Pheu Thai's Real Conflict Is Within Its Own Ranks

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Pheu Thai's real conflict is within its own ranks

By The Nation

The opposition party seems unable to select a viable leader to replace Abhisit Vejjajiva as premier, and time is running out for it to do so

The Pheu Thai Party has ended its lukewarm parliamentary battle with the Democrat-led coalition government. Now the real war has begun - with itself. The opposition camp has always deferred a decision on a permanent leader who will challenge Abhisit Vejjajiva for the top executive post, but the time is almost up. The censure debate is over and the prime minister is expected to dissolve the House of Representatives within the first week of May, meaning a general election could take place by either late June or early July.

The opposition party has proven resilient when it comes to the leadership issue. Under its previous incarnation as the People Power Party (PPP) it won an election despite being led by controversial veteran Samak Sundaravej. After Samak was constitutionally disqualified as prime minister in the middle of 2008, the party managed to survive internal strife and install an unexpected choice, Somchai Wongsawat, as Samak's successor as both government and party heads. Ever since Somchai was politically removed following the dissolution of the PPP in late 2008, the opposition, resurrected under the current name, Pheu Thai, has been virtually running on autopilot as far as leadership is concerned.

Since Yongyuth Wichaidit took over as party leader, he has only made the headlines a couple of times - first by declaring his resignation and then by immediately backtracking on that decision. The Yongyuth flip-flop only confirmed that Pheu Thai's de facto leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, still holds the power to have the ultimate say on who should lead the party he founded. Nevertheless, he has been unable to find a solid, permanent choice. The Pheu Thai bigwigs have always tried to play down the lack of real leadership by claiming that a party leader will naturally emerge when the right time comes.

The "right time" has to be now. With the key constitutional condition for the prime minister being that he or she must be an elected MP, Thaksin cannot go on buying time forever. He needs one name in the party's election candidate list that voters will look at and see as an alternative to Abhisit. Mingkwan Saengsuwan is possibly one such name, but his candidacy is still shrouded in ambiguity.

The man who led the just-ended censure attack on the Abhisit government has fought hard to put himself forward as Pheu Thai's prime ministerial candidate. The fact that Thaksin allowed Mingkwan's name to be mentioned as an alternative to Abhisit at the end of the party's impeachment motion represents a half-hearted recognition at best. Moreover, the censure debate and impeachment offensive would never have dethroned Abhisit anyway, and Thaksin knew this.

Thaksin has about a month or so to remove all the doubts concerning Mingkwan. But immediately after the censure debate ended on Saturday, the name of Thaksin's sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, resurfaced as a potential party leader. The picture thus became blurred again. The longer things stay this way, the more the party will have to rely on the old mindset: We have Thaksin as the selling point, so nothing else matters.

That mindset is correct to a large extent. As long as Thaksin is there, voters who love him won't care who is the party's nominal leader. Occasional whispers and rumblings of discontent within Pheu Thai about its dependence on someone who can't even disclose his whereabouts have always been short-lived. Even party members who resent Thaksin's ongoing influence admit that Pheu Thai without the exiled de facto leader would collapse like a house of cards.

But what does Pheu Thai with a nominal leader living under Thaksin's shadow mean? It will mean more of the same for the party and Thai politics as a whole. Destructive cutthroat politics will continue, no matter who wins the upcoming election.

Unfortunately, Pheu Thai at a crossroads is little more than a cliche. The party needs to choose a path, is what people always say. The reality is that only one man can choose a path for Pheu Thai, for better or worse.

-- The Nation 2011-03-22

[yellow1red1]

when I saw the Headline,,, I thought to myself,,, self I thought... no author I bet...

the mysterious pro govt phantom strikes again

[SomTumTiger]

when I saw the Headline,,, I thought to myself,,, self I thought... no author I bet...

the mysterious pro govt phantom strikes again

Of course, because they are the only semi competent ones available. PT in charge? - vomit.

[TimeBandit2]

Since PT has done nothing except try to discredit themselves with embarrassing statements and trivial accusations, what a surprise that no-one in the party has any legitimacy...

[hammered]

Take a look at Thaksin not even hiding who is real boss and making every decision right now. He is going to unify them pretty much now apart from a few who know they cant win their constituency under Thaksin even with largesse, and a few who have/will lose their seats to parachuted in red leaders. PTP will win a lot of seats, but probably less than last time. The Dems will get around the same or also slightly less than last time. That leaves naming the government up to the "swingers", and whoever gets named will not be accepted by the other side. Thailand really needs either an overall majority victory of a party (unlikely) or a commitment by all parties to accept government by any coalition that can achieve a majority of parliamentary seats (very unlikely). What we are likely to see is either a PTP government propped up by swingers who are trying to stop them from bringing Thaksin back (similar to Samaks) or a Mark (two) government not accepted by PTP and Thaksin as they got 10 less eats or something. The problem is that in all likelihood there is not enough support for either extreme position but nobody will compromise. Of course a coup becomes increasingly likely if gridlock causes legislation and administration to stop (the country is still suiiffering from when Samak did this to pressure the mighty ones).

All in all those who think the election will change anything are probably going to be disappointed.

[whybother]

^

or a Mark (two) government not accepted by PTP and Thaksin as they got 10 less eats or something.

That's what I see as the most likely scenario - similar to what we have now with the second largest party having a coalition to form government.

The PTP / Red shirts will scream because they believe that the largest party should be in government.

[chachachacha]

^

or a Mark (two) government not accepted by PTP and Thaksin as they got 10 less eats or something.

That's what I see as the most likely scenario - similar to what we have now with the second largest party having a coalition to form government.

The PTP / Red shirts will scream because they believe that the largest party should be in government.

The largest should be in Government

[whybother]

^

or a Mark (two) government not accepted by PTP and Thaksin as they got 10 less eats or something.

That's what I see as the most likely scenario - similar to what we have now with the second largest party having a coalition to form government.

The PTP / Red shirts will scream because they believe that the largest party should be in government.

The largest should be in Government

Why?

What if the largest party can only get 30% of the MPs?

Shouldn't the group that gets a majority of MPs together be in government, regardless of how big the parties are?

[Buchholz]

Take a look at Thaksin not even hiding who is real boss and making every decision right now. He is going to unify them pretty much now apart from a few who know they cant win their constituency under Thaksin even with largesse, and a few who have/will lose their seats to parachuted in red leaders. PTP will win a lot of seats, but probably less than last time. The Dems will get around the same or also slightly less than last time. That leaves naming the government up to the "swingers", and whoever gets named will not be accepted by the other side. Thailand really needs either an overall majority victory of a party (unlikely) or a commitment by all parties to accept government by any coalition that can achieve a majority of parliamentary seats (very unlikely). What we are likely to see is either a PTP government propped up by swingers who are trying to stop them from bringing Thaksin back (similar to Samaks) or a Mark (two) government not accepted by PTP and Thaksin

The other paper is mentioning Purachai's new party, Pracha Santi Party, as being looked at by dissident PTP MP's that could switch over. That might add up to sizeable numbers if enough of them are finding the unacceptable nature of all this Thaksin emphasis that PTP is garnering and also a distaste of the Red Terrorist Suspects Out On Bail platform the Party is assimilating.

The PTP decision (aka Thaksin's Choice) on just who he wants for PM could clarify the Party divisions.

Throw in a few siding with Dead Red Sae Daeng's Khattayiam Party and the PTP could dwindle even further.

The bonding of Bhum Jai Thai and Chart Thai Pattana recently could seal it for the Dems to return... provided, of course, that they decide to stay in the current coalition.

It will be a very interesting election.

[animatic]

Take a look at Thaksin not even hiding who is real boss and making every decision right now. He is going to unify them pretty much now apart from a few who know they cant win their constituency under Thaksin even with largesse, and a few who have/will lose their seats to parachuted in red leaders. PTP will win a lot of seats, but probably less than last time. The Dems will get around the same or also slightly less than last time. That leaves naming the government up to the "swingers", and whoever gets named will not be accepted by the other side. Thailand really needs either an overall majority victory of a party (unlikely) or a commitment by all parties to accept government by any coalition that can achieve a majority of parliamentary seats (very unlikely). What we are likely to see is either a PTP government propped up by swingers who are trying to stop them from bringing Thaksin back (similar to Samaks) or a Mark (two) government not accepted by PTP and Thaksin as they got 10 less eats or something. The problem is that in all likelihood there is not enough support for either extreme position but nobody will compromise. Of course a coup becomes increasingly likely if gridlock causes legislation and administration to stop (the country is still suiiffering from when Samak did this to pressure the mighty ones).

All in all those who think the election will change anything are probably going to be disappointed.

If they can't limit the number of parties to ones of a certain % size of the electorate, then use run off elections so the top two vote getters MUST run off in EVER constituency.

This would ensure that 'all voters' are voting between the top two choices and not squandering their franchise to the little parties without a chance of winning the ball game, and also ensures an absolute majority win for each and every MP, and the PM when they finally vote him in. This ensures a clear and verifiable mandate for anyMP or PM in office.

The main problem for Thailand is all these little parties for local leaders / power brokers or rampaging egos, siphon off votes to really viable candidates and thus prevent true majorities, and ensure coalition horse trading and weak governments beholden to these little parties power brokers.

Oh and jetison this Party List bullshit that ensures unelectable cronies of the big wigs are guaranteed a seat in the house....

Edited March 22, 2011 by animatic

[chachachacha]

^

or a Mark (two) government not accepted by PTP and Thaksin as they got 10 less eats or something.

That's what I see as the most likely scenario - similar to what we have now with the second largest party having a coalition to form government.

The PTP / Red shirts will scream because they believe that the largest party should be in government.

The largest should be in Government

Why?

What if the largest party can only get 30% of the MPs?

Shouldn't the group that gets a majority of MPs together be in government, regardless of how big the parties are?

The largest should always be the ones in power as more people voted for that party than any other.

They are all lying fukers no matter what country So the people never get what they want.

Just the same old suit with a different spin.

[whybother]

The largest should always be the ones in power as more people voted for that party than any other.

They are all lying fukers no matter what country So the people never get what they want.

Just the same old suit with a different spin.

If the largest party can't get a majority, then more people DIDN'T vote for them.

So if a group of other parties can form a majority, then it's the majority that counts, not just the largest minority.

[whybother]

If they can't limit the number of parties to ones of a certain % size of the electorate, then use run off elections so the top two vote getters MUST run off in EVER constituency.

This would ensure that 'all voters' are voting between the top two choices and not squandering their franchise to the little parties without a chance of winning the ball game, and also ensures an absolute majority win for each and every MP, and the PM when they finally vote him in. This ensures a clear and verifiable mandate for anyMP or PM in office.

The main problem for Thailand is all these little parties for local leaders / power brokers or rampaging egos, siphon off votes to really viable candidates and thus prevent true majorities, and ensure coalition horse trading and weak governments beholden to these little parties power brokers.

Oh and jetison this Party List bullshit that ensures unelectable cronies of the big wigs are guaranteed a seat in the house....

In Australia, we use "Preferential Voting" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting).

So, if the party (or independent - doesn't have to be attached to a party) that you vote for gets the lowest number of primary votes, that party gets dropped and your vote goes to your first preference, and so on until someone gets a majority of votes. It means that the person that is most preferred votes is the winner.

[AleG]

The conundrum is that Thaksin doesn't want a strong candidate for PM, it's too risky for him to not being able to reign said candidate as he wishes. Ideally he'd go for someone electable but malleable enough; it doesn't have to be anyone with a long expected shelf life though, just enough to subvert things so that Thaksin can return to Thailand with impunity and take on direct command of his political machine.

[scorecard]

Since PT has done nothing except try to discredit themselves with embarrassing statements and trivial accusations, what a surprise that no-one in the party has any legitimacy...

And where's the great revelation that jatuporn howled about before the debate? Nothing!

Well, at least he maintains his inconsistency.

[asiawatcher]

The largest should always be the ones in power as more people voted for that party than any other.

They are all lying fukers no matter what country So the people never get what they want.

Just the same old suit with a different spin.

If the largest party can't get a majority, then more people DIDN'T vote for them.

So if a group of other parties can form a majority, then it's the majority that counts, not just the largest minority.

Yep - I just don't understand why so many can't figure this out. Numbers in a party (or a movement) do not constitute votes - if there are a majority of votes to the larger party then by all means, have the Dems step aside - but when voting is not compulsory, hard to get a result that accurately reflects the countries true allegiances.

[whybother]

Yep - I just don't understand why so many can't figure this out. Numbers in a party (or a movement) do not constitute votes - if there are a majority of votes to the larger party then by all means, have the Dems step aside - but when voting is not compulsory, hard to get a result that accurately reflects the countries true allegiances.

Compulsory voting (or not) is irrelevant. If someone chooses not to vote, then they simply don't count.

The number of votes a party gets overall is pretty irrelevant in Thailand too. With an MP just needing to get the most votes (above 20%), a party could get every seat in the country with just over 20% of the vote.

It doesn't even matter how many MPs from a party get elected, unless they get more than 50% of the total MPs.

What it comes down to is - who the elected MPs support, and whether a majority of them support one side or the other.