott the 2006 election.

Mick ... perhaps rather than asking an invalid question as you have done -- you might well ask yourself just why the Junta felt the people of Thailand needed a coup only a few weeks before they got to vote for whomever they chose.

I came across this ( http://www.eastasia.at/vol5_1/article02.htm ) while doing a search for the "royal decree". It talks about Thaksin, the PAD, the EC, and the invalidation of the 2006 election. Interesting reading, as it was published on Sept 1, 2006 - before the coup.

[whybother]

Wishful thinking.

The last election was held on 23 December 2007 -

PPP - 233

Democrats - 165

This is why there will be a coup in the not too distant future future. O.K.?

Yes. That was in the 2007 election, where the party list vote was 36% each.

Since that election, the PTP have lost about 40 of those seats through by-elections or defections, with ongoing threats of more defections.

So, even IF the PTP win the most seats in the next election, they will probably get far less than a majority, and then it fall to who can form a coalition majority. The Democrats have that now with the BJT and others.

Both the the Dems and BJT have been doing well in by-elections. Polls have been indicating good support for the government (but who believes polls). The PTP are leaderless (except for DL) and in disarray.

It's looking like a continuation of the current coalition following the next election.

IMO, the only reason for a coup is if a PTP government was to try to bring back Thaksin and whitewash his crimes. If the PTP did what they were supposed to do, and govern, with out trying to whitewash crimes, I don't think there would be a coup.

[rixalex]

Hi OzMick

Thaksin had a little more of a mandate than that!! He had the mandate of the voters of Thailand. I realise that some here would prefer to impose their views rather than accept the choice of the Thai voter ..... but....

Thaksin had achieved victory in 2001 and after serving the full term -- again in 2005 ( with the TRT: 374 seats / Democrats: 96 seats.) This trouncing of the Democrat party resulted in them choosing not to campaign in the 2006 election (called by Thaksin) ---- for very obvious reasons.

Shortly after the 2006 election was declared invalid due to the placement of voting booths - a new election was called and set for 15 October 2006 -- This election date was affirmed by the signing of the royal decree on July 20, 2006.

Less than one month before these elections were due to be held ..... Thailand received the benefit of yet another coup ( #18 since 1931) and very obviously for the exact same reason that the Democrats chose to boycott the 2006 election.

Mick ... perhaps rather than asking an invalid question as you have done -- you might well ask yourself just why the Junta felt the people of Thailand needed a coup only a few weeks before they got to vote for whomever they chose.

It's obviously true that had the Dems thought they could win the 2006 election, they wouldn't have boycotted it. Is that the same as saying that they boycotted because they were going to lose though? I don't think it is. Had they been able to win, they would have been able to prevent Thaksin from using a new election mandate to shoo away all the mess he was in concerning the tax free selling of his company.

Had Thaksin won, it would have been no different from all the business when he was first elected and accused of concealing his assets. On that occasion, he used his electoral power at the ballots to subvert justice, and it was this experience that brought about him calling the snap election in 2006. Nothing to do with upholding democracy, everything to do him wanting to avoid being put on trial and being found guilty. Personally, i don't think that is what the ballot box is for. Perhaps the Dems didn't either? Perhaps the generals that undertook the coup didn't also? Of course i'm sure both the Dems and the generals had their own personal motivations involved as well, but that doesn't change from the fact that both the boycotting and the coup had reasonable justifications, in my opinion.

[Buchholz]

Wishful thinking.

The last election was held on 23 December 2007 -

PPP - 233

Democrats - 165

This is why there will be a coup in the not too distant future future. O.K.?

and 3 years later, we have

50.7% - Democrats

33.0% - Pheu Thai

16.0% - Other

If a general election was held today, slightly more than half of respondents surveyed by Abac poll said they would vote for the Democrat Party to form the next government, according to survey results released yesterday.

The survey showed both the ruling Democrat Party and the Opposition Pheu Thai Party would not win enough seats to allow either to form a one-party government, Abac poll director Noppadon Kannikar said.

Noppadon said the smaller parties would decide who would get to form the next government if a general election was held now.

A total of 4,312 respondents took part in the survey, conducted from September 1-25.

Of 4,312 respondents, 50.7 said they had decided to support the Democrats, 33 per cent said they would opt for Pheu Thai and 16 per cent preferred other parties.

Additionally:

Since the last election, the Democrat party has increased its lawmakers in Parliament to 172 from 165 through by-elections, while the pro-Thaksin Puea Thai has seen its seat tally reduced to 187 from 233 because of defections and disqualifications. Thaksin has lived overseas since fleeing a jail sentence in 2008, and Puea Thai lacks a clear leader.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-30/thai-coalition-ahead-in-polls-ready-for-election-abhisit-says.html

.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Buchholz

[philhal2]

If corruption was a reason for a coupe in Thailand there would be one every day! The truth is that Thais do not care about how corrupt their politicians are as they are culturized to accept it as business as usual. It doesn't matter who their leaders are or what party they are from they will all steal from the public coffers. This is a country where a successful campaign slogan would be: VOTE FOR ME! I NOT STEAL SO MUCH!

SAME SAME THE WHOLE WORLD OVER !!!!! NOW WE LEARN WHY ARMAGEDDON MAY BE REAL . AN END TO CORRUPTION.

[h90]

It's too risky for the Democrats to go to the country now. In short - they probably - as was last time - won't be able to win outright in a general election.

Hence to maintain the current power balance with the ruling elites and the Democrats running the show again is unlikely. The only other viable option is for the military to move in and so they will. And we all know on whose side they lay.

Dem's going to the country? Did you mean 'upcountry' ? Indeed the Dem's may not win an outright majority, but in a democracy that's not necessary either. It looks like the Dem's may get close to 40% and the PTP 30% or less. The remainder spread over various smaller parties. This would give the Dem's first try for a coalition. If that would fail, it would be PTP's turn to give it a try.

The non-viable option is for the army to move in, so they won't.

PS almost forgot, like the post I reply to, all this is opinion

First try for a coalition does not mean anything. The coalitions in Thailand are formed by who can pay more. That means Thaksins money (or what he is willing to pay knowing that his partners will try to stale his return so they have more time to fill their pockets) vs. the money the current government stole from the country with the purpose to buy themself back into power.

That is always the same game. If there would be a truly honest government, it would not have the money to buy their votes and coalition partners after the next election.

That is also one reason why a military government is seen as less corrupt, as they don't need to buy themself into power. My usual argument against military government is that I don't know one single historic example of an successful military government.

Therefore not many options.

[whybother]

First try for a coalition does not mean anything. The coalitions in Thailand are formed by who can pay more. That means Thaksins money (or what he is willing to pay knowing that his partners will try to stale his return so they have more time to fill their pockets) vs. the money the current government stole from the country with the purpose to buy themself back into power.

That is always the same game. If there would be a truly honest government, it would not have the money to buy their votes and coalition partners after the next election.

That is also one reason why a military government is seen as less corrupt, as they don't need to buy themself into power. My usual argument against military government is that I don't know one single historic example of an successful military government.

Therefore not many options.

"That is also one reason why a military government is seen as less corrupt, as they don't need to buy themself into power."

Thaksin was already rich when he was elected PM, so he wouldn't be corrupt. For some reason that didn't work out too well.

It doesn't seem to work too well with all the dictators around the world either. Power corrupts.